User talk:E2a2j

Sandbox[edit]

G vs g[edit]

>In every aircraft I've ever flown, it's been displayed (and discussed in manuals) as a capital "G"<

Maybe, but great G is wrong for g-force!

Gravitational constant G
g-force --HDP (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier Air Wing[edit]

Hello. User BillCJ thought you might be an expert on US carrier operations and I had a question that he could not answer. Therfore I hope you might be able to. I updated the Carrier Air Wing [1] article on the German Wikipedia. Concerning the personnel I found no description of what the "air transfer officers (ATO)" and the "air wing line leading petty officers" do (to be able to translate the terms). Can you help? Thanks - Cobatfor 08:25 UTC, 24 June 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 08:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Air Transfer Officer is typically a Lieutenant Commander assigned to the carrier Air Department. He runs the Air Transfer Office. He coordinates (with the ship's Air Operations Officer, Operations Officer, and Air Boss) everything (people, equipment, postal mail, supplies, etc.) that will be transferred via C-2 or helicopter. Obviously, there is much competition for what gets to go via air. 'When' the CODs come and go must also be closely coordinated so as to not disrupt strike operations.

Line LPOs: The "line shop" refers to the squadron Plane Captains, who work the "flight line" (ashore) and carrier flight deck. These young sailors prepare their aircraft for flight, do pre and post flight inspections, ride the brakes when the aircraft is moved, wash the jets, etc. This is an entry level job. After some time, PCs usually go on to become aircraft mechanics. Their leader, the Line LPO (and the Line Chief Petty Officer) coordinates their efforts. Because the PCs are a young bunch, they need lots of "care and feeding" and are prone to getting in trouble off duty. This makes the LPO's job all the more interesting and critical! There are usually two Line LPOs per squadron, one day and one night. Probably more information than you wanted to know… Cheers. E2a2j (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! Now I know what these lads do (but I still have to translate it...). And your little this and that was really interesting. Thanks a lot - Cheers Cobatfor 21:40 UTC, 24 June 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 21:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I wanted to ask, why did you remove the CVW-11 composition from the CVW page to CVW-11. It was posted there to show the typical composition on an air wing, with squadrons and personnel. Especially the personnel is not available anymore now in the CVW article. - Thanks and Cheers Cobatfor 14:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cobatfor, I am currently re-writing the Carrier Air Wing article. I will include historical and current composition. I did not think it appropriate to single out CVW-11, particularly the name of he Cag. Anyway, please take a look at what I post and let me know what you think (or edit mercilessly!). Cheers backatcha.E2a2j (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! (Only that in 1965 VAHs did not fly any A-5s anymore) It was actually a shame that a German (me...) more or less had to write an article about a US Carrier Air Wing... I wonder, as CVW-17 will probably be assigned to CVN-70, if this will lead to a change of tail code. The last Pacific fleet air wing with an "A" tail code was CVW-16 in 1971. Cheerio Cobatfor 21:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix. I still have to clean it up some and put in the cites. I don't think CVW-17 will change their tail code, but I will check as I know plenty of those guys.E2a2j (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I "edited mercilessly" (a little bit). However, as you know the CVW-17 guys, can you ask what squadrons are or will be assigned to CVW-17? Thanks Cobatfor (talk) -- 19:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again! I found this news [2] on the CVN-70 website, making it appear that CVW-17 will depart in 2010 with a mix of CVW-17 and CVW-8 squadrons. Do you have any other news? Happy holidays Cobatfor (talk) -- 22:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion[edit]

I thought you might be interested in the last discussion at Talk:Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T-34 Mentor[edit]

If you can, would you take a look at at your edits here at 800x600 screen resolution? I think then you'll understnd my issue, and why I made the changes that I made with the images. By the way, I did keep the image you added, but removed one I added a few months back. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it was important to have a prominent Turbo picture as 100% of the US Navy T-34s are Charlies and have been for decades. Although it looks very similar to the older aircraft, the Charlie is actually completely different - engine, fuel system, landing gear, avionics, etc. Even the internal structure/skeleton is substantially different. Agree that the placement was bad; thanks for the fix. E2a2j (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to move that Charlie pic to the Lead spot, but I think the one that is there of the Bravo is a better picture, esp in angle and background. I'll look around and see if I can find a better one of a CHarlie to put in the lead.

Btw, I've been mulling splitting of the T-34C to its own page. THe main problem is having enough content to fill out both articles after the split, and we don't have that as yet. But as the article is expanded, we will hopefully get to that point in the future. I've also considered splitting of the dedicated carrier trainer versions of combat aircraft to their own pages, such as the TA-4J (and perhaps F), and the TF-9J. I split off the Zephyr carrier version of the Magister last month, but the others have a ways to go. If any of those projects seem like something you'd want to be involved in, let me know. - BillCJ (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

E2, there is a merge proposal at Talk:Landing Signal Officer#Merger proposal, to merge the Aircraft Director page with Landing Signal Officer. Any opinion or comments would be welcome. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shooter image[edit]

An image you uploaded, Image:Shooter2.jpg is up for FAC. Comment at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Catapult Officer. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Prairie Fire[edit]

Hello, I was working on your new article, but then I found that there's already a huge detailed page on the topic: Action in the Gulf of Sidra (1986), so I redirected Operation Prairie Fire over there. De728631 (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I coulndn't find ref to it otherwise. E2a2j (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speicher[edit]

Just my 2 cents:

I'm a Navy F18 pilot that flew in Desert Storm. I knew Spike.
I believe that the consensus of the intellegence community and the USN is that Spike was downed by a MiG-25.
I think that it is notable for mention for this article.
I've never seen any evidence of (or reason for) a "cover up".
These citations are pretty solid: http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000588922/0000588922_0001.gif, and the thoroughly documented book "No One Left Behind: The LT. Comdr. Michael Scott Speicher Story" by Amy Waters Yarsinske (Publisher: NAL Trade (May 6, 2003), ISBN-10: 0451208676).
My opinion might not be worth the full 2 cents...E2a2j (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Hultgreen[edit]

E2, you might be interested in the Kara Hultgreen article. I've been trying to keep an eye on it for at least a year, but without direct knowledge/experience on the subject, it can be difficult at times. Mostly I've been keeping the obvious uncited material out. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of unencyclopedic stuff[edit]

Quite apart from the fact that your "Lots m-n" articles gave absolutely no clue as to what they were about, I believe that their content was unencyclopedic. Please publish this stuff on your own website (or see comparison of wiki farms for places where you could post the wiki markup unchanged) and link to it from the relevant Wikipedia article/s. I have deleted five redirects but all the lists are all in User:E2a2j/sandbox. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

aSHLEY[edit]

I assume from the weird title and its listing above as a sandbox item, that WWII aSHLEY was intended as a user file. Please note: a) user your pages must all start with User:E2a2j/ and b) copyright violations are still copyright violations in user pages. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was done on the fly as a quick stash of info.

Odd VFA-211 edits[edit]

Do you have any idea what this nonsense is about? I assume it's somekind of squadron rivalry, but I really don't know. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got it right, Bill. Squadron non-sense. "Mutha" is a trophy that is awarded anually to a fighter squadron based on "spirit" as determined by the Fleet Replacement Squadron CO (or his wife). Once it is won, it is great sport for the other squadrons to try to steal it. Squadrons attempt to/steal other squadron's prized possessions (the "bones" of -103, the Bull head of -37, the wildcat of -131, etc.). Needless to say, it's a huge discrace if your stuff is swiped. Those things are photographed in all manner of compromising/unflattering positions. These guys aren't really trying to vandalize wikipedia, they're just trying to raz thier rivals. Apologize on thier behalf!E2a2j (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's what I figured. I guess it's a sign of WP's popularity too. I understand theey aren't trying to vandalize WP per se, but the result is the same. I'll let a few admins know if the edits continues to be a problem. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navy question[edit]

Hi, I see you're listed at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by military branch#U.S._Navy, and— Well, first of all, thank you so much for your service. But that's not why I'm writing. :-) I wonder whether you can answer help to answer my question currently at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#US_Navy_procedure_when_boarding_a_vessel? Thanks..—msh210℠ 22:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered as best I can. I prefer to arrive and depart the ship at the controls of an FA-18 Horntet!E2a2j (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much.—msh210℠ 19:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Smo.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Smo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of units of the United States Navy[edit]

Hi E2a2j. Firstly as a Kiwi let me say it's great to have you guys (the CVWs) out there. And thanks for your work on Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic - great to have these things written up well. If you get the chance to take a look at or fix the above article at any point, it would be good, as the SNDL is sometimes a bit hard to understand at points. Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 09:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot, Thanks for the appreciation. You are absolutely correct - the SNDL is very difficult to keep track of. Problem is that Navy units have two chains of command, operational and administrative, and they change quite often. I'll take a swipe at it. E2a2j (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks E2a2j. I've stuck with SNDL version listing Fleet Chain of Command for my edits, and yes am aware that for example a VFA would both report to itš CVW and to Strike Fighter Wing (Lant or Pac), but now only Lant if I understand correctly. Looking at the SNDL under the numbered fleets, had another question for you. Eg the latest, version April 2009, Sixth Fleet has 'BATFORSIXTHFLT,' and never lists "CTF-60,' but then lists CTF 63 without listing SERVFORSIXTHFLT. Is there a reason some Forces are listed without their TF identifier, and others simply as CTF whatever? Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 14:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot, with regard to chains of command: a VFA commanding officer reports only to his CAG - the guy who writes his fitness report! He really only interacts with CSFWL when he's shore based, swapping airplanes/parts/etc. I believe you might misunderstand the Lant/Pac thing. CSFWP and CSFWL are coequals. Actually, one's more equal than the other...Pac is the "lead" in this case, meaning that he carries 51% of the vote if it comes down to a tie break. As a Lant VFA type, I would have absolutley no interaction with CSFWP. The numbered fleets are strange animals. The typically command very few, if any, permanent forces/ships. BF6F is analogous to CTF60, which could have ZERO ships in it. As a Carrier Strike Force leaves the east coast on deployment, they're under C2F control. As they pass through the SOG (Gibralter), they "chop" to C6F and become CTF-61 (or CTF-6x). When they enter the Suez, they "chop" to C5F, etc. It's a bit confusing, even (especially?) for those actually changing time zones, titles and bosses. Sorry if I haven't especially cleared things up. If you look at my user page, you'll see that I have a bunch of stuff there from this project - I'll get to it when the weather isn't so nice outside! Please let me know if I can clarify anything more immediately. Ciao.E2a2j (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks E2a2j for that prompt reply. Not having looked CSFWP up, I had thought it had done what Fighter Wing Pac had done earlier as the F-14s went away - dissolved and merged into Fighter Wing Lant. I well understand that type wings on each coast have nothing to do with each other. I have a reasonable understanding of the operating fleet organisation - indeed I wrote much of the intro to United States Navy operating forces organization saying much of what you said above. My question is the titling of the subordinate TFs. There appear from the SNDL to be no hard-and-fast rules why BATFORSIXTHFLT is referred to as that, and not TF 60, and why TF 63 and not SERVFORSIXTHFLT. Are you aware of any such arcane rule? Sorry to keep on going over and over this question, but there's certain things I cannot seem to fully understand, despite having read around the subject quite a bit. Best wishes for the weather over there & kind regards from the UK, Buckshot06(prof) 12:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I don't know why we do that! If I come across something I'll let you know. Cheers.E2a2j (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Naval aviator name patch.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Naval aviator name patch.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Citation Barnstar[edit]

		The Citation Barnstar
		I award you the citation barnstar for your work on United States Naval Aviator, RP459 (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Men in Black, Thomas Jefferson, Wall of Separation[edit]

To see the statement of Thomas Jefferson regarding a wall of separation between church and state, please check this quote from the book, "Men in Black" by Mark Levin.

Levin quotes from the letter of Thomas Jefferson to Baptist in Danbury, Connecticut, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Please keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson, our greatest president, advised, question boldly even the existence of a God ... . Also remember that Thomas Jefferson was called the Infidel from Virginia prior to his election as president by the religious people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RHB100 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:John T. Hayward.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:John T. Hayward.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disbanded VS Disestablished[edit]

RE: F-14 Tomcat. Hi there, I know it's kind of a US Navy's habit (seriously, I don't know who could come up with such a term that is already in use primarily by the church~?!) to use the term "disestablished" when it comes to the deactivation of a flying squadron. Of course, the USAF has been using the term "deactivated" all along when it comes to such issue and is not much different from "disbanded". But if you do a search in any online dictionary, you will see that the term "disbanded" comes closer to the actual meaning than "deactivated" or the ridiculously coined "disestablished", so I would appreciate if you could leave the correct word as it was. Remember the WP guideline: omit needless word and keep things simple. Thank you. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 17:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas H. Miller[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Thomas H. Miller, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/thmillerjr.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Thomas H. Miller[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Thomas H. Miller, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/thmillerjr.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Thomas H. Miller and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Thomas H. Miller, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Thomas H. Miller with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Thomas H. Miller. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Thomas H. Miller saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!

While not a word-for-word copy, it still reads as a close paraphrase which means it still violates copyright. Usually it's much easier to rewrite sufficiently to avoid copyvio if you're working from 2 or 3 sources, instead of just one. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tailhook[edit]

E2A, could you have a look at the Tailhook article? An IP has been repeatedly adding an unsourced, poorly written section, per this latest diff. Is there anything that can be salvaged, rewritten and sourced? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, E2a2j/Carrier Strike Group[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, E2a2j/Carrier Strike Group. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Carrier Strike Group. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Carrier Strike Group - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. GILO ^{ACCIDENT &}_EMERGENCY 19:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that if you are trying to create a user subpage to work on this article, it was created earlier today at User:E2a2j/Carrier Strike Group. GILO ^{ACCIDENT &}_EMERGENCY 19:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was trying to put it onto a user subpage. Unfortunately, I screwed up a second time before I saw your note. Thanks. E2a2j (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CTF 28[edit]

Hi E2a2j, thanks for your mention of CTF 28 being CSFT-Atlantic. Would you mind please adding a WP:Reliable Source to the CSFTA article noting that CTF 28 is CSFTA and providing a reference? Thanks and Happy New Year, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of the Aerial Refueling drogue and probe section[edit]

Thanks for getting the grammar, etc correct. I knew what I had wrote, but I can see where it could confuse other readers. Again, thanks for taking the time to correct it. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:John T. Hayward.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:John T. Hayward.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:USNavy CV1 approach to carrier.jpg needs authorship information[edit]

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:USNavy CV1 approach to carrier.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|E2a2j}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
or use the {{own}} template.

If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Oneiros (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link in article 'Commander, Naval Air Forces'[edit]

Hi. I tried to fix the dead links in 'Commander, Naval Air Forces', but there was one that I couldn't fix. I marked it with {{Dead link}}. Can you help fix the last dead link?

Dead: http://www.cnaf.navy.mil/about.asp

You added this in May 2010.
I tried to load this link on 10 March, 12 March, 14 March and today, but it never worked.
This copy from the archives might be good.

Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:USNavy CV1 approach to carrier.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:USNavy CV1 approach to carrier.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Integrated Launch And Recovery Television Surveillance System[edit]

The article Integrated Launch And Recovery Television Surveillance System has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Area 51, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Restricted Area (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Integrated Launch And Recovery Television Surveillance System for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Integrated Launch And Recovery Television Surveillance System is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated Launch And Recovery Television Surveillance System until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

601st Air Operations Center[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of 601st Air Operations Center, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: 601st Air and Space Operations Center. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:FLOS vs IFLOS.JPG[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:FLOS vs IFLOS.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 01:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rasmussen naval aviaiton space.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rasmussen naval aviaiton space.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]