User talk:Marcd30319/Archive 2011

DYK nomination of Carrier Strike Group Fourteen

Hello! Your submission of Carrier Strike Group Fourteen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -danjel (talk to me) 12:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Carrier Strike Group Nine

Hello! Your submission of Carrier Strike Group Nine at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Carrier Strike Group Nine

On 5 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carrier Strike Group Nine, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the U.S. Navy's Carrier Strike Group Nine is the first to deploy an entire LAMPS helicopter squadron onboard its aircraft carrier (pictured)? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contribution Victuallers (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi Marc! Long time no talk. Happy late new year, and I hope real life is treating you well. I see you've finally archived your talk page. ;-) Anyway, I have been seeing your articles on the main page -- they are great reads, and I can't wait for more. See ya around, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A belated Happy New Year & a question

Ed, thank you for the New Year's salutations, and I have question.

I recently did Foal Eagle which, if you look at the article's talk page, had quite a number of article links. Foal Eager is what I would characterize as a near current event in so far as the sourcing is limited only to the Internet. I did an extensive web search, and the principal source was GlobalSecurity.org which draws mostly on DOD news releases, with many no longer available elsewhere. I am consequently curious about why this article was adjudged to be a Start article because referencing and citation were not met. I can assure you that there is no much left to cultivate, and I did do the citations correctly. Ditto this regarding the Korean Project.
As part of my ongoing effort to create Carrier Strike Group articles, I recently completed Carrier Strike Group Fifteen, and I followed the same approach in its research and development as I have in my previous carrier strike group articles which have all been adjudged as B-Class article, with Carrier Strike Group Nine was a noteworthy example that could be a potential A-List or FA article. Admittedly, Carrier Strike Group Fifteen was an anomalous article since it was created for the Ronald Reagan strike group, it never deployed overseas, and it was disestablished. However, for completeness, I wrote this article, and I used the same approach that I did for all of my previous carrier strike group articles. Yet, Carrier Strike Group Fifteen was adjudged as not meeting referencing and citation, coverage and accuracy, and structure by the Military History assessor, and not meet on all five criteria by the Ship Project assessor, although my approach was the same as my previous article.

Could you review and advise. As you know, the articles that I write represent a major commitment of time and effort, and I want to do the best that I can. Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Marc, you're welcome. :-) You assessed Foal Eagle yourself but forgot to add a |class=. The reviewer used your assessment (with three no's) and added "start" to |class=. It's a B, and I've edited the rating to reflect that. In the future, leave the |B1= , |B2= , etc. blank. The only thing is that you should expand the lead, but I'm not going to hold up B-class based on that.

CSG9 is definitely a B-class article. I don't see how B1 isn't met, so I've reassessed this article as well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Carrier Strike Group Fourteen

On 10 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carrier Strike Group Fourteen, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Carrier Strike Group Fourteen is currently the only U.S. carrier strike group that does not have an assigned aircraft carrier or carrier air wing? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Errors in CSG articles

Hi Marc; happy new year and thanks for these new CSG articles. Just wanted to ask you to be a bit careful when you copy slabs of text from the old articles. Please be very careful with the ISIC section; twice you've copied the ISIC so it says 'ComCSG 11 is ISIC of the ships of ComCSG 9.' Also, I've just had to change a pipelink when you linked Third Fleet while the pipelink said Second Fleet. Please be more careful; they're great articles, and it's a pity to spoil them with small mistakes. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could help me with one other thing; for a CSG flagship changeover you listed two refs - neither of which talked about the changeover at all [1] Would you mind explaning this? I do not want to have to go through every CSG article checking all the references... Buckshot06 (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to clarify something. The way the infobox is worded, the 'HSTCSG' is part of Carrier Group 2 or Carrier Strike Group 2. But the named CSGs do not exist independently of the CarGru or CarStkGru. There's only one rear admiral, with his staff, aboard the carrier. His title was Commander Carrier Group 2 and is now Commander Carrier Strike Group 2. He reports to numbered fleets for admin and operations. Why are you continuing to reinsert that the HSTCSG is part of Carrier Group 2? The HSTCSG is actually another name for Carrier Group 2 - HSTCSG and Carrier Group 2 are exactly the same thing! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buck, allow me to outine my approach and objective and my intentions for this article and the other carrier strike group articles:

It is to create an article on Carrier Division Two and integrate the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group (HSTCSG) with the other carriers that have been part of CarDiv 2/CarGru 2: YORKTOWN, ENTERPRISE, USS FRANKLIN (CV 13), USS LEXINGTON (CV 16), USS WASP, USS ESSEX, USS BENNINGTON, USS BOXER, USS ANTIETAM, USS PRINCETON, USS TARAWA, USS LEYTE, USS CORAL SEA, USS ROOSEVELT, USS INTREPID, USS RANDOLPH, USS INDEPENDENCE (CV 61), USS CONSTELLATION (CV 64), USS SARATOGA (CV 60), USS JOHN C. STENNIS (CVN 74) and USS JOHN F. KENNEDY (CV 67). This list is from GlobalSecurity.org which was undoubtedly a cut-and-paste from the old GarGru 2 website.

The reason that I am treating HSTCSG differently is that it was formed after 1992 when the U.S. Navy mandated greater integration of its surface warfare and air warfare assets that eventually evolved into carrier strike groups, per Polmar, Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet 15th ed., 1993. So, HSTCSG is a stand-alone article that will be linked to the master article about CarDiv 2/CarGru 2 with the carriers mentioned above that will be included in said master article. Therefore, it seems appropriate to have HSTCSG as part of Carrier Group Two in the Infobox which will be linked it the CarDiv 2/CarGru 2 master article, which will again include the other carriers. Also, any admistrative/operational issues are addressed in the Overview section of the Article.

I will also take this approach with other Carrier Strike Group and Carrier Division precursors, as well as any post-1992 CSG/CVBGs.

The bottom line is that I request that you allow me the opportunity to finish this long-term project. The more time I spend going around these incidental edits, the less time I have to finish this objective. If you want, I am sure Ed17 can supervise this since he has expertise from coordinating the Titan project. If you have any suggestions, please drop off any suggestions at my rockin' new talk page, and I promise to respond ASAP. I have put a lot of effort into these articles, and I want to move forward. I am juggling a new job and many other responsibilities, and I'd like to make my Wikipedia contributions to be a more manageable process. Your forbearance and trust can go a long way to accomplishing both tasks. Thank you for your time and insights. Marcd30319 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marc30319, greetings from New Zealand. First, I should have said a while ago that this is a great great project. It's just a tiny bit focused on the last fifteen years, but you plan to remedy that, I see.

Right, our main problem. The simple fact is that every carrier battle group post 1993 went through this process; none are unique, and certainly not the two you've created named carrier battle group articles for. You will see if you go back to Ships and Aircraft in any of the early 1990s editions that all the deploying carrier formations are under the title of either Carrier Group or Cruiser-Destroyer Group. None are officially designated 'X Carrier Battle Group;' no rear admirals commanding these groups have the title 'Commander, X Battle Group;' all have titles going such as 'Commander Cruiser-Destroyer Group Four.'

Now all the CSGs have a clear line of historical succession from one of those CCDGs or CCGs - it's in the 2004 naval avaition document. The 2004 document does not list 'Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group' or 'Harry S. Truman Carrier BAttle Group', it lists Carrier Group Two. Moving more widely than that, our other U.S. Navy squadron articles are named 'Destroyer Squadron Two' or whatever, not 'Curtiss Wilbur Destroyer Squadron' or whichever the ship the squadron commodore is in.

Thus these named CSG articles are not in the main trend of U.S. Navy formation articles, and I intend eventually to merge them. They will eventually be split between the relevant Carrier Group / Cruiser Destroyer Group page and the relevant carrier strike group page. They function better under the official title, and it avoids confusion.

Therefore my problem with your project as it stands is the two named CSG articles. I believe it would be much easier and more true to what the U.S. Navy actually did to go with the official names.

This leaves you with a choice; create the Carrier Division articles or the Carrier Group articles. I've repeatedly quoted WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME at you, which simply means that if there is a clear line of succession (like CarDiv Two -> CarGru Two) it's better to use the more recent name. That seems to be the consensus of the experts.

Therefore I would like to ask you to split the two named CSG articles into their CarGru / CSG component parts, and to remove the named CSG articles. This is more true-to-real-life, for the reasons I have stated.

Hope this makes my reasoning clear.

Thanks again for all your hard work on this. While I may quibble about organisational details like this, the point is that I didn't go out and research all the history of the aircraft carrier groups over the last fifteen years, you did - and it's great! Buckshot06 (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSG

I didn't have a problem with the names because I thought dividing the main article up would leave more-manageable articles. Others may have different opinions. I know Wikipedia and the things that happen here can seem nonsensical, but we really all mean well... there's no need to leave. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...also, nice userpage :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Marcd, I'm currently trying to tackle CSGs. I see you've done some great work there. I would like to merge multiple pages for the same units, including histories, name changes (typically from CarDiv to CarGru to CSG), etc. I believe that some of the carrier pages and squadron pages are well organized this way. As I'm sure you know, the CSG is distinct from the carrier, but always takes the name of the flagship (e.g. Stennis Strike Group). Obviously, this name will change with the flagship, but the CSG# does not. Most of the CSGs have rich histories that go back to WWII. I've started with CSG-2, which still needs some polish. Best, E2a2j (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Command histories

Hi Marcd, regarding your edits at the USS Nashville article, while linking to such a resource is fantastic, please don't link to individual histories...link to the index page as I did here. Otherwise, the external links section becomes very cluttered. Simple is best :) I would also ask that you go back to the ships you've already added command histories for and convert to the index format. Thanks! — Huntster (t @ c) 00:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not required to be consistent with DANFS

Dear Marcd30319 (sorry for leaving out the d on previous talkpage notes, by the way - I didn't read your signature properly).

I noted this edit, and was very surprised. I had no idea you were trying to exactly transfer the DANFS wording into wikipedia. I have tried overall to simplify the very complex U.S. Navy style of writing, with lots of abbreviations and acronyms, and to make things into bigger paragraphs. This is because I strongly feel that somebody in India, or Japan, or South Africa, or wherever, that understands English will find it very very hard to understand the obtruse acronym heavy wording the Navy uses. Why say 'in support of Operation X' when we can say 'part of Operation X?' Thus I will continue trying to simplify Navy language so that larger numbers of other wikipedia readers may be able to better understand. This is in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/DANFS conversions, point 4. I'd like to start a dialogue and I'm willing to be flexible - please don't ignore me. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Marcd30319, thanks for being willing to at least open a dialogue. There are a number of issues with the carrier strike group articles that I want to address, and I hope we can talk about them rather than edit-war. First, they're all long and repetitive. Many are over 100k. Every one has the same mission statement repeated - about fifteen times in total - that can safely be centralised at the Carrier Strike Group article. Every one includes Summer Pulse, repetitively with the same list of six carriers. All we need is one article on 'Exercise Summer Pulse' or 'Summer Pulse 2004,' not repeating the same material. Many include listing of helicopter squadron detachments which do not actually appear in the individual destroyer articles part of the group. Many have biographical notes which increase the length. I've already noted my concern with acronyms like DPIA which I barely understand - how is someone who knows nothing about the U.S. Navy going to understand that? In addition, each article strains the servers by excessive pipelinking - instead of [[Carrier Air Wing Nine]] (CVW 9), they're all [[Carrier Air Wing Nine|Carrier Air Wing Nine (CVW 9)]] which means that the server has to go first one place then the next.

Now I could also give you a list of all the things I'm also doing. I appreciate you are busy. I would like to work with you collaberatively to document the many impressive things the U.S. Navy does, but wikipedia is not DANFS and the result will look different. Please comment on the issues I have raised and we can start working collaberatively. Kind regards from New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've read my message. Please do consider responding. However, the articles that should worry us the most are the ones over 100k, not the ones that are about 50k. Let me suggest this: I will take one article, Carrier Strike Group Three, and revamp it with the changes I've talked about. I will do the acronym cleanup, moving the repeating CVW squadrons list to the CVW article, change the bios around - probably new bio stubs- etc. Then you can see what a streamlined article might look like, in more flowing language, not exactly according to DANFS. But I will not change any of the other CSG articles for the moment. If we manage to start a dialogue, we can always agree to revert the changes. Let me say this again; I want to communicate with you, and I cannot do that if only I'm talking!! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorizing

Hi Marcd30319. I'd like to ask you to not add higher categories to articles. Each category sits under superior categories; Cat:Carrier Strike Group Two under Cat:Carrier Strike Groups, which sits under Cat:Military units and formations of the United States Navy, which sits under Cat:United States Navy. My very first talkpage message, from User:Looper5920, dealt with this same issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_1#Adding of categories. Thus please do not add Category:United States Navy to the Carrier Strike Group articles. They're all under Cat:Military units and formations of the United States Navy. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Thankyou Marcd30319. Maybe I should have been more clear. Cat:Carrier Strike Groups is itself a military unit and formation of the United States Navy and is situated in Cat:Military units and formations of the USN. All we need is Cat:Carrier Strike Groups. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links at CSG articles

Hi, could I ask you to explain your external link policy? You've repeatedly added external links at the CSG articles that are actually not at the fundamental articles for those entities - for example, the Cape St George story archive, which wasn't at USS Cape St. George until I added it over the weekend. Why keep readding them to the CSG articles? The aim of the articles is not to make it easy to make it a rolling news article update, but to write good quality articles that eventually become featured. This means removing bloat and duplicative material. Do you really believe that people have to read at every CSG article a list of U.S. navy publicity terms about what a carrier group can do? It's power and potential to do good and ill is blatantly obvious - and we keep that selfsame list in an article linked in the first line of every CSG article, for anyone who wants to read the official descriptions. Some explanation, not just ignoring me, would be much appreciated. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Marcd30319. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 02:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Carrier Strike Group Two & Ed17 carrier strike group recommendations

Hello, Ed17. Hope all is well. Buckshot06 is at it again. Not only did he eliminate an entire article, Carrier Strike Group Two 2004-2009 Operations, but he seems to be fixated on certain things:

Bulleted listing of ships under Force composition in 2011. Buckshot06 cites[[2]], specifically "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." However, would not bulleting these ships be more readable as well as making it easier the update the list when ships are taken out or en ter service?
Buckshot06 considers Mission capabilties and Command structure as being redundant, but I think their brief inclusion is helpful to the reader.

I could go on, but quite frankly I am growing tired of this nonsense. These articles would not exist without my efforts, and it just proves that power is corrupting and bureaucrats are the bane of creativity. Is there any way to get this squared up. This nonsense is a total turn-off and disincentive for doing anything at Wikiedpia. There is no collaboration, only dictatorial directives. I have worked successful with other editor at Wikipedia, but Buckshot06 is impossible. Please advise. Thanks! BTW - the edit tools do not work. Marcd30319 (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Marcd30319, you could clearly say I'm 'at it again.' But so are you. I specifically requested you to leave CSG 3 alone and present an alternative picture of how these articles could be presented to our readers. You ignored me and proceeded to revert it back to your preferred DOD DANFS heavy ish version. Thus I recreated the alternative at an article that User:E2a2j had already changed - and you'd reverted. You'll remember that splitting out the various operations by five year intervals was your reaction to my telling you that the articles were too long. I've removed the necessity for a split-out article, by removing a large amount of extraneous references etc and material which duplicates other wikipedia articles. It's now under 50k. All I've done is merged the material back in, changed some of the prose around to make it more accessible to those who are not already DOD specialists, and move it toward standard wikipedia guidelines so that it can go towards FA in due course. You appear to have no interest in wikipedia guidelines - only replicating US DOD views on these formations outside a DOD webpage. Wikipedia is not a DOD webpage. I also feel constantly the need to reiterate to you (1) WP:OWN - every edit box has the note 'If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.' You've said on several occasions that you would rather leave - I suggested you might be interested in Citizendium. The simple fact of the matter is that once you move on from articles like Triton that more people are going to wish to alter the way you present the information. How many times do I have to tell you (1) people will edit your writing so it is closer to the MOS eg - Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists, and (2) you don't need to replicate information already present at other articles - that's what the base article Carrier Strike Group is for.

Now, I specifically asked you to leave CSG 3 in this alternative format. Once people look at it and compare the alternatives we get third party views and eventually the community determines what they like best. I will ask you again: please, since the best alternative format article now seems to be Carrier Strike Group Two, please leave that in its amended form. Then eventually we can let the wider readership decide what they like best. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just one example. I changed 'A detachment of F/A-18C Hornet strike fighters from Fighter Squadron Composite 12 (VFC-12) was deployed to Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida, to provide adversary flight training for the Carrier Air Wing Eight during its COMPTUEX and JTFEX training.' to 'A detachment of F/A-18C Hornet strike fighters from Fighter Squadron Composite 12 (VFC-12) was deployed to Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida, to provide adversaries for Carrier Air Wing Eight during its COMPTUEX and JTFEX training.' We're supposed to be writing for generalists, not specialists, and it would be good to write good English. Is it such a problem that I make such changes ? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I'm in email contact with Marc and I'll be back Friday night to help work this out. I've got a presentation, exam, + two-page page due tomorrow, and evaluations for ~120 employees due Friday... and I'm a bad procrastinator. Connect the dots. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm glad I didn't actually read your full messages until now – I found the changes on my own and came to an opinion before reading what you guys had to say, so hopefully I'm unbiased. The "Mission capabilities" section is redundant, I'm afraid. However, the second and third paragraphs of the command structure section seem helpful, and the ship list is a lot easier to read in a bulleted list. While it is grammatically readable in a paragraph, that many links in a couple lines is brutal to read. As for some of the complex acronyms, we do need to limit them, as most of the people reading these pages will have little to no prior knowledge of military designations. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert self-links to the same pages

Hi Marcd30319, greetings. You'll see with this edit I have removed a link in one of the CSG articles which effectively links back to the same page. Please do not insert links to redirects unless they go somewhere else to another article. If they go back to the same page they make people think there are other articles existing and waste both reader's time and server resources (though not much server resources). Please only set links up if they actually go to other pages - otherwise it's perfectly OK not to link sections. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Doc0093.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doc0093.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Doc0349.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doc0349.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ronely13.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ronely13.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Doc Savage VHS cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doc Savage VHS cover.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Doc0009.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doc0009.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Green Death.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Green Death.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Pamela Henley and Ron Ely.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pamela Henley and Ron Ely.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Doc Savage Comic 1966.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doc Savage Comic 1966.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frederic March and John John Frankenheimer.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Frederic March and John John Frankenheimer.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 17:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clint Walker.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Clint Walker.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 20:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gallant Hours-Montgomery-Halsey-Cagney.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gallant Hours-Montgomery-Halsey-Cagney.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 20:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest, if your comment was to the point that the photo should be kept, that you preface the comment with the word "Keep" in bold text, to make that abundantly clear? Otherwise it may look to the closing admin like it may be just an attempt to provide context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the purpose of the bolded "Keep" or "Delete" header is to make it a bit easier for the closing admin to size up the conversation at a glance, Xfd is not a "vote", per se. However, the policy is that everyone should only have one bolded summary (i.e. a "vote", or !vote), so I've changed your latest contribution from "Keep" to "Comment".

Good work on finding that citation and adding it to the article. Hopefully that'll close the issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ron Ely-Doc Savage.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ron Ely-Doc Savage.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Cagney-TheGallantHours.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Cagney-TheGallantHours.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing 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 the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

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 created in your upload log.

You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Peripitus (Talk) 10:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Admiral Jerauld Wright Warrior Among Diplomats.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Admiral Jerauld Wright Warrior Among Diplomats.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 00:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ron Ely-Doc Savage.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ron Ely-Doc Savage.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 00:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doc0349.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Doc0349.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 00:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ronely13.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ronely13.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 00:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clint Walker - More Dead Than Alive.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Clint Walker - More Dead Than Alive.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —teb728 t c 09:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cagney-TheGallantHours.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cagney-TheGallantHours.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —teb728 t c 21:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pamela Henley and Ron Ely.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pamela Henley and Ron Ely.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —teb728 t c 22:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doc0093.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Doc0093.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —teb728 t c 22:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moviegroup.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Moviegroup.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —teb728 t c 23:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:NATO Operation Deep Water 1957.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:NATO Operation Deep Water 1957.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

G12 copyvio - Stars and Stripes is only partially funded by the DoD - their website says "Stories and photos by Stars and Stripes staffers are copyrighted, and may not be reprinted or used without permission."

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. XLerate (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Marcd30319. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 01:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Green Death.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Green Death.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.
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) 06:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Doc Savage Comic 1966.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doc Savage Comic 1966.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.
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) 06:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Doc0009.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doc0009.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.
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) 06:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Operation Deep Water, Operation Counter Punch, and Operation Longstep

Hello! Your submissions of Operation Deep Water, Operation Counter Punch, and Operation Longstep at the Did You Know nominations page have been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath Operation Deep Water's entry, Operation Counter Punch's entry, and Operation Longstep's entry and respond at each as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! OCNative (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK review operation Turkey Buzzard

Hi thanks for the review I have responded at my nomination's entry Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Operation Deep Water

On 29 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Deep Water, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1957 NATO exercise Operation Deep Water involved the first use of helicopter-borne amphibious assault by the United States Marine Corps during an overseas deployment? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Longstep

On 29 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Longstep, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1952 NATO exercise Operation Longstep featured a large-scale amphibious assault along the western coast of Turkey? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Operation Counter Punch

It seems that the above was created on 17 June, and I have therefore moved the DYK nomination to the relevant section. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Operation Counter Punch

Hello! Your submission of Operation Counter Punch at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UserPDF/Operation Sandblast

Hi, you just created UserPDF/Operation Sandblast, which is seems to be a misplaced sandbox page. I am not sure what you wanted to do with it as no User:PDF appears to exist. Could you please move it to the right place before it gets speedy deleted? Yoenit (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, UserPDF/Operation Sandblast

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, UserPDF/Operation Sandblast. 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 - Operation Sandblast. 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 continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Operation Sandblast - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose is putting PDF in an article title meant to serve? Please reply. Are you possibly trying to create something in the book: namespace? Check your contributions for a couple of moves I have done. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:SkyCap5.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SkyCap5.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) 07:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Carrier Strike Group Seven, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sasebo and Donghae (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) 10:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]