Talk:2nd Infantry Regiment (United States)

message: I'm not sure why, but there is a separate article, 2nd United States Infantry Regiment (Civil War), specifically about the 2d's ACW service. I would go ahead and redirect it, but there is some detail there that's not in this article. So...does anyone see a need for keeping an article fork specifically about one war? Rklear (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I endorse this merge for the reasons given above. BusterD (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge - 2nd United States Infantry Regiment (Civil War) 

message: GUNNERGRZ, you have reverted or undone three edits of mine within 24 hours, violating Wikipedia's edit warring guidelines. I have responded to your message on my talk page asking you to provide a source for your edit, which you have not. I have left the information you added substantially intact, only asking that you add a source. I invited you on your talk page to discuss these edits on this article's talk page, which you have ignored. Instead, you sent me the following email which could be construed as threatening, quoted below:
The information I added which you removed was factual and supported by reliable sources. Comments on talk pages and even email should be courteous and always assume good faith, which I am striving to do here. I did not remove your edit about the time during which Daniel Burke accepted the commission (a seemingly minor factual point), but added a  template.
Editors are encouraged to work out differences on the article's talk page.  If you have a source for the information you would like to add, please start the discussion here. Since I have been editing on Wikipedia for a few years, I am very willing to work with you to find a resolution. However, you have both ignored my requests to discuss these changes but threatened me via email. I am referring this matter to arbitration for administrative action. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please continue the discussion here, not via email, where all editors can contribute to the conversation. Thanks.-- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Btphelps, I could say the same as you concerning making changes but I will leave that go.  I don't think there was any threat involved, I asked that you not make the changes.  My version did not require a citation, yours did but not to worry I added the source to the Reference section.  My version did not require any sources, it was there under References.  Also Burke was commissioned a 2d Lt on 18 July 1862 not recommended for promotion.  If he was just recommended his commission date would have been 8 November 1862 when he accepted.  Also don't you think it is a bit redundant to have a link to the MOH site in both Notes, which you added and References, which I put in a while ago.  One more thing, you need to review your edit one more time, it needs correcting and I am not going to do it and be accused of changing "your edit".  GUNNERGRZ (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per citations, it is not sufficient to add sources to the Reference section alone. "The policy on sourcing is Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, captions, and sections of articles—without exception; in the event of a contradiction between this page and the policy, the policy takes priority, and this page should be updated to reflect it." You can if you choose use footnotes that utilize parenthetical referencing that refer to the references you've already added. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits to MOH recipient Daniel Burke

message: GUNNERGRZ,
There is no indication in the article that the text comes verbatim from press release.  If the text is quoted verbatim from a source it should be enclosed in quotation marks or a formatted as a block quote.  Further, if it is a direct quote it probably requires a more explicit attribution to the source beyond what is currently provided.  Hope this helps resolve any confusion! Ocalafla (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam 

message: After notifying Wikipedia several times about the quite apparent copyright infringement that has taken place with the 2nd Infantry Regiment history and the inaction from Wikipedia I think they don't really care about it.  Putting a notice at the top of the page has done nothing to correct the problem and in fact it seems to have encouraged one individual, ocalafla, to actually try to put their spin on it so as to make it appear the infringement isn't so bad.  As Wikipedia has said on the subject changing a word here and there doesn't correct the problem.  I think that better than 75% of the article should be deleted or as Wikipedia told me "reverted".  Plagiarism is plagiarism no matter how one tries to spin it.David M Ray (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my response to David on my talk page. I will look more into this but the Wikipedia article could be the source for this document or maybe the same author who made it added it to Wikipedia. The edits look gradual in 2008 which may indicate it is not a copyright infringement. I will take a closer look tomorrow.--NortyNort  (Holla) 20:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

text: The document in question is a "backwards copy" of the Wikipedia article, no copyright violation. I tagged the page above, you can see a detailed explanation there.--NortyNort  (Holla) 21:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Infringement

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2nd Infantry Regiment (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100828175238/http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=54243 to http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=54243
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified