User:Marcd30319/Archive 2013

Wikipedia_talk:SHIPS#Heritage_of_US_Navy_Carrier_Strike_Groups

As the primary writer of these CSG articles, you probably have some thoughts on this matter that SturmVogel66 has raised. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carrier Strike Group Ten, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stars and Stripes (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) 11:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

File:La Motte Piquet Argyll Abraham Lincoln Persian Gulf 5.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:La Motte Piquet Argyll Abraham Lincoln Persian Gulf 5.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:PLAN World Circumnavigation - 001fd04c63060c1d273905.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:PLAN World Circumnavigation - 001fd04c63060c1d273905.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Triton Park.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Triton Park.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Do not, ever again, use the "undo" buttom without an individualized edit summary when reverting a clearly explained good-faith edit, as you did here, here and here. This goes for every good-faith content edit, but it goes even more for edits enforcing compulsory non-free content policy. The very least you owe in such a situation is an explanation.

What you are doing is disruptive edit-warring and will not be tolerated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Triton Park.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Triton Park.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2011–12 Strait of Hormuz dispute, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages C-2 and Stars and Stripes (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) 11:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Help request

Happy to help, but not entirely sure what help you're actually asking for. Some of my advice is obvious from my edits (like cutting down on excess references) but very happy to give advice on specific points. Look forward to hearing from you. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey Marcd30319, good work for writing up the Task Force 80 article!! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Task Force 80 at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Query re Second Fleet

Hi Marcd30319. Would you consider enabling the email this user function? Got some offline questions I'd like to ask regarding Second Fleet. Cheers and thanks, Buckshot06 (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Task Force 80

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Invasion of Grenada, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages VA-15, VA-87 and VA-176 (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) 18:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carrier Strike Group Eleven may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s and 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CVV (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) 11:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carrier Strike Group Eleven, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VA-52 (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) 10:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Task Force 60

Thankyou for starting an article draft on this important task force. Do you have any WP:Reliable Sources that mention the term 'Task Force 60' before February 12, 1950? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. At the moment it's your sandbox article. Will not make any edits to it until it's in the mainspace. However, I firmly believe that any discussion of preliminaries to TF 60 as the Mediterranean battle force belongs at United States Sixth Fleet or maybe Naval Forces Mediterreanean, and the content in the article should start from February 12, 1950. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

At the moment this article is appearing in the namespace as User"Marcd30319/Task Force 60 version A. I presume this is unintentional, and you meant for it to be in a sandbox. Can you either select an appropriate namespace title, such as Task Force 60, and move it to, or alternatively move it back into user space, i.e. User:Marcd30319/Task Force 60 version A, and tag the redirects for deletion. Thanks. Benea (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Marc. Noticed your ongoing work on TF 60, and it looks pretty good. Just two things I wanted to advise you of. You and I might guess that TF 60 is C6F's current Battle/Strike Force, but it seems that might not be the case anymore. If you look at the TF 61 section of Sixth Fleet, you'll see there's a note by a officially-acknowledged Public Affairs source as of 2011 that TF 60 is the C2 Force, while TF 61 seemingly has become the Carrier Striking Force. Wanted to make you aware of that.

Also wanted to clarify 'Combined Task Force 160' during the early part of OIF. Stufflebeam's wikipedia page says this was TF 60, and CTF 160 is not referenced in your reference, the TR CY-2003 history, nor anywhere else I can find. Are you sure it's not simply 'Commander Task Force 60', as the formation was a U.S.-only, not multinational, force? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me fixing the document 415 link, which was pointing to document 533. Also, have checked all four references that you cite regarding Task Force 24, and the force that Rear Admiral Arnold led out during the Suez Crisis is mentioned (only once) as Task Force 26. Maybe a typo? Anyway wanted to run that past you. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a seed article for the Fifth Eskadra at 5th Operational Squadron, linked to Russian wikipedia. Just wanted to remind you again that TF 60 does not appear to be the Battle/Strike Force anymore; that's TF 61. TF 60 is now, seemingly, the C2 Force. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Good work on this Marc; this is shaping up well. However, there are multiple places where the wording you've imported is a bit ponderous. You commended me before our later disagreements over the tightening of wording at the Carrier Strike Group articles. Would you mind if I rewrote some of the sentences to improve the flow, without removing any of the core content? Also, just a note, you've removed one of the wrong Task Force 24 references but the other one is still there. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the encourage, Buckshot06. I appreciate it. The article is still very much a work in progress, so allow me to complete its draft. I do plan a very careful and thorough quality assurance review of the text and references. I think any independent review before the article launch may create confusion on my part. Given the scope of the article and other outside, real-life obligations, I need all the concentration I can muster. Thanks for the offer, but let's put this in abeyance until its launch. Also, I will responde to that email that you sent me. Take care! Marcd30319 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, look forward to your message. You obviously write from a great deal of professional experience, which I'd been keen to hear more about. Do say when/if you'd like me to do some editing on the draft. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I will create a final sandbox draft "B" version for Task Force 60, do a final QA, footnote check-over, and rewrite, and after that, I will alert you and others to contribute. After that, then the article will go live, with possible DYK nom, etc. Marcd30319 (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Destroyer Squadron Sixty at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Destroyer Squadron Sixty

Please note my comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Destroyer Squadron Sixty: Everything checks out and this is ok to be promoted. The one problem that needs resolving before this makes it to the Main Page is to fix the inconsistency with the dates (some are DMY and others are MDY). violet/riga _^[talk] 17:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Destroyer Squadron Sixty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philippines campaign (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) 12:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Destroyer Squadron Sixty

Allen3 ^talk 00:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of world's longest ships 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:

• Enterprise Nuclear-powered aircraft carrier]. military-today.com</ref><ref>{{cite news|publisher=''[[Time (magazine)[Times]]''|title=Obit for a Carrier |date=January 7, 2013 |accessdate=2013-09-13|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

CSG 11

Hope you don't mind Marc; I've removed references to Momsen in this article, because it clearly states she was part of the George Washington CSG, not the Nimitz CSG, and have rewritten the material on Higgens to emphasise when she left CSG 11. I've removed references to the port visits she made well after leaving the CSG, because the CSG at the time was still in the Fifth Fleet, while by the time she reached Thailand she would have been part of TF 75 (or another Seventh Fleet TF). Would you mind if I added the material instead to the Higgens article or the C7F article? Regards - hope you are well. Looking forward to getting your e-mail reply to my earlier mail. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Buckshot06, hope all is well. I appreciate your efforts and suggestions, but both Higgins and Momsen initially deployed as units of CSG-11. Often, strike group destroyers are temporarily assigned to other naval formations such as Combined Task Force 151. Ditto Momsen was part of CSG-11 when it initially deployed before temporarily operated with CSG-5. I am going to revert, but I will make note of these events in the main CSG-11 article, and in the individual articles for Momsen and Higgins. Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Marc; hope you're happy with my adjustments. Would greatly value you answering my e-mail regarding your background and experience. Am sometimes passing through Los Angeles and/or Washington/New York; are you located near either of those areas? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Buckshot06. Certainly the 2013 deployment of CSG-11 lack the cohesion and symmetry of your typical carrier strike group deployment. This may reflect the affects of the budget sequester. For Wikipedia article, my natural preference is writing declarative sentences. Also, I like to track the ships assigned to the carrier strike group throughout a given deployment. Additionally, phrases like "Sometime on or before" just does not strike me as being particularly encyclopedic or scholarly. That's just me. Regarding Higgins, U.S.Carrier.net indicates that after completing a naval exercise the ship paid a number of port visits before returning home. However, U.S.Carrier.net does not indicate when the Higgins left the Fifth Fleet. Therefore, I wrote that after leaving the Fifth Fleet the Higgins went home after paying those port visits. This seems consistent with U.S.Carrier.net since Higgins obviously left the Fifth Fleet before it went home. Regarding Momsen, the more I thought about your suggestion, the more I concurred with its underlying correctness. As I said, I do like keeping tract of ships assigned to a given carrier strike group during a particular deployment. I therefore included a brief sentence about Momsen returning home, and I included a link to the main USS Momsen article regarding its 2013 deployment. I am also monitoring the USS Preble which may also require replicating the approach used for Momsen. Quite frankly, I think we are very close to a consensus on these issues. I will revert back to the previous changes, but I will add "independent operation" to Momsen and link that to the 2013 deployment info at the USS Momsen main article. Also, I will mention Momsen operating with CSG-5 in the USS Momsen main article. I think this approach achieves all of our goals. Finally, I will respond to your email. I have been very busy looking for a new job, and I quite frankly forgot about it. My apologies for this oversight, and I will rectify the situation. All the best! Marcd30319 (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sure, the ships were very spread out, but the single retired-admirals' brief I was able to see ten years ago indicates that this may be normal; only the air defence cruiser sticks with the carrier, as the 'general' submarine threat is very low and all the escorts have myriad MSO things to do. My approach is exactly to say as much as we know about when the escort/s left the main body of the CSG to detach to do other things in the same fleet area or shift to another fleet to return home. That's not the polished press in the style the releases use, but it's all we have - in later years cruise books etc may indicate more exactly. The more exact we can be, the more future readers can build on. Anyway looking forward to your e-mail. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've just created Destroyer Squadron 50. Please feel free to add/amend as you see fit. I suppose we now ought to think about Desron 40. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carrier Strike Group Eleven, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phuket (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) 11:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carrier Strike Group Three, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VA-95 (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) 09:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USNS Lewis B. Puller (T-MLP-3/T-AFSB-1), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Switchboard (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) 09:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for USNS Lewis B. Puller (T-MLP-3/T-AFSB-1)

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)