User talk:Marcd30319/Archive 2010

File:Natologo.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Natologo.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominated USS Triton for February 16th FA
I nominated the article on the USS Triton for the Feature Article of February 16th:

Feature Article nomination - February 16th

I think that I did the nomination correctly, but you may to review and comment.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the article is not a Featured article which means that it is ineligible to be displayed as Today's Featured article. To attain FA status you need to take the article to WP:FAC. Unfortunately, the article won't pass in time to appear on 16 February of this year. Since the article is only GA and its review was more than a year ago, I would suggest a A-Class review at WP:MILHIST first, or else your first trip to FAC would be too overwhelming. -MBK004 03:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I already replied on my talk, but just to comment on MBK's post, I agree with him. FACs are&mdash;quite frankly&mdash;scary, because they like to pick at every bit of what you have written. What you have to do is address their comments without getting angry, because the reviewers are right most of the time and so the recommendations help the article. What an A-class nomination will do is spread out the amount of picking, so you'll receive 30-40% in the A-class nom and the remainder in a FAC. Cheers friend, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Triton source review
Hi Marc, I responded to you on my talk. A quick sources review for you to chew on before someone else remarks on it:
 * 1) Current refs 22/45/68 ("Ship's History", http://garrygray.tripod.com/ships_history.htm ), is not reliable per WP:SPS
 * 2) Current ref 67 (navsource) is iffy, not sure here
 * 3) Current ref 153 isn't reliable, WP:SPS
 * 4) Current red 177 should use cite DANFS
 * 5) Current ref 185 (""Psychological Officers" - Submarine - Part 2", http://aquilinefocus.blogspot.com/2008/12/psychological-officers-submarine-part-2.html ) is a blog, see WP:SPS
 * 6) Current ref 193 (Dibner, Bern) needs a title for the book and a page number
 * 7) Current ref 195 ("U.S. Military Medals") is now an ad site... or something.
 * 8) Current ref 196 ("Presidential Unit Citation", http://garrygray.tripod.com/presidential_unit_citation.htm ) isn't reliable, SPS
 * 9) Is current ref 198 (http://www.philsp.com/data/images/a/argosy_196008.jpg ) linking to an a web page "carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright"? ([[WP:LINKVIO]})
 * 10) Something's wrong with current ref 200...
 * 11) Current ref 214 ("Naval Unit Citation (1967)", http://garrygray.tripod.com/navy_unit_commendation2.htm ) is SPS
 * 12) Same with ref 221 http://garrygray.tripod.com/atws/atws_plaque.htm
 * 13) I need to go back to to my paper, so I went through these really fast (and didn't look at the last six or so). I probably missed a few, but at least this gives you a headstart on the A-class nom. Regards friend, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  02:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

USS Triton A-class review
"Who care about something like a 50th anniversary around here?"

That's not fair, we do care. We care a lot. And judging by your 1,000+ edits to the article you care too. The problem here is that you were apparently unfamiliar with the processes by which we select our featured article for the day, and now I sense that because this article will not pass an FAC in time you are throwing in the towel. That is a really bad idea.

The editor you've singled out for fixing problems behind you back was editing in good faith, and the edits made were to help the article pass an A-class review. And my suggestions are also to help the article gain a FA-star. Even if the article does not making onto the main page as the TFA, there exists the possibility it will be mentioned in selected anniversaries on the mainpage, and we could always do with another FA-class article. At the moment, you are the person best suited to bring the article up to FA-status, having worked for so long on the article. I therefore urge you to reconsider your position on the article's A-class candidacy. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, please do not revert the article back to a pure copy-paste DANFS type article. It displays an extreme form of ownership which is not allowed per policy. -MBK004 00:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure your comment on my talk page was exactly friendly, either. I admit, that string of edits could've been better done in one pass; I was tired. Nevertheless, it was intended as improvement. The rv appears to be pique, & it's not good form.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  08:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping
You have an email, my friend. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  20:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
— Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:NATO Allied Command Atlantic - July 1954.svg
Thanks for uploading File:NATO Allied Command Atlantic - July 1954.svg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.


 * While i agree with your conclusion regarding this file, I'm still a little puzzled how you after concluding that "No free equivalent available. Copyright apparently held by NATO, but there is no indication anywhere that this is or is not public domain." can result in the file being PD-author? I don't see anywhere where it is stated that the source-file is licensed as PD, so I would assume it is not (and thus the SVG-version would be an non-permitted derivative). Also NATO has this little nasty tendency to use the term public domain for information release to the public, while they still retain copyright, but they don't do it consistent (even though the term public domain is pretty well-defined by the NATO Terminology Management System as "communication and information systems resources located in public areas and (which may be) under public control", but that's another sad story... :) --Hebster (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dab links, redirects, and alt text
You've done an outstanding job of working to address these issues during the review, I was fearful there for a while that the article would not achieve such a high note of assessment.

Despite this though, your comments concerning the dab links and alt text are incorrect; a check in the toolbox show that there are still some dab links in the article, that some images still need alt text, and that some of the external links still need help. To determine which links and images need help, you can use the toolbox located on the review page to find the problematic links. A short guide to the toolbox and how to use it can be found here, if you still have questions or can not get the pages you need leave a message for me and or The ed17 and we will be happy to provide you with the links in question.

Again, outstanding work. You've got two high quality articles in the works now, and a little more work will help ensure they get through this process and receive the A-class status you seek. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BE080686-Gallant Hours Montgomery Cagney.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BE080686-Gallant Hours Montgomery Cagney.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gallant Hours-Montgomery-Halsey-Cagney.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Gallant Hours-Montgomery-Halsey-Cagney.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Skycapwot.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Skycapwot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Gallant Hours VHS cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Gallant Hours VHS cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:PLAN World Circumnavigation - 001fd04c63060c1d273905.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PLAN World Circumnavigation - 001fd04c63060c1d273905.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

File:NATO Allied Command Atlantic - July 1954.svg
I've deleted File:NATO Allied Command Atlantic - July 1954.svg as a copyright violation. It appears to come from the book NATO: The First Five Years, and since it is easy to create a free-content replacement, it fails the requirements for non-free content. --Carnildo (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

USS Triton FAC
Sadly, this is one area where I can not be much help. FACs are out of my hands to affect since they are process run by Wikipedia and not milhist. The best I can do is suggest that you read this and this, then speak with and explain the situation to him. Raul is a fair man, and has granted some leniency toward our editors concerning special date and main page appearances, so he may be willing to bend a little under the circumstances if you explain the situation to him personally. Other than that, though, there is nothing I can do beyond supporting the article as I already have. Editors for both milhist and ships have been informed of the FAC, its now in the communities hands as to whether or not to swing by and support. Until such time as a few days go by without commenters at the FAC I can not raise the matter in good faith, so at this point the article is going to have sail under her own power so to speak. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Terminology nit-pick
Hi Marc, I'm sorry to butt in, but you have consistently been stating that A-Class is an A-list review, when in fact it is an A-class review. The use of list can confuse some people who are not that familiar with the process. Thanks, -MBK004 01:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:1966 Soviet submarine global circumnavigation
It is a B-class article, it meets all B-class criteria. You can change the article to B-class status by filling out each of the five fields in the milhist template on the talk page with thier corresponding number to equal yes (ie "B1=yes, B2=yes", etc), or you can leave the article at the request for assessment page and someone within the project will independently verify the article's B-class status and change it from there. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not real good with DYK material; I would suggest asking for help, he is usually good with DYK-related material and ought to be able to bring this matter to a successful resolution. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 1966 Soviet submarine global circumnavigation
Hello! Your submission of 1966 Soviet submarine global circumnavigation at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer  Waters  00:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Left more comments at T:TDYK. Materialscientist (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Materialscientist (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry for the late reply; I was away for a couple days, then missed your message. It appears to have been removed in this edit. Sorry. :/ — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
I accidentally pressed the rollback link for your edit, not 's. πr2   ( talk  •   contributions ) 22:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Grand Slam (NATO)
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

COMNAVSURFLANT
Thanks for your work on Exercise Verity. Would you like to take a look at Commander, Naval Surface Forces Atlantic and add some material? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Western Union Defence Organization
Hello, your nomination of Western Union Defence Organization at DYK has been reviewed and comments provided.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Exercise Verity
The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance tags
You removed two valid maintenance tags from Carrier Strike Group Eleven without fulfilling the reason for why they were placed there. This removal is considered unconstructive and is not allowed. The tags have been re-added to the article, please do not remove them again without fixing the problem. This can be considered vandalism. -MBK004 05:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your creation of the CSG articles. Couple of thoughts. Could you insert a mention of the transition from Carrier Group Eight to Carrier Strike Group Two? There's no apparent reason why CarGru 8 is mentioned there - I know, but many others might not. Second, I've removed the general text about Admiral Vernon Clark's guidance for the ARG/Carrier Battle Group -> ESG/CSG from the Carrier Strike Group two article. This is applicable to all Carrier Strike Groups and does not need to be in each individual article - should be in the main article, and I've inserted it in Carrier strike group. Thanks again for all your hard work. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't create and then blank redirects. They need to lead to something. I've deleted them for now under CSD#A3, but should you wish to set them up again, make them point somewhere! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Western Union Defence Organization
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Carrier Strike Group Ten
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Carrier Strike Group Three
-- Cirt (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nora W. Tyson, Carrier Strike Group Two
Hey, I started an article for Nora W. Tyson and was curious if I could use your nomination of Carrier Strike Group Two to make it a good double nom? I left a comment there, so you could respond there.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for organizing the sections. It looks much better now. I will make a double NOM out of it at DYK. Tell me what you think there, I tried not to make the hook much longer.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

List of USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) command histories
Hi. I hesitated before listing  this article for deletion because  I  personally  have no  idea what  it  is about  or what  it  is supposed to  be. I didn't  want  it to  be deleted if you  are still  intending  to  expand it  as a proper list  or turn it  into  an  article that  uses all the references. Perhaps you could look  into  it  before another editor  decides to  delete it. --Kudpung (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Carrier Strike Group Two
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Design fortress1.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Design fortress1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User pages
Hi there Marc D. I have this compulsion to share ideas, so please humour me. :) Do forgive me if you already knew all this ...

A lot of people choose - as they're entirely entitled to - to leave their own wp:user page empty, with the result that their account name & signature stays in red on history pages etc. (as in here). You'll know that your own user page is empty & in red for now - User:Marcd30319. That's perfectly fine.

Others prefer to use their user page to show the articles they've created, or helped edit, or maybe the projects they're working on, ideas for the future, tips they've picked up & want in one place for reference /passing on, etc. etc. - you name it - basically just about anything they fancy having there.

So their user names & signature appear in blue, & other editors can see what their niche /forte is, for instance User:Agadant - we can see he/she does a lot on music albums etc. & their name's blue on the history pages of the articles they've edited again, here.

So, we can choose relative anonymity (red) or sharing ideas (blue).

There's no correct way - it's entirely personal choice.

But it did occur to me that it's interesting to see what articles interest people, & in your case, I wondered if you'd considered adding anything into User:Marcd30319:

Obviously, you could then edit / expand your user page just as & when you (& only you) saw fit.

Ah well, just a thought. Thank you for reading (if you got this far!). And just to reiterate, you don't need to do anything - it's completely a matter for you alone to choose or not, as you prefer - and there's no deadline either!

Best, Trafford09 (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group
Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Archiving
Hiya, Marcd30319, would you like some assistance with archiving your talkpage? I'd be happy to setup a bot for you which would automatically archive old threads, and then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. :) --Elonka 05:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have implemented auto-archivng for you. The bot will start working within the next 24 hours. --Kslotte (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Command histories
Hi Marc30319, thankyou for linking all these command histories onto Wikipedia. However, in accordance with Talk:Strategic_Air_Command and MOS standards, they actually belong on the pages of the individual ships. They're stub article without development potential otherwise. Please consider merging them with the ship articles. Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Buckshot, for your messsage regarding the U.S. Navy command histories. Quite frankly, I have had concerns about this.  I initially tried to  do just as you suggested, adding the command histories to the bibliography or external links of the article of the specific ship, but I got a message from User:RP459 about the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) questiong this, so I came up with the List alternative approach.  I even got an Original Barnstar from User:RP459 on 9 September 2010 for this solution.  Maybe you and RP459 can discuss this and get back with me, or we can kick this over to User:The ed17 at WikiProject Military history who is very good at resolving these issues.  I just want other Wikipedians to hace access to this U.S. Navy primary source material.  Please advise.Marcd30319 (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the best way is to go straight to WT:MILHIST. Would you mind adding a section to the main talk page explaining the issue? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Link to MILHIST: U.S. Navy Command History
 * Thanks for taking it to the talkpage Marc30319. Did I make myself clear with the additional question I placed at CSG-2? There appears to be no link whatsoever between Carrier Group Eight and CSG-2. Please explain this based on sources. At the moment, if I did not know you as an expert on the USN, I would remove the CarGru Eight material because it appears to have absolutely nothing to do with CSG-2. Please write some text explaining this. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)