User talk:CORNELIUSSEON

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

This is my Wikisource user page, please see my

Wikipedia User page

Hello, CORNELIUSSEON, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at the Scriptorium. The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. :)

Wolfman 00:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


Armored Cavalry is a fine contribution to wikimedia; however, that sort of article properly belongs in Wikipedia. I encourage you to move it over there, as it is likely to be eventually deleted here on wikisource for not being a copy of an "original source". Wolfman 22:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

IIn progress[edit]

Hi I moved your in progress pages out of the main text namespace and into your userspace. When ever they are finished you can use the "move" tab to put them back in the main space under their proper name. I fixed the links on your user page as well. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions.--BirgitteSB 23:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I realize you were only trying to help, but you have lost me my files. I just clicked on their links in my user file, and the system reports that they don't exist. Please restore my files to the link in my user file, and LEAVE THEM ALONE!!!

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 21:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've found the files, but they were always linked to my User Page. There wasn't any reason to move them.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 21:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Sorry, In the future please remember to provide an edit summary. Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. --Az1568 19:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge[edit]

The chapters for The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge should go to "The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge/Chapter number" instead of "BOB-number." You can see the ones I have edited for an example of how they should be formated. Closer, at least, to the standard. :) --Benn Newman 03:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's not be pedantic here. I am the one who has to do all that work - not you - and your single bit of cricism has to do with the least important part of this project. I selected the BOB - which stands for Battle Of the Bulge - as place holders, and put the proper chapter name as an overlay deliberately to make the job easier, and to provide a shorthand for those who want to search through the chapters. If you feel that the chapter number system is so important, then YOU should do the work yourself, but please wait until I finish up-loading the rest of the chapters to the finished product, and that will take a while since I have a day job that takes up much of my time. Lest you think that I preach but don't practice, I "correct" little errors I find all over the place whenever necessary, and "improve" what I find as well, but I try to not cricize and then run.

BTW, so you will understand, I am doing this project making use of a template that gets used for all pages. This minimizes the changes necessary to formulate a page, and thus you have uniformity within the project. Likewise, there is uniformity within the footnotes. This means that YOU will have to go and change the BOB numbers on EVERY page and EVERY footnote that refers to another page, and that is a LOT of work. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 15:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

USACMH license template[edit]

Hello. I see you've restored Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACMH. It was originally redirected per Proposed deletions; has anything changed which challenges the rationale for the original redirect? —{admin} Pathoschild 01:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, besides my being its creator, CMH also matches a category over on Wikipedia that has a fair number of articles under its umbrella. Further, CMH, like its companions USAIMH and USAIOH, have different licensing rules than the rest of the US Government. This makes those three categories and templates unique. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 01:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Cornelius. All of the material on Wikisource should either be public domain or compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License. As a contributor, you "assert compatibility with Wikisource's license" (Wikisource:Copyright policy). There should not be anything that needs permission to be used. I am not sure how any of the licensing rules mentioned in that template really apply. The license template also isn't the best place to talk about the U.S. Army Center for Military History's mission. I think that the category can stay, but the license template, if it stays, should probably be toned down. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 02:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The license you see is NOT the one I first posted over on Wikipedia. The one I first posted over on Wikipedia was the official license from the USACMH website, but Wikipedia and I had this same argument, and the one you see here is the one we agreed upon as an acceptible compromise that remains inside the guidelines of USACMH. All the license says is that we are free to do as we wish with their materials EXCEPT deliberately letting others use it for commercial purposes. Posting this license takes Wikipedia off the hook should anyone do such a nefarious deed without applying to USACMH for permission. As a rule, they rarely say NO to such a use as long as the person asking for permission credits USACMH as the owner of the material, and the person asking cannot copyright anything they got from CMH, but CAN copyright any material they add to the the CMH material. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 04:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource's Copyright policy specifically prohibits noncommercial licenses, so this template may not be acceptable. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The only problem with that policy is that the other side of the coin that places US Government documents and images into the Public Domain ALSO removes them ALL from automatic commercial use without permission. Some agencies permit you to use them for commercial purposes as long as you ask for permission and give credit, while others don't permit any commercial use at all without exception. For example you cannot make commercial use of the graphics of US Money under any circumstances. That means that if you stick with that policy, you would have to remove ALL US Government documents and graphics, which is the same argument I had over on Wikipedia, which resulted in the compromise you see here. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 04:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying that works by the US government are not in the public domain? That's a big problem, if so. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
No, what I AM saying is that many US Government works cannot be used for COMMERCIAL purposes without permission, and some of them are NOT available for commercial purposes at all. A good example of the latter fact is US Currency. It is a Federal Offense to make direct copies of US Currency. The legal way around that is to make the copy larger or smaller. it cannot just be an exact copy. The agencies that want requests for commercial permission have their works behind a couple of home pages with plenty of caveat information. Those that have content free for the taking for any use have the content practically at the front door, and the vast majority of that is designed for kids to use in school. Finally, they also clearly identify items they hold that are NOT in the public domain - and CMH does have some of that - and it is clearly identified. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 17:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Works under a non-commercial license are not permitted at Wikisource, even though we do not make commercial use of it. You cannot contribute something and say, go see for yourself whether or not this is not public domain/for non-commercial use only/needs permission to be used. That is what I see this template doing. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 17:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
No, the law that says that US Government works are in the public domain is Title 17, Chapter 1, § 105: "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." (modulo an unusual footnote about the Secretary of Commerce). US currency is an awful example, as the restrictions on it have nothing to do with commercial use and have a large section of law that broadly prohibits all sorts of things that couldn't be prohibited by copyright on works published by the US government, foreign governments and even private entities; see Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 25 for all the long details. There's a lot of complex little bits, but the general rule is indeed that works of the US government have no restrictions on use, commercial or otherwise.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, that policy will result in much of Wikisource being stripped out, since - as I said - only a small number of items are available for commercial use without permission, and it will mean that the other Wikiprojects will have US Government items, complete with the license, while Wikisource won't. BTW, you may be interested in knowing that both the Institute of Heraldry and the Center for Military History were taking their sweet time posting items to their public sites until articles started showing up on Wikipedia and images over on Wikicommons, and then they speeded up their posting of items we in the Wikipedia Military History project were either making use of or were hoping they would post soon, so it appears that they are aware that their items are being posted, and have no complaint about it. What makes me think this is that when I started posting on Wikipedia, USACMH and USAIOH were both behind password-protected front ends, which is no longer true. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

US Honorable Service/Discharge insignia[edit]

This page has been nominated for deletion as it does not appear to be a published text. Maybe you could provide some source information?--BirgitteSB 17:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, the information is from the US Army Institute of Heraldry, with additional information from the US Army Center for Military History. I will establish the actual source reference data. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted images[edit]

Hi,

You're page The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge/Chapter I has had one of its images deleted from Commons. The image was Image:Adolf Hitler.jpg. You can see its entry in the Commons deletion log here. If this is a free image (PD, GFDL) then you might want to appeal the deletion with the source of the image proving its copyright status allows it to be on Commons.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The photograph, like the article, came from the US Army Center for Military History book on the subject of the Battle of the Bulge. You will find the photograph at the following link: [1] -SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 14:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have checked the deleted image on Commons, and it is not the same as this image. The image that appeared in the book can be can be uploaded here and tagged with {{PD-USGov}}. Btw, Welcome back! John Vandenberg (chat) 09:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I will be spending a lot more time over here because I finally had enough of Wikipedia. Their Editing Police is so obnoxious and powerful that there is no room for Lone Wolves over there. SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is a distinct problem over on Commons concerning images. If you place images over there, you MUST establish at least one specific Category for that image, or they will delete it as an Orphan. SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

US Army Campaigns of World War II Series[edit]

Hello,

I renamed a subpage because the title was wrong. Please correct the other subpages. Thanks, Yann 17:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH[edit]

The WikiSource community has decided that with copyright tags, that we would stick with {{PD-USGov}} and {{PD-NASA}} alone. That all US government publications from whichever agency are covered by PD-USGov. There is no requirement to make it more complex than that level.-- billinghurst (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you may want to reverse that decision because USAIOH is the only agency - besides NASA - that has a specific Copyright Notice based on a specific piece of US Law. This is because their caveat is based on Commercial Use of their product. SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Would you please be able to identify that specific piece of legislation, as we would need to quote that with any specific tag. Thanks for the heads-up. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Title 18, United States Code, Section 704 Military medals or decorations; from which is extracted Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 507 MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF DECORATIONS, MEDALS, BADGES, INSIGNIA, COMMERCIAL USE OF HERALDIC DESIGNS AND HERALDIC QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM; which is the backbone for AR 672-8 Manufacture, Sale, Wear, and Quality Control of Heraldic Items.
This is the tag text we use over on WikiCommons. It is similar to the one we use on Wikipedia:

{| {{PD-Layout}} | [[Image:PD-icon.svg|64px|Public domain]] | ''This image shows a [[:en:flag|flag]], a [[:en:coat of arms|coat of arms]], a [[:en:seal (device)|seal]] or some other official '''[[:en:insignia|insignia]]''' produced by the '''[[:en:United States Army Institute of Heraldry|United States Army Institute of Heraldry]]'''. It is in the '''[[:en:public domain|public domain]]''' but its use is restricted by [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000704----000-.html Title 18, United States Code, Section 704] and the [http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title32/32cfr507_main_02.tpl Code of Federal Regulations (32 CFR, Part 507)]. Permission to use these images for commercial purposes must be obtained from The Institute of Heraldry prior to their use.'' | [[Image:IOHCOA.png|50px|The seal of the U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry]] |}<includeonly>[[Category:PD US Army USAIOH|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly> <noinclude>[[Category:PD-USGov license tags|Military-Army-USAIOH]] [[Category:Restriction tags|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude>

SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a bunch of regulations there. I think anything having to do with actually minting the things is out of our scope to worry about, but [2] and http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=b5f2f74f3f3ac4c414a9d9924254ef9e&rgn=div8&view=text&node=32:3.1.1.1.4.2.1.4&idno=32] are definitely pertinent. I don't see that the USAIOH is our big concern here; these designs will come up in PD-1923 books. I wish I had time for deeper analysis, but I have to run, so I'm just tossing those out there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Might be a good idea to post this on either WS:COPYVIO pr WS:PD (probably more suitable) to save User:CORNELIUSSEON the joy of people having an extended discussion on their talk page, with requisite emails (if enabled) and pretty orange banners. Personally, I'm slightly confused as to the wording of the commons-template: if something is in the public domain, how can commercial use of it be restricted? Jude (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

On the general level, you are absolutely correct, but the 1923 date does not apply because the designs remain in constant use and upgrading. For example, everytime a unit goes off to war, it's Heraldic Achievements are prioritized for upgrade due to the new campaigns. Many of IOH's military insignia have dates as recent as 2007, and more recent dates will follow. IOH is a small agency with only 32 personnel. As to the restriction for commercial use, the reason Congress inserted this provision into the law was to stop people from making and selling their own insignia, making use of IOH's designs, without their permission. There are lots of commercial manufacturers who have been given a license to use their designs for commercial use, and the only strings for the license are that IOH gets to provide Quality Control on the products, and they get to police the manufacture and sale of Military Awards on the Limited Use List. That list includes the Medal Of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, Bronze Star, Silver Star, Legion Of Merit, and the Purple heart. The MOH was the reason for creating the list, because forging the MOH became a cottage industry after the Civil War. The others were added recently because of the scandals that have been in the papers. The Purple Heart is also on that list because possession of a Purple Heart infers the receipt of specific governmental benefits. Another restriction is that there are NO licenses available for commercial production of US Government Heraldic Achievements outside of the Uniformed Services, UNLESS Congress has given specific dispensation. Incidentally the Government has started to police the prolific production of products based on IOH designs since 9-11 to put the Genie back in the bottle, but they still have no interest in restricting the use of their designs for non-commercial use specifically because it was Taxpayer Money that was used in their creation in the first place.

New work added[edit]

Gday again.

I am trying to work out whether 001 Infantry Division (United States) Unit History is a published standalone work, part of another published work, or your compilation. You have already created the page that has been moved to The Army Almanac/1st Infantry Division (United States) which is along a similar line. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a consolidation of two closely related CMH publications on the same subject:
My primary work has been to eliminate - as much as possible - duplication of information. The Army Almanac was published only once - 1948 - and CMH has resorted to updating the Lineage and Honors information originally found In the Army Almanac.

I just took a look at the page you cite, and you are correct. the one I just did does duplicate that page. I am willing to merge the second one into the first if that will solve the issue.

Issue deletion at Commons[edit]

I have raised the issue that you addressed to me in the discussion forum at WS:S and Commons:Commons:Village pump. Would you be able to provide specific examples of some of the images that are problematic. Thanks. billinghurst (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The following four files, were placed on Wikicommons to provide a common storage location for CMH Publications being produced over here on Wikisource.
These files have been categorized on Wikicommons in the following category.
Category:Publication Elements of the United States Army
They have been listed for deletion, even though the basic requirements for documentation have been met, as can be attested by others both in the same category, and other CMH images found elsewhere within Wikicommons.

-SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue has been addressed, and there would seem to be a recognition that there are improvements that can be made by the systems. At the same time, that they now want fuller information is good, and we should be looking to add specific data, and helping Commons to comply with the requirements for housing the files. That there is a change of policy through improvement, should be seen in that light, not solely from the viewpoint of our own convenience. In these collaborative spaces, assisting the effort, rather than ignoring good faith requests does not achieve our shared aims. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Addressing what sounds like a Reprimand, let me say this. I have no problem with improving the working environment, but the Wikimedia environment seems to be one where you only hear from others when they have questions, or they have complaints. Part of that is my faut, I know, because I've been a lone wolf for most of my life for lots of reasons, both good and bad. At the same time, The "collaborate spaces" you refer to have grown up around me with almost no fanfare. When I first discovered the Wikimedia world, it was quite by accident. I am writing a book on George Patton from the professional military man's point of view, and I did a Google searh to see what information I could find that I did not already have. I've collected most of the other books on Patton, including the volumes of his papers, and my introduction to IOH and CMH online came about as part of this project. At the time I was still in the National Guard, and both CMH and IOH were still behind Password Protection. The google search introduced me to Wikipedia, and I was surprised that there was almost nothing of a Military nature over there. This was in 2005. Having to focus more time on Work, but still needing something of a intellectual nature to do, I took a break from my boook, and started the military work on Wikipedia. At the time, Commons and the rest were totally unknown, so images were placed over there, along with the articles. Working on a computer has always been intuitive for me, and I tend to be a fast study, so I figured out how to do things by looking at other works, and taking notes. I look up things I need fine tuning on by searching for them, and printing out and binding them for easy use. I've never searched out the so-called "Community" on the Wikisites because I've never been a very chatty prson, and one problem I have with the web is it is much too chatty for my taste. At the same time, it has only been on Wikipedia that a military Group sprang up practically overnight, with no fanfare, and when I've left things on the Group Talk Page, I've rarely gotten any acknowlegement. I brought the same complaint about deletions to them a while back, and I've still not heard any acknowlegement, much less any results. As to "ignoring good faith requests", that is a phrase that I can really laugh at, because the changes in policy that trigger those "requests" were made in a vacuum, and I often only discover them when I trip over them. One susgestion that would take care of that problem would be a two-fold outreach to the various users to get everyone on the same page. Part one would be a monthly electronic periodical, with aditional issues on a more frequent basis when problems take place. Part two would be the establishment of the Portal system that exists over on Wikipedia, or a variant thereof, that would give a single point of contact for the distribution of information. The "Villagepump" blog is totally useless for me because I'm not online enough to use it. For me, the use of Email is the most productive, as I check my email several times a day now that I am totally retired. - SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Understanding the work United States Army: Armor and Cavalry Units[edit]

Gday. I am trying to work out what is happening with the work United States Army: Armor and Cavalry Units. Is that a published work by the organisation? If it is and the subparts are pages like 1st Cavalry Regiment (United States), is it really called that name, and it would seem that the page would be a subpage of the work, rather than sitting at the top level, eg. it probably should be moved to United States Army: Armor and Cavalry Units/1st Cavalry Regiment. Without seeing the work itself it is hard to fully comment, however at this stage it doesn't seem to quite fitting how other works are done on site. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The proper tree is as follows:
  • 1. Portal:US Army Lineage Series
  • 2. Publications
  • • CMH 60-1: ARMOR-CAVALRY: Part 1; Regular Army and Army Reserve
  • • CMH 60-3: Infantry, Part I: Regular Army
  • • CMH 60-4: The Continental Army
  • • CMH 60-5: Air Defense Artillery
  • • CMH 60-7: Armies, Corps, Divisions, and Separate Brigades
  • • CMH 60-9: Military Police
  • • CMH 60-11: Field Artillery
  • • CMH 60-12: Aviation
  • • CMH 60-13: Military Intelligence
  • • CMH 60-14: Maneuver and Firepower: The Evolution of Divisions and Separate Brigades
  • • CMH 60-15: Signal Corps
  • • CMH 60-16: The Organizational History of Field Artillery, 1775-2003
  • • UNITED STATES ARMY: Unit Histories and Heraldries

The unit lists that belong to each individual publication in Paragraph 2 above must – due to several publishing reasons – be produced as a separate volume that functions as a resource for the other volumes are shown in Paragraph 3. Below.

  • 3. Units
  • • United States Army: Adjutant General Unit Histories and Heraldries
  • • Armies
  • • Artillery
  • • United States Army: Armor and Cavalry Units
  • • Aviation Units
  • • Chaplains
  • • Chemical
  • • Civil Affairs Units
  • • Corps
  • • Engineer Units
  • • Finance Units
  • • Infantry Units
  • • Judge Advocate General Units
  • • Medical Department Units
  • • Military History
  • • Military Intelligence Units
  • • Military Police Units
  • • Ordnance and Maintenance Units
  • • Psychological Operations Units
  • • Public Affairs Units
  • • Quartermaster Units
  • • Signal Units
  • • Support/Sustainment Units
  • • Transportation Units
  • • Training Regiments
  • 4. The individual Unit History pages that branch off at Paragraph 3. Above are shown at this level.
  • This is a conundrum that represents the fact that what is easy to publish on paper is hard to do digitally without duplication unless you make use of the positive tools of digital publication.-SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Generally if they are not being produced as a publication and the information is supporting other work we would normally look to host it in the Portal: namespace. We use the main namespace for publications and portals for supporting and collated information. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, but how do you link the publications in the Main Space with the supporting data in the Portal. Incidentally, I didn't start the use of the Portal, someone else did. I started the Army Lineage series in Main Space, but I came on recently to find that it had been moved to a portal. I wasn't aware that Source had started using Portals the way they are used on other Wikisites. I could use some information here. -SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not following what's going on there either. Are you creating new content by mashing up 2 or more online "databases" and making them into one page here on WS or something? I tried to verify publication and content for 6th Calvary Brigade for example and I see you've got extra lneage info plus some flag info that I can't find on the online sites. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I will start off by presenting you with the publication Tree that makes up the US Army Lineage Series that I originally placed farther up this page:
The proper tree is as follows:
  • 1. Portal:US Army Lineage Series
  • 2. Publications
  • • CMH 60-1: ARMOR-CAVALRY: Part 1; Regular Army and Army Reserve
  • • CMH 60-3: Infantry, Part I: Regular Army
  • • CMH 60-4: The Continental Army
  • • CMH 60-5: Air Defense Artillery
  • • CMH 60-7: Armies, Corps, Divisions, and Separate Brigades
  • • CMH 60-9: Military Police
  • • CMH 60-11: Field Artillery
  • • CMH 60-12: Aviation
  • • CMH 60-13: Military Intelligence
  • • CMH 60-14: Maneuver and Firepower: The Evolution of Divisions and Separate Brigades
  • • CMH 60-15: Signal Corps
  • • CMH 60-16: The Organizational History of Field Artillery, 1775-2003
  • • UNITED STATES ARMY: Unit Histories and Heraldries
  • The unit lists that belong to each individual publication in Paragraph 2 above must – due to several publishing reasons – be produced as a separate volume that functions as a resource for the other volumes are shown in Paragraph 3. Below. The US Army Center for Military History faced this same problem, and separated the volumes themselves for that reason.
  • 3. Units
  • • United States Army: Adjutant General Unit Histories and Heraldries
  • • Armies
  • • Artillery
  • • United States Army: Armor and Cavalry Units
  • • Aviation Units
  • • Chaplains
  • • Chemical
  • • Civil Affairs Units
  • • Corps
  • • Engineer Units
  • • Finance Units
  • • Infantry Units
  • • Judge Advocate General Units
  • • Medical Department Units
  • • Military History
  • • Military Intelligence Units
  • • Military Police Units
  • • Ordnance and Maintenance Units
  • • Psychological Operations Units
  • • Public Affairs Units
  • • Quartermaster Units
  • • Signal Units
  • • Support/Sustainment Units
  • • Transportation Units
  • • Training Regiments
  • 4. The individual Unit History pages that branch off at Paragraph 3. Above are shown at this level. USACMH and USAIOH both separated each unit on their respective websites, rather than containing them within the publications they belong to, for the simple reason that it was simpler to do things this way.
  • This is a conundrum that represents the fact that what is easy to publish on paper is hard to do digitally without duplication unless you make use of the positive tools of digital publication.-SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Okie dokey - how about providing an EXACT link for JUST the 6th Cavalry Brigade's content if it is not available as a single public-domain published downloadable document? I will work my way up that tree to try an make sense of all this.
Also is some of this duplicated Wikipedia info? -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I started doing this over on Wikipedia years ago, but they judged it as too much for them. If anything, they will only have the equivalent of a digest.
Army Lineage Series Pages
Armor-Cavalry Book Page This has the primary reason why there are so many pages for this publication. The equivalent page here would be so long as to be hard to read
USACMH 6th Cavalry Brigade Page
Branch Page]
USAIOH Heraldry Page
USAIOH 6th Cavalry Brigade Page]

_SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Portals[edit]

I'm told I should communicate more about this, so this is to let you know that I have moved the page your started, Wikisource:1901–1903—Reforming the Army, to the portal space as Portal:1901–1903—Reforming the Army. It joins one of your other pages, the previously moved page Portal:US Army Lineage Series, as a child of Portal:United States Army. Cheers, AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

[[3]] 17th Signal Operation Battalion[edit]

Would link to find the organization that needs this page and was hoping with your network to shorten the search timeline. The editors of this page do not have a ready network…if you could help someone that needs it or allow us to delete it…thanks…JamAKiska (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)