User talk:Bondoa6

VA-65

I do not belive this data to be copywritten. It comes from the US Navy Historical Center,and there is no copywrite on the document...it is done by an agency of the USA.

Agreed. The speedy deletion tag has been removed by an administrator, and all is well. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for contributing. If I can help with anything, please leave a message on my talk page. Vectro 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the db copyvios on 65 and 42, you were right in that those were in the public domain however it would be beneficial to list the source of the information noting it's in the domain. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Bondoa6, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Vectro 16:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VT-10, VT-86

These pages were speedily deleted by an administrator. See the deletion log for VT-10 and VT-86. I have created requests for undeletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 27#VT-10 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 27#VT-86. You can expidite the undeletion of these articles by leaving votes on that page. Undeletion requires three 'undelete' votes within 5 days.

In future, when you first upload a new article from a US government source, it's probably a good idea to put a note on the talk page about the copyright status of the source material, to protect the article from overzealous admins.

Cheers, Vectro 01:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can mark pages as having content from the Naval Historical Center by using the template {{NHC}}, which makes an entry in the article like this:

This article includes information collected from the Naval Historical Center, which, as a US government publication, is in the public domain.

Use of this template will probably ensure that your new pages are not deleted for copyright reasons. Cheers, Vectro 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually those two I support the copyvio deletion of as globalsecurity.org is NOT a US government entity. –– Lid^(Talk)

They were taken directly from VT-10 and VT-86's offical US Navy web site..now if globalsecurity is taking their stuff from them, and copywriting, it is wrong. I think that before you delete, you should try to tarck down the original info source.The link is as follows:

https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/tw6/vt10/history.asp

https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/tw6/vt86/history.asp

Perhaps, but the issue is now rather murky. At least one organization has published the materials with an "obvious copyright notice", so the articles can't be undeleted without a clear statement that they are in fact government works. I have created a page on this dispute, detailing my contacts to the government. You should at this point do one of two things:

Make your points known on the request for undeletion: I have been advocating on your behalf, but the point will be clearer if you make it); or
Recreate the articles without using the texts in question.

Cheers, Vectro 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me, or are there some seriously over excited people about this stuff? One guy called me lazy...may be, if its in the rules, its in the rules. I will be perfectly frank, this kind of stuff turns peoople off. i was telling a friend that uses Wiki and he thought they [the deleters] were over the edge...if the info is pubklic domain, no matter how it gets there, it should be allowed. Unless wiki re-writes its "consititution". Your thoughts?Bondo 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think once a decision to delete has been made, the original doesn't want to reverse him- or herself, and other administrators are loathe to second-guess their peer. If the naval article is of good quality (it seems to be), then my view is that using it as the base of a wikipedia article is just good reuse. Maybe it's lazy, but in the sense of "efficient", not in the sense of "apathetic". Vectro 19:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I agree with your last comments on my talk page. Even if its reuse, it is start, and maybe soemone with more time can expand. Beats having soemone search and not find anything...and if they don't want to take the time to learn how to post, then we still have missing entries. I think you are the most levelheaded one (administrator) out there...once again, thanks for your help!Bondo 20:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hah, actually I'm not an administrator, just an editor who happens to specialize in counter-vandalism. Vectro 20:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the conversation on my talk page, Xoloz (talk · contribs) closed the request for undeletion early (and without concensus). It's tempting to fight the establishment on this issue to get the articles undeleted, but I think the best thing is probably to simply recreate them, and properly cite the source -- put {{NHC}} at the top of the page, and provide a citation to the original source at the bottom. I think it's unlikely anyone would delete the page a second time if the source is properly cited. Cheers, Vectro 01:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Logo lrg.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo lrg.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 10:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:TRARON86.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TRARON86.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

VT-10, VT-86 redux.

Hi there- There are two articles the VT-10 and VT-86 that i would like to have searchable...right now, the person that built the Vermont Road series of entries has everything going to those...most people who will be searching these two squadrons, will search by VT-10, and VT-86....can we do a disambiguition page for these so that whoever searches will at least get a choice of where they go...? if so, how do i construct one?Bondo 18:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any disambiguation page for VT-86, presumably since there's no Vermont Route 86. But I have created a page VT-10 which links to Vermont Route 10 without being a redirect there. Feel free to add article text to VT-10 and VT-86, and, as always, let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Vectro 19:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good baseline article to use for future squadron articles

When creating a flying squadron article in the future take a look at VMFA-314 as a pretty good baseline article when looking for a format. It will look a bit sharper and save you the hassle of figuring out where to put all of the info. Also a good idea to go with a full prose section vice bulleting everything in a history section. There are also a host of good Navy squadron articles as well. User:Wilsbadkarma is the resident go to guy for these. Drop him a line and I am sure he will help you out. Cheers--02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:86logo.gif

File:86logo.gif is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:86logo.gif. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:86logo.gif]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:65 1.gif

Thank you for uploading File:65 1.gif. 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 website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —fetch ·comms 21:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:AtkRon65 Grumman A-6.gif

The file File:AtkRon65 Grumman A-6.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]