User talk:Dsw

Welcome

Hello Dsw, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! Alphachimp ^talk 04:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Names of articles

I came across the Iraq and Afghanistan orbat articles. Great job on them but I was thinking that the title of them might be very "military insider" if that makes sense. Since this is an encyclopedia for all, including those that are not to familiar with the military, what would you say to moving the articles to Afghanistan invasion order of battle and Iraq War order of battle. This would be along the lines of Coral Sea order of battle, Midway order of battle, Battle of Guadalcanal order of battle , etc....... Since they are your articles I thought I would run this by you first. Cheers.--Looper5920 20:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:101st.iraq.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:101st.iraq.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming you got this photo from a US govt site. Cut and paste the website address on the images page and I will fix the tags for you.--Looper5920 00:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

iraq orbat

hey dsw, thanks, i actually should update that orbat tonight because the baghdad units have moved around a lot in the past 2 weeks. keeping track of the battalions is an ongoing research project -- some contact with officers in iraq, tons of culling through press relases, photo captions, interview transcripts, and newspaper articles.

Cool, thanks for the info. I imagine that keeping track of the battalions is a full-time job. And I did spell out all the names of the units per the suggestion from Looper5920. I agreed with him that it would make it clearer for people who aren't familiar with military jargon. Cheers -- Dsw 02:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Dsw! How do you recommend we get info on the 36th Combat Aviation Brigade (also known as Task Force Mustang), now with 2700 soldiers in Iraq, integrated into the IORBAT page? I know they are taking over for some part of the 101st Airborne, and are currently doing live cross-training at Camp Anaconda with the 101st in order to fully replace the 101st aviation units within a few more days/weeks. I'm not quite sure how to put such info into the page and maintain your good organization, but will be glad to help if you tell me how it should be done. N2e 14:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Dsw! The Iraq ORBAT is definitely better when you have the time to pay some attention to it. Your changes to integrate the 36th CAB are very good: well-written and good contextual information. N2e 04:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats-a-million!

Great work on those two pages Dsw. You're doing much better that globalsecurity.org. I used to do some of it myself with another thinktank. One thing I would suggest is putting dates on formation changeovers (OIF 5->6 etc), and I'll help do that around the edges. Cheers Buckshot06 06:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dsw, couldn't we do separate Order of Battle Afghan War OEF 1 (or is it OEF I), Iraq War OIF 1/I, etc pages linking off the main AFghan/Iraq War page? Also might we reorganise the Brit contribution as MND-SE, under HQ MNC-I? Just my two cents... Cheers Buckshot06 21:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick thought on the above idea.... I would be cautious on using OIF/OEF I/II III etc... People in the military will understand those terms but 99% of the people who view this site will not. Might not be a bad idea to just stick with dates. Just my opinion, take it for what it is worth. By the way, both pages look great. Keep up the great work.--Looper5920 10:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point Looper. But one can educate people by including both rotation stages and dates. I've started building an entry for MNF-Iraq which will hopefully get to the stage of a table with rotation name (OIF I etc), dates, on one side, and then the various MNDs and the provinces they cover, and the U.S. divisions that ran those MNDs during those rotations. Globalsecurity.org's got a bit of the info. Cheers Buckshot06 22:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can make it clear in the text what the military jargon means. I would also like to avoid too much military jargon but if we take a few sentences to explain what it means, I think it'll be OK. Dsw 17:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15 MEU

Saw your note on 15th MEU. Do you think it'd be a good idea to put a source and date in the text of every new insertion. Great work you're doing, anyway. Cheers Buckshot06 07:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea, as long as it doesn't get unwieldy. I edited the 15th MEU's entry to reflect the date. Dsw

Fair use rationale for Image:Australian.sf.recon.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Australian.sf.recon.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 06:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq order of battle ?

Hi , Great work , but i have 2 questions : 1- Nothing mentioned regarding special forces 2- Nothing mentioned regarding the US unit in Al-Hilla --Max Mayr 07:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for editing the article and including the special forces in it , but thats not cover them all , the green beret units dont fall under task force 77.--Max Mayr 07:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq order of battle

I think the article need update , currently a marine unit is al-diwaniya and also what about the guard unit that notified by the DoD to deploy to iraq next year--Max Mayr 16:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to talk a look at the Institute for the Study of War's orders of battle for Iraq? They appear to be copying us - see discussion at main WP:MILHIST talkpage. Buckshot06 23:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Dsw for your kind words. Do you believe that the British taskforce of TF 77, Task Force Black, is still in place, or has it been withdrawn? I'm not clear, though I have not looked around to check. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are still there. UK media are reporting that the British soldier killed on Wednesday, March 26, was a SAS soldierDsw (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:82nd.sniper.jpg

File:82nd.sniper.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Army M14 Sage Stock.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Army M14 Sage Stock.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan War Order of Battle

I think it's time we made the country -> order of battle switch for this page too; everything under the subordinate commands. If you have no objection, I'll start doing this. Would you consider helping me build separate pages for Regional Command North, Regional Command South, Regional Command East etc? Buckshot06(prof) 00:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for the delayed response. That's not a bad idea but it would be great if we could also keep the page as is, so people can view it either by country or by command. The one thing I like about the current page is it gives a small graph of text about each of the U.S. units, where they are based, when they deployed, etc. The Iraq Order of Battle doesn't have that and the page turns into a long blizzard of text. Having those short graphs helps break up the page and gives a bit more info. I've also been trying to dig up where each unit is located but I've been busy with other things and haven't been able to devote as much time as I'd like. I'd be happy to help you build separate pages for each command, just let me know which one you'd like for me to start working on and I'll get to it. Thanks. Dsw (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say we start with RC-East and RC-South, since those are probably the largest commands and the ones seeing most of the fighting. Dsw (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. First, as you said at the page, the Afghan forces are not operating independently. Yet we're not listing them and thus the page title is inaccurate. Would you object to a more accurate page title - maybe 'Afghan War coalition order of battle'? Second, agree on RC East or South. We have the elements of a start for RC East at Combined Joint Task Force 82. What do you think - we bud off the information at that page and start 'Regional Command East'? Should it be 'Regional Command East' or 'Regional Command (East)'? Buckshot06(prof) 15:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of War in Afghanistan order of battle, 2012 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article War in Afghanistan order of battle, 2012 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War in Afghanistan order of battle, 2012 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cerebellum (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Iraq War order of battle, 2009 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iraq War order of battle, 2009 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iraq War order of battle, 2009 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cerebellum (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]