User talk:Rover9164

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to United States Army Rangers have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: United States Army Rangers was changed by Rover9164 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.866087 on 2024-02-02T21:48:13+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to United States Army Rangers did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at 75th Infantry Regiment (Ranger), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 18:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grand Lodge of Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles S. Taylor. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rover9164! I noticed your contributions to United States Army Rangers and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to remind you we have a Manual of Style in the Wikipedia, and I'm pretty sure we don't allow resizing (shrinking) of references in the article space. MOS:SMALLFONT seems to cover this. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a table. I need space on the table. Rover9164 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the table is overly packed if an already small reference tag is causing a space issue. Really, I've never seen anyone shrink these. We need to think about the readers and their ability to see them. Not everyone has 20-20 vision. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Texas special operations units, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources.
Note: this also applies to the identical edit you made to Long-range penetration. Please read the Special mission unit article carefully, you'll note which units are listed there so far, and why. It has to with sourcing, (like all content on WP). Thank you - wolf 10:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to United States Army Rangers. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, unsourced original research and commentary on whether an organization is "tab elitist" is inappropriate for inclusion in the article. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at United States Army Rangers, you may be blocked from editing. Do not continue to insert unsourced, non-neutral language into the article. Accusations of "tab elitism" are inappropriate content for Wikipedia. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, do not continue to reinsert this language in particular: "However, the US Army Ranger Association (USARA) is a tab elitist organization instead of a ranger unit organization," as well as accusing them of "wrongly using The Institute of Heraldry (an Army insignia and symbolism authority) instead of Official DA Organizational Authority (OA) letters" (which constitutes WP:SYNTH); and "somehow only recognizes...". This is all inappropriate editorializing violating Wikipedia's policies requiring a neutral point of view, as well as being unsupported by direct claims from a reliable source. This is not the place for you to fight your personal battles against the USARA. Additionally, in your edits, you removed the direct link to one of the references and replaced it with a direct link to the archive dot org link; this is unhelpful as we already include the archive link, and this edit took away context for readers about where the source was originally located (by removing the website's name). Finally the portion about "stripping the ranger designation" was unsourced, and the language inflammatory; we can include the information if it's properly sourced, but it needs to be in more neutral language that correlates with that in use by a reliable source. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Fixed it. I will not omit the USARAs use of The Institute of Heraldary (TIOH) in place of the Center of Military History (CMH). The TIOH is a symbolism and regalia authority not lineage. My citations have official DA records showing they are all ranger companies, yet somehow the USARA only includes d/151 and D/65 without any explanation for reasoning other than claiming their bylaws use the TIOH. Neither of the two units have heraldic affiliation with the 75th regiment either, but all 8 companies did have ranger TOE and I posted proof through the archive.org citations. I will not delete my citations. They need to be known. Rover9164 (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. You have an agenda. Rover9164 (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse others of "having an agenda" for asking you to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, one of which is the requirement that you assume good faith in your edits. Your claim that "the TIOH is a symbolism and regalia authority not lineage" may be true, but it constitutes disallowed synthesis unless there's a source directly making that claim in the context of the USARA's usage. Nobody's asking to "delete your citations", you're being asked to provide accurate citations that support the direct claims being made, and to make those citations directly (and be backed up with an archive) rather than pointing to the archive alone. I'll be blunt with you: making statements like "I will not delete my citations. They need to be known." and being insistent about what you will not omit here, combined with accusing others of having an agenda, is an example of unacceptable "ownership" of content and tendentious editing does not bode well for your editing future here. As I've already told you, this is not the place for you to be fighting whatever battle you think you're fighting. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You removed facts and citations. The USARA states it plainly on their webpage which i cited months ago. It says: "USARA does not determine the units that fall within the lineage of the 75th Ranger Regiment. Those designations are made by the US Army’s Institute of Heraldry, and currently include the following...". The TIOH is a regalia authority and not a lineage authority. Rover9164 (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing. Please cease casting aspersions and make sure your edits are in compliance with our policies, or they'll be removed. Really quite simple. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

click on "more" and read it yourself. https://ranger.org/regular-membership/ Rover9164 (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to upload my emails with USARA on archive.org and show those too? Rover9164 (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, as you should be fully aware that those would not be considered an acceptable source here per our verifiability and reliable sourcing policies. Your emails are irrelevant. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TIOH wiki page states "The activities of The Institute of Heraldry encompass research, design, development, standardization, quality control, and other services relating to official symbolic items—seals, decorations, medals, insignia, badges, flags, and other items awarded to or authorized for official wear or display by federal government personnel and agencies. Limited research and information services concerning official symbolic items are also provided to the general public." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Institute_of_Heraldry

CMH wiki page states "The center also determines the official designations for army units and works with the army staff during force reorganizations" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Center_of_Military_History Rover9164 (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki pages are not reliable sources. And our policy on synthesis requires that there be a source which makes the connection between these two things. Simply stating that Source A says one thing, Source B says another, and using that to make a conclusion C that is not directly stated by either source, is not acceptable. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK ill get it from Army regulations, cite it with an archive. Rover9164 (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, if the Army regulations actually support the claim directly, without synthesis. Do not cite directly to the archive. Cite to where the regulation is posted, and then add an archive backup to it. This is how users can determine the reliability of the source. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cited it from their "about" pages. The Wiki for CMH copied it word for word Rover9164 (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) -- my man, I'm not going to argue all day with you about what sources that we can't use say. It's your responsibility to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, and to edit in compliance with them. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stop linking directly to archive.org links in citations, when a pre-existing permanent source exists. Per our policy on citing sources, we should link directly to the original source and have the archive as a backup; when using the appropriate template (as is in this case), the link will automatically be switched to the archive if it goes dead. By linking directly to the archive for the url= parameter, you're breaking that functionality and making the reader unable to easily identify and assess the reliability of the source; it also causes a data mismatch when the other parameters still relate to data from the original url. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an uploaded copy to archive not a web page archive. It is an army regulation that is 60 years old. If it was a web archive the URL would start off at web.archive.org these are files uploaded therefore the url is archive.org. Get your facts straight before sticking your foot in your mouth. Rover9164 (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the policy on citing sources: "To help prevent dead links, persistent identifiers are available for some sources. Some journal articles have a digital object identifier (DOI); some online newspapers and blogs, and also Wikipedia, have permalinks that are stable. When permanent links aren't available, consider making an archived copy of the cited document when writing the article; on-demand web archiving services such as the Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org/save)"---->web.archive.org vs archive.org<----- Rover9164 (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.org/create/ vs https://web.archive.org/save Rover9164 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be misunderstanding. The original url for the source in question is https://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/FM101-10-2(75).pdf, which is a direct link to the PDF on the Berlin Information Center for Transatlantic Security website. This is an acceptable, reliable source for us to cite. The archive for that link is https://web.archive.org/web/20221107214215/https://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/FM101-10-2(75).pdf. When you make a direct archival copy at https://archive.org/details/fm-101-10-2-75/page/5-10/mode/2up, you are no longer citing to the original source, which means that the user has no way to assess the reliability of the BITS source being referenced. That's what I'm referring to. The link does not "lead to nowhere" and I did indeed look for myself. I can view the PDF on the BITS site just fine. On-demand archiving services are for generating backup perma-links, not as the primary location for hosting content that is still live. If you're citing directly to an archive that you personally just uploaded, that is a violation of our policies against self-published original research. For most citation templates, archive locations are entered using the |archive-url=, |archive-date= and |url-status= parameters. The primary link is switched to the archive link when |url-status=dead. This retains the original link location for reference. I've asked you repeatedly to please stop removing the direct link to the original source in the url= parameter. Please do not do so further. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not self published research. It's a digital artifact of someone else's research. The original source belongs to the DoD. It was obtained through FOIA and the Berlin Information Center for Transatlantic Security archived the file for themselves along with others. Some one archived the same FOIA release on arcive.org too. If it did upload the file, I didn't write FM 101-10-2-75 in 1974. I wasn't even born when it was written. How is someone supposed to cite an extremely obscure source normally unavailable to the public, and be scrutinized to it's very existence, without uploading the artifact to prove it's existence? Take a newspaper clipping for example, this entry has multiple citations for newspaper articles that are 60 years old. If someone were to just shit a citation out their ass I wouldn't believe it unless I could click on the hyperlink and read the obviously untampered artifact as I am reading the wiki. I don't care if it is not from the original source, the original source is a paper copy in a library somewhere. so long as the file is untampered. FM 101-10-2-75 is 462 page document too. I added the archive.org link because the url immediately lands on the page where the citation resides. You obviously don't like what I am citing because it points out something you feel damaging. What ranger bat were you in? Are you a member of USARA? What ranger school class were you in? Rover9164 (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are alot of rangers out there that want to hide that national guardsmen were authorized to wear black berets(by TIOH), were designated as ranger companies through TOE, wore unauthorized (company) ranger scrolls like the ranger battalions did from Vietnam until 1986, and were able to call themselves rangers and recognized as rangers by the DoD. There are CGSC dissertations on LRS and historical books on LRRP and LRS that completely omit their contribution and existence. The only references and citations that can be used are obscure newspaper clippings, official DA OA letters released through FOIA, out of print books, and archived unit pages documenting their history. If you tell a soldier today, or any know-it-all veteran today, there were 8 federally recognized ranger units in the National Guard they think your full of shit. The USARA recognizes many predecessor units but they will not under any circumstance recognize all but two NG ranger companies, and their rational is deeply flawed for a reason. They like to hide this like it's illegitimate child. Are you one of them? What ranger battalion were you in? What is your Ranger class #? Are you a member of USARA? What do you have against people knowing there were 8 national guard ranger companies during a 20 period? How do you feel about the NDAA23 looking into forming a national guard ranger battalion? Rover9164 (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to upload a copy to a file-archiving website, and then link directly to that, instead of linking directly to the original source, then yes, it is quite literally self-published research. Your insistence on hiding the location of the original source (the BITS) is disruptive and non-constructive. You are required to follow our policies and procedures on reliable sourcing here whether you like them or not. Your lack of willingness to educate yourself and understand those rules is your choice, not anyone elses. Blaming others for your own failure to follow the rules isn't the Ranger standard either, FWIW. Meanwhile casting aspersions about other editors motives because you couldn't be bothered to follow the rules is also unacceptable. It's irrelevant to Wikipedia whether I was a Ranger or not. This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so long as they edit by the rules. Knock it off, or you're going to have a very short stay here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have is that an original source is not electronic. Who can I talk to that can resolve this. You seem to interpret the rules in your favor. I don't trust your judgement. Rover9164 (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia -- users here are expected to resolve issues amongst themselves in accordance with policy and guidelines. I'm an admin (also known as a sysop) here, and it's my responsibility to ensure that those policies and guidelines are enforced and to prevent disruptive editing that's harmful to the project. I don't have a "side" here -- I'm trying to get you to abide by the rules. For instance, if you have an "original source", you cannot simply self-publish that source and then use it in the article. We have numerous policies and standards around verifiability, and reliable sourcing that typically disallow the use of self-published sources; and original research is not welcome here either. This is you need to provide a link to a reliable source (such as BITS) hosting the information, and we can then provide a backup archival link to it, rather than self-publishing the information and linking to it directly. This is the standard process here on Wikipedia, and it's not optional; there's no manager you can demand to speak to that will break those rules for you. I need you to stop, take a deep breath, and understand that what you're doing is disruptive. It breaks our archiving process, it prevents readers from assessing the credibility and reliability of the original source, and it's not helpful. The version I was reverting back to still provides the same link to the same PDF, but with all the additional information retained. The version you were edit-warring over does none of these things; you're literally arguing and being disruptive over nothing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to get into a subject matter dispute with you. This is not the place for you to fight your battles over the National Guard ranger units. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.... Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Further, you're expected to assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree.. That means understanding that not every edit you make is going to be successful, particularly if it's against policy; and that making accusations and casting aspersions against other editors without assuming good faith, will not be tolerated. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking you to get into a subject matter dispute. I screwed up with two lines of opinions and you dont like me changing a citation that I created months ago. Duly noted, won't do it again. I am letting you know I am fully aware of people that do not like me posting facts about NG ranger units. You may very well be one of them. I won't break any more rules moving forward. The only battle here is with facts. Much of those on this very subject have been suppressed in the last 35 years. Rover9164 (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk: Rover9164. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]