User talk:America789

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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

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

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

Page names

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

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

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

Phanto Sentinel

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

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

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

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

AMPV

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

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 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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.

Close paraphrasing issues

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)