User talk:HJ32

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, HJ32, 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! 

Your contributions on the F-14 Tomcat are much appreciated; the article has been in need of an expert, especially in its recent usage. I hope you stick around and add to other articles as well. You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft and Wikipedia:Wikiproject Military History.

--Mmx1 19:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F-14 Tomcat

I am sorry if my reversions offended you in any way. I am truly grateful for your many years of service to our country. Many users, including myself, do not use the email feature on Wikipedia, preferring to do all our communicating through Wikipedia. For me, this is primarily a convinience issue, with some safety and anonimity concerns also. Thank you for understanding.

Actually, I said "somewhat speculative", not "highly speculative"; there is a great difference. But my primary reason for reverting your material was that you did not cite your sources. Wikipedia does not allow original research, which means that no first-hand information can be given without a verifiable source. Your knowledge will be useful in spotting errors, and recognizing good sources. I know that not all material on the F-14 page is properly sourced, but the policy was not enforced for along time. The current editors/users here are now doing our best to clean that up, and unfourtunately the easiest way to do that is in not allowinag anymore uncited material to be added. We are doing our best to source the other material, but as you can see the Tomcat pages are very long.

Please take a look at WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research for a better explanation of what is allowed on Wikipedia, and why. I look forward to working with you here. - BillCJ 05:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

HJ response --- No offense taken and I did review Wiki policy, which is entirely reasonable. I'll add sources I find reliable. As a published author and editor, I do original research all the time otherwise errors tend to repeat themselves or subtle (or even glaring omissions) end up manifesting themselves. The Tomcat article skips all over the place and has/had some of those weaknesses. Getting sources is not difficult, just learning how to use the Wiki tools or I would have already done it.

The only weakness I see in policy is tendancy to use published sources that repeat errors. If there are knowledge gaps or errors not addressed by a published source, Wikipedia cannot claim to be truly current as editor would have to wait for a published source to address same, which may or may not happen. Interesting dilemma.

Yes, it is an intersting dilema. Fortunately, if you see an accurate source online from a reputable site, those can be cited too. And I don't think there's anything wrong with using your knowledge to "screen" sources either. Also, you can site yourself, as long as it's been published somewhwere.
As far as learning to use Wikipedia goes, you'll find that most of the editors are willing to help, especially if they know it's not just some vandal screwing around. If you aren't sure exactly how to cite your sources, just place all the info in the text with your material, and someone else can format it for you. That way you'll have a pattern to copy, and it makes citing the same source again even easier. Also, if you aren't sure about something, just ask on the talk page of that article. You can even use the talk page to elaborate on something from the text that you know or have experienced, but aren't able to source properly. Most of us editors love anything to do with aviation - that's why we're here - and we love those little tidbits.
Finally, if you haven't already, take a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft pages, especially the Page content section. You'll find them very helpful in dealing editing the aircraft pages, and each section has a talk page also. - BillCJ 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


HJ response to BillCJ

Fair enough...there is quite a bit of new info out there with Tony Holmes doing a lot of detailed writing for his Osprey series as well as lots of articles being published on the Tomcat due to its Sunset recently occuring. I led the writing team for two books on the the Tomcat published this year (Hildebrandt-Snodgrass-Parsons and Parsons-Hall-Lawson))and run the Tomcat-Sunset.org website, which has a detailed "living" history section that will be published in a year or so as well. I'll continue to work up a detailed history (still sorting interviews and notes from Tomcat Sunset and Panel Symposium that had six hours of dialogue featuring 18 notable individuals who participated in key Tomcat events). I'll be more than happy to help evolve the Wiki article IAW Wiki guidelines while helping improve the published legacy of the Tomcat. Cheers, HJ

[edit] License tagging for Image:AIM-9M-9 DF-SD-07-01080.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AIM-9M-9 DF-SD-07-01080.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. 20:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My bad, done! HJ 00:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For U.S. Government tags, there are often more specific ones. Please see the list of tags. Examples: {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}, {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}, {{PD-USGov-NASA}}, {{PD-USGov-NRO}}, etc. Thanks. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, missed that being relatively new at this HJ 06:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You've been awarded a Barnstar!

The Original Barnstar
You've been awarded this Barnstar by Aerobird for your work on improving the AIM-9 Sidewinder article. Keep up the good work!

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 14:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TOPGUN/NSAWC

HJ--don't know if you prefer feedback here or on the original user's page, so I'll start here. (If I came off as cranky in my edits, I apologize--I work all night and sometimes I get the coffee jitters.) As you can tell, I was a zoomie and that's my specialty. I changed the wording there only for the sake of what wiki calls POV / NPOV. Once you reverted it back, I let well enough alone--I know how I feel about my writing and I wouldn't get into a revert battle with a Navy jock anyway. I mention this only because it appears the restored phrasing may have been typed with a wee bit of emotion (coupla typos). I don't like to step on the toes of fellow editors, but really don't want to irritate a fellow aviator. --Buckboard 14:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost forgot why I came over here, so dazzled was I by myself. The information regarding NSAWC you left on my page was helpful and I appreciate it. I want to tackle the maze of units and programs at Nellis but its a daunting task, and anything that provides a model is helpful. Thanx.--Buckboard 15:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries. it's all part of the Wiki process!HJ 01:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

1978? Jeez, you're almost a geezer like me. Note, I said "almost." Have a good one! --Buckboard 07:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that your intentions were good with respect to the modifications; I was just noting that the formatting was inadvertantly altered, and it needed cleaned up. For what it's worth though, the formatting errors were relatively evident and it should not have remained as such for one full week. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wildcat/Hellcat

Hi HJ, I noticed your comment about the Hellcat origins. I draw your attention to the following statements in "Fighters Volume 2' by William Green, "modifications considered necessary (in the design of the XF6F-3 Hellcat) in light of operational experience during the opening stages of the Pacific War..." also "the valuable experience gained by Britain's Fleet Air Arm with the Martlet (Grumman Wildcat) was passed to the U.S. Navy and contributed in no small measure to the increase in fighting efficiency of the Grumman F4F..." (and presumably the next fighter on the drawing boards- the Hellcat). The Martlet was already in combat service in 1940. IMHO [[User:Bzuk|Bzuk} 15:46 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Title 10 of the United States Code

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

I waited 15 minutes and nothing else dropped in. As it stands, the article does not merit an encyclopedia place.--Anthony.bradbury 23:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; as I say, I waited fifteen minutes, which is really not seen as quick on the trigger in wikipedia. Adding a one-line article and then doing nothing is an automatic invitation to delete. A helpful suggestion: if you are starting an article but have to pause, at the top of the page add the template {{underconstruction}}. This will prevent all but the most extremely triggerr-happy editors from doing anything to it. Alternatively, create the article in your sandbox or in a subpage and move it when complete.--Anthony.bradbury 23:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is, I note, still there. What you cannot expect in wikipedia is for other editors to pick up on your stub and flesh it out. If you want the article, you write the article. As it is, although I shall not touch it, I do not believe it will survive critical scrutiny by the community.--Anthony.bradbury 23:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

15 minutes is not long when the spousal desries support and pulls me away from the computer...more ot come shortly

[edit] Temporary Articles (USC Title 10)

Oh, that's easy to solve. If you want a place like the sandbox but that's more permanent, just create a subpage under the link User:HJ32/Title 10 of the United States Code. That will let you edit the article in relative peace. When you're done, just WP:MERGE the contents by copying them into the article. ColourBurst 01:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...that is what I have been searching and been unable to find...HJ 01:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


I apologize, HJ32, i don't know to contact you. regarding your korean reversion: --- the only thing is that as written it understates the motivation for picasso--picasso WAS a communist, and as now written it leaves this to the end and merely references his sympathies. it would be more accurate to mention his communism as a descriptor the first time his named is introduced. given the politics that dominate wiki (and undermine it as a serious source for anything political), i appreciate your courtesy in writing and don't ascribe the site's bias to you.

---

that was my reply. as i said, i was pleasantly surprised to receive a nice note from you. nonetheless, i think the picasso item is misleading in that it buries the lead (both in the journalistic sense and almost in the literal sense).

the anti-u.s. bias throughout the korean war item is disgraceful. the item sugarcoats the north's actions and argues that we interfered in a purely civil war, and that we had a near monopoly on mistreatment of civilians (i suspect the hard left proclivities of the people who run this place insulate them from the reality that the communists, from moscow and beijing and radiating outward, never even hesitated to cause the death of millions of innocents). i have lived in communist countries so i don't just rely on what "they" say.

moral equivalence would be laughable, but ascribing most of the culpability to a much more civilized power is scandalous. look at the five powers: ussr - killed millions of its own by choice, took pride in excessive ww2 casualties; prc - killed scores of millions of its own, slaughtered 4,000+ in 1989 for the equiv of marching on DC; north korea - still torturing and starving its own (see the human rights report); south korea - authoritarian for a long time, yes, but still; u.s. - not perfect, but far more civilized than the communists could ever have dreamed of being - we actually regret our errors.

sorry to ramble, but wiki frustrates me. i use it often for everything BUT politics, because the politics are heavily biased (citing hard left agenda driven sources don't mitigate). cheers.

[edit] Re: Dealing with vandals

When dealing with vandalism, you should revert the vandalism first, then check the suspected vandal's user talk page for warnings - if no warnings have been left in the last week or so, leave the appropriate warning (there's a table of warning templates at WP:UWT). If the user has been warned, leave the next highest warning (for instance, if the latest warning was test1, leave test2).

If that user has vandalized a great deal in a short time, leave a higher-level warning (or a final/only warning). If the user continues to vandalize past high-level warnings or if they're vandalizing past {{blatantvandal}}, report to the "user reported" section of WP:AIV. Hope this helps. --Coredesat 00:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, in both cases...most instances had been reverted, but no warnings left. When you went to their user page, it looked like a graffiti artists diary with nonstop vandalism and no warnings. Due to the crude language used, thought someone on admin side should be alerted.HJ 02:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but generally, AIV reports require that the vandal in question be sufficiently warned before blocking, unless there is a "may be blocked without further warning" box at the top of the user talk page. I left the vandal in question a final warning. --Coredesat 02:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - looks like a school computer with someone with time on their hands doing as much damage as possible during their time on the computer and returning now and again while getting bolder (shows signs of escalation)HJ 02:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't the user you were reporting - User:164.58.72.3 has been blocked for a month. The report I removed was on User:24.178.82.194, which has stopped vandalizing. It should be reported to AIV immediately if it resumes. If you have any concerns with long-term vandals, report them to WP:ANI. --Coredesat 04:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, we can't indefinitely block IPs (except in very special cases), so all we can do is revert and warn, and just increase the block length each time. --Coredesat 04:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
There are softblocks that stop anonymous editors from editing under the blocked IP, while still allowing registered users to edit. Most IP blocks tend to be soft unless the IP is not shared. There's more info at WP:BLOCK if you'd like to look at that. --Coredesat 04:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Flying Tigers

These things take a minute or two to do. In fact I started this edit after your first message and am now revising it based on your second message. However, there are a number of editors that revert vandalism without placing a warning on the userpage. If you this see, feel free to place the warning yourself. Consult Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for the proper template. Happy editing! (And remember to sign your comments) Cynrin 23:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Vexing problem, indeed. If you see vandalism, you need to document it on the user talk page using Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Always use templates and include the ‘subst:’ in front of the warning. For instance {{subst:uw-vandal1|Flying Tigers}}. Followed by your signature, of course.

You have to make a judgment about what level warning to use. The levels break down more or less like this: 1) Welcome and thanks for experiment, 2) Don’t add nonsense 3) Stop or you will get blocked, 4) Final warning, vandalize again and you will be blocked. If it might have been an honest error, start at level one, particularly if they have no other warnings on their talk page. I use level 2 if it’s harmless stuff and level three if they use language that I would not want my child to hear. If it’s really nasty stuff, you can put on a level 4 even if it’s the only warning on their userpage. Now, if there is a previous warning on the userpage, I think it’s a good idea to escalate. If there is a level 2, go to 3. Not everyone uses the standard template, but you should be able to tell by reading it what level it is.

If you find that someone has vandalized again, after getting a level 4—be sure to check the time stamp on the warning to make sure they vandalized after receiving their last warning—you should report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. They give you instructions on the form it should take which you should follow with a short explanation. For IP vandals (those with a number and not a username) the form is *{{Ipvandal|their IP number}} Vandalized [[page name]] after final warning. ~~~~. (One note of caution, this page gets a lot of traffic, so there is often an edit conflict. To lessen this probability, I use Word to compose the report and then open up the edit box and paste it there. That way the edit box is open for a shorter amount of time so an edit conflict is less likely.)

I hope this helps. For more info about this go to Wikipedia:Vandalism. It has the procedures to follow and a short list of templates to use. Personally, for easy access, I have inserted Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism in to my userpage, so that I can just click on my userpage, then click on the link.

I’m glad that you want to make Wikipedia a better place. Happy editing. Cynrin 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings and an explanation

Just wanted to say hello and finally respond to the note that you left on my talk page. First off, I am always glad to meet new people who are interested in the same topics I am...USMC, Naval aviation, etc... I also want to apologize for not better explaining my reversion on the USMC page a few days ago. The reason I removed the reference to the FMF was because it is no longer officially used in the Marine Corps. There might be the occassional use leftover and most Marines still use the term but officially FMF has been surplanted by Marine Corps Operating Forces much like FMFPac has become MARFORPAC.

Anyway, I didn't want to get off on the wrong foot, especially with someone who I know has the same interests and with whom I will come across in the future on a regular basis. Hope my explanation fits and if there is ever anything I can help you with please let me know.--Looper5920 04:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism question

Ok, I moved your comment to my talk page. Could you please explain which vandal you are reffering to though? I've warned about 50 today and yesterday, so I can't remember. Also, I can't quite understand what you meant about the templates, as my sig isn't embedded in it (is it?). | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 14:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The warning I gave was {{test1}}. Anyone can use it; you can find it here if you forget. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mis-posting

You posted this at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines:

==Mameluke Sword== I note you are also trying to upgrade the Presley O'Bannon article....have you seen "The Wind and the Lion"? The one scene of Marines taking the palace seems to be loosely patterned on O'Bannon's feat and does feature the Mameluke. Not sure if it needs to be mentioned, but wanted your feedback. HJ 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this because it clearly was in the wrong place; please repost as appropriate. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I responded to your comment on my talk page, if you aren't watching it. — Chris53516 (Talk) 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air Service Response

Yeah, I apparently keep forgetting to leave warning messages (I normally seem to deal with {{subst:test}}) onetime vandals, so I've grown out of the habit of warning <kick myself>. --science4sail talkcon 03:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Pearl Harbor

Thanks for the heads up, 90% of the time I catch that when something doesn't look right. I got a bit busy over User talk:SherwoodPerson. Appreciate the lookout! Teke(talk) 22:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The vandals seem to be very busy during school days and when they make multiple hits like that, it's hard to find a clean version. Just had same issue on another article. Cheers, HJ 22:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage vandalism

Thanks for the heads up. We're efficient enough that I don't usually ever see it. Happy editing to you, Teke(talk) 01:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 212.219.117.82

Problem is that this IP edits articles from all over Wikipedia. That usually suggests a dynamic or shared IP. So this person probably isn't the one who vandalized 5 days ago. And the IP has stopped anyway. But I don't want to discourage heads up like the one you gave me. I always appreciate them. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure you are getting my point. This new person is probably also someone different from the one who you were having problems with before. This isn't a matter of me not wanting to act. It's a matter of you might be punishing a completely different person. I did end up blocking this user. But please keep this in mind for the future. You can never assume that a vandal must be the same person as one warned days or even 90 minutes ago. This was probably a completely different person logging into the same computer as the vandal earlier. That's why usually we have to start fresh with the warnings every time we run into an IP vandal that is probably dynamic. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the thing is, we have lots and lots of people doing RC Patrol. Lots and lots. I mean. I sit in an IRC room where a bot gives us constant dialogue on who is hitting what and we rarely have less than 20 people in the room. Add to that the people just going through Recent Changes reverting vandalism along with those using VandalProof, AWB and all of the numerous other vandal tools we have and I bet we have 200+ users doing RC Patrol at any one time. So don't feel like you have to do the warnings AND the reverting. it's usually not necessary. Vandalism generally lasts under a minute on the site. And if the IP is vandalising again, that usually means that someone reverted them after their last edit. I can see that you are relatively new. I know that without admin tools, it's hard to do warning and reverting at once, so...don't do it. :) Just stick to one or the other. Others will handle whatever you don't have time to do. Don't feel like you have to do it all. Lots of help out here. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep. The movement for awhile has been towards being harsher against the schools. When I first started doing anti-vandal stuff 18 months ago, we'd never ever block schools for more than 3 hours. Now blocking them for a week isn't uncommon. So yeah. I tend to agree with you. But right now, we're supposed to be more lenient than many others and myself would like. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I understand ya. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure if you know

About the Counter-vandalism unit. I think it's something you might be interested in. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack on Pearl Harbor

It's an often vandalised article I've had on my watchlist for sometime now. Sometimes they're hard to keep up with. Some great shots on your user page BTW. Dan D. Ric 15:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd much prefer to be adding to articles, but most of my time is spent reverting and reporting vandals. Only USMC article I've contributed to has been HMLA-367, a squadron I flew missions with as an Army Cobra pilot in 1969-1970. Dan D. Ric 15:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:82.42.83.143

Yeah at some point it becomes Whack-a-Mole. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 04:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Block

No problems:) You can always post to WP:AIV for a more prompt response — Lost(talk) 14:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand. However, 3-4 warnings given on the same date are enough before reporting on AIV. There is really no need to paste the actions on the talk page. The admins do check the contributions before blocking anyway. — Lost(talk) 14:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article ACEVAL/AIMVAL, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

[edit] Images and Aircraft Carriers

You possibly didn't see the reply I made to your message on my talk-page, since the vandlaism seems to be continuing, I thought I'd copy it here:

The problem is that a Whois (see the links at the bottom of each talkpage) report shows that they are both IP adresses belonging to Telstra so (given that he's already hit the articles from 2 different IPs) next time the guy comes online it could be from yet another different IP address (or equally someone else could be asigned one which he has previously used). Since it is several hours since the last vandalism, admins will be reluctant to block (particularly in view of the likelihood the block won't actually hit its target). If vandalism continues it will probably be more effective to request semi-protection of the affected articles at WP:RPP which will prevent any IP or newly registered account from editing those articles for some period of time.

David Underdown 14:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:AIM_Chaparral.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AIM_Chaparral.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 00:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Sidewinder9X_launch.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sidewinder9X_launch.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please....

... Do not insult the vandals, as you potentially may have done on this anonymous user's talk page:

"We can revert as fast as you vandalize articles. Cease and desist your nonsense."

Despite the fact that they are vandals, it does not give you the right to neglect Wikipedia policies of WP:CIVIL. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My intent was to be terse as called for in same guidelines. Good points on first link about vandal behavior. Perhaps using those words plays to their intent. Worth thinking about. HJ 05:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you are upset about the vandalism on Wikipedia. I am also distraught for some of the same reasons, but it still no reason to be uncivil to people. I'm glad that you read the links, and I hope you apply them when using Wikipedia. Cheers! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't further accusing you, just responding to your comment which began "PS If Wiki guidelines required a registration to edit..." . As long as you are aware of what you say, then my job is done. Sorry if you were offended by my comments. Cheers! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EA-18 "Shocker"??

A user has claimed on the EA-18 Growler talk page that the Growler is now called the "Shocker". Do you have any information on this being the official name? I have a response on the talk page. Thanks. - BillCJ 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Officially, it's the Growler, but the community is calling it the Shocker. Likewise, the E/F community call themselvers "Rhino" drivers even though the official name is Super Hornet. HJ 01:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. That's kinda what I thought. I think the user got mixed up, and assumed Shocker was the official name. As to the Tomcat being the Turkey, I believe its distant relative, the TBF Avenger, was also called the Turkey for similar reasons. And I seem to recall reading that Rhino was sometimes used for the F-4, in its case because it was so ugly. I don't think the Super Hornet quite has that problem. - BillCJ 02:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All true. The Marines went nuts over calling their RF-4 the Rhino (even had an annual ice sculpture made for Tailhook in their infamous suite at Tailhook with the horn sprouting liquid refreshment). The Navy had to come up with a two syllable name that didn't include Hornet to avoid confusion at the boat for its "Ball call" hence emergence of Rhino. Shocker is the first time I've heard of a name preceding fleet introduction, but it arose after the Prowler community was surveyed last year and objected to Growler. The Super Hornet folks liken their aircraft to being big and gray and powerful like a Rhino so it isn't because they think its ugly at all as you observe. HJ 02:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 70.17.131.121

Sorry I don't know what happened. Thanks for correcting the vandalism that came out of my IP adress. I don't know who did it but thanks for correcting it. I'm really sorry about the trouble this caused. -Vcelloho 20:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries....chasing and fixing the electronic graffiti left behind by vandals seems to be a never-ending task. HJ 13:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AIM_Chaparral.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AIM_Chaparral.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 16:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aviation Newsletter delivery

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subpage

  • User:HJ32/aviation has been turned into a subpage of yours so that it can retain its membership in CG:UT and abide by WP:StS -PatPeter 03:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/j/3/User_talk%7EHJ32_97d2.html"