This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lineagegeek. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The 443d Operations Group (and the 443d Military Airlift Wing)
Extended content
Hi, Lineagegeek,
I needed to start a “new” section for a unit that we haven’t mentioned yet, I don’t believe.
In this “new” discussion, I will be talking about two units actually… first, the 443d Operations Group with just a brief tie-in to the 443d Military Airlift Wing. Then, in my “P.S.” I will be talking more about the 443d Military Airlift Wing.
Starting with the Wiki article for the 97th Bomb (Operations) Group, I found…
In the first sentence of the “lead’s” fifth paragraph, I happened to click on the link for the 443d Operations Group. It redirected me to the 443d Troop Carrier Group. OK, I guess.
According to this article, in the “lead,” it was last inactivated on 8 January 1953. Yet, in the “Lineage” section, it says “1 February 1953.” (A “minor” issue right now.)
Nevertheless, where is the 443d Operations Group? I can’t find it on AFHRA, either. If it’s an inactive unit and has been “pulled” from their web site, maybe I need to ask Mr. Haulman for the “Lineage and Honors History” that is on a Word document?
An aside: in searching AFHRA, I have seen that “this or that” unit was indeed assigned to the 443d Operations Group, such as, “443 Operations Group, 1 Oct 1991.” But, I just can’t find the Group itself.
Staying in the lead’s fifth paragraph for the 97th Operations Group, the Group absorbed “…the personnel and aircraft of the 443d Operations Group at Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma.” OK, fine.
But, the 97th Operations Group could not have “absorbed” a unit that was last inactivated in 1953, right?
Perhaps this is a “bad” link for the 443d Operations Group? I dunno. Apart from the possibility of a “bad link,” once more, where is the 443d Operations Group, either on Wiki or AFHRA? Or, is this all just a “typo?” The author did not really mean 443??
In the “Lineage” section for the 443d Troop Carrier Group, shouldn’t the 443d Operations Group show up some time? That is, wasn’t the Troop Carrier Group ever redesignated as the Operations Group?
Lastly, I found (on Wiki) the article for the 443d Airlift Wing (last inactivated on October 1, 1992). OK, fine. In “Components/Groups,” it lists “443d Troop Carrier Group: June 27, 1949 – January 8, 1953.” But, there is no 443d Operations Group. Shouldn’t it be there?
Again, where is the 443d Operations Group? (Once more, I can’t find it on AFHRA, either.)
Please let me know your thoughts when you get a chance, OK?
Thanks in advance,
Rob
P.S. Now, for the second unit… in the Wiki article for the 443d Airlift Wing, in the “Lineage” section, it says that the wing was inactivated on October 1, 1992.” OK, fine.
But, it also says that personnel and equipment were redesignated 97th Air Mobility Wing. That sure doesn’t sound right, does it???
On the “flip side,” in the 97th Air Mobility Wing’s “Lineage” section, there is no 443 listed anywhere, as expected, of course.
Yes, the 97th was redesignated as the 97th Air Mobility Wing on 21 August 1992 and activated on 1 October 1992. But, the 97th AMW was not redesignated as such following the 443d, right? The 97th AMW was redesignated as such following the 97th Wing, right?
An aside: in the narrative (last sentence of the second paragraph, under “History”), it says that the 443d Military Airlift Wing was inactivated on June 8, 1953. Yet, the “Lineage” section says January 8, 1953. (Hmmm.)
Another aside: should the article’s name itself be changed to include the word “Military?”
Please let me know your thoughts about this unit, also, when you get a chance, OK?
First, be bold when you find an obvious discrepancy (like the dates that don't match). Go to a reliable source, get the right answer and make the appropriate edit.
Second, when one unit is inactivated and replaced by another unit, it is not at all uncommon to see someone saying it was "redesignated." That even includes "official" sources for several reasons (as outlined in Ravenstein, Charles A. (1975). Lineage and Honors Histories: Their Parts and Problems in Preparing. Maxwell AFB, AL: Albert F. Simpson Historical Research Center.). That will almost always be wrong, as here.
Third, WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME calls for articles on units to be under the most current name of the unit in most cases, so the solution is to move the page. The most recent L&H history for the 443d Ops Gp was probably prepared when it was activated in 1991. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Lineagegeek,
OK, I will try to be more “bold” in certain cases. I have been that way “here and there” as I have been gaining the confidence to do so. I have also been adding some photos (already uploaded on Wiki) here and there. (Please see “P.S.” below.)
Yet, as you saw in this “New section,” the two (443d) articles seemed very “sketchy” to me. And, I had little-to-no info or confidence in changing anything.
However, one “bold” thing that I recently did was to change the wording in the “Lineage” section for the 443d Airlift Wing. On the last line, I changed “redesignated” to read “assumed by the new” 97th Air Mobility Wing. I really think that the new wording is much more accurate. (As you know, on October 1, 1992, the 443d was inactivated, not redesignated.)
Also, because of your work with the 443d Operations Group, in the Wiki article for the 443d Airlift Wing (Components/Groups), I added “443d Operations Group: October 1, 1991 – October 1, 1992.”
An aside: When I looked at the “Lineage” section, I saw what a very “short life” the 443d Operations Group had, no? (Just one year. No wonder it may have gotten “lost in the shuffle.”)
Your recent work on the 443d Operations Group was most helpful. I do agree when you say that articles on units are to be under the most current name of the unit in most cases. I clearly see you that you said in most cases.
Yes, in Wiki’s article on the 97th Bomb (Operations) Group (first sentence of the “lead’s” fifth paragraph), I had indeed noticed that the “link” for the 443d Operations Group took me to the “OLD” unit (443d Troop Carrier Group), not the new one or the latest one. In this case, the link was “backwards” or “outdated,” so to speak. Thanks for fixing that!!
Yet, I still might want to request the “Lineage and Honors History” for the 443d Operations Group. I would really like to see the exact inactivation dates of the 443d Troop Carrier Group in 1953… 8 January, 1 February or 8 June?! The dates may affect the assignment dates, too.
Oh, when scrolling the Operations Group article just now, it “hit” me… what about the aircraft from October 1991 to October 1992? Should I “follow the lead” of the Airlift Wing? That is, in the Wiki article (“Aircraft Assigned”) the Wing had C-5s and C-141s until 1992. (Via the 56th and 57th Airlift Squadrons, respectively.)
Actually, this article (443d Operations Group) needs some more work/updating, no? (Starting with the very first sentence and the Infobox.) I suppose that I will exercise some more “boldness” here, eh?
And, I may still need the “Lineage and Honors History” for the 443d Airlift Wing to get this unit’s exact inactivation dates in 1953… January 8th or June 8th? The dates may affect the assignment dates, too.
I also wonder if there is any direct connection between the 443d Operations Group and the 443d Airlift Wing concerning their inactivation dates. That is, apart from the Group additionally listing 1 February 1953 as one of its possibilities (!!), both articles list January 8th and June 8th, 1953.
I had previously wondered if the name of the Wing’s article itself needed changing, from “Airlift” to “Military Airlift.” (See the first sentence and the unit patch.)
But, today, I noticed on AFHRA here and there that “Military Airlift, Training Wing” indeed became “(later Airlift Wing).” So, I guess the article’s name is correct, just “Airlift Wing.” But, I still would like to know when that re-designating was made. Oh, I reckon the “Lineage” section would need to reflect such, also, no?
And, I suppose that the first sentence needs changing/updating as well. (Delete the word “Military” and the “M” in “MAW.”) Heck, I may be “bold” and go ahead and change that, too.
I don’t think that I need a reply this time unless you have some pertinent info on the exact inactivation dates in 1953 for both units as mentioned above.
Take care, Rob
P.S. I would like to upload some of my Dad’s photos but I don’t really know who actually took them unless they are stamped on the back as official USAF photos, you know? So, I am “weak” on “author” and “source.” And, I doubt that Wiki would let me list them as “Own work.” Wish me luck, eh?
All are available in .pdf online. If you use the Ravenstein work for the 443, though, it has one of the rare errors in the book. It indicates the wing became non operational on 5 November 1958. This should read "1968." It became an Airlift Wing in August 1991 (I believe on 1 August, but the only documentation I have uses an "on or about" date. If you are your dad's heir or devisee, you should own the rights to pictures he took and can look for a permission based on that. Not sure whether "own work" qualifies for that.{{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}} works for USAF photos.--Lineagegeek (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
As to the 1953 inactivations, that's one of the rare instances when the wing and group were not inactivated together. The wing and all support elements were inactivated in January, but the group and its three troop carrier squadrons remained on active duty until February, when they were replaced by the 465th Troop Carrier Group and its three squadrons. I prefer to keep these flag changes out of the lineage entirely and put them in the narrative since they are not part of the unit lineage. The same would go for the wing -- when it was activated at Tinker it absorbed the resources of the 1707th Air Tansport Wing, and when the group and wing were inactivated at Altus and transferred their resources to the 97th (for the group I would mention that the airlift squadrons were reassigned, while the 443d Operations Support Sq was replaced by the 97th Operations Support Sq. --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Lineagegeek,
Thanks for your speedy reply and the info that you provided. Therefore…
For the 443d Airlift Wing...
I will make sure that all the inactivation dates (1953) will read the same… January 8, 1953. (As per the “Lineage” section, of course.)
The “Assignments” and “Stations” sections will remain unchanged. Great!!
In “Components/Groups,” the dates for the 443d Troop Carrier Group will remain unchanged, too. Great!!
I really hate to “fool with” the “Lineage” sections as I consider them “your babies.” But, based on what you wrote, and if you don’t mind, I will add a “bullet” and add “Redesignated 443d Airlift Wing in August 1991.”
As a result, in the first sentence of the article, I will delete the word “Military” and the “M” in “MAW.”
Oh, I just realized that the Wing also had a very “short life”... only one year as was the case with the Group. Gee, I wonder if there were ever any “updated” patches or emblems made. Hmmm. (Please see my “P.S.” below.)
For the 443d Operations Group…
I will make sure that all the inactivation dates for the 443d Troop Carrier Group read the same… February 1, 1953. (As per the “Lineage” section, of course.)
Thankfully, the “Assignments” section will remain unchanged. And, various entries in the “Components” section will remain unchanged. Also, the “Stations” section will remain unchanged. Great!!
Regarding the aircraft from October 1991 to October 1992… I will “follow the lead” of the Airlift Wing. That is, in its Wiki article (“Aircraft Assigned”) the Wing had C-5s and C-141s until 1992. So, I will add them to the “Aircraft” section for the Group.
As for Dad’s photos…
Apart from very few “official” USAF photos, the vast majority of what I have don’t tell me who actually took the photos of Dad and/or his bombers. Was it Mom, Dad himself, a friend, a buddy, a member of the bomber or ground crew, etc.?? So, perhaps I do need to write to someone at Wiki and find out how to proceed. Again, wish me luck, eh?
Well, thanks again for your time and attention with these two “443d” units. Unless you have any objections to my above plans, I will start making the changes, OK? Thanks.
Take care, Rob
P.S. My curiosity about emblems/patches really got “involved,” and, it got me into “trouble” once more. That is, I got totally “carried away” looking at the various “venues” for wing and group emblems and patches. I have already written more about my observations, with questions, but I will write about them next time, OK? I didn’t want to “clutter” this particular message. As I said, I got “involved.” :-O
“Just a note” today…as you may already know, I went ahead and made the changes as listed in my last message concerning the Wiki articles for both the 443d Operations Group and the 443d Airlift Wing.
While doing so, I also “fixed” the “Active” dates in the Infoboxes for both the 443d Operations Group and the 443d Airlift Wing. I “split them up” as opposed to one "continuous block."
I also deleted the word “Military” from the very top of the Infobox for the Wing. (It now matches the lead’s first sentence that I had changed moments earlier.)
So, as stated, I just wanted to send you a note today to let you know of the changes that I went ahead and made for those two units' articles.
Take care, Rob
P.S. As I wrote before, I got “involved” (!!) with the units’ emblems and patches. But, for now, I will put them “on the back burner.”
P.P.S. As you may already know, the article for the 443d Operations Group needs some serious work, starting with the first sentence of the lead. It’s very oudated as it begins with the 443d Troop Carrier Group. And, the Infobox reflects the same. Also, the lead’s second paragraph needs to be moved, as a minimum, to the “History" section, which is basically blank. I’ll see what I can do soon fairly soon, OK? Take care!
As I said in my “P.P.S.” last time… the article for the 443d Operations Group needed some serious work, starting with the first sentence of the lead. It was very outdated as it began with the 443d Troop Carrier Group. And, the Infobox reflected the same.
I also said that the lead’s second paragraph needed to be moved, as a minimum, to the “History" section, which was basically blank.
So, today’s “update” tells you that I have indeed…
• Updated the first two sentences of the article’s lead… replaced “443d Troop Carrier Group” with “443d Operations Group.” I also changed the inactivation date and location to read “1 October 1992” and “Altus…”
• Moved the lead’s second paragraph to the “History” section. (Note: it’s still kind of redundant when compared to the “World War II” section. I may “whittle it down” some. We’ll see.)
• Updated the “Infobox” appropriately… the unit’s name, “Active” dates and “Branch.”
• Made all kinds of minor changes throughout the article… commas, hyphens, spelling-out things, changing a “possessive” to a “plural,” replacing words with “better” ones without changing the meanings of the sentences, and the like.
The above changes reflect some of my most serious (“boldest”) edits. I hope that I did OK. (Fingers crossed.)
Take care, Rob
P.S. One thing that I’ve just really noticed… as I said above, the prior “History” section for the Group was “basically blank.” That is, the first and only line had read, “For additional history and lineage, see 443d Airlift Wing.” I wonder if that’s correct. That is, are they really “related?” (The USAF's “bestowed history program?”)
Then, on the flip side, when you look at the “History” section for the 443d Airlift Wing, its first line reads, “For additional history and lineage, see 443d Troop Carrier Group.” Here, too, I wonder if that is correct. That is, are they really “related?” (The USAF's “bestowed history program?”)
Nevertheless, in the meantime, my “gut” told me to change the "For additional history..." line to read Operations Group, the name of the latest unit designation as well as the name of the article. So, I went ahead and changed that one aspect just now.
Well, kind sir, please advise me on those very first, italicized lines in the two units’ “History” sections. Thanks in advance!
Just a quick follow-up to my “P.S.” above… of course, I know that the Group was assigned to the Wing on two different occasions (1949-1953, and, 1991-1992). So, I know that they were “related” in that regard. But, I wondered if they were “related” in any other way. Perhaps my use of the word “related” was poor.
As you know, what I was really trying to ask concerned those very first, italicized lines in the two units’ “History” sections. (“Referrals,” as I call them.) Should they be there in both “History” sections? Or, should only one of the units’ “History” sections have such a “referral?”
An aside: When I looked at two other closely related units (a group and a wing), I saw that the group had such a “referral” but the wing did not. Here, too, is that correct? Or, should both the group and the wing have such referrals? (Perhaps it depends on the units involved?)
In checking for messages, I finally figured out that you had changed one word in the very first, italicized line in the “History” section for the 443d Operations Group. (Changing it from “additional” to “related.”) OK, thanks. I also saw that you did not change the similar line in the Wing’s article, so, I trust that we now have the proper “cross-referencing.”
Now, staying in this same vein… in my last message, I had written, “An aside: When I looked at two other closely related units (a group and a wing), I saw that the group had such a “referral” but the wing did not. Here, too, is that correct? Or, should both the group and the wing have such referrals? (Perhaps it depends on the units involved?)”
Well, the units that I was talking about (and you may have guessed) are Dad’s old 97th Bomb Group and 97th Bomb Wing.
Similar to the two 443d units, the very first, italicized line in the “History” section for the 97th Bomb Group reads, “For additional history and lineage, see 97th Air Mobility Wing.” However, there is no such “referral” in the “History” section for the 97th Bomb Wing.
To me, I think that both units should “cross-reference” each other, no? So, I will follow your lead and...
• Change the first, italicized line in the 97th Group’s “History” section from “additional” to “related.”
• Add an italicized line to the 97th Wing’s “History” section that will read, “For additional history and lineage, see the 97th Operations Group.”
If this is not correct, please advise.
Thanks in advance, Rob
P.S. In the Wing’s article, the current very first line in the “History” section reads, “Operational history [edit].” To me, it seems totally unnecessary (“redundant” and/or “clutter”). I plan to remove it.
Do your worst and put it here, Bracketbot! Although your worst efforts cannot match Anomiebot's habit of creating edit conflicts with an hour of careful editing and sourcing so that it can date a tag you put on the last time I saved my work. And it does it because it is bored?
Chickening out, I see. Not a single misplaced bracket for months? Sorry to see you go, you were actually a useful (if annoying) tool. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
I've been meaning to write to you but, as usual, I end up getting "carried away" here on Wiki.
First, I want to thank you for all your help and advice this past year. Since I last wrote, I have indeed been making a lot of "minor" edits and adding aircraft photos (already uploaded on Wiki) in various military articles. I have even been adding photos (again, already uploaded on Wiki) to "this" or "that" gallery. If ever I feel that I am making a "non-minor" edit, I sure do reference AFHRA.
Here's where I am asking for your help on a "new" issue for me... the other day, while editing, I made a "new" mistake when I was enabling a "link." Thus, I was notified by "DPLbot" for the very first time. I fixed the mistake that I had made, and, then I wrote back to "him" (a "New section" on "his" talk page) telling him that I had fixed the problem, and, that I was sorry for making the mistake. Sounds OK, right?
Well, today, I checked to see if DPLbot had replied. He had not, which is OK. (No reply was really necessary anyway, I suppose.) But, I got a most-curious message, on DPLbot's talk page, from "Rolf-Peter Wille," a total stranger to me.
I did reply to "Rolf-Peter Wille" by making a "New section" on his (Rolf-Peter Wille) talk page. It would be a lot easier for me to "copy and paste" my message that I sent to him. Here goes...
You Asked... Is "DPLbot" a "Real" Person??
Hello,
I got your message a bit ago. You wrote, "wow, that's a very long letter to a web robot... (or is DPL bot a real person?) Rolf-Peter Wille (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)"
In your "email," I honestly don't know if you are being sincere or "smart." As you know, there's no facial expressions or tones of voice. However, I do hope that you are being sincere in writing to me.
To answer your question, I wrote back to the "person" who wrote to me first. (The courteous thing to do, I thought.) I had not really given any thought to DPLbot being a "real" person or not. I trusted that DPLbot is at least operated or supervised by a "real" person. I have also seen others reply or leave messages for DPLbot.
When I looked deeper just now, I saw that DPLbot is "owned by" JaGa. I would hope and trust that JaGa would get any messages that I sent to DPLbot. But, I'm not sure.
My curiosity causes me to ask... how did you know that I wrote to DPLbot? And, of course, why would you even care? And, why would you care about the length of my message? I am asking as sincerely as I can.
I would appreciate a reply. And, if you do, please write to me on my "talk" page. Or, notify me that I have a message from you on your talk page. That is, I don't want to use up space on DPLbot's talk page, ya know?
Thanks in advance. BeatlesVox (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, Lineagegeek, as I said, for Rolf-Peter Wille to write to me as he did is most strange and bizarre to me. I ask you the same questions: How did he know that I had replied to DPLbot? Why did he care? And, why did he care about the length of my reply? (As I was a "first offender" in terms of "disambiguation pages," I did indeed write a good bit.)
As I was really pressed for time today, I didn't get a chance to write to the DPLbot's "owner," JaGa. That is, when I first replied to DPLbot about my mistake, did he or JaGa read it? Or, if I ever have to reply to DPLbot again, do I reply to JaGa instead? (Gee, so many "talk" pages to keep track of!!) And, by the way, when I got the message from DPLbot, there wasn't any notice such as "Do not reply to this address; replies should be sent to 'so-and-so.'" Caveat: earlier today, yes, in my message to Rolf-Peter Wille, I saw that DPLbot's owner is JaGa, but that's as far as I've gotten.)
So, kind sir, can you enlighten me? Do I ever reply to DPLbot or JaGa? And, please tell me your thoughts regarding the message that I received from Rolf-Peter Wille. What am I to make of it? Really.
Oh, I wonder if Rolf-Peter Wille is going to find out that I wrote to you just now, and, ask me why. :-O
Any "user" ending in "bot" is likely to be a bot. There are folks who keep the pages associated with the bot pages on their watchlist, so I presume that one of them replied to you. I also assume that you got a message from this bot because you created a wikilink to a redirect page and it sent a message asking if you meant to do it. Bracketbot is another you might hear from if you don't match a ( with a ) or a [ with a ]. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Lineagegeek,
Thanks for your reply. Oh, yes, as I said, I had made a "new" mistake when I enabled a "link." (It was the second of two "links" in the same sentence.) Obviously, I had forgotten to go back and make sure that the second one worked properly. (The mistake dealt with the fact that there are two "Glen Edwards.")
Since I wrote to you, I did receive a message from Rolf-Peter Willie, the person who wrote to me asking, basically, why I had replied to DPLbot. It appears that he was indeed asking me sincerely. By the way, I had seen that he had received a similar "notification." So, again, perhaps he was asking me sincerely for some advice or insight. I will explain to him that I am still a "rookie." So, his asking ME for advice might be a "dangerous" thing!! :-O
Of course, you already know that I sent a message to DPLbot after I received “his” notification. I told “him” that I was sorry for making the mistake, and, that I had fixed it. But, I haven’t heard anything back from him or his “owner,” JaGa. Gee, should I write to JaGa separately? (Rhetorical.) I’m tempted to do so. But, in “looking around” just now, it doesn’t appear that JaGa answers messages, either. Hmmm.
Well, I suppose that the “lesson” here is, if any “notifications” are received in the future, simply fix the mistake and don’t worry or take any time to reply to DPLbot, Jaga, et al, eh? “Brilliant!!”
Once again, thanks for your reply, and, thanks again for all your help and advice this past year!
Dear Lineagegeek, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
Unable to upload image correction for WWII 730 Bomb Squadron, 452nd Bomb Group, 8th Air Force
WoolfPack (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Image uploading instructions are extremely complex and impossible to follow.
Have you tried using the Upload Wizard? It will open if you click the "Upload file" on the menu on the left side of the screen in Wikimedia Commons.
On the first screen you'll be asked to select media files to share. That gives you two choices, select another file or continue.
The next screen will start the copyright check. It'll ask if this is your own work or not. If it's your own work, it will start asking you to describe the image and select a category, like Emblems of the United States Army Air Forces bomber squadrons. Then you just click to upload. If it's not your own work, it will ask you for a source, and some questions to indicate it is exempt from copyright laws or that the copyright owned gives permission for its use. If it was an official pictur, just note that it's a government work. --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
December 2014 Wikification awards.
The WikiProject Wikify Trophy
For scoring 1st place on the leaderboard during the December 2014 Wikification drive, you are hereby awarded the WikiProject Wikify Trophy. Congratulations!
The Iron Wikification Barnstar
For wikifying 27 articles, you are also awarded the Iron Wikification barnstar. Keep up the good work!!!
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 42d Air Base Wing you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
For completing 1 review during October–December 2014, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Military history reviewers' award. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
No, they are not the same unit. There are a few rare cases where provisional units have become regular units (1st Reconnaissance Squadron. 971st Airborne Warning and Control Squadron), but the usual rule is that provisional unit histories only include the time they were in existence. The rule for expeditionary units is different. "Rainbow" units do continue lineages, but when one active unit is the major force provider and the expeditionary unit has the same name (except for the "expeditionary"), it's a separate unit.
The official Lineage & Honors statement for the 14th Air Division was prepared in 2007 and you can see it makes no mention of Gulf War participation. [1]
As examples of provisional air divisions (ignoring 4 digits), the 15th, 16th, and 17th Air Divisions (P) also existed for Desert Storm, but there was also an Air Division, P, 17 for three years during the Vietnam War as well. To show how messy it gets (all US units), There was a 1st Air Division in the Organized Reserve from 1924-1928 (disbanded 1933), and another from 1935-1936 (disbanded 1942) in addition to the 1st Air Division. Plus a 1st Air Division (Provisional) in 1931 for an exercise, and an Air Division, Provisional 1 at Homestead AFB for the Cuban missile crisis.
My approach (I've only partially done this) is for the short-lived provisional divisions that have some notability (Desert Storm, Cuban missile crisis) and are mentioned in existing articles to be redirected to the mentions, at least until there is enough material to create a separate article, when a headnote can be added to the permanent unit article. The redirects can have the air division category added. Separately, provisional (and other) divisions lacking notability can be added to List of United States Air Force air divisions.
Cool!! Great thanks for your quick answer. What I would like to do is break down the page USAF units in the Gulf War and create division pages that link directly to the CENTAF article. This half-way house page is not well incorporated into the CENTAF page and doesn't really help things. I found the commander for 14 AP(P), but got stumped on the commander of AD, P, 15, though I haven't started looking for the commander of 1610 AD (P) yet. Any objection to this long-term objective? For the 17 AD (P), could we find enough information to create a full article for the 17th Air Division (Provisional) for Vietnam and the Gulf War? And were you aware of the 33 AF (P), that Bwmoll3 managed to get the org card from USAF HRA for? Do you have any more info about it? Cheers Buckshot06(talk)01:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
EAMC: Thankyou, I appreciate it. But what bugs me is the complete lack of references. Can you supply references for your statements at the talkpage? Then I can happily leave or further rewrite - right now I would be technically justified in removing it again for lack of refs... Cheers and thanks Buckshot06(talk)08:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Removing disestablishment categories from USAF units
I understand that you are strongly opposed to using the incorrect terminology as regards USAF units, but it's that terminology that just happens to be used for *all* military units. I'm really concerned about you doing this, and it appears to be almost on the verge of being WP:POINTY. This isn't a term I want to apply to your usually very helpful edits. I would like you to stop removing the categories that others have, in some cases, spent heaps of time to add. I'm quite happy to discuss compromises, but you're now removing info from the encyclopedia without replacement. Buckshot06(talk)08:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I presume you added this in response to my reversion of an inappropriate "disestablishment" in mid February. I'd like to point out that this particular edit was immediately reverted by the editor adding the category and I began a discussion on the article talk page which was never responded to by the editor in question. Since then there has been much activity by that editor, mostly in the area of "(year) disestablishments in (geographical regions)", which I have been willing to let stand (despite their inaccuracy) as potential search terms by readers interested in geography, rather than the military. However, the spending of "heaps of time" adding inaccurate information to Wikipedia is not a criterion for leaving information on Wikipedia. The former editor who created the vast majority of USAF unit Wikipedia articles certainly spent far more time doing that but not all his edits were accurate and failing to correct them is not justified if Wikipedia is to be accurate.
I do not, however, agree with leaving inaccurate military categories affirming disestablishment standing. The fact that units were not disestablished is far move likely to mislead in these categories. I am perfectly willing to correct these entries if appropriate. For example, if an article on Air Service Command (currently a redirect, although it should not be) were to be placed in [[Category:Units disestablished in 1944]] (the year it was last active), I would be perfectly happy to move it to [[Category:Units disestablished in 1984]] (the year it was actually disbanded) However, I will continue to revert the placement of USAF units into military categories dealing with disestablishment when they have not been disestablished. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah-ha!! I thought you were on your usual warpath of 'deactivate' versus 'inactivate'. No, definitely, we need to put them in the right year category. Personally I believe the disestablishment date in the category should be when the unit was physically folded up and equipment and personnel dispersed, rather than the disbandment date, which might be decades later, but that is a point upon which there's room for legitimate discussion. Yes, I'm also spending significant amounts of time trying to clean up after the editor you speak of (you just thanked me for one of a series of edits in this regard). Cheers Buckshot06(talk)05:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I've got a start for IX ASC / IX AFSC / EAMC currently located at EAMC. Have you any idea how I might located the assignments, components, lineage, constituent units etc? Buckshot06(talk)22:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
You might try going to Air Force History Index and using the various designations as search terms.
Here's what to look for:
Constituted as 9th Air Force Service Command
Activated on 27 July 1942
Redesignated IX Air Force Service Command on 18 September 1942
Redesignated IX Air Service Command in 1943
Redesignated IX Air Force Service Command on 24 January 1944
Redesignated European Air Materiel Command on 7 October 1946
Inactivated on 15 September 1947
Disbanded on 8 October 1948
Assigned to
3d Air Force by September 1942
Air Service Command, September 1942
Ninth Air Force, November 1942
Twelfth Air Force, August 1943
Ninth Air Force,
Stationed at
MacDill Field, Florida, 27 July 1942
Patterson Field, Ohio, September 1942
Tinker Field, Oklahoma October 1942
Camp Kilmer, New Jersey, October 1942
Camp Russell B. Huckstep, Egypt, November 1942
Cairo, Egypt, 12 November 1942
Egypt, February 1943
Welford Park, England, October 1943
Bushy Park, England, October 1943
RAF Grove, England, October 1943
Sunninghill Park, England, November 1943
RAF Ascot, England, May 1944
Creil, France, September 1944
Luxemburg, August 1945
AAF Station, Erlangen (later Erlangen Air Base), Germany 15 August 1945 - 15 September 1947
Details of operation and organization should be in the appropriate Volumes of Craven & Cate. Also in the numbered studies at AFHRA Studies, particularly Nos. 30, 36, 108, possibly 96 & 102 if they discuss logistical support
Hi Lineagegeek!
I looked at some of the articles that you wikified for the WikiProject Wikify drive, and I didn't know if you are aware that wikifiers are supposed to clean up the the reference formatting of articles as well as add infoboxes. Adding citation info to bare urls and repairing link rot may seem like insignificant work, but it really does improve the quality of an article as a whole. Thanks! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem. None of the articles were tagged for reference problems, so I didn't notice there were additional issues there. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This may come in under cleaning up after departed editors again, depending on how you see it: we have articles both on the 44th Air Division and the 99th Bombardment Wing (World War II). I can easily merge them to the most recent as per MILUNIT, but thought I should alert you in case you had any comments. Cheers Buckshot06(talk)10:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Despite the quick reply, I'm traveling this month and only checking Wikipedia about once a week or so. This seems like a good idea. I've added a comment on the 44th AD talk page. I've been going through Air Division pages, aiming to get them to at least C status, but started with the 800 series. --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
As you'll remember, we talked some time ago about User:30 SW's confusing and in some case literally untrue edits. I've been doing some work trying to clear up after him, most regarding USAF bases, but wanted to get a second opinion regarding the two articles above. The first appears to be the electronics systems installed in the protective bunkers which are the subject of the second article. Neither is a very long article and both are incredible obtusely written. (I think I know this stuff reasonably well, and I have a hard time following 30 SW's articles). I believe they are prime candidates for merger and simplification in the process. So, would you disagree?, and second, are there any other expert editors I should check with? Buckshot06(talk)23:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The Missile Master article talks about the system as if the sites were the "Missile Master"s, which I believe is inaccurate. Kind of like saying a SAGE director site was SAGE. In addition the article seems to be mostly anecdotes about individual locations. I tried following a couple of the references, but got dead links. I'd think Missile Master would be the common name, rather than the AN designation for the system. --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully, AFHRA will put a factsheet on their web page so a secondary source can be cited for lineage (including a redesignation date). --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for your explanation of the re-numbering history since the consolidations of the 1980s: much appreciated. Maybe 562 and 572 were skipped because there was an opportunity seen to reactivate one of the ARCW series numbers? Buckshot06(talk)22:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
April 2015 Wikification awards.
The Greater Working Wikifier's Barnstar
For scoring 3rd place on the leaderboard during the 2015 Wikification Backlog drive, you are hereby awarded the Greater Working Wikifier's Barnstar! Congratulations!
The Iron Wikification Barnstar
For wikifying 19 articles, you are also awarded the Iron Wikification Barnstar. Keep up the good work!
My apologies. Squadron in question was the 42d Troop Carrier Squadron, Medium (Special), now the 42nd Expeditionary Airlift Squadron. However, the history that is missing was that of the 582 ARCS, which was of course under that designation. It would be good for you to check the 42 EAS though.
Prefer 'After September 11' to any vague, generic 'expeditionary service' or other term. Would consider 'Post Cold War' to be c.89-91 through to Sept 11, and 'After Sept 11' after that. But this is a capital, fantastic way of bringing the Milhist community into a sphere that has been dominated by over-adherence to USAF conventions, and thus yes we should raise this at MilHist.
Finally, always happen to entertain an invitation to the OK Corral to settle our differences over category dates. Suggest we amicably resolve weapons selection between sabres, pistols, or M16/M203. Buckshot06(talk)01:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I have read the interesting comments about user:Middayexpress done by user:Buckshot06 (who gave you a "Barnstar" last 05/02/15). Of course I agree with him, but I want to add the following information, in case you want to investigate the "Al-Shabaab-ISIS" issue & presence on Wikipedia. This investigation is being done even on the website of Mappista59 (read: https://www.blogger.com/profile/17629549463392207787 Thanks anyway:
MIDDAYEXPRESS: supposed involvement in MUSLIM TERRORISM SUPPORT
She is a Somali woman (according to user Chuckupd and others) living in the UK, probably in London, who is accused to be with "pathological behavior" while controlling in en.wiki all articles on Somalia. She has caused to abandon Wikipedia at least one user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chuckupd), who wrote that "I'm not the only one being attacked (by Middayexpress) without mercy" and "Middayexpress, you are hopelessly insane " and finally "I give up on Wikipedia. Middayexpress has accused me with so many lies that it has become unbearably depressing. I'm not the only one being attacked without mercy. One of these days, I hope she will be banned and then I might consider returning here."
Another wiki user (user: Buckshot06) wrote that "Middayexpress is in long-standing, continual violation of WP:NPOV, continually rolls back edits that do not reflect his views (IDONTLIKEIT/Disruptive editing, plus WP:UNDUE over-positive views of the Somali situation), and continually attempts to WP:OWN a wide range of Somalia articles." And this statement was supported by User:Bobrayner, who wrote that "I share Buckshot06's concerns. However, I feel the problem may be more widespread, as I have seen Middayexpress doing the same kind of pov-pushing on other articles related to Somalia and the surrounding region".
Buckshot06 wrote (on 17 February 2014): "Middayexpress, I remain increasingly concerned about your distortions of sources in both these articles. Beyond the issue of the TFG's security forces in Mogadishu in December 2006-January 2007, these include putting words in the mouth of a senior Ethiopian official, who did not say that Ethiopia had 8,000 troops in Somalia in November 2013, distorting a meeting between Italian and Somali officials in 2012 into a claim that Somali had started rebuilding its air force in 2000-2010, and inventing aircraft numbers and entire aircraft from the Library of Congress Country Study. Why do you continually readd the SM-1019s that are not listed in the Country Study?".....and user Nick-D (talk) added:" I've noticed that your edits to these articles seem to put an unduly positive "spin" on things. For instance, in your most recent edit to the Somali Civil War article [1] you removed material sourced to a January 2013 academic journal article by Laura Hammond in which she argued that "[M]uch of rural Somalia remains in the hands of al-Shabaab" and replaced it with more positive material sourced to a November 2012 news story which argues that 85% of the country was under government control at the time. You did not provide a rationale for this change (especially removing material outright rather than noting differing viewpoints) and I'm wondering why you made this change?"
User:Gobonobo added the negative comments that "Middayexpress can be a difficult editor to work with. Middayexpress tends to exert ownership over Somalia-related articles, employing an editing style that is combative and adversarial, often refactoring other's contributions and/or edit-warring to preserve their preferred version of an article. Sometimes Middayexpress exhibits tendentious behavior, removing sourced material that is critical of Somalia or Somali people". Additionally User:StoneProphet pinpointed that Middayexpress did "rampant cherry-picking of sources and content".
Middaexpress had fights from his first wiki-moments even with admins (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kwamikagami/old , who accused Middayexpress of "violating basic Wikipedia policy") and with many other users.
User:Baboon43 accused Middayexpress of meatpuppetry in a sockpuppet investigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Runehelmet/Archive ). He wrote:
"Middayexpress is a meatpuppet master for Runehelmet as seen on Runehelmets talk page once middayexpress began into a dispute with me he went over to call runehelmet into the discussion 27 and rune also does the same vice versa 28..These two individuals would rather have a page dominated by somali-centric material and seem to turn a blind eye on other ethnic groups as seen here 29..Gyrofrog does not enter discussion on a wide scale like Runehelmet does so that is not comparable..If an editor pushes pov and seems to take your side in a discussion always and you go invite him then that is not acceptable..also your example about you and runehelmet disagreeing on article doesnt matter because that article is strictly somali oriented(squabbling in your own pot)..runehelmet would rather tag team if possible based on his behavior & he prefers to tag team strictly with Middayexpress....User Runehelmet also seems like a meatpuppet for User_talk:Middayexpress as clearly seen on runehelmets talk page [6]..midday passes on articles for runehelmet to add on his watchlist clearing way for both users to appear on WP:OBSART and wp:CAN..it seems other users have brought up their behavior in previous discussion 7..middayexpress invites runehelmet to discussions which is also clearly seen on the talk page..they back each other to push consensus seen here [8] & [9]..also the only time Runehelmet seems to accept consensus in a dispute is if middayexpress enters the discussion as seen here [10] & [11]" Baboon43 (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Furthermore, user:AcidSnow looks like a "meatpuppet" of Middayexpress, and always helps her in all her discussions on Somalia.
User:Bricology found that Middaexpress was "hiding it in a long, dense and relatively undifferentiated timeline" the issue of poaching as a source of funds for the Somalian terrorist group Al-Shabaab. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Shabaab_(militant_group)#Moving_on...). He even wrote: "Middayexpress, you either presume that you have the power to unilaterally change other editors' work or you misunderstand the relevant issue, or both".
This tentative to "help" the image of Al-Shabaab in Wikipedia (similar to the one denounced by user Nick-D ) raises doubts, and creates the possibility that Middayexpress has a supposed involvement in Muslim terrorism support. Indeed she has an astonishing knowledge of Al-Shabaab activity in the last years: this knowledge can only be possessed by an insider (or a closely-related insider) of this terrorist organization!
Furthermore, Middayexpress has shown a "fanatical hate" (similar to the one of members of Al-Shabaab) against Christianity in Somalia, as is clearly evidenced from her cancellation of serious bibliography and data in the voice "Roman Catholicism in Somalia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Catholicism_in_Somalia&oldid=320544261): she has made disappear that "The Bishop of Mogadishu, Franco Filippini, declared in 1940 that there were about 40,000 Somali Catholics due to the work of missionaries in the rural regions of Juba and Shebelle, but WWII damaged in an irreversibly way most of the catholic missions in Italian Somalia. She angrily (as a possible al-Shabaab member or sympathizer) denied her POV-caused disappearances (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Catholicism_in_Somalia&oldid=320948362).
Middayexpress even attacked with continuous "malignity" user Oldsettler accusing him of sockpuppetry until she obtained the help of "wikimafia" user Vituzzu (read about this Sicilian-calabrese: The Stewarts are firmly in control): she wanted and obtained to "decapitate without pity in Wikipedia" Oldsettler with the same kind of malignity & hate shown in Syria by ISIS terrorists. Oldsettler wrote "The malignity of this Middayexpress is unbelievable. Why against me? I have never done anything with him/her or against him/her, but -after obtaining to erase my dad's photo- now attacks me continuously repeating the same accusations again and again and again with his/her typical "byzantine phrases" full of the same things. I have read his/her 60 archives and I have found that he/she is a Somalian living in the UK (probably in the London area full of supporters of ISIS (read [46]) and that he/she has had "fightings" with many wikipedians. He/she has collected many blocks and menaces of blocks for his/her continuous edit-warrings and seems to promote muslim POVs in a way that remembers the religious fanatism: most important to me, he/she seems to "hate" colonialism and western colonialists, so probably he/she identifies me with the Italians who colonized Somalia....and this can explain his/her attacks against me."
Hi LG. Thankyou for pointing me towards the guideline that you're following regarding portal placement in articles. The reason I've been moving the portals is for better layout. If the 'See also' section is empty, my understanding of the guidelines is that it should not exist, because a full FA would have all the links in the articles. So I try and incorporate all the See Also articles into the main article text. This may leave the 'See also' section empty. If so, rather than have an empty section, with a lonely-looking portal box off to the right side, I move the portal box somewhere else where it looks like it may fit - like the large empty spaces that sometimes exist - in my browser, at least - in the references section. Now I looked at the guideline you cite, and it does not say '..Portals shall always be placed in See Also sections', it says 'Portals usually are placed in see also sections'. Where there's legit numbers of see also articles in a See Also section, have no objection to having it there. But when it's empty except for that box, it seems purposeless to keep it there for an empty section (which we do have 'empty section' tags for). Thoughts? Buckshot06(talk)22:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The one I reverted contained a link that was deleted as well. Most of the others I've edited would (eventually) have other items in them with later edits. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
BTW when I am doing a major "makeover" for an article, I'll frequently format first and then fill in information later. 582d Helicopter Group's an example, where almost the last thing done was adding links in the See also section. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Understand re the order of things you do during makeovers. As for 'See alsos,' it then runs into a disagreement about what are appropriate 'See alsos'. AFSOC, in my view, was not an appropriate see also for that article. MAC ran the special operations units at the time, if I understand correctly. Adding AFSOC is just WP:RECENTIST. Also wanted to query you on the 471 SOG. You moved to, yes, the most up to date name, but a name that never moved off a file drawer in DC. Surely WP:COMMONNAME would place it at the last active ARCW title, as we write for generalists, not specialists? Cheers Buckshot06(talk)22:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious about your Deactivate→inactivate changes. Is this a military term? US military term? Seems a much less common word than deactivate to my ear, but maybe it's a regional thing? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
See the top of this talk page for much discussion. Inactivate is definitely the proper term when referring organizational actions to USAF units. It is elsewhere, but I confine my periodic visits to the term to USAF units. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Been a while! I haven't been editing nearly as much as I used to so I'm a big out of the loop. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at 352d Special Operations Wing. It's components section lists only one active but the factsheet lists quite a few more. Should I just go ahead and add them all? Thank ya sir! Cheers, —dainomite03:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I count three, the 7th and 67th Special Operations Squadrons and the 352d Special Operations Support Squadron. I think part of the problem in finding them is the way the components are listed, which makes them hard to find. Take a look at the way components are listed for the 582d Helicopter Group, which I did at User:Buckshot06's suggestion. Since there is little overlap in units, separate lists for the 2d Air Commando Group, 702d Strategic Missile Wing (trivial), and perhaps a combined 39th ARRW/342 SOG/352 SOW since that runs together in time (might take some playing with). On the other hand, without looking, I suspect a special tactics squadron is missing. I also suspect that all squadrons should have their assignments terminated in 2015. When the group was upgraded to a wing, it should have been assigned a maintenance group and a "new" special operations group. Speaking of special tactics squadrons, have you moved any of your drafts into mainspace? --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah the special tactics squadron was missing as well and I'm guessing that it's just going to roll up to the Wing now and not be part of a Group, since it's the only one in the Wing, but hey, I could be wrong. I like the way the components are broken down on 582d Helicopter Group, that's a nifty way to do it. Yep, I forgot that there should be a new Operations Group so yeah, the assignments section will end up being needing to be revamped to show that and the old squadrons as well, hrmm. I never ended up moving the special tactics squadrons to mainspace. I was always waiting on trying to find more information on them so they weren't relatively bare. Do you think I should just release them as-is?
I made some (mostly formatting and cosmetic) edits to the 26th page (because it was shortest). If you like them, I'd think that the articles would be low start level and can be moved to mainspace. One of the references has gone away. I don't know if one of the ones I added is an update for it and can be merged. If not, it might be archived on the Wayback Machine. --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure sounds good! Thank you very much for taking a gander sir, I appreciate it. If you want to add anything to the articles feel free to submit a DYK for the credit as well. I don't plan on submitting any DYKs for them. —dainomite02:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Squadrons of 4403 TFW while at England AFB, 1970-72
Am stumped by this. There's no confirmation of which squadrons listed at p.170 of Mueller (416, 427 SOS, and 431) were actually assigned to the wing (though clearly 68 TFS was). AFHistoryIndex has nothing on the 4403 TFW. Any ideas? Buckshot06(talk)01:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
68 TFS, 308 TFS (4403 Ftr Wg [sic]), 309th TFS 416th TFS, 431st TFS What search term did you use on the History Index? Try just "4403".
For the reserve units, annual histories of Continental Air Command (a long time ago, in Air Force Reserve Historical Office files). A few should appear in Mueller's Air Force Bases, which should also have the depot units at Kelly, Hill, McClellan and Norton and Fletcher's overseas volume should have the wing at Clark. Willard, TSG Richard R. (1988) [1968]. Location of United States Military Units in the United Kingdom, 16 July 1948-31 December 1967. USAF Air Station, South Ruislip, United Kingdom: Historical Division, Office of Information, Third Air Force. LCCN68061579. has the 30th and 59th. McAuliffe, Jerome J. (2005). US Air Force in France 1950-1967. San Diego, California: Milspec Press ISBN0-9770371-1-8 has information on the 73d. Endicott, Judy G., ed. (2001). The USAF in Korea, Campaigns, Units and Stations 1950-1953(PDF). Maxwell AFB, AL: Air Force Historical Research Agency. ISBN0-16-050901-7. will have the wing at Pusan. There will be some additional information in the AF History Index. Include Tachikawa as a search term JAMA Air Base merged and separated with Tachikawa a couple of times (depending on whether FEAF or AMC had responsibility for depot activities there,)--Lineagegeek (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I noticed your recent reassessment of the article and the reasoning behind that. Thanks for your useful comments on the article. Will it be promoted if an apostrophe is added in the required place and the word 'martyrs' is replaced by another neutral word? Mhhossein (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Would you please double-check my latest edits to the article? Have removed all mention of the 82d Flying Training Wing (Flexible Gunnery) of the Second World War. Buckshot06(talk)00:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
They look good, I removed the final vestiges of the WW II unit, but added a note to prevent it from reappearing. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
From the modified mission prefixes. H before type is used for search and rescue and medical evacuation. Usually seen as a double H on helicopters, but was also used for the HC-131 HC-9 and HU-16. I believe the letter was derived from "Hospital." --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 322d Air Expeditionary Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulboaca. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
No. I was aware of Black Vault, and the items at the bottom are pretty much available on either the AFHRA or Office of Air Force History web sites. In the opposite direction, while working on the 343d Wing, I looked at the 43d Fighter Squadron's AFHRA Fact Sheet, which was updated in May 2015. It includes an announcement that these will no longer update commanders, aircraft or operations. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh sure - there was a whole bunch of standard docos at the bottom. The things that caught my eye were stuff like the 4545th ARW's history report etc, or USSAFE's origins report. That appeared to be good new data to me. If the fact sheets aren't going to be updated, then we're going to have to wait for the full L&H whenever they're released. Sequestration bites? Buckshot06(talk)20:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Could be. Carl Bailey told me in an email that the 582d Helicopter Group Factsheet would be online in May, but it wasn't the last time I looked. And when {if?] it does, it will have an error in assignments that he wouldn't change because a final version had been sent to the unit that contained the error. I had been looking for it because it does correct some ambiguity with the 301st Fighter Wing assignment. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Oh, and by the way, I picked a unit history to look at (5th Air Disarmament Group (P)) that I doubt will ever have its own article to check. I will probably check out the ADC/CONAD/NORAD histories at some point, since what got me editing Wikipedia seriously were the horrible errors in Air Defense Group articles. A lot longer page history than needed on them since they were basically my Wiki school and I had to make changes to changes to changes. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems there were two air disarmament wings, 1st and 2nd, under the IX AFSC and the '1st Tactical Air Force Service Command.' What was the 1 TAFSC? Seems it was a prov TAF for 6 AG. Buckshot06(talk)22:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
It might be best from the notability standpoint to make The Air Disarmament part of VIII Air Force Composite Command. By fall 1944 the training mission of that command had pretty much become redundant and the provisional disarmament units were manned by its headquarters and its units. There is a pretty fair correlation between Combat Crew Replacement Center Groups and Air Disarmament Groups. So, from the fall of 1944 until it was inactivated, VIII AFCC was the disarmament command. Lineagegeek (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 336th Training Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SERE. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks for your edit on the talk page. I've added an info box to the article; I used {{Infobox military unit}}, although I'm not completely sure the outfit can reasonably be called a "unit." I don't think I'm all that happy with the title of the page. I haven't been able to find any evidence that the unit was ever called the "Camel Corps." Something like "Army camel experiment (United States)" might be better but certainly not as catchy. The line referencing suddenly seemed very poor and I'm working on that using {{rp}}. Thanks again.--Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk02:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Wikichevrons for placing first in the September 2015 Milhist article writing contest with 36 points from ten articles. Congratulations! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 390th Strategic Missile Wing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Honey bear. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 26th Air Refueling Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goose Bay Airport. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
List of United States military and volunteer units in the Mexican–American War
Thank you for looking at the list article List of United States military and volunteer units in the Mexican–American War. When I first looked at the list article, I noticed a lack of information about the Revenue Marine and having written a couple of articles on cutters that had served there, I decided that the Revenue Marine needed to be listed. The Revenue Marine, Revenue Cutter Service, Life-Saving Service and the Coast Guard are sort of my specialty, So...after four days of working on it part time the Revenue Marine is now listed... and the citation format is completely overhauled as I could not deal with the way it was entered. At the time I started working on this I noticed and did not necessarily approve of the manner that bolding was used by other editors in the list article. That is a lot of changes to make, but I suppose I will start making them. About those naval units that you mention in your critique, there was a whole squadron under the command of Commodore David Conner that are not even mentioned! I suppose I will have to delve into that also! The list article is kind of a snowballing type of project that gets bigger and bigger every time I look at it. Anyway, I will throw some construction tags on it and get to work. Thank you so much for your suggestions about what the list article needs; your critique gets me pointed the right direction at least. Cuprum17 (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Some of the Coast Guard's finest combat was done while working for the Navy. World War I...World War II...Vietnam...the Coast Guard did the work and the Navy took the credit. Lol... Anyway, thanks for the shout out... Cuprum17 (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Just got through looking at your user page. You are a fellow Vietnam veteran, so like I do with all fellow Vietnam veterans..."Welcome home, Brother!". I served two years in the Army at Bien Hoa Air Base in a military intelligence unit as an aerial photographer. I flew backseat with Army and Air Force O-1 BirddogFAC's. After a twenty year break in service I joined the Coast Guard Reserve in 1989 and retired in 2007 as a Chief Petty Officer. My other Air Force connection was my father, who enlisted in the Army Air Force in September 1943 and was an Aviation Cadet. He didn't get his training completed before the program closed, but he sure enjoyed the flight time. He worked for Stearman and Boeing in Wichita, Kansas as a sheet metalsmith before enlisting. After college on the GI Bill he spent several years working for a sub-contractor as a process engineer working on B-52 mods. Some of his work is still keeping America safe. Anyway, thanks for your service to our country. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I spent about 9 months at Bien Hoa after my squadron moved from Tan Son Nhut in late 1966, although about 1/3 of my time was TDY at Da Nang. Lots of connection for me with the AF. Three uncles who joined up during WW II stayed in for a career and my dad commanded a gunnery training squadron and was XO of a bombardmnent squadron before being medically discharged in 1944. Though my son is in Navy, he did command a riverine squadron and a combined riverine/harbor defense squadron, so he' spent time on boats as well as ships. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a good idea, but I'm having trouble figuring out the way to leave the nice little question mark with a short link. Seems I'm autotranscluded from any technical stuff that I can't cut and paste. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
On behalf of the Milhist Coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar, for placing second in the October 2015 Milhist article writing contest, with 25 points from seven articles. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I hereby award you this as a token of the project’s appreciation for your contributions during the October 2015 Military history project backlog drive. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lineagegeek. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
