User talk:Jasonkwe

Welcome!
Hi Jasonkwe! I noticed your contributions to Talk:Clinton–Lewinsky scandal&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 01:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome! I don't check in often but I try to contribute if I see small things that could be clarified. And thanks for the tips; this post should be signed correctly lol.

Jasonkwe (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Harold "Pie" Keller
I am clueless with all things Wikipedia. Check out the talk section for Harold "Pie" Keller. Raiders were on Midway Island. Pie was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5C0A:4400:C063:A2B3:452:B4BA (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi. Uhhh, I don't know anything about that.  My edits didn't touch anything about Midway Island, it was just adding a quote from a letter sent to him by a Marine general.
 * I looked into what you wrote and it seems plausible. He enlisted in Jan 1942 and the Battle of Midway was June 4 1942.  But with boot camp being around 4 months long, that'd be just enough time for him to have joined Carlson's Raiders.  Plus, several of the cited sources for his page listed his presence at Midway.  In the future, though, please consider joining the community and making the edits.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

List of Tri-Service designations
I partially reverted your edit to List of military aircraft of the United States. Separate sections for mission modifiers is not really useful because they do not have sequences like the basic mission designators. Explanations for the mission modifiers are best placed at 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system. - ZLEA  T \ C 02:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * My reasoning for adding in some of the modified mission designations was that the tanker section is in there. Sure, the entries for tanker is down in cargo as the KC-135 and KC-130 are cargo planes first.  But I figured that if the Tanker heading is there, someone is probably hitting CTRL-F and looking for "tanker" and they'd be confused if they didn't find it.  If they knew it was a KC designation, they probably wouldn't be reading the list in the first place.  That's why I added in the other modified mission designators like Cold Weather and Multi-Mission.
 * But I think there should be some uniformity to it. If we're not going to include any of the modified mission types, it should probably be across the board.  I think there's value to both implementations--including modified mission designators helps readers who might be looking for something specific like tanker or weather; removing all modified mission designators and only including basic mission types and vehicle types would things a little more neat and orderly.  But it shouldn't have a half and half approach. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There was once a "K" basic mission letter defined in the Tri-Service system, but it was never used before it was retired from the system. Therefore, the "K" in the list is not the same as the "K" mission modifier.  Similarly, the "D" sequence is defined in the system as a basic mission letter, but I have yet to find any information on the designations in the sequence, if any were even assigned in the first place, so for now it is left empty.  The inclusion of mission modifiers in the list would only confuse editors as it might lead them to believe that they are equivalent to the basic mission letters.  One way we can avoid the confusion you mentioned is to clarify that the list does not include mission modifiers unless the specific variants have separate articles from the base aircraft. -  ZLEA  T \ C 20:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahh, that clears things up and I do see the note that K was a basic mission designator between 1977 and 1985. I dunno where to get access to any copies of AFR 66-11 or AFI 82-1 but I see some other sources mentioning it.
 * As far as D sequence, maybe I'm misreading it but I'm only seeing it as a mission modifier or a vehicle type designator, not as a basic mission designator. In the last 4120.15-L that was released, they just lumped all the D vehicle types under the UAV Q vehicle type.  Maybe they are actually following a sequence for UAV control types (MD-1A, MD-1B, RD-2A, RD-2B) but I'm not sure.  I also wonder if it would be more or less confusing to put (vehicle type designator) next to applicable categories (D, G, H, Q, etc)  to indicate things like the Q section referring to the vehicle type, not modified mission (ie. "G: Glider (vehicle type designator/sequence)").
 * About listing mission modifiers if the specific variants have separate articles, do you mean also listing the variants under a section for their modified mission? Like have the "K: Tanker" section list KC-135, KC-130, etc (in addition to their primary listing under C-135 in the 1924 sequence)?   (on a related note, ok, I'm starting to see the compromises already made cause the C-130 MDS is still currently used but it was first introduced in the 1924 Army/AAC/AF system so you have to place it there first; but to also place it under the 1962-present system as a grandfathered-in sequence would just balloon the list further).
 * My concern with the modified mission sections is that it also does balloon the list further since you've got things placed in multiple sections (and looking at the talk page, people mentioned that in 2006 as well). My gut instinct, though, is to go for maximum clarity and list notable variants under their modified mission section as well.  Lists and references exist to help the reader, not the list maker.  It wouldn't list every single modified mission variant of every class 'cause we'd be here till the cows come home but, like you said, list only those significant enough that they have their own page.  But that's just my opinion.
 * On a related note, it might be a project to go back and comb thru for notable variants that do have their own pages but aren't listed there. VC-25 springs to mind but I'm sure there are others.
 * I'm also going to make a small edit to that page for grammar and a stop-gap explanation for the K designation later tonight.
 * Also, correct me if I'm wrong but although 4120.15-L was discontinued and moved to an AF database, you have to have a CAC to access that database so it's effectively not accessible to civilians, right? Unless you got an FOIA...dump? of the database (I dunno how that would work) Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the "D" designations in DoD 4120.15-L, I've added them to the article. What I mean about the mission modifiers is like how "H-1" and "H-6" are handled in the article, where the mission-modified variants are sub-bullets of the basic designation.  For the VC-25, however, the Boeing VC-25 article is on the base aircraft (no more basic variants have been called the "C-25"), and therefore the "C-25" link goes directly to that article.  If a variant does not have an article, it would be pointless to link it in the list, unless said variant is designated with a different number or sequence (For example, the Army and Air Force variants of the de Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou were designated V-2 and C-7, respectively).
 * As you said, separate sections for mission modifiers would create unnecessary complexity for a list which is, in my opinion, is a prime candidate for splitting (I started a splitting proposal last August, but it has gone nowhere). As for the C-130, while it was "grandfathered" when the Tri-Service system was introduced, it is not a part of the 1962 system as no changes were made to the "C" sequence which necessitated a designation change.  Most pre-1962 Air Force aircraft assigned Tri-Service designations were those which were also designated in the Navy and/or Army sequences.
 * Putting "(vehicle type designator)" after type designators is not necessary as both basic mission letters and type letters share the same spot in the MDS/TMS form. It is useful to keep them separate in the 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system article, but in the list of designations, there isn't a need to differentiate them.
 * And finally, an FOIA request might be our only option to acquire a more modern list of Tri-Service designations, and there are instructions on how to do it here. I'm not sure it would work, though, as the release of some designations might be prohibited by "Exemption (b)(1)", which exempts information which could threaten national security from FOIA (for example, black projects).  It wouldn't hurt to try, though. -  ZLEA  T \ C 02:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no problem. I had been thinking to delete the "ground" adjective since the system doesn't technically specify the D vehicle types have to be ground.  Currently they all are but maybe there might be a vehicle specially built for UAV launch and control that is an aircraft *shrug*.  I suppose that could be useful to extend the (already large) operating range of certain drones.  But that's just semantics.
 * Alright, I understand what you mean about how H-1 and H-6 are handled (like the baseline H-6, then bullets for MH-6 and AH-6 since both variants are significant enough to have their own pages). Hahaha I had been confused by the lack of VC-25 on the list but never actually clicked on its link.  Well, now I know that base has been covered.
 * Yeah, I did see your previous splitting proposal and that it got some votes going either way but nothing substantial enough to make a big change. About the C sequence from pre-1962 and the vehicle type designators, that sounds reasonable.  For the latter, it matters on the designation page but doesn't as much on this list page (conjures up the thought "tastes like chicken so it's all the same to me" for some reason lol).
 * I did have an idea about helping differentiate modified variants though. If someone went to the list page and searched w/ CTRL-F for "tanker", they'd come across the Tanker subsection and they'd find the KC-135 because tanker is in its name (Stratotanker).  But they'd miss a fair number of the others.  What about appending a small descriptor after the variants?  Like for H-6, the AH-6 sub-bullet would read "AH-6 Little Bird -- Boeing -- Attack Variant".  It wouldn't really lengthen the list and it'd help people find certain things if they don't already know how the designation system works.
 * About the FOIA, got it. Yeah, I had looked into the FOIA process but I don't have the time to manage that right now.  I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing something because all the official documentation says "available to Federal agencies and the public at data.af.mil" but data.af.mil asks me for CAC.  Guess it's kinda like the all the other stuff that's unclassified but not open for public distribution.  Whatever. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Jasonkwe

Thank you for creating Army Nomenclature System.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I appreciate it! Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello and thanks and special barnstar

 * @Charlesreid1 Oh, thank you!  I really appreciate you saying that and reassuring me that I'm not going in the completely wrong direction with how I'm editing lol.  I honestly got that from a CNN article   that interviewed.....I guess it would be Another Believer and I remembered something he said about how lots of articles, especially about current events, start with just a few sentences.  Funny how that came back full circle!  I hope one good turn deserves another and they can pass on help to someone else later down the line.  Thank you again :). Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 08:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow. Very nice of you to take the time to notice and respond. I am the person who asked the question and I'm incredibly grateful for everyone's help. TexasEditor1 (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Atak. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @BilCat I didn't check for consensus but given the article's short length, location in the world (given that this is the English language wiki), and fact that there were no edits for 2+ years, I didn't think there'd be much value or need to ask around. As far as discussion, was there one?  I didn't see anything on the talk page then or since.  If it's a controversial move or edit, I do ask for discussion and consensus but I felt it wasn't that necessary for this move.  I did read through the disambiguation page and article titles page before making that move so it was planned.
 * When you said to follow naming conventions, did you mean not including "(disambiguation)" in the page's title if there is no primary target? I saw that was what you reverted. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * When you said to follow naming conventions, did you mean not including "(disambiguation)" in the page's title if there is no primary target? I saw that was what you reverted. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry if that wasn't clear. BilCat (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @BilCat Ahhh ok, thanks. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:DABNAME for more information on naming DAB pages. BilCat (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixes
@Thewolfchild Hi, I was going to drop a note for you but I think you'd rather your talk page stay uncluttered given your workload. But I just wanted to thank you for those fixes on various pages including MARSOC and 5th SFG. I went on a bit of an image binge on commons and en.wiki so I'm rechecking those edits to see that I didn't break things too badly. And thanks for noticing the MARSOC edits which were done right before mine. I didn't even see them and shoulda noticed their delightfully unsourced nature. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Editing this project is a learning process that never really ends... for any contributor. Don't worry about making mistakes, errors are easily corrected. Just keep at it, and take advantage of the resources available to you, such the Teahouse, the Help Desk and the Village Pump, among others. Cheers - w o lf  02:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thewolfchild Thanks! I appreciate that and I try to check out each of those if I'm not sure of something.  But also, editing while sleepy is no good either lol.  Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 02:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thewolfchild After wrestling with it for several more hours, I'm kinda convinced that galleries are the way to go. It does open the door to people adding way too many photos but still preferable to how frustrating it is trying to place an image in a specific spot with the regular system (to me at least).  Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 09:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think you have a good image that will benefit the article, and do so in a particular section, then go ahead and add it. If it doesn't look right, play around with the markup (in WP:PREVIEW) until you get it right, or ask for help. It'll get sorted out one way or 'tother... and you'll likely learn something along the way. Just go for it ;-) - w o lf  11:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thewolfchild Oh, no worries, preview is my friend but I still was having trouble making the images stick where I thought I was telling them to stick. I ended up leaving a question in the teahouse so I hope I'll learn something from there.  Thanks again :).  Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 12:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael A. Jackson (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Animal control.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of United States Marine Corps acronyms and expressions, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages PT and As You Were.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of AN/PEQ-1 SOFLAM


The article AN/PEQ-1 SOFLAM has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:GNG, sources are all primary."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Billets Mauves €500 09:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @BilletsMauves Thank you for bringing this to my attention.  I will make some edits that will add secondary sources that discuss its notability and use during the US' global war on terror. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of United States Marine Corps acronyms and expressions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yokosuka Naval Base.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notices
Newimpartial (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Newimpartial Thanks for the heads up. Looking back over my post, I didn't realize I'd used "his" instead of "her" to refer to CWC in that original post on the talk page and corrected it.  It was an unintentional mistake but it's a good reminder to be more careful to avoid deadnaming/messing up pronouns.  Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Going back and changing the pronouns is great, but please be aware of WP:REDACT. Changing your entire comments after they've been replied to is generally something you want to avoid. --Pokelova (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Pokelova Dang it, didn't mean to break other guidelines.  I'll add strike throughs for transparency.  Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Dang it, didn't mean to break other guidelines - I'm not convinced that this is true. Adding the name to both article markup and the Talk page, while participating in a discussion about how the name is not to be used on WP in any capacity, seems to be heading out beyond "daft" into the "mean to break other guidelines" zone. Newimpartial (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Newimpartial You give me too much credit.  Hanlon's razor: never ascribe to malice what can equally be explained by stupidity (or ignorance).  I did not know that BLP applied to markup and the talk page as well (even though the vast majority of readers never even see the talk page much less article markup).  The reasoning for my suggestions was to prevent other editors from accidentally making the same edits over again.  My use of their full name on the talk page and in the markup was not to purposely break WP:AVOIDVICTIM but to provide specificity so all editors involved know what we're talking about and there's no confusion over what we're trying to avoid publishing.  If an edit is made on an article, it goes up and is indexable by search engines even if it is later reverted.  I think that would cause much much greater harm than use of the name on talk pages which are not indexed by search engines where the discussion is aimed at making sure we have all our ducks in a row to prevent such indexable edits on the mainspace. However, in retrospect, it was boneheaded to use the full name in the markup; I'd thought markup is excluded from indexing but I'm not so sure anymore.  I'll be asking a mod to delete that mainspace edit from the revision history.
 * Anyway, hope you have a good rest of your day.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

MSNBC disupte resolution
partial comments here:

MSNBC is a mouthpiece of the United States Government, just as CNN, Fox News, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. MSNBC is just worse at it then the other two. The link between private and public institutions is used as plausible deniability. Scientifically, the United States of America is an oligarchy, according to Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B "The preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy." https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy When the average member of the collective west thinks "oligarchy" they think "Russia", which, scientifically is true because the United States created Russia in the 1991 using Disaster Capitalism first brandished on the first September 11, 1973, with the 1973 Chilean coup d'état.

May1787 (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @May1787 I'm honestly not interested in any partisanship or opinions about the news organization itself. I just wanted to list the name because it's annoying to not know what an acronym stands for.  Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 07:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing!

for the heads up! May1787 (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 75th Ranger Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chechen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: First Armored
Re: your typo

You are welcome - and I apologize for the "rvv" in the comment. I had reverted before looking at your history and seeing that it was NOT vandalism! --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, no worries. It's my reminder to not edit while sleepy lol. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 05:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Fusion night vision devices has been nominated for merging
Category:Fusion night vision devices has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Estopedist1 (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 ~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

'' Hello Jasonkwe: Enjoy the  holiday season &#32;and  winter solstice  if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC) ''


 * Thank you, I really appreciate this. I hope you enjoy the holidays as well :).  Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)