User talk:Pmsyyz/Archive 1

50th Space Wing
Thank you for your edit to 50th Space Wing. I guess I was just busy reading all their documents to originally write that page, and it didn't occur to me that your way was much clearer. Frankly, I was feeling kind of bad for writing such a comprehensive page on what is inherently a fairly spooky organization. May I ask where you draw your USAF expertise from? Avriette June 30, 2005 23:33 (UTC)


 * I work at Schriever AFB. See my USAF page. --Pmsyyz 1 July 2005 00:50 (UTC)

RoboCop 2
I made the move but if you do not want it move back, I suggest that you look at the links and change them to point directly at RoboCop 2. (See what links here to the left of the page to see a list of the links) -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

AMHS
Are you zoomies implementing it now, or is it still in the planning stages? :). Just curious, heh. Conradrock 22:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Planning, though the hardware was supposed to have been already installed. --Pmsyyz 13:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox VG
The infobox should be floated on the right. Is there a specific page (also what browser do you use) where this is not happening? The infobox has been changed a number of times fairly recently and it may be just your cache or something to that effect. Let me know either way so I can investigate this more. Thank you. K1Bond007 02:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, it was a cache issue. A shift-reload fixed it.  I'm using Firefox through a Blue Coat proxy. --Pmsyyz

Barnstar
Fir e  Fo  x  18:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --Pmsyyz 06:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright notices
Please do not remove copyright violation notices as this is against Wikpedia regulations. Also, on the Kuwait Liberation Medal situation, the text of the U.S. portion was very clearly cut and pasted from the Institute of Heraldry website word for word. According to the regs of this website, that constitutes a clear copyright violation. The temp page was set up to replace the copyvio article and will most likely replace the article in question after enough time has past to get opinins and comments from all involved. -Husnock 03:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you point to those regs you speak of? You can't just slap a copyright violation notice on a page and point to a federal government website without justification.  --Pmsyyz 05:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Natsumi Abe
Abe Natsumi wasn't "vandalized", it was moved to Natsumi Abe since Abe is her last name. I'm trying to maintain that consistency with every Morning Musume/Hello! Project-related entry here. If you don't mind, I'm going to re-redirect Abe Natsumi to Natsumi Abe again. Cjmarsicano 15:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Abe isn't her last name, it is her family name, which in Japan comes first. Since Morning Musume members aren't widely known in English speaking countries, their names should stay in the proper Japanese order. --Pmsyyz 17:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Before you go on a rv-spree again, let me point out that a) the great majority of other H!P entries on Wikipedia are done last name last, and common format for rendering Japanese names in most of the English language press that I've seen has been last name last as well. Cjmarsicano 17:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Cjmarsicano, the way H!P members articles are being made are with first name first, surname last. Sploggers 05:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

salutations
I saw your addition to the list of Wikipedians by military branch under the U.S. Air Force heading, and came here to your user page to read up. As it turns out, I've actually been following your blog for quite some time now. I just thought I'd drop in to say "Hi" and tell you I read your blog. —  THOR  =/\= 06:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool, nice to meet you. I need to update my blog more.  I'm heading to the Middle East in January. --Pmsyyz 07:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured article for December 25th
I noticed that you have listed yourself as an atheist Wikipedian. You will probably be interested to know that Brian0918 has nominated Omnipotence paradox as the front page article for December 25th. You can vote on this matter here. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 08:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

?
Why thank you for screwing around with my user page. I appreciate it. Zer0fighta 20:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I could have sworn people didn't want to have obviously misspelled words on their user page. I wasn't aware of any English dialect in the world that left the apostrophe out of "I'm". Helpfully screwing around is the whole point of a wiki. --Pmsyyz 23:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Kodocha
The reason why "Kodocha" comes before "Kodomo no Omocha" in the intro is because EN caters towards English speaker - they usually live in the US, Canada, the UK, etc... and TOKYOPOP publishes the only English copy that I know of. WhisperToMe 07:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The Kodocha article is not just about the English publication of the manga. It is about the original manga, the anime based on it, and the translations of both into English.  The original name should come first, followed by the nickname. --Pmsyyz 08:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Like You croats solders
Croats forces for You are defonded, sergent? Colonel of Croats forces in Bosnia - Tomislav Dretar.--213.49.211.99 11:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This must be about the small bit of cleanup I did on Tomislav Dretar. I don't know enough about the situation or that person to say which side I would "like". --Pmsyyz 12:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear sergent, I'm very, very sorry. I have to be wrong! Please excuse me! --Tomislav Dretar 17:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by
Had I seen the edit before i would have thanked you sooner. I do appreciate input from wikipewdians especially since i'm still struggling with the web (CSS now, it's horror) but i want to learn! My father served as a petty officer in the Italian Air Force (40 years), since WW2 and served under Gen Alexander. By the way, the Italian Wikipedians have just opened the Italian Aviation Portal. Sorry about my poor English :-) --Wikipedius 11:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

AFforums link
I'm going to restore the link to USAF; they've stated they're only going to link it there and not spam it anywhere else and I think it's at least a valid link. RasputinAXP talk contribs 02:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

USAF info box?
I don't know if you'd be interested in implementing it or not, but I have something similar to the following on my user page (I edited the below for you).


 * That's quite nice, but I try to keep my userboxes to a minimum. Perhaps I'll add it in the future. --Pmsyyz 03:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

de.wikipedia
hi, i´m wondering about these edits? --GrummelJS 13:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure why I'm getting triple Image: prefixes. Looks like Bild: is the correct German anyway. Fixing. --Pmsyyz 14:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * yeah sometimes it´s weird. Image: should work too. but sometimes... ;) --GrummelJS 14:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki Map
Dear Philip,

Thanks for your suggestion about adding OrthodoxWiki to the interwiki map, and sorry for the delay in replying. It's been awhile since I logged in here. I'll take your advice though! Best wishes, Fr. John

High altitude nuclear explosions
Hi Philip, I was wondering whether you'd be able to contribute to an article I'm putting together at High altitude nuclear explosion. It looks like you're deployed, so this may be a non-issue. Specifically, I am not sure how I'd get ahold of some of the sources listed in the bibliography of this paper. There are a few of them, such as:


 * HEMP Electromagnetic Pulse from a High-Altitude Nuclear Burst. Washington, D.C.: Defense Special Weapons Agency, undated.
 * Secretary of the air force to chief of staff, Air Force, memorandum, Subj: “Program 437,” 20 March 1963. Document is now declassified. 
 * Secretary of the air force to deputy chief of staff, research and development, memorandum, Subj: “Program 437,” 28 March 1963. Document is now declassified.
 * Director of advanced engineering to AFSC, memorandum, Subj: “Program 437,” 20 March 1963. Document is now declassified. 
 * Director of advanced engineering to AFSC, memorandum, Subj: “Program 437 Operational Phase,” 5 July 1963. Document is now declassified.
 * Wayne R. Austerman, Program 437: The Air Force’s First Antisatellite System (Peterson AFB, Colo.: Air Force Space Command, 1991), 13.
 * Space Systems Division (SSD), Program 437 Partial System Program Package (Los Angeles, Calif.: Headquarters, Space Systems Division, 1963), 2-3. Document is now declassified.
 * Austerman, Wayne R. Program 437: The Air Force’s First Antisatellite System. Peterson AFB, Colo.: Office of History, 1991. Document is now declassified.
 * Curtin, Brig Gen Richard D., to AFSC. Subject: Program 437, 1 April 1963. Document is now declassified. 

... Basically a lot of things related to "Program 437." The rest of it is largely available through DTRA over the internet. Since 437 seems to have focused largely on using high-altitude nuclear events to disrupt satellites, it would be pretty useful to have that content.

I'm not sure how I'd go about finding these. I'm not military, so I'm not sure how I would get ahold of them. It's not as if I can head to the local disa search engine and look for them. I noticed a couple of the above were published from Peterson, so I figured you might be able to obtain them. Best, Avriette 01:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The author, Clayton K. S. Chun, doesn't appear to still be in the Air Force, so I can't email him to ask. But it looks like most of the photos in his book are from the Air Force Space Command History Office.  Try emailing [mailto:afspc.ho@peterson.af.mil], hopefully they will help you out if they have the documents you are looking for. At worst you might have to do a FOIA   request that costs a little bit of money.  --Pmsyyz 14:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

2nd/3rd/etc
Is that so? http://www.bragg.army.mil/82dv/default.htm. If anything, they are inconsistent. And this brings it in line with proper English. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe it is just the Air Force that uses the abbreviated form. --Pmsyyz 05:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

a couple things
First, your suggestion, above, to make "program 437" program 437 was a good one. The information I was able to find on the web was sufficient to get it featured in DYK. Neato. Also, I saw your edit on (the name escapes me) the NSA device. I was wondering whether you knew anything about the new quantum encryption devices that are presently on the market. They're limited to, I think, 1.5mbit, and they have to be direct-connected over fiber (repeaters would break the quantum entanglement). I saw a very good presentation on this at Supercomputing 05 in Seattle. Would you be interested in an article on the devices? aa v ^ 13:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. No, I didn't think quantum cryptography was practical yet, but I see that there are at least a couple vendors out there.    The military takes forever to adopt new technologies though.  --Pmsyyz 20:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes the line between "military" and "non-military" gets blurred. The presentation I saw at SC05 was from Magiq. It was really quite good. And, he mentioned that a certain organization in Maryland is using their products. So I'm not sure how much you'd consider it military, nor do I think it is really "wide" use (especially because of that length-of-line restriction). However, "in use" certainly applies. I'll have a look and put an article together. aa  v ^ 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm sure the NSA takes a look at all new things related to cryptography, but it just takes a lot of time for new tech to filter down to the actual users because of testing and everything else. --Pmsyyz 07:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User Mississippi
As you say, sir, you keep userboxes to a minimum; but I thought you might be interested in this one:

and likewise since there are so few of us.

I must add good luck and Godspeed to you and your unit. Alba 18:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the Mississippi one, but I more like the look of the larger flag on my page. I did graduate from Mississippi State University, but I don't think there is anything special about MSU. Thanks for letting me know about these userboxes though. --Pmsyyz 12:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For making a correction on my userpage! Cheers Bertilvidet 14:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:National Birds
Since I do not wish to engage in a revert war I will explain my point regarding the article here. You say Taiwan is a de facto nation thus it it qualifies as a nation. De facto as defined in Wikipedia is "a technical or other standard that is so dominant that everybody seems to follow it like an authorized standard". From this I can then say that even though everyone considers Taiwan a nation it does not make it so. Now regarding the article per se, if we are to remain consistent then Taiwan should also be given the same treatment as Puerto Rico. I do not wish to engage in political or ideological debates of what constitutes a nation. I just want consistency in the articles. Joelito 17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps de facto is not the best term. Anyway, the status of the Republic of China isn't germane.  Puerto Rico isn't a nation by any measure and shouldn't be on List of national birds.  It should be at List of U.S. state birds if anywhere, though perhaps that article should be renamed to include other U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico and Guam. --Pmsyyz 17:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the status of China and Taiwan is very relevant to the discussion. I am not arguing whether Puerto Rico is a nation or not. My argument is that Taiwan is given a different treatment when its political status is very similar to Puerto Rico's. Taiwan as defined by Wikipedia and the United Nations is not a nation therefore it should be listed as Puerto Rico is listed in the national birds page. Furthermore I see you deleted a reference I inserted into the Puerto Rican Spindalis article. I assume it was in good faith but the execution was poorly done. First, it inhabilitated every reference in the article. Secondly you could have replaced it with a "proper" reference and lastly I had two "proper" references: one is a website that Wikipedia identifies as spam and the other is in Spanish. So please try to be more thoughtful next time you delete a reference. Joelito 12:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For it is an honor to write to someone who has served his country well. You and all the others are true heroes.  I just wanted you to know that the status of Puerto Rico shouldn't have become a political issue but, which is clearly defined.  This is what I posted in the mediator page: It is sad that such a graet article as the Puerto Rican Spindalis should be converted into a controversial political issue as to whether Puerto Rico is a nation or not. Puerto Rico is not a sovereign nation, however Puerto Ricans share a common language (it has its' own Spanish dialect which is different from the other Hispanic countries), customs, culture, history and traditions and therefore it is a "nation" as defined in various forums. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913): Nation \Na"tion\, n. [F. nation, L. natio nation, race, orig., a being born, fr. natus, p. p. of nasci, to be born, for gnatus, gnasci, from the same root as E. kin. [root]44. See Kin kindred, and cf. Cognate, Natal, Native.] "1. (Ethnol.) A part, or division, of the people of the earth, distinguished from the rest by common descent, language, or institutions; a race; a stock. All nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues --Rev. vii. 9.", FWDP "NATION: A self-identifying people who share a common history, often language, a common culture and a homeland. A nation is the most persistent and resistant organization of people-culture- territory. There are between 7,000 and 10,000 nations.", and the Free Online Dictionary by Fralax sec 3: " A people who share common customs, origins, history and frequently language, a nationality." There are various nations within the United States, amongst them the "Cherokee Nation", the "Navajo Nation" and the "Chickasaw Nation", they, like Puerto Rico, are not independent but, non-the less are a nation. Before Puerto Rico became a posession of the United States, it was already a nation in the process of obtaining more autonomy from Spain. Let me point out that Puerto Rico participates as a nation in the Olympics and that Puerto Rico's Basketball team is known as "El Equipo Nacional de Puerto Rico" (The National Basketball Team of Puerto Rico). There are many verifiable websites which site the Puerto Rican Spindalis as the National Bird of Puerto Rico these some of the many sites: "www.welcome.topuertorico.org", "www.Enciclografica.com" and "www.puertoricoinfo.com - Geography". This should not be a big deal. The facts stated clearly shows that Puerto Rico is a "Nation" (not an independent one) and that the Puerto Rican Spindalis is the Puerto Rican National Bird. This is my opinion which is not based on politics but, on cited facts. Thank you and God bless, Tony the Marine 02:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Puerto Rican Spindalis
Tony the Marine has started a poll on the national/official question, and has informed certain people about it on their user pages. Please come and register your opinion. Talk:Puerto Rican Spindalis Algr 21:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Army Major Commands
I noticed after I created the category there were some that weren't MACOMs - go ahead and tag it for renaming - I'll support it. For example, CASCOM isn't a MACOM. --Nobunaga24 22:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/United_States_military_history_task_force"

Articles for deletion/CreationWiki
As a contributor to the page CreationWiki, I feel it fair to warn you that it has been nominated for deletion. Please make your opinion known. PrometheusX303 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ghawar and Hubbert peak theory
Why the change to Hubbert peak theory? There's no controversy over whether Ghawar is the largest oil field in the world; no other field is even close. See the Ghawar article. There's controversy over whether Ghawar has peaked yet, but that wasn't the issue. --John Nagle 17:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * appear to have peaked in recent months is the unsourcable info about Ghawar since the Saudi's don't give out that info. I accidentally removed the next sentence about Burgan Field. --Pmsyyz 17:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see the problem. Most recently, you deleted Two of the world's largest oil fields after Saudi Arabia's Ghawar Field (the world's largest) appear to have peaked in recent months.  That's just a way of talking about the second and third largest oil fields.  The problem is that, while Ghawar is definitely #1, and Cantarell and Burghan are definitely the next two, there's argument over whether Cantarell or Burghan is bigger.  That's why I couldn't write about #2 and #3.  I'll reword that section.  Thanks.  --John Nagle 17:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image characteristics on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
As you may not be aware of the situation on that article any altering of the display characteristics for the main cartoons image is a very sensitive issue. Please do not casually alter their characteristics without consensus. Thanks! Netscott 15:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Imposters of AlexKarpman
Can someone please block them? --132.70.50.117 10:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you posted this request in the wrong place. I'm not an admin. Try Administrators' noticeboard. --Pmsyyz 10:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous thanks
Thank you for serving your country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.110.89 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Marking fair use images as not having a rational
Why is OrphanBot continuously marking Image:20ency1.1.jpg as not having a fair use rational when it does via the fair use in template? --Pmsyyz 05:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Because the image doesn't have a fair-use rationale. Fair use in only asserts that the image is in compliance with Fair use, it doesn't explain why. --Carnildo 06:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Inupiaq Wikipedia
An anonymous user created the legitimate text in ik:Iqsrabutilik within the last little bit, meaning that there is indeed potential users. Does this effect your view of the project? -- Zanimum 14:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No. That is still the only article 7 months later, and the wiki is always being spammed/vandalized with no native community.  It should be deleted and its future re-creation should meet the standard criteria. --Pmsyyz 00:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Great War (documentary) listed for deletion
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Great War (documentary), has been listed at Articles for deletion/The Great War (documentary). Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Tuspm  Talk 01:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark Musashi
Check the interview link I added a while back at the bottom of that page. It is indeed spelled Piece. Straight from the horse's mouth.--Aresef 04:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, interesting. Thanks for the correction. --Pmsyyz 04:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Canon Powershot A410
You said on the article's discussion page that there was a copyright infringement. Tell me what it is. --Koolgiy 02:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I added that to the discussion page on 2005-09-24. The earliest version of the article is now from 2006-03-07.  So the version of the article that the comment was about was deleted in the past.  There is no copyvio in the current article. --Pmsyyz 05:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sup?
Keep up the good work ;) Crimson30 15:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

SF Beret Color
Air Force security forces do wear blue berets, not black. It's pretty easy to look up in the official sources. I would expect better from an Air Force member. According to Table 3.4 in AFI 36-2903, security forces wear blue berets, and according to Table 3.6, black berets are only authorized for Air Liaison Officers and Tactical Air Command and Control Specialists. You can check for yourself by downloading the AFI from the AF Publishing website or directly from here. Nathanm mn 06:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I see now that in the AFI it does say they are blue, but I have asked several people and they all think they are black. I even asked a SF person and they thought it was black. Photos:   --Pmsyyz 23:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "I would expect better from an Air Force member"?? Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy.  "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users."  Please keep this in mind while editing.  Thanks.  aard 19:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are the berets de facto blue or de jure blue? For example, officially the Naval beret in the CF is "navy blue", but in reality it is the same beret (and has the same NATO stock number) as the armoured black beret &mdash; the Navy's uniforms are also black, but called "navy blue". On the other hand, they put "HMCS" on the sides of buildings and call them ships, so... :) -- Sig Pig  |SEND - OVER 12:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * They are de facto black and de jure blue. See photo.--Pmsyyz 00:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As an update: I noticed a couple years ago that the berets are actually started appearing as blue instead of black. The procurement guys must have fixed it. --Pmsyyz (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

wah tod tg se
well i was trying to use wikiality to change your deployment from the desert to dessert but the Wikipedia Gestapo were having none of that. :(

Those 'plot' tags are legit...
The IP is a valid contributor...we just haven't convinced him to create an account yet. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  11:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, an IP is a valid contributor. But I just don't consider making a dozen articles look ugly a good contribution. --Pmsyyz 11:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Variable_Star -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  11:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Pmsyyz 11:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

United States Air Force
I just wanted to recommend to you the 10th entry on the "external links" of the United States Air Force, the Air Force Enlisted Forums. Isaac Crumm 22:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
For reverting the vandalism on my home page. It makes me sad that what seems like multiple people from around the country feel the need to do that. I am left wondering what I did to them, or what about me inspires them to do that. Anyways, I thank you for changing it back to how I left it. -alex '''... '''aa:talk 18:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't sweat it. That's what some people do when they get bored on IRC.  I think aard was upset at you reverting his cake userbox additions. --Pmsyyz 21:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

3d Weather Squadron
Thanks for the cleanup of the article. It was online for only 1 hour 3 min until you saw it. You are quick! Again, thanks for looking out. --DesertCondor 02:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw you add yourself to List of Wikipedians by military branch. I checked out your user page and followed the link to 3d Weather Squadron. Nice addition. For a better quality emblem image, I would suggest finding a PowerPoint document from the squadron and exporting a nice looking image to PNG.  Since these are usually public domain, they can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons so all projects can benefit from them. http://www.af.mil/art/ is also a good place for finding emblems.  --Pmsyyz 03:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Train Man
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Densha_Otoko&diff=68594820&oldid=68576372

But, that's the title used in North America. WhisperToMe 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not on all North American releases. Replied at Talk:Densha Otoko. --Pmsyyz 00:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit
Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your recent edit to Jackson, Mississippi, and to explain why. Some of the people who are redlinked in the list deserve articles even though they don't happen to have them; Margaret Walker Alexander is the best example that I noticed. In her case, the fact that there is no Wikipedia article on her says a lot more about Wikipedia than it does about her. Some of the other people you removed are strictly of local interest (I think this is probably true of Barbara Blackmon, for example), but by no means all. Feel free to make a second pass at this, but please don't assume that everyone who is redlinked needs to go. Thanks, and Happy New Year! Best regards, --Tkynerd 23:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood. That list is just getting too long and red links was the criteria I used to shorten it. --Pmsyyz 00:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it could use trimming. BTW, I found that there actually is an article at Margaret Walker and piped that for that particular link. As I said, feel free to make a second, somewhat more judicious pass. :-) --Tkynerd 00:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Farscape
Seeing that you have spent time on the List of Farscape episodes page, thought I'd let you know we've started creating articles for individual episodes. So far, I have created them for the entire first season although many are just place holders at the moment. Obviously, much new info will be needed (expanded synopsis, pop culture references, production trivia). RoyBatty42 19:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about your RC-135 edit
I'm not sure I understand what you were trying to do with the redirect. RC-135 redirected to Boeing RC-135, and you changed it to RC-135 Rivet Joint, which then redirects to Boeing RC-135. Is there a particular reason you were introducing a double redirect, because that's generally a bad practice at Wikipedia, because of issues with the software. I've reverted your edit for now, but want to find out if there's something more to this that I should know about. Thanks. Akradecki 05:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I temporarily incorrectly moved Boeing RC-135. See Special:Contributions/Pmsyyz.  I missed reverting that redirect change. --Pmsyyz 05:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, ok, no problem. I wasn't sure if I'd missed something there. I take it you saw the old discussion that moved it from RJ to the generic RC-135 name? Akradecki 05:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I just actually looked at the article and saw it still used with multiple configurations and names. :P --Pmsyyz 06:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Zunafish
A tag has been placed on Zunafish, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk 15:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

wait one second!
Wait one second. The fact that I’m an employee of USAA does not automatically mean that I violated NPOV.
 * 1) 1. SGLI is listed in the USAA wiki entry.
 * 2) 2. SGLI and USAA both target the US military as their primary customers – that makes them competitors.
 * 3) 3. I listed companies besides USAA on the SGLI wiki entry (in fact I listed the same companies that are listed in the USAA wiki entry - only seems fair!!!).

You were wrong to use my open disclosure as a rationale for removing the data. Prove I wasn't neutral. Maybe you are an employee or customer of SGLI? If so, then maybe you lack NPOV?

Either way here’s my offer. You remove the SGLI data from the USAA wiki entry and I’ll refrain from putting a competitor section in the SGLI wiki entry.

Please respond or I'm putting it back.

Hillcountrygrump 01:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * USAA may compete with SGLI, but SGLI doesn't compete with USAA since SGLI doesn't advertise and all service members have to explicitly turn it down. --Pmsyyz 05:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

okay one correction
I see you are in the armed forces. That means you have done a lot for me and my family. Thank you. It also means I trust your motivation and intentions by default. So, I appologize for implying that you might not be neutral about SGLI. But, I stand by the rest.

Thank you for serving. Hillcountrygrump 01:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
I see you have now removed the competitor section from NFCU. Are you also going to remove the competitor section from the USAA entry? Are you bringing a NPOV? 207.155.4.175 04:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Removing the competition section from the SGLI article made sense because it doesn't really compete again anyone. Military people don't think about getting SGLI or some other life insurance, they almost all have SGLI since it is so cheap.  As for NFCU, I just didn't think that the since sentence section was very useful. --Pmsyyz 05:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

310th Space Group
Didn't mean to step on your toes on the 310th Space Group chronology order - most of the pages I write are in reverse chronological order (most current base/aircraft/designation first, and work backwards from there) - usually it does better if you need to see things quickly, and look at historical information better... but I won't have an edit conflict with you over the format. TDRSS 22:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

NC-135 Big Crow
Thanks for the addition of the redlink for the NC-135 to the C-135 article. The link being red prompted me to check for info, and I found enough to write the beginnings of an article on the Boeing NC-135. Since it's had other missions besides Big Crow, I dropped that name from the title and link. However, I was only able to find one reference to the Big Crow program. If you are aware of more information and refs, please add them! Thanks. Akradecki 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw it mentioned in Airborne Laser fires tracking laser, hits target. Nice job on the article. --Pmsyyz 01:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxneeded
See Template talk:Infoboxneeded. If the infobox banner is on the article, it is changed quickly. If the infobox is on the talk page, it goes unnoticed for months. --Timneu22 12:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Better than it take a bit longer to be fixed by an editor than to make the article look ugly for a short time. --Pmsyyz 09:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Howdy
Hey there pmsyyz. Nice history on CMSgt. I added Tubb on there as a retired chief. It's good to see an active duty airman active on wikipedia. --Mack Scruggs 16:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I see you are having some issues with uploading images. Only images that have a clear source and are under certain licenses are allowed.  See also the Wikimedia Commons, where images can be uploaded so that all Wikimedia Foundation projects, such as all the various language Wikipedias, can use them. I've been working on the United States Air Force gallery there. --Pmsyyz 06:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dhcpscreenshot.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dhcpscreenshot.png. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I just cropped it. Perhaps the original person should have gotten this.  Doesn't really bother me if it gets deleted. --Pmsyyz 02:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hill City SD Population
Hi I am making updates to the article Hill City, South Dakota. I noticed in 2006 you edited the page to say the current population of Hill City of 650 - not the 780 given by the 2000 census. Can you tell me where you got that info. Thanks Lmielke359 20:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * From the sign at the city limits. --Pmsyyz 21:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK that makes sence - however, I am pretty sure the sign was there before the 2000 census and may reflect the 1990 or 1980 census data- I will try to find previous year's census data to colloborate this. Thanks for quick reply. Lmielke359 14:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright I just found that the pop. from the 1990 census was in fact 650. Hill City really needs to update their sign!  Lmielke359 15:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm glad you got to the bottom of it. And know I know to be less trusting of such signs. --Pmsyyz 15:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

USAF Image Cleaning
Just wanted to drop you a quick note of thanks for you cleaning up the Air Force unit insignias / crests. I keep on getting the "New Message" icon - I thought I'd return the favor to you!!! :-)) - NDCompuGeek 04:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Coolness. :P  If you upload any new ones in the future, please upload them to the Wikimedia Commons.  That way other language Wikipedias can use them.  I've noticed a few articles on USAF wings at the French Wikipedia such as 28th Bomb Wing. --Pmsyyz 04:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll remember that.... I do plan on continuing my trudge through the historic USAF divisions, so I'm sure they'll be more unit insignias to come.  By the way - you ever thought of becoming more active at the USAF portal?  I could certainly use some more competent help!  (Since I'm MCSE, MCP, 3Com certified, etc. etc., my wife brags on me that I'm certifiable.  At least I hope she's bragging....  :-)) - NDCompuGeek 05:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The portals just don't fit into the way I use Wikipedia, sorry. --Pmsyyz 06:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Promotion
Congrads from one Tech Select to another. -- JDBlues
 * Thanks, congrats to you also. --Pmsyyz 06:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Volapük Wikipedia
Hi! Just in case you didn't see my reply on your Volapük user page (vo:Geban:Pmsyyz), I'd like to ask what you plan to do there. Are you just adding photos to articles on cities, or do you plan to add other kinds of things as well? Did you pick Volapük for some reason, or are you doing this for various Wikipedias? --Smeira 04:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just replied over there about the city articles. I'm just adding photos to improve whichever city articles exist in other languages. --Pmsyyz 07:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

New EPRs
As a fellow NCO, please check out the edit I just made at Enlisted Performance Report and see if you can improve it at all. Thanks! JDBlues 02:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

AF ISR Agency
Hi, I saw your edits to the article on the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency. While you are correct that AFIOC was reassigned to 8th AF and will eventually be part of the Cyber Command, we left AFIOC in the ISR article because ISR will still have some support and oversight of AFIOC. I can't quote what ISR will be doing for them off the top of my head, but they will be supporting AFIOC just as they support the 67th, 55th, and 480th (all of which are still under 8th AF and ACC). Perhaps rather than zapping all the information there, especially since there is no AFIOC article, you could just include the fact that AFIOC was pulled from under the old AIA. --Brownings 23:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

ANG Wing Shileds
Pmsyyz, you seem to be the man regarding USAF wing shields I thought I’d pass this along to you. The site below contains all of the ANG wing shields in .pdf and .ai file formats. The images on this page are of a much better quality than most of the ANG shields currently on Wikipedia. It’s a government site so there are no copyright issues. As I don’t have the tools or expertise to convert them to .jpg or .png files myself so I thought I’d pass it along to you in case you’re inclined to convert the file format and add them to Wikimedia Commons.

http://www.ang.af.mil/history/Emblems.asp

--Ndunruh 13:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks. I'll see what I can do with them.  I wonder what the best way to convert .ai to .svg is.  Worst case, I can make good PNGs from the vector images inside the PDFs. --Pmsyyz 19:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

USAF rank abbreviations
You asserted that periods aren't being used anymore by the USAF in the rank abbreviations. Could you provide a source? While I haven't come across a definitive source either way, the Air Force's own website does use periods with the rank abbreviations. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Look in official publications, such as the "Certified by:" sections of all AFIs. See also, AFHRA abbr.  Still looking for an official policy document that is the equivalent of the Enlisted Force Structure. But there are no periods in official email signature blocks or email display names or paper signature blocks. --Pmsyyz 00:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ÐÐ¸ÐºÐ¸ÐÐ½Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ðµ.PNG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ÐÐ¸ÐºÐ¸ÐÐ½Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ðµ.PNG. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 12:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

IceWeasel
What made you think it was renamed to GNU IceCat? I could find no reference to that anywhere and reverted your change. --Danny Rathjens 22:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * An existing reference in the article: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnuzilla/2007-09/msg00004.html --Pmsyyz 23:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. I just thought it looked a bit odd since no other reference to the name was changed in the article and that an existing project named Open_ICEcat already exists.  That dev says "We haven't made any public changes yet", though, so I don't think it's appropriate to change the name yet. I put it back clarifying the name change is in the future.  (I also see that Iceweasel redirects to Naming conflict between Debian and Mozilla. That should reduce confusion as well. (The reason I was there was a debian user asking in debian irc channel why we changed the name to icecat (using the GNU IceWeasel article as his source. :) --Danny Rathjens 22:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

50th Space Communications Squadron celebrates 55th anniversary
You haven't forgotten about this article, I hope. --SVTCobra 06:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The article has been tagged "abandoned" and will be deleted in a couple of days unless development resumes. --SVTCobra (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think it should be tagged as ready as it is too late to publish it (see talk page of article for more info). By the way I am user anonymous101 on wikinews so my comments will be from him --Smallbig (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Manga images discussion
Please offer your input in a current debate on the use of manga covers in articles at Talk:List of Hunter × Hunter chapters. Thank you! Shimawa zen (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

ANG Wing Emblems
I know that the site has changed for the sources of the Wing emblems but how do you upload them. I'm trying to do the same with the squadrons with no luck whatsoever. Thanks for any help ahead of time. --Kevin Rutherford 01:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since such images are public domain, you should upload them to the Wikimedia Commons instead of just the English Wikipedia so they can be used from any Wikimedia project, such as Wikinews or a diffferent language Wikipedia. Please give each file a good filename, such as the name of the unit.  Check out Squadron emblems of the United States Air Force and Wing emblems of the United States Air Force as well as individual image pages to see how they are set up.


 * For example, for Image:Otis w2.gif, I would convert it to a PNG, renamed it to "101st Fighter Squadron.png" and upload it to the Commons. --Pmsyyz (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Question time. How do you convert that? --Kevin Rutherford 19:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several different graphics editing software that can do the job of just opening the file and then saving it as another format. I use the GIMP, but Adobe Photoshop or even Microsoft Paint could do it. --Pmsyyz (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Military Barnstar
In recognition of your long history of contibutions to military, particularly Air Force, pages I'd like to award you a Military Barstar.Ndunruh (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mostly busy with an ORI this week. :P  --Pmsyyz (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WS Collaboration project
G'day, this weeks Wikisource collaboration project is G. W. Bush and I see that you have contributed to this page in the past. It would be great if you could put some time this week into this very prominent person who is relevant to us all, as we need help identifying important works that should be transcribed. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KOAA530.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KOAA530.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You're great
You are so helpful on wiki you must be one of the best wiki editors. --81.1.101.198 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

154th Training Squadron
Could you support the existence of the 154th Training Squadron. I think that it has been unfairly tagged due to the fact that is has 'training' in it's name. I'd also like to add that I support your 104th Fighter Wing move and I believe that the '(United States)' addition is ridiculous concerning USAF units. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with that squadron, but I'll check it out. I too believe that disambiguating most USAF units is unnessecary.  Many armies may have 1st and 2nd Infantry Divisions, but only the US has many of the unique and high numbered AF units.  --Pmsyyz (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

 * Cleared an autoblock, too, so you should be good to go. Very sorry about that, please don't let it get to you (it happened to me, once, too). We'll be smacking MBisanz with a trout about this, to be sure. – Luna Santin  (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, I actually did block and then quickly unblock you when I went to view your contribs.  The issue is that the string you move matched, is the same string a vandal uses, and he moves pages at a rate of 10 a second, so time is usually of the essence.  I accept the rightly deserve trouting.  MBisanz  talk 03:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand what happened now. I didn't even notice that I was blocked because I didn't try to edit during that period of time. I was confused by the initial message you left. Well, I understand the need to be vigilant about page move vandals. --Pmsyyz (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

GLAST launch image
Hi. I found an attribution on the NASA website for the launch picture that says the credit of the image is NASA's. I don't know if that means we still have to erase this image or maybe we just should until the copyright issue is resolved.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied at Image talk:228085main GLAST.jpg --Pmsyyz (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Promotion!
Congratulations for your promotion!!!

--Ŧħę௹ɛя㎥ 20:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, congrats Sir! Tech's a toughie. Plus, if you're interested: User USAFe6. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 21:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the promotion. -Signaleer (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all. :P --Pmsyyz (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Goto Maki - 3rd Station.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Goto Maki - 3rd Station.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Inaccurate, in use. --Pmsyyz (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dragonball 2009 Japanese movie poster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dragonball 2009 Japanese movie poster.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, it was replaced by a newer image. --Pmsyyz (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Quake III
I would like to let you know that deleting the Excessive Plus mod from the Quake III Wiki Page is not justified. It is a very popular modification (even though it is not as popular as CPMA, it is one of the top 3 Quake III modifications). In order to prove my point, I invite you to download this specific server browser: [XQF] (works on Linux too). I hope this will convince you that Excessive Plus does deserve its place in Wikipedia and that you will accept my submission. Titaniumkinetic (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Global Strike Command incomplete
You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Global Strike Command to a different title - however your request is either incomplete or has been contested for being controversial, and has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete will be removed after five days.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:


 * 1) Added    at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article.  This creates the required template for you there.
 * 2) Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding  NewName  to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
 * 3) Added  PageName  to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard E. Webber
A tag has been placed on Richard E. Webber requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. E Wing (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Common sense prevailed and it was not deleted. :P --Pmsyyz (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Electronic FOIA requests
Hey, I know you're as much a USAF historian and org nut on Wikipedia as I am; I wanted to pass this along. EFOIA Electronic Reading Room has some lineage and honors histories available; I requested these about a month ago. They are pretty quick about them from AFHRA. Since a lot of USAF wing and squadron pages are lacking decent references, I thought if multiple individuals put in requests to AF Historical Research Agency, to spread around the workload, the agencies would be more amenable to the requests. Most of the lineage and honors histories of active units are listed on the web page, but some (like the 1st Space Wing, 2d Space Wing and 3d Space Support Wing) had to be specifically requested since they are inactive. If the request is small (a unit or two), then they will not charge any fees for processing (I've had 9 requests filled so far and haven't paid a dime). TDRSS (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * haha, I know the FOIA manager at Schriever AFB, and she has had some requests come in for unit histories. But she doesn't know where to get them.  She is talking to the historian for the parent unit to try to get the info. --Pmsyyz (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But it is a good idea to do FOIA requests to get the info that historians but haven't made available on the web. I think part of their job should be putting that info on the web.  I just found out who the 310th Space Wing historian is. --Pmsyyz (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The National Guard bureau has been really helpful dredging up info on obscure units like Combat Comm Units, and the Air Nat'l Guard's Command and Control squadrons (119th, 222d, 153d). One of the AFSPC FOIA managers sent me copies of Wikipedia pages to satisfy the request - that didn't quite work, since I wanted the info to update the page. TDRSS (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you decide to do any FOIAs from AFHRA, when you select "web download" they'll update their Wings/Groups or Squadrons pages. I had some ISR Groups and Expeditionary Space squadrons requested, and they were added to the page within days. Some of the ANG records are PDF, so I'll store them on my site, and have WebCite do references to them for safe keeping. TDRSS (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI on unit designations
Since you update and create a lot of USAF unit pages, thought this reference might be useful if you ever get in an "edit war." AFHRA guide to heraldry, the paragraph under Figure 12 describes the use of th, st, and d as the only followers for unit numerical designations. This recently came up in some edits to the 22d SOPS that were changed to 22nd. TDRSS (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Yeah, I go with that, but I'd still like some more explicit official discussion. The wing historian I talked to said to go by the orders paperwork that constituted/activated the unit. --Pmsyyz (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I got a discussion and explanation from the Air Force Historical Research Agency a few weeks ago - bottom line: even they're not sure. They gave three official and quasi-official references. If you're interested I can forward on the email. TDRSS (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

502 ABW
This is not a new wing - used by Maxwell AFB /Air University in the late 1990s. It wasn't active long before the 42d ABW took over. I'll try to find a resource for reference. TDRSS (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say new, I said newly activated. --Pmsyyz (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad - didn't have much internet time last week to "fully" read the article. Again, my apologies. TDRSS (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson's Twitter
I had to revert your recent good faith edit and made a typo in the summary, so I should explain. Please read WP:ELNO bullet point #10. Thanks — Mike : tlk   —Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC).


 * I think you are misunderstanding the policy. It says don't link to social networking sites "except for a link to an official page of the article's subject".  Are you disputing that it is his official Twitter account? --Pmsyyz (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Google Book Search 2009-07-03.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Google Book Search 2009-07-03.png. 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 not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive 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 your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Air Force Portal Administrator
I am looking for an editor or editors to take over administration of the US Air Force Portal. If you think you might be interested please see the Portal Administration section on the talk page to see what is involved and comment there if you’re interested or have any questions.Ndunruh (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Romanization for words of English origin
On the MOS:JP talk page, a discussion has been started about including or not including romanizations for words of English origin, such as Fainaru Fantajī in Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー) (for the sake of simplicity, I called this case "words of English origin", more information on semantics here).

Over the course of a month, it has become apparent that both the parties proposing to include or not include those romanizations cannot be convinced by the arguments or guidelines brought up by the other side. Therefore, a compromise is trying to be found that will satisfy both parties. One suggestion on a compromise has been given already, but it has not found unanimous agreement, so additional compromises are encouraged to be suggested.

One universally accepted point was to bring more users from the affected projects in to help achieve consensus, and you were one of those selected in the process.

What this invitation is: What this invitation is not:
 * You should give feedback on the first suggested compromise and are highly encouraged to provide other solutions.
 * This is not a vote on including or excluding such romanizations.
 * This is not a vote on compromises either.

It would be highly appreciated if you came over to the MOS:JP talk page and helped find a solution. Thank you in advance. Prime Blue (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:SharedIP US military
Template:SharedIP US military has been nominated for merging with Template:SharedIPGOV. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Colorado
The year 2011 has brought many changes to the State of Colorado. We have a new Governor and other state officers, two new U.S. Representatives, many new state legislators, and a new Mayor of Denver. WikiProject Colorado is updating many Colorado articles. Many Colorado places, people, and organizations need new articles. Portal:Colorado needs new featured articles.

Can you help us? Please see our list of some requested articles. If you wish, you may join WikiProject Colorado at WikiProject Colorado/Members. If you have any questions, please leave me a message at User talk:Buaidh or e-mail me at Special:EmailUser/Buaidh. Thanks for any help you can provide.

Don't forget the Wikipedia 10th Anniversary event in Boulder tomorrow. Yours aye, Buaidh  22:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Violation of Verifiability in Internet Explorer 10
Hello, Pmsyyz. You have been around in Wikipedia for a long time now; so, surely you know about the verifiability rule: Everything you put in Wikipedia must comply with a source and blog titles are no exceptions.

So, why did you change a blog title in Internet Explorer 10 from a verifiable one to one that you yourself have invented? Please don't do it again. Fleet Command (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What makes you think I invented it? I got the title (description) of the blog is in the blog's first (earliest) post.  The title you and the other person put were both nowhere that I saw at IEBlog.  Where did you get the one you put there?  Please don't accuse people of making stuff up until after talking to them.  Assume good faith, and don't bite the veterans.  You have been around in Wikipedia long enough to know that. --Pmsyyz (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Aha? And you think it is correct to put the contents of the first blog post as its title? For example, if the first blog post of "President of United States Blog" had "Welcome to the unbound!" in its title, you go ahead and replace the URL title with "The Unbound"? No! I think WP:EL makes it quite clear that we in Wikipedia use the title of the work itself as a URL.


 * For the title of the blog, look at the blog header. To the left, it reads: IEBlog. To the right it reads: The Windows Internet Explorer Weblog.


 * Oh, and by the way, I don't know why you think my message was biting or I was not assuming good faith. Perhaps you can tell me later? But for now, one should respect BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and not to commit edit-warring. (We have B,R,D not B,R,R,R,R,R,R,... until someone gets banned.) Please realize that if I didn't assume good faith, I wouldn't have come to your talk page. Now, if you have any more to say, please participate in the article talk page discussion. Fleet Command (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

KBDI-TV
First of all, please refrain from renaming KBDI-TV to its common name, especially if the "network" is merely one full-powered station with repeaters. Not only is it against Wikipedia policy to name articles of individual TV stations (which KBDI technically is) by anything other than their call letters (as well-documented in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations), but as per FCC regulations, the station must still identify themselves with the call letters at least once an hour, meaning that KBDI-TV, under any other name, is still legally KBDI-TV. Thank you for your cooperation. -- azumanga (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Wafah Dufour for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wafah Dufour is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Wafah Dufour until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

AFCENT/ACC
All organizations assigned to AFCENT belong to Air Combat Command (see Air Force Historical Research Agency lineages). AFCENT is a "component named air force," temporarily split from the Ninth Air Force until CENTCOM theater operations wind down some. AFCENT and Ninth Air Force are currently both direct reports to Air Combat Commmand. So, while AFCENT wings do report to AFCENT, they all belong to Air Combat Command. It would be like saying "2d Bomb Wing (Eighth Air Force)", when it should correctly be "2d Bomb Wing (Air Force Global Strike Command). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.182.137 (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * AFCENT is a "component named air force" of CENTCOM. Units in the CENTCOM AOR only take orders from the Combatant Commander (10 U.S.C. §164), and those orders flow through AFCENT.   No one in the AOR is working for ACC.  Isn't showing the chain of command what people expect to see rather than showing an obscure, non-operational lineage?   When people wore DCUs, what "MAJCOM" patch did they have on their pocket?  Answer: AFCENT. --Pmsyyz (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Shindand Air Base, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page C-17 (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) 10:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. When you recently edited Doomsday Preppers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic (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) 11:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop removing template
Could you please stop removing the lead too short template from articles where the lead is not complete. I noticed you removed it from High Court of Australia and Big Day Out when the lead section on those articles does not provide a concise summary or include key facts. My understanding is that a complete lead section is needed for B class articles like these. So actually the lead section is not ok or fine, rather it too short and needs expanding as indicated by the inclusion of the template. For example on the Big Day Out article there are four controversies not mentioned in the lead and yet in the first paragraph of the Manual of Style/Lead section linked above it specifically states that prominent controversies be included. I or someone else is going to have to go through your contributions and revert your mistakes or could you? - Shiftchange (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm being bold and removing the template from pages were it does not appear to be needed. Whether an article is B-Class or someone is trying to make it B-Class does not matter the reasoning for the presence or absence of the  Lead too short template.  This template is for articles which are missing basic requirements of a lead.  Not all controversies have to be included in the lead, only prominent controversies.  Each of the articles I have removed the template from, I've looked at the lead, I've look at the talk page to see what anyone might be saying about the lead.


 * For Big Day Out, the controversies section if quite large in the table of contents. There was a one death in the mosh pit 11 years ago.  Should this go in the lead?  I don't think so.  What do you think?   In 2007, organizers discouraged the bringing of Australian flags, but people did so, and no one was refused entry.  This does not appear to be important enough for add to the lead.  There is drug use at this music festival, as there are at many.  Does this merit inclusion in the lead? I think including it in the lead would give undue weight.  The Beenie Man and Odd Future controversy also appears to be a relatively minor controversy.  I'd be happy to hear your opinions on each of these.  I'll post this to the talk page to get feedback from other editors.


 * For High Court of Australia, what do you think is missing from the lead? I'll post on the talk page to solicit feedback.


 * Please assume good faith in my edits and refrain from wholesale reverting. --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Removing templates is not really being bold. Can I suggest you look at a few good articles or better to see their lead sections.  Lead sections are not three or four sentences but three or four paragraphs. Four sentences does not adequately provide a concise overview of Texas Instruments, nor does it provide the reader of the Robin Williams article with a summary that can stand alone. The History of Tyrol cannot be summarised with two sentences.  The lead section for Alfalfa doesn't establish notability or provide key facts, let alone summarise the article. Harry Houdini's career cannot be adequately summarised in two sentences and so forth.


 * For the Big Day Out article I believe a sentence or two which summarises the controversies is apt as each one has been detailed in the article below. I hope you can revert your mistakes or better yet expand the lead sections especially on B class articles. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Robert H. Foglesong, 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) 14:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Sarah (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. When you recently edited ODBC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CSV (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) 11:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)