User talk:Omega LVIII

Welcome!

Hello, Omega LVIII, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! BilCat (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: General Atomics Mojave has been accepted

General Atomics Mojave, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

RPSkokie (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: General Atomics Sparrowhawk has been accepted

General Atomics Sparrowhawk, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: General Atomics Gambit (October 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

With the exception of one reference, everything here is non-independent. I found this online which is a good start but will need to replace the references from the company with more secondary reliable sources. Much of what I found is just announcements so I am not sure this would survive AfD. If you are able to add secondary reliable sources you can ping me here or leave a message on my talk page and I will come back to review.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:General Atomics Gambit and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Omega LVIII! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C-130 variants

I stumbled upon Draft:List of Lockheed C-130 Hercules Variants, and I have a few suggestions. Having written and reworked several aircraft variant articles myself, I have found that certain article structures enhance readability. While the current structure, which separates the variants into "Pre-production", "Transport", "British/foreign", "Civilian", and other miscellaneous roles may make superficial sense, there are much better ways to split up the variants (especially when many sub-sections will contain something along the lines of "Modified from baseline C-130 variant").

The highest level of section headers should be for the most drastic changes made to the aircraft, as is the case with the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk variants, North American P-51 Mustang variants, and Republic P-47 Thunderbolt variants articles. All three types underwent one or more drastic changes throughout their production which resulted in distinct families of variants.

In the case of the C-130, there are no easily-classifiable variant families, meaning the most drastic changes to the airframe were made between the variant letters (C-130A, C-130B, etc.). Therefore, I suggest a structure similar to Messerschmitt Me 262 variants and List of Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress variants, in which the top-level sections are for the primary variant designations, with major sub-variants having their own subsections and minor sub-variants being covered in a list. As such, aircraft with mission modifiers (AC-130, MC-130, WC-130, etc.) should be listed under their base-variants' sections. For example, the AC-130A, RC-130A, and WC-130A would be covered under the C-130A section as they are all modified from that baseline variant.

On a side note, you could probably get away with omitting the "-LM" production facility code from all variant designations, as all C-130s were built at Lockheed's Marietta plant and therefore no other code has been assigned to any C-130. You should probably also look into the C-130H1, H2, and H3 designations, as they do not follow the 1962 Tri-Service standard for designating production blocks and upgrades. If the designations follow the Tri-Service standard, they should be C-130H-1, H-2, and H-3. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input;

I'll look into changing the layout of the page into your recommended layout when I have the time to do so. I'll more than likely attempt to finish what I have started, then re-arrange everything into a major-variant-based sorting system, as opposed to the current role-based sorting system I am currently using. I'll look further into the variants lists you suggested too.

In regards to the "-LM" code, I only have used that for the second prototype variant (which I need to to more research on as is), and I'm not using it on all of the different variations.

As for the H1/H2/H3, I will be doing more research on them to find distinct differences, but as of right now, I believe it is mainly in regards to avionics or slight changes elsewhere. They appear to be interchangeably referred to as H1/H2/H3 and H-1/H-2/H-3, but the designation without the dash appears to be more common, despite the tri-service designation system. I am unsure as of this moment whether each are official or not. I will address that once I get around to actually working on their variant descriptions.

Overall this is still very much a WIP page, so I appreciate your feedback. Thank you! Omega LVIII (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more compiling of models and information, and I think it may be best to do a role-specific system like what I currently have set up. It would be excessive to have not only all the major A/B/E/H/J models with their dozens of offshoots; the lesser known D/F/G/K/M/N/P/Q/R/T/etc with & associated models. It further doesn't help that some mission-specific models have designations indicating they are derived from one model, but in fact are from another (ex, AC-130Hs are not modified C-130Hs, they are modified C-130E's and AC-130E's, and thus would be under the C-130E category with the confusing -H designation).

I think that with the volume of role-specific models that exist, and the overall emphasis on differences within role-specific families, it's more logical to separate them by mission rather than by major variant.

I've got over 110 different models of the C-130 noted on a separate document, so easing the user experience by separating the variants by major-mission/role rather than by major-variant makes the most sense to me.

This also would allow me to put "see more:" links at the top of each section header allowing for easy navigating to dedicated pages, whereas with a major-variant setup, I would need multiple links to the same page across the different variant sections (ex, KC-130 link under C-130A->KC-130A, C-130H->KC-130H, C-130J->KC-130J, etc instead of just at the top of "Tanker Models").

Concerning the H1/H2/H3, still have to do research on that, but as far as I know, they have to do with internal upgrades and will be placed under the C-130H/H-30 sections once I reorganize the page (which I do plan on doing eventually). Omega LVIII (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:General Atomics Gambit

Hello, Omega LVIII. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "General Atomics Gambit".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 00:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Undergraduate Jet Training System Program

Hello, Omega LVIII. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Undergraduate Jet Training System Program, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:General Atomics MQ-9B

Hello, Omega LVIII. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:General Atomics MQ-9B, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Undergraduate Jet Training System Program

Hello, Omega LVIII. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Undergraduate Jet Training System Program".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General Atomics carrier-based drones

Hi, I remember there were other General Atomics drones other than the Mojave or Gray Eagle that were proposed for the Navy and ships, can you help? -- Iri1388 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reaching out. Here's what I recall:

The General Atomics MQ-9 Mariner was one, initally proposed for the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program. There was a variant of the Mariner that would've been carrier capable. The MQ-4C won the BAMS competition, though, so the Mariner was never fully developed.

Another would be a variant of the MQ-20 Avenger, the Sea Avenger, that was planned for the UCLASS Program, but lost to the MQ-25 Stingray. I believe there was another variant of the Avenger that may have been carrier capable, but I cannot recall off the top of my head. I'm pretty sure it was intended to be a tanker-defender.

As for the Mojave/STOL program, the upcoming carrier capable one of note would be the MQ-9B STOL (likely the Sea Guardian variant), which is just an MQ-9B Sea Guardian with an MQ-9B STOL kit (wings, control surfaces, etc) added instead of the standard set of wings/controls/etc.

Then there is Gambit/X-67/CCA, whatever you want to call it. GA-ASI has released renderings of their CCA on an aircraft carrier in recent months, so its likely that a potential Gambit variant (which is the X-67 in pretty much everything but name, for some odd reason) will be carrier capable. This oculd open the possibility for multiple Gambit variants to be navalized, but it's way too early in the program to be certain. Omega LVIII (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply -- Iri1388 (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]