User talk:BMB1938

Welcome!

Hello, BMB1938, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 20:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources anywhere?

Hi BMB1938, you're adding a lot of content, but I don't see any sources to support. Please read our guidelines at WP:V. Without WP:RELIABLE references, content may be removed. It's likely that WP:COI is relevant here, too. If so, that must be divulged. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:E944:EA6A:CEDE:919E (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, I spent nearly 17 years in DCNG - for most of that time I was the defacto historian since, frankly, no one else seemed to care. I did extensive research, consulting with the National Archives, the Center for Military History and researching the extensive DCNG archives themselves. Most of the new material is from my collected writings. Virtually everything is verifiable at the DCNG Archives at the D.C. National Guard Archives. Almost all of my DCNG historical notes and records were donated to the DCNG several years ago. I don't imagine DCNG is a high priority, but if there's someone who'd like to talk about any of this, I'm happy to communicate by email or phone. 19 August 2018

Hi, BMB1938, thank you for the explanation. I don't question the veracity of what you've added to article space, but all content must be supported by published reliable sources, otherwise it's WP:ORIGINAL research, which isn't acceptable. Parenthetically, when large sections of text are added without references, they sometimes turn out to be copied, which is also unacceptable--that's another reason that including sources is so important. I know this--I'm knowledgeable in my field, but never contribute content unless there's a solid reference to back it up. I see that the DCNG article was problematic before, since it has long consisted of unsourced text. Perhaps you will continue to edit, making use of sources to verify whatever you contribute. Thank you very much, 2601:188:180:11F0:E944:EA6A:CEDE:919E (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Well, this is going to be a challenge. A lot of it is "copied", from original work I did back in the 1980s when I was an officer in the DCNG. You might wish to take a look at the Wiki 'District of Columbia Army National Guard.' That is the Permanent Order that another officer and I prepared in 1986 and is so referenced. I have a second version with every paragraph footnoted. We kept that as reference - that version has never been circulated. I'll see what I can do with some of the items in the Wiki in question.

Please read WP:RELIABLE. Something you wrote at work, but which was not published by a reliable source, isn't acceptable. If I understand you correctly, what you wrote was, essentially, for the agency's records. That may need to be explained to your commanding officer, and WP:COI could come into play. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, this will be a challenge. I left DCNG in 1988 and retired from the Army in 1990. I will pull in reference I have where possible, but many of the references would be part of that Archive which now includes all my original files donated to DCNGy. Much of it has been used by them in a variety of publications over the past 30 years, including a published history guide given to visitors to their Museum, and is included in a variety of Museum displays. That's enough for tonight.

One more comment - you mentioned explaining something to the commanding officer. That's rather amusing. The current Commanding General, who is very interested in the organization's history, personally asked me to add as much as possible to the Wikis. He also, in May, promoted me to Brigadier General in the District of Columbia Militia.

I mentioned that because you brought it up earlier, and I think this sharpens the concern about conflict of interest. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, I find your comment strange at best. Perhaps you need to review the Wiki on meaning of "conflict of interest." There is no personal gain to be derived here nor any risk of undue influence by adding to the DCNG Wikis to make available interesting information about the organization. Perhaps you are focusing on "integrity of research." What possible benefit would derive by including invalid incidental information about DCNG? The answer, of course, is none. I realize Wikipedia has a standard of excellence it wishes to uphold. I suggest time would be better spent directing efforts toward information more significant than information about the District of Columbia Militia and National Guard. Regardless, I will do my best to add references where I can.

Perhaps you're right, but I have read the COI guidelines, and note that until yesterday you'd edited here without acknowledging a personal or business connection. Per the introductory paragraphs of the COI guidelines:

Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.

COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts.

Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation. Also, COI editors should not edit affected articles directly, but propose changes on article talk pages instead.

Thank you for beginning to provide references. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the acknowledgement. Interestingly I can think of somewhat of a parallel. When we wrote and published the History, Lineage and Honors document in 1986, the US Army said it was "illegal" since a TDA organization (the DCNG HQ) could not have a HLH, only a TOE organization could have one. We said that was a "1986 solution to a 1776 problem," in other words, it was published and so be it. Today they use it as a model. We'll continue to update. Best regards.

Also of concern is the reference to 'we.' Institutional editing is fairly well prohibited. My strongest suggestion is that you read the guidelines and not edit articles about subjects with which you're closely associated. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered you removed virtually ALL the edits I made to the District of Columbia National Guard Wiki. Do you have the slightest idea how much effort went into posting those additions? How dare you remove them without even consulting me. I fully understand your "rules" on citations, regardless, your action was both arbitrary and capricious. I have made clear I will do my best to provide citations. I absolutely insist you restore each and every one!

I didn't remove them, another editor did, with good reason. I don't think you're taking Wikipedia's guidelines to heart. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care who removed them. I do understand your guidelines and, if you've noticed, I begun to add as many references as possible. Last night and this morning I added 41 to one piece in the Wiki District of Columbia Army National Guard - which has stood without them for years. You all have termenous "power" to arbitrarily "erase" work as you wish. our "other" editor's singular lack of consideration of the efforts involved seems staggering. As I said, he/she needs to restore them.

BMB, thank you for adding those references. Unfortunately, they are all primary references, and Wikipedia requires secondary ones--please see WP:SECONDARY. In other words, the archives that we need to plow through are those of newspapers, magazine articles, books, etc. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a unique definition of conflict of interest. I find your identification of this matter as an "incident" personally insulting. I have absolutely no "conflict of interest" in the matter other than to share information about the DC National Guard with interested people. Do I have a 'personal interest"? Absolutely. I spent nearly two decades of my life in the organization and may be the (or among one or two) most knowledgeable persons regarding the organization's history alive today. I have a cellphone number - use it. 703-861-0726.

Note

Please carefully review our policies on original research. Whatever personal unpublished digging you've done is fine for a book, should you choose to write one some day. It is not fine for Wikipedia. It doesn't matter how accurate or essential you feel the information is. If there are no published sources, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. GMG ^talk 17:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is utterly maddening. The morning I added a short story to the DC Army Guard Wiki I wrote likely before you were born that was published in Parameters, the Army War College Journal, then in the magazine Civil War - I cited both a first-person source as well as official US Army documents. You deleted it. I added a list of aircraft to the DC Air Guard Wiki that was extracted from US Army Center of Military History documents and the DC Air Guard files, you deleted it. I included a reference to General Earle Wheeler which came from his family records and directly to me last week from the Commanding General of the DC National Guard, you deleted it. I included items that are in a published history document of the DC National Guard - you deleted it. I hadn't even had time to copy the Wikis and the material is gone. I made clear to one of your editors that I would make every effort to add in every pertinent reference. You now say if there are no published sources it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You say primary sources aren't satisfactory, you must have secondary sources. Really? What if the information has never been published before and just didn't exist until someone wrote it down? You must be incredibly busy stifling every aspect of creativity you can find. As I pointed out previously, I added 41 reference to the DCNG Army National Guard page in the past few hours - that page had been without them for years but that was apparently OK. I have no idea what to do because of your actions. Reading your guidelines will not help. I have lost untold hours of work because your editor acted, as I said before, both arbitrarily and capriciously. Now I will add "in an obtuse manner." I asked that you contact me. Apparently you are all too busy.

The content has not been deleted. It has been removed, and is still present in the history of the various articles. That which can be found in reliable published sources can and should be restored when sources are available. Content such as this is not appropriate even if it could be sourced. It is written like a popular history book or personal essay and not an encyclopedia article. I would recommend you read our guideline on style, but you seem to be against reading policy all together. Although I should note that if you are truly against reading any Wikipedia policies, you will find your time here will be continually frustrating and probably short. We are not linking you to these pages for our own personal enjoyment; we're linking you to them because they contain pertinent information.

Content such as this is very likely appropriate for inclusion in the article. But referencing "a review of history" is not a source at all. Not even a primary one. There is no specific document or even really any specific collection of documents that is being specifically referenced there. Primary sourced are often used, albeit carefully, but they are still expected to be published primary sources. If they are entirely unpublished then they are not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia until they have been. If that takes quite a while then we will simply have to wait, because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research.

I've worked on at least a few articles related to the National Guard, and I agree that they generally need improvement. But adding personal essays, essentially uncited material, or references to unpublished primary sources is not an improvement. GMG ^talk 19:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know the material still existed so I appreciate that information. I'm not sure how to recall them, please advise. I am not at all against your guidelines, I welcome them, problem is that from my point of view they just don't fit every situation. Your challenge regarding "reliable published sources" is a problem. For a great amount of information they just don't exist. You say the article about the Third Battle of Manassas is not appropriate; you refer to it as an essay and "popular history." Ok, perhaps so, but it is true and interesting and amusing and is part of the DCNG history, we even have film of the maneuvers including images of the gun.

I truly believe if you wish to get people to enjoy or learn from history the best thing to do is make it "popular" (or "readable" if you wish). That was how I got my soldiers in the DC National Guard to learn the history of their units, so perhaps you should consider adding popular history as a category. There's nothing to lose except making Wikis more interesting.

I would consider George Bernard Shaw's play 'The Devil's Disciple' (later a 1959 movie) as a good example. He built a great story around the Revolutionary War's Battle of Saratoga as fiction mostly (but there's a Wiki). He includes a great line (certainly apocraphyl) by General Burgoyne (Richard Olivier in the movie) about how they will explain the loss - "History, sir, will tell lies, as usual."

Regarding the list of "campaigns" - the primary author of the Permanent Order was then a scholar and Senior Archivist at the National Archives of the United States. There is NO source of any kind that actually shows award of those campaign streamers to DCNG. As I noted earlier, we were in a battle with the Army Center of Military History over the entire order, while they acknowledged its accuracy they said it couldn't be, we said it was a done deal. As I noted, we regarded their view as a 1986 solution to a 1776 problem. The HQ "earned" those campaign streamers, by signing the order the CG simply "awarded" them and made it official.

So where can we go from here? How can we work together to make the DCNG Wikis both accurate, informative and enjoyable to read?

I'm not saying that popular history can't be educational. I have quite a fondness for it actually. But that's just not what Wikipedia is. The goal of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, is to provide a fairly brief (compared to a book) but non-the-less comprehensive summary or overview of a subject. The goal of Wikipedia as a collaborative volunteer driven project, is to do that based on sources, so that content can be verified by readers, who can then help to improve articles themselves if the information is found to be incomplete or inaccurate based on the sources.

It's really one of the more difficult things about adjusting to writing for Wikipedia, because unlike almost any other medium, Wikipedia is one where your identity, experiences, and personal knowledge is supposed to be largely invisible to the reader, and you have to instead communicate through sources. (Even though your personal experiences and expertise may make it much easier for you to locate and interpret those sources, in a way that an amateur may not be able to.)

Maybe one potential solutions for your campaign streamers issue, is that if the document authorizing them...well...if the CG was a federal employee (as opposed to a state adjutant general), then the document is technically in the public domain, as a public work by a public (federal) employee. So if we could get a copy of it (surely the unit has one somewhere), then we could upload a copy into our Wikimedia file archives. If would at least then be published in some form that would be verifiable for readers. GMG ^talk 20:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Well, first things first, perhaps Wikipedia might consider an adjunct "encyclopedia" (small E) that could deal with popular history. Even some sort of provision for popular history additions to existing Wikis would do it. It would certainly, to say the least, solve the problem I'm having.

Let's try to deal with the Permanent Order. The District of Columbia National Guard is unique. The Commander-in-Chief of the DCNG is the President of the United States who appoints the Commanding General. It has been this way since the organization was created in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson. You may recall Inauguration Day January 20, 2017 when the incumbent DCNG CG was relieved at the stroke of noon and the new CG was apppointed. It made all the newspapers. There is no "State" per se and there is no relationship whatsoever between the District of Columbia government and the DC National Guard. The organization has both a Commanding General and an Adjutant General. The CG is a Federal employee as opposed to a "State" Adjutant General. Please see the District of Columbia National Guard Wiki. That being said, I have a copy of the Permanent Order on my computer. It shows the signature block as /signed/. It is not an image of the actual signed document. Is that acceptable?BMB1938 (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's fortunate, because the works of state employees are most often not public domain as the works of federal employees are. Then you can upload a scan of the document to Wikimedia Commons by using the Upload Wizard. When it asks you why the image is free, select that it is the work of a federal employee (about two thirds down the list). At least that way the document will be available in a public archive and we can cite it in the article. If you don't have a scanner, you can get a mobile app called Cam Scanner (at least that's what I use) that will scan from a photo from your phone. If someone takes issue with the source, I'm sure someone from DCARNG can send an email verifying its authenticity. GMG ^talk 21:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and I didn't answer your other question, every single revision of every article is available for review if you click "view history" at the top of the screen (if you're using PC). If you click on the time stamp (like "21:08, 20 August 2018" for my comment above on this page) you can view the older revision of the article as it was at that time. GMG ^talk 21:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. History and Honors document uploaded.

Now, how do I get the pieces deleted from the Wiki related to that document back? I know you said its there. . . Cheers BMB1938 (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that went fairly smoothly. Gimme a spell. If you have a background in the Guard then you surely know what it's like to balance two or three jobs. Right now I have to do some repairs on some rental property and do some mowing. I'll look into it tomorrow morning at the latest. GMG ^talk 22:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodness. Okay. Well. I assume Franklin is no longer the CG, because 40 years have passed. I know it's not nice to ask favors of Generals, but can the current CG confirm the authenticity of the document via email? I ask because this seems like a fairly important historical document not otherwise available. They can do so at info-en

wikimedia.org, and I have access to that queue, and also access to the global .mil mailing list, so I can verify it myself. So...We'd kindof be doing a service of potentially lasting significance for the DC Guard. GMG ^talk 00:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Should be no problem. I'll ask General Walker to do that today. I assume you wish him to send an email to that address certifying that the 1986 Permanent Order is authentic. Cheers.

Morning. Yeah. Let me know and I will try to fish it out of the queue...and then figure out how I document the verification on my end. (Most of the time we're verifying things like professional photographs. I don't know that I've ever done a verification for a primary source document. Usually professional archivists have already done that sort of thing before we ever get our hands on it.) GMG ^talk 10:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent off an email to General Walker. I suspect he'll get to it today. For information, General Franklin, who signed the order, is deceased.BMB1938 (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon. General Walker has advised he will send the email you requested tomorrow. Speaking of things, one of the items "undone" was my piece on the "Third Battle of Manassas." You said items must be refeferenced to secondary sources. I noted that the piece was published in both the Summer 1988 issue of Parameters, the US Army War College Journal, as well as a particular issue of Civil War magazine, which, by coincidence, I found with a google search. Out of couriosity, aren't they secondary sources? Best regards.BMB1938 (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. Just let me know and I'll try to grab it before someone else does who might not understand the context.

As to the Third Battle of Manassas, the problem was that it was overly detailed information mostly on a separate subject. We have lots of articles on individual battles, and for the most part, intricate details about those engagements should go on the main article for the battle. The main article on the Unit or the Branch has to remain narrowly focused on its subject, without veering into related subjects which either do, or should have their own main article, and should be linked to for the benefit of readers who want more in depth information about that subject.

In a nutshell, a Wikipedia article isn't supposed to make someone an expert. Instead, it is concisely supposed to take someone from knowing nothing, to knowing something very quickly (ideally in about 4,000 to 7,000 words, or 30 to 40 minutes of reading) and explore all the relevant aspects of that subject within those limits. I'm sure you remember (as I do, but as many of our younger editors do not) a time before Wikipedia, when you had to pull the "B volume" of the encyclopedia off the shelf if you wanted to read about birds. We can include many many more subjects than that old dusty encyclopedia, because we have no limit to the number of article we can contain, but the goal is still to more-or-less present that information in that same encyclopedic format, which takes someone quickly from ignorance into knowledge on one specific subject, but in our case, can also link them to any number of other articles on other related subjects that can do the same thing if they're interested. GMG ^talk 21:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the General to bcc me when he sends the email so I will have a copy. Not exactly sure how to guarantee it gets to you unless I get to it as he sends it. My email address is smberg@erols.com. Act on that as you see fit. Regarding the Wiki philosophy - the 30 to 40 minute concept is OK, but for me that wouldn't be sufficient. Kind of like reading an old "Classic Comic" rather than the book it paraphrases. As far as the "Third Battle..."is it acceptable to link the entire piece to a brief summary so that by going to the link a reader could find the entire story? Same with the list of aircraft in the DCNG Air Guard Wiki. I find the list interesting but someone feels it is inappropriate. BMB1938 (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion pending for File:WalkerEsperDean photo May 2018.jpg

Hello, BMB1938. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:WalkerEsperDean photo May 2018.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]