User talk:America789

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, America789, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


PS: Thanks for your contributions. But remember that Wikipedia material must be verifiable. for example, I can't find any source for the cancellation of Low Cost Autonomous Attack System. Since there's no news about it moving forward, I can readily imagine that it has been cancelled. But if we have a source for it we should add it. Let me know if I can help.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Refs[edit]

The simplest way to link to an external site as a citation is to post the URL between ref tags: <ref>http://www.google.com</ref>. If it's a printed work instead of an online page, then just fill in the usual bibliographic info: title, author, publication, date, etc.   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Individual Weapons page[edit]

OK, I have taken care of it. Nohomers48 (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Page names[edit]

The full (lengthy) instructions are at WP:MOVE. The simple way is to press the downward-point triangle to the left of the "Search" box at the top of the page. There's a "Move" link. There are some rules about how pages should be named WP:NC, and if the move might be controversial then it's better to propose it on the talk page first.   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of United States defense contractors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Benelli (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) 10:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Joint light tactical vehicle[edit]

Done. Nohomers48 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Phanto Sentinel[edit]

I checked JAWA11/12 this morning and there is nothing in either the cuurent or 10-year look-back indices. However, I think Jane's no longer has missiles, UAVs etc in JAWA (I'll check that thoroughly another day but could not spot any examples). I suspect the place to look is in Jane's Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Targets, though I don't know where to find it or how often it comes out, if regular. Bit specialised for my public library! Jane's used to have missiles in and I don't know when the change in policy happened.TSRL (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

FN SCAR[edit]

If I understand your question correctly, I believe it's showing how many units were purchased for each phase of procurement. Engineering test units numbers used in the initial evaluation phase, LRIP numbers were used for extended field testing by select units, while the production numbers are the total amount intended for purchase. The source doesn't clarify any of this, from what I can see. Whether the numbers are up to date or not, I don't know. Spartan198 (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably should consult an administrator on that before doing anything. I personally don't like removing large sections of an article as such and would rather leave that to more frequent and involved individuals. Spartan198 (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 5.56×45mm NATO, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (State) (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) 17:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

SAR-21[edit]

Hi, the text at SAR-21 was tagged because uncaptioned photos are never valid sources. ROG5728 (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

AMPV[edit]

The article you linked indicates the purpose of AMPV is not to replace GCV but to run alongside it; the numbers given ("a low-profile but high-impact program to replace at least 3,000 M113s") imply AMPVs would only replace about half the current US M113 fleet in the short term, presumably with GCV slated to replace the rest (and possibly some of the AMPVs themselves) in that project's 2018 timeframe. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

They way it's currently phrased, speaking about GCV in the past tense followed by "but now," makes it sound like GCV has been cancelled in favour of AMPV. That's why I undid it, because that doesn't match what the sources say. Also, changing "plans" to "planned" doesn't make any sense because the US Army still plans to retire the M113 by 2018 regardless. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not true since the AMPV's requirements haven't even been drawn up yet, that's getting into WP:CRYSTAL territory. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Messed up infobox[edit]

Fixed it. It seems as if the person who made it didn't get rid of all the unnecessary tags weapon options other than artillery in the infobox, and left internal link tags unfinished, also screwing with the formatting.– Nohomers48 (talkcontribs) 21:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings![edit]

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: AC-130 designations[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, America789. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history.
Message added 18:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Paraphrasing[edit]

Your addition to Adaptive Vehicle Make has been removed or altered, as it appears to closely paraphrase a copyrighted source. Limited close paraphrasing or quotation is appropriate within reason, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text. However, longer paraphrases which are not attributed to their source may constitute copyright violation or plagiarism, and are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Such content cannot be hosted here for legal reasons; please do not upload it. You may use external websites or printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If you own the copyright to the text, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the copyright but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

UCLASS listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect UCLASS. Since you had some involvement with the UCLASS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 168.12.253.66 (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Date formatting[edit]

Hello there. I've noticed you've been making a lot of additions to aircraft articles over the last few months, which is something to be greatly encouraged. I just wondered, when you're additing dates (such as to cites or in the body of the main text itself), could the formatting of the dates match the rest of the article please? US Military aviation articles typically follow the day-month-year convention, while often you've been adding good new content in the month-day-year order; which is pretty confusing for readers. I've corrected the date arrangement several times following your edits to enforce consistency throughout the article again; I was just hope that this could save me the effort if they were written out in the style the rest of the article follows to begin with. Please try not to see this as negative criticism, I see your edits as quite helpful in the continued building of articles, including some stubby topics in need of expansion; so don't let me put you off! Thanks, Kyteto (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If it bothers people that much, I'll cite in day-month-year. Still, sometimes articles have dates in the writing the other way. America789 (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
You have my thanks. As an FYI, the WP:Manual of Style advocates consistency - basically meaning, all the cites of an article written the same way. In articles where Day-Month-Year is dominant, additions/changes should continue to use D-M-Y; in articles where Month-Day-Year is dominant, additions/changes to those articles should be on M-D-Y. Either date format is acceptable, but an article should use one and only one to avoid confusion. So that's why some articles are written the other way, and are correct to do so. Kyteto (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

7.62mm NATO M80A1[edit]

Hello. From what I could see in the refs the M80A1 doesn't exist yet but is projected for FY2015. So maybe it's a bit premature to add it to the article. Atleast without a note that it is a future project. Thomas.W (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

To be issued in 2014. Picatinny ammo goes from regular to unleaded America789 (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
OK. Have you seen any data for the M80A1? That is bullet weight and muzzle velocity (and through that muzzle energy). Because the M855A1 has a lighter bullet (4.0 gram/61.7 grain) than the M855 (4.15 gram/64 grain). Thomas.W (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I have not. It using similar materials as the M855A1, so comparison of bullet weight and muzzle velocity between the M80 and M80A1 should be similar to M855 compared to M855A1. America789 (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I doubt it since the lead they're replacing in the M80A1 represents a larger percentage of the bullet weight than in the M855A1. Which means that the reduction in bullet weight (in percent) would have to be larger in the M80A1 than in the M855A1, unless they replace the current bullet with a bullet that is considerably longer than the current one. Thomas W talk rap sheet 21:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC) (<- Just playing around with the signature...)

July 2013[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Leopard 2 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Your addition to the article has now been reverted by three different editors, all three citing WP:NOTNEWS, and you are right on the edge of violating the 3RR rule, so maybe it's time for you to realise that adding it wasn't a good idea. Thomas.W talk to me 16:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hiya. M16 & Galil usage in late 20th century IDF[edit]

Hi. I never have any issues with your edits, and I respect you as a knowledgable ed. I did have concern over the recent edit to Galil. There certainly appears to have been large transfers of M16 in the 70s, but by the 82 Leb war the Galil appears to have been mainly used by front line units. Check the excellent "Armies in Lebanon 1982-84" by Samuel Katz. It has dozens of excellent photographs, covering at least 2 years of IDF operations. The large majority of infantry and paras appear to be using the Galil SAR. The ARM is actually not in evidence much. This was probably down to the weight issue of the ARM that you noted. M16A1 do appear to be evident in some pics in second line and reserve units. So it looks like the Galil was not phased out in any meaningful sense. Rather the switch to the SAR version seems strong from photographic evidence.

Certainly by 2001 there was a massive transfer of the M4, and this has been mostly used by frontline units till the Tavor has begun to replace them. Regards from Irondome (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I don't know the exact makeup of rifles used by the IDF at that point in time. All I know is that the reference said the M16A1 began to be delivered around 1975 and troops liked it because it was lighter. I also don't know if the M16 or Galil was in more front-line use when the TAR-21 came around, but in Israel almost every gun they get is kept in use somewhere. America789 (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
No worries. Its true it was very popular because of weight advantages. There seems to have been a mix in use, but the Galil SAR seemed to be the most predominant of the Galil series. My only issue with the present edit is that it gives the impression that the Galil was withdrawn from service, which it certainly was not. They still even have stocks of K98 Czech, though lots have come on to the civilian market esp in the US and Aus. The moral is, dont throw stuff away. You never know when you might need it! Cheers from Irondome (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, the reference says the Galil was mostly replaced in favor of the lighter M16. It says they arrived in the mid-1970s, and not which was more dominant at any date after. The Gailil probably was more used in 1982 than the M16. To be fair, the page's history section isn't very specific. America789 (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Textron AirLand Scorpion[edit]

You might be interested in Textron AirLand Scorpion. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. America789 (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. You're pretty good at digging up sources and adding them to article, and that might help save the article from a premature deletion. - BilCat (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Nice work. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Combat Vehicle 90 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *{{NLD}}: 193 CV9035NL (Initial order of 184 vehicles<ref name="bae-nl">{{cite web | url=http://www.baesystems.se/Hagglunds/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Stop icon Your addition to .303 British has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

CCI Notice[edit]

Hello, America789. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

I wanted to let you know that the CCI is now open at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/America789. This is generally a very slow and low-drama process - the point is simply for contributors who are comfortable within our copyright policies to ensure that content is consistent with those policies and flag or remove content that is not. Volunteers who help out with these are advised that they do not need to notify you of action. It's presumed that you're now familiar with the policies, and there is no desire to draw undue attention to older issues by spamming somebody's talk page with notices about policies and guidelines they have become familiar with. Occasionally, somebody will place the notice anyway with good intentions because the notices are standard in most instances. Since issues are flagged on the CCI page itself, if you watchlist it you should know when articles are addressed, in case you would like to assist with any cleanup. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing issues[edit]

Hello, America789.

I've been asked to review your contributions relative to the request at WP:CCI, and I'm afraid that I do also see some issues with following your sources too closely to accord with Wikipedia's guidelines. I've found limited issues in four articles so far, including M8 Armored Gun System, M1128 Mobile Gun System, S&T Motiv K14, and Lightweight Medium Machine Gun.

[WP:close paraphrasing|Close paraphrasing]] can be a problem under both our copyright policies and our guideline on plagiarism.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are. For an example of close paraphrasing, consider the following: The source says:

The K14 is sold as a package to the ROK Army; it includes the rifle, a quality daytime scope, clip on in-line night vision sight, training ammunition, ghillie suit and other necessary accessories for sniper training and missions.

Article S&T Motiv K14 says:

The K14 is sold as a package to the ROK Army that includes: the rifle, a daytime scope, clip on in-line night vision sight, training ammunition, ghillie suit, and other necessary accessories for sniper training and missions.

I've bolded to make it more clear where language follows precisely on its source - only a few words have been changed or omitted.

This is just one example; there are other passages that similarly follow quite closely in that and the other articles, drawing from multiple sources.

As a website that is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously to protect the interests of the holders of copyright as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers. Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch. So that we can be sure it does not constitute a derivative work, closely paraphrased content should be revised to separate it further from its source. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

At this point, it looks to me as though a CCI may in fact be necessary. I don't think the issues here are insurmountable by any stretch of the imagination, but we do need to be sure that content that doesn't conform to our local policies is flagged and fixed. This is not in any way meant to discourage you from contributing, although your help in repairing those issues would be very much appreciated. It is important, though, that you learn to work comfortably within our approach to using language from sources, since repeated issues with close paraphrasing are disruptive. Often, it's just a matter of condensing more detail and using more varied sources.

I'll be watching your talk page in case you'd like to discuss this, but it would be appreciated if you would address me by my username (as [[User:Moonriddengirl]] or even {{ping|Moonriddengirl}} to make sure I don't overlook your response. I sometimes am away from my talkpage for several days, but if you respond to me with questions especially and I don't get back with you quickly you're very welcome to leave a note at mine or to put a {{tb}} template there.

Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry for the disturbances I have caused to editors, but I am having trouble understanding how to resolve the problems. There are only so many ways to write the same thing. For example, the K14 sentence you brought up is a list - it says what is part of the system. How am I supposed to write what is in the list and not say the same thing as the content? I am not trying to plagiarize, but other passages that had paraphrasing was called "too close," so even other wordings of content are disputed. I say I'm just transferring content from references, so where is the line between writing information and "too close of using the same words?" America789 (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I've restored the tags you removed from the articles. I'm afraid that you addressed only the example passage, and as I noted there are more than that within the article. The duplication detector highlights the worst of them. Beyond that, the way you rewrote the passage in question, I'm afraid, is unlikely to fix issues of this sort. Trying to correct paraphrasing by replacing scattered words and passages is likely to still leave a derivative work.
As Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing suggests, one of the best ways to revise such problems is make a list of facts from your sources and weave them together in your own words and structure into something new. When you only have one source, this is not as easy, but not impossible. It is, however, much harder to do if you do it sentence by sentence instead of in context of the whole. So, for instance, looking at [1], my notes might look like this:
  • XVIII Airborne Corps (quick response Army paratrooper) seeking light tanks or wheeled alternatives to replace the Sheridan tanks surrendered in 1997.
  • Why: While Air Force and Navy support can provide distance firepower, the risk to civilians and ineffectiveness against enemies "in machine gun bunkers or in other covered position" makes relying solely on their support inadequate.
  • Requirements: "ballistic protection against 14.5 mm and .50 caliber rounds" and off-road capable; specific gun caliber not required.
  • "4-14-44: Four vehicles at the platoon level, 14 at company and 44 for a full battalion"
  • Plan: Money and time-constraints (24 months deadline) means must choose an available vehicle and not create a new design
  • Challenge is in finding vehicles of proper size to be transported by C-130 cargo planes and parachuted into combat areas.
  • 140 "potential candidates will be narrowed down to 10" that will be used to draw up specs to solicit bids, selecting a unit for testing.
  • One candidate: "eight-wheeled Mobile Gun System, a 105 mm tank gun mounted on a light-armored Stryker vehicle made by General Dynamics Land Systems" if given additional blast protection and a more mobile suspension system, which General Dynamics would be willing to supply.
  • What this is not: Future Combat Systems which would have supplied Army-wide "high-tech vehicles, robots and communications systems" but was cancelled in 2009.
  • While fast-moving all-terrain powerful guns that can be delivered by C-130s are still needed, they are not currently being sought. The emphasis is on protection.
  • Ground Combat Vehicle program intended to replace heavy armor.
I've rearranged the source structure a little bit into an order that makes sense to me. I used quotation marks to flag to myself where I've copied language precisely. This will help me avoid inadvertently duplicating it. If this were my only source (I see you have another), I might arrive at a paragraph like this:

In 2013, the Army discussed its intention to seek light tanks or wheeled alternatives to replace the Sheridan tanks it surrendered in 1997. These tanks would be used to provide firepower to the XVIII Airborne Corps, rapid response Army paratroopers, who must now rely on Air Force and Navy support on the ground. They argue that where civilians may be endangered by bombs or enemies may be covered or sheltered by machine gun bunkers, such remote firepower is inadequate. They hope to be able to equip platoons with four vehicles, companies with 14 and battalions with 44.

The Army has set a 24 month deadline to find a vehicle and this, coupled with budget concerns, means they are seeking among existing vehicles rather than designing something new. While no caliber of gun has been specified, they require an off-road capable vehicle that offers its occupants protection against up to 14.5 mm and .50 caliber rounds. It must be properly sized for transportation on the C-130 cargo plane and parachuting into combat areas. Their current plan is to draw up specifications from the ten best candidates out of the current field of 140 with which to solicit bids. Candidates may require modifications; for example, they would consider the General Dynamics Land Systems' eight-wheeled Mobile Gun System if the lightly armored Stryker vehicle were given a more mobile suspension system and additional blast protection. Such modifications, General Dynamics Land Systems warns, may drive up expense.

A previous program to enhance Army technology, the Future Combat Systems, was cancelled in 2009. It was intended to provide high-tech vehicles, robots and communications systems to the entire army. The Army still needs fast-moving, all-terrain powerful guns that can be dropped by C-130s, but the current emphasis is on protection. There is an additional drive, the Ground Combat Vehicle program, intended to replace heavy armor.

This is my first draft, based on my notes. I would then double-check that against my source to make sure I haven't inadvertently nudged anything closer to the source. Of course, you might focus on completely different facts - I have little familiarity with the subject area and so may not be highlighting the details that would matter to people who do.
When you have two sources, all the better. The more information (not language) that you can weave together from them, the less likely you are to come too close to either.
It is more time-consuming, obviously, to work in this way, but it does produce content that is generally free of copyright issues. (If any of that material is useful to you, you are free to use it without attribution in either article - I waive my attribution rights to it. However, I have not had time to do the requisite check against the source. I've got to check my talk page quickly and then run!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

SR-72[edit]

Please re-cite this edit of yours so as to help others verify the claims in the future. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If you won't, I may have to remove your edit and re-work everything. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Which edit are you referring to? America789 (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This one. Never mind, I've revamped your edit. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014[edit]

Hi, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lockheed Martin SR-72[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Continuing close paraphrasing issues[edit]

Hi. I tried to explain above how to resolve copyright issues, but I'm not sure if the process is clear. You have once again removed a close paraphrasing tag from an article that continues to contain close paraphrasing.

For example:

Facing that high a concentration of trained snipers with special equipment, the ROK Army has realized from its recent combat experiences that it needs to evolve the sniper role.

After your modification, the article says:

n the face of a high concentration of trained snipers with special equipment, the ROK Army realized from its recent combat experiences that it needed to evolve the sniper role

Your changes are superficial and have not eradicated the paraphrasing issues. Please rewrite fully and do not superficially modify before removing the tag. I have not yet checked the other source, but will. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Is that the only close paraphrasing issue left on that article? I do not think my changes were superficial as I reworded most of the other close sentence-long ones. Other things highlighted as duplicates seem really superficial and don't look like changing some words would matter. America789 (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
No, that's just an example. I'm not doing a line-by-line analysis. Your rewriting is still sentence by sentence, which as I noted above does not address structural issues, and it is also leaving behind derivative passages such as this one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

5.56 NATO / bullet fragmentation[edit]

I think you like to read the Martin Fackler article and its references and external links.--Francis Flinch (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What? America789 (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Format question for recent edits to 6.5 Grendel[edit]

I saw that you put in some pretty information-rich edits for 6.5 Grendel. Normally I'd attempt to try to add some paragraph spaces to divide up such a big mass of information. But I hesitate to touch this so since I don't know the best way to divide up your references. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for saying something to me. I've split the paragraph in two, the first for benefits and the second for deficiencies. America789 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
That really makes a difference! Looks good. Sorry to even bring it up, but I didn't want to interfere and split up the wrong way what looked like a significant amount of research effort. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Philippine Army's impending M113 Fire Support Vehicle[edit]

Hi, I reverted the latest edit you made on the "List of equipment of the Philippine Army" wherein you added the 14 76mm armed M113s on the listing. This is to retain the listing as of those currently with the P.A.'s inventory. Actually there are several impending confirmed deliveries including 114 M113A2 from your country's stocks but are not yet listed due to the same reason. Alternatively, there is a "Future acquisitions" subtopic in the Philippine Army page, which you can add this 76mm armed M113 development. Thanks. Phichanad (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't you move that if you were already removing it? America789 (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 22 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Airbus E-Fan[edit]

A-789, I just created an article on the Airbus E-Fan electric aircraft. There's a lot of info out there, especially at FlightGlobal. Any help on the article is appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Made a contribution. America789 (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II[edit]

Hi, I noticed you've been adding information about recent developments concerning this aircraft, so I wanted to let you know about the discussion on this topic. Me and a few other editors feel that the section about the retirement plans is too long and detailed, you're welcome to participate in the discussion on the article's talk page (section The Proposed retirement chapter, another try). Cheers, — Yerpo Eh? 08:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. America789 (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Iron Dome[edit]

I appreciate your recent edit on the Iron Dome system. However, the source you gave mentions a cost of $5000 per laser shot while your text mentions only $1. Could you fix this? Khazar (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think what it means is a laser system would cost $5,000 to build, not to shoot. I've read plenty of articles on the LaWS' deployment saying a single shot costs $1, and this article says that about it too. I know energy weapons cost something that cheap to fire, but I haven't seen much on system production cost, so I'm pretty sure that's what that is. I've changed the page to state that building and firing costs are cheaper and moved $1 per shot down to LaWS section. America789 (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Airbus Helicopters H160[edit]

A789, I've just created an article on the new Airbus Helicopters H160. Any additions you can make to it would be highly appreciated. I'm also considering a new article on its powerplant, the Turbomeca Arrano, probably sometime this week or next. Thanks for any help you can provide. - BilCat (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I added some specifications and D&D info. America789 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)