User talk:Marcd30319/Archive 2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DYK for Carrier Strike Group Seven[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 06:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Your draft Ex Summer Pulse articles[edit]

I see you've created two of these. Was one by accident ? Do you wish me to help you merge the smaller into the larger, or redirect the smaller? Also, as I said on the CSG 7 main talkpage, I've created the main article Exercise Summer Pulse; feel free to do whatever you like with that one; you don't have to work in userspace. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier Strike Group Seven[edit]

I'm doing some fiddling with this article, as you will have seen, to try and prepare it better for the PR nomination. I hope you are not unhappy with my edits. There is some great data in there that actually I think belongs in full in places like USS Ronald Reagan and RIMPAC, with shorter summaries focusing on the actual role of the CSG within the exercise or the carrier better for the actual Carrier Strike Group article. Please review my edits and tell me about any you're unhappy with. Also, would you like me to delete the now-spare redirect in your userspace? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcd30319, as you will have seen from my edits, I began the process of readding the 2004-06 and 2007-09 material back into the main article. I wanted to tighten the material from the two daughter articles, and make the sentences have only one idea per sentence, for easier understanding. But would you prefer I do this before the Peer Review, or simply list it for Peer Review as it is? Cheers and hope your new year is starting well, Buckshot06 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marc. Saw your changes to the article, including saying it is ready. I'm quite happy to list it for the peer review now instead of adding the 2004-2007 information back in first (that was the point of removing over 20kB, so there was room for the 2004-2007 information). But I just wanted to ask you about the mentions of Carrier Division Seven and Carrier Group Seven. Surely we should mention either both in the intro, or neither? But just mentioning Carrier Group Seven strikes me as telling only half the story. Cheers, Buckshot06 (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Exercise Summer Pulse, 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) 10:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Operation Sandblast[edit]

Category:Operation Sandblast, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Exercise Summer Pulse[edit]

Best Wishes from me and the wiki. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier Strike Group operations since 2009[edit]

Are you singly responsible for the Carrier Strike Group operations 2004–2009 articles, and is that the reason there doesn't seem to be any continuation of these articles being developed? __meco (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your query on my talk page, I am principally responsible for the individual Carrier Strike Group articles since I created them initially.
I do plan to created article for Carrier Strike Group Five, Carrier Strike Group Eight, and Carrier Strike Group Twelve, but as you can image, this requires a lot of time, so I have to balance this objective with other personal goals. I hope this clarifies things. Marcd30319 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of moving your response back to the original thread started here on your talk page (as you were advised, you may have missed this, when you opened an edit window on my talk page).
I appreciate your response. I didn't study the Strike Group articles themselves seeing how voluminous the operations article for Strike Group Three was. __meco (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Theodore Roosevelt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC (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) 10:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exercise Stakenet 2012 naval manuevers.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Exercise Stakenet 2012 naval manuevers.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Foal Eagle, 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) 10:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier Strike Group Seven[edit]

Marcd30319, please engage with me on the talk page. Please stop making edits to this article, and let us discuss the situation before we edit war. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc, I'm fed up with you attempting to revert all the changes I've made. Please stop blind reverting without discussion, let us discuss this, and use the dispute resolution process. We need to come to a compromise, and you will notice that I have not attempted to try to alter formats on any of the other CSG articles - I want to try an altered approach on this one only. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot06, I share your frustration. I am not going to go into lengthy inventory of the particulars of this situation except to reiterate that I never requested a peer review, nor was I aware or made aware of this peer review until late last week. There have been ample and vigorous discussions between ed17, you, and me for us to come to a consensus on these CSG articles. I asked that the current peer review be suspended. As the originator of this article, I do not believe that this request is not an unreasonable one. If anyone has any suggestions, please use the article's talk page, leave any comments under Article revisions and suggestions, and we can discuss. Ditto my other articles. My preference is that I make any changes myself since I did do the original articles. You have many fine qualities, Buckshot06, and you need to direct those capabilities to other pursuits. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response Marc. Wikipedia is promoted as the encyclopedia 'anyone can edit' and every edit box includes a note saying that if an editor does not wish to have his work altered, they should not submit it. The PR/A-Class/FA process is specifically intended to promote involvement of numerous editors so that article quality is improved; no-one's articles are theirs' alone. Consensus is and was not forged by a discussion between three editors, especially when the ed17 specifically asked you to consider being more flexible about how others were rewriting your work. In essence, these are not 'your articles' - nor was Russian Ground Forces 'my article.' It was de-listed from featured article status against my strong opposition. But this is how the process works. I do not wish to start a revert war, but you have no authority to tell me to engage in 'other pursuits' - the influence of the United States Navy on world affairs is far too important for that, and for its' formations story on wikipedia to be told by repackaged press releases and undecipherable acronyms is simply not appropriate. In addition, WP:BOLD and WP:BRD specifically tells against it. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, but it ignored the fact that I did not request the peer review in question, that was not I informed about this peer review nor was I invited to participate, and that I have requested that the peer review be suspended. I had no interest in promoting this article or any other carrier strike group to A-class status. You have never adequately articulated your objections to these carrier strike group articles that I have researched and written, and your assertion that I "repackaged press releases and undecipherable acronyms" is an unsubstantiated, ill-informed non sequitur. I define and explain acronyms on their first reference within a given section, and the news releases were written by professional journalists albeit naval personnel under the supervision of a public affairs officer, and they are used in newspapers, wire services, and other news media just like any other news release. Additionally, like daily newspapers, wire services, and other media sources, these USN news releases are the only credible sources on current naval operation extant, just like any other article dealing with current or contemporaneous events. Finally, I never had any substantial problems with any other editor on Wikipedia. I truly enjoyed my contact with Ed17 and DanaBoomer because they worked with me in a collaborative, respectful manner.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a further note, the kind of article we are all encouraged to aim for is something like this : United States Battleship Division Nine (World War I). Buckshot06 (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like these - Operation Sandblast, USS Triton (SSRN-586), and Exercise Summer Pulse? So, what's the difference between a WW1 battleship division and a 21st century carrier strike group? About a century! Also, the former article is about a true historical artifact with a substantial documentary trail while the latter involves current or near-current events and dependent on contemporary sources. They are not the same, and this is a non sequitur.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments Marc. I appreciate your willingness to engage. Maybe it was a mistake to include that last line; the essential problem that I see is it's often quite difficult for those who know little of the Navy to follow the acronyms, defined after first use or not, and that there is a substantial POV problem involved in building articles entirely from U.S. Navy sources (or the Navy via globalsecurity and suchlike). Nevermind, we're not likely to come to an agreement on this. My point on the sources is not disagreement on contemporary, but on origin - sources should be drawn much more widely, and there's a lot written about the Navy worldwide. Again, Russian Ground Forces was written about a near-contemporary subject, and if you're interested in seeing how it could be done with wider sourcing, take a look. Look, you obviously feel that you were not consulted, thus let me note that initially I'm trying to resolve this quietly, and I have not yet gone to AN/I or the main Milhist talk page. What I've done initially is raise my concerns with the coordinators at WT:MHCOORD - it would be very valuable if you were to put your views there. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSG 1[edit]

I've moved it from article space to User:Marcd30319/Marcd30319 version of Carrier Strike Group One, where you presumably meant for it to be. Acroterion (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Carrier Strike Group Three 2004–2009 operations[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Carrier Strike Group Three 2004–2009 operations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Willdude123|Ƹ21ɘbublliW (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Carrier Strike Group Seven 2004–2006 operations[edit]

The article Carrier Strike Group Seven 2004–2006 operations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Blanked by the original creator, but too many edits by others for G7 deletion. Procedural PROD to get to the same end.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TexasAndroid (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Carrier Strike Group Seven 2007–2009 operations[edit]

The article Carrier Strike Group Seven 2007–2009 operations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Blanked by the original creator, but too many edits by others for G7 deletion. Procedural PROD to get to the same end.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TexasAndroid (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Carrier Strike Group Three 2004–2009 operations[edit]

The article Carrier Strike Group Three 2004–2009 operations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Blanked by the original creator, but too many edits by others for G7 deletion. Procedural PROD to get to the same end.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TexasAndroid (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at Peer Review[edit]

Thanks for your comments in response to User:Simon Harley's questions. However, other editors are less able to add that data to the CSG 7 article because they don't have the books you have, or know the page references. Would you consider please adding the data with appropriate page references to the CSG 7 article? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of USS Gridley (DLG-21/CG-21) command histories‎[edit]

The article List of USS Gridley (DLG-21/CG-21) command histories‎ has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

duplication of information already part of USS Gridley (DLG-21)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — MrDolomite • Talk 19:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRN[edit]

Hi Marcd30319, in accordance with User:Nick-D's suggestion, I've raised the issue at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. The thread is "Carrier Strike Group One, Carrier Strike Group Seven". Regards. --Buckshot06 (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Old' chain of command etc data[edit]

Please do not delete information from articles because it is 'not up to date'. Our job here is not to write a rolling status chart of the U.S. Navy (or any other navy) the job is to present organisations' entire history, with proper historical commentary. Please make sure you transfer data to other appropriate articles (ships, aircraft squadron, TYCOMs, bios, bases etc) before unilaterially trying to remove material from wikipedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should have asked before, but sometimes I've been a bit cranky too. Which ships/submarines did you serve on, and where did you deploy? - would really like to hear some of your deployment stories... Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USWEX 08-3[edit]

Saw this on the Abraham Lincoln DANFS entry. It's nowhere near Fiscal 08 - more like Fiscal 05 or 06. Do you think it's a typo? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that Mark L. Evans updated the Abraham Lincoln DANFS entry on 13 August 2008 based on the Abraham Lincoln's command histories for 2006, 2007, and 2008. However, this cannot be verified because the Abraham Lincoln's command histories list ends with 2003. Therefore, I have removed "08-3" from the United States Pacific Fleet article. Marcd30319 (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Carrier Strike Group Twelve[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier Division 2[edit]

Please be more careful with your naval history. In [1] this edit, you stated that Vice Admiral Halsey took command of Carrier Division 2 on 30 September 1937. The reference you cited doesn't state that, DANFS says that Charles Adams Blakely was commander in August 1937, and Halsey didn't even make *Rear* admiral until 1938!! Buckshot06 (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marc, just wanted to alert you, I've just made this edit. I've removed the section because the CSG 10 flagship, Truman, did not appear to change after the 04-05 deployment and the CSG 2 flagship does not appear relevant. If there's another factor that I'm not aware of, please do inform me... Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marc, just wanted to inform you, have made edit. Firstly, embarkment of training squadrons has little to do with the strike group as a whole, so I was going to move them to the Nimitz article itself and maybe CNATRA. Second, the squadrons referenced were not Fleet Replacement Squadrons, but primary training squadrons, VTs. Thirdly, the primary training squadron reference referred to embarkment aboard the Truman, not the Nimitz. So it appears that an FRS deployment aboard Nimitz got confused with a VT deployment/fly-in aboard Truman. For all these reasons, I've removed the information, and moved it to NATC, with a quick note on the Nimitz article. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the Iranian Navy reference is that you've cited two naval news stories which directly contradict each other. NNS120811-05 says a dhow was the Iranian receipent, while the other you cite says the Iranian Navy. This is another problem with your excessive use of references - what happens if they contradict each other? Anyway, please decide which story you wish to go with, and then delete one or other of the two citations. This is because if I were to try and write an accurate summary now, I'd have to write that the U.S. Navy isn't giving a clear answer. Regarding bundling citations, in my academic work we did it all the time; the ideal (see WP:CITE) is one footnote at the end of each sentence. The specific reference rule you're probably looking for is WP:CITEBUNDLE. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second Fleet in SouthCom[edit]

Dear Marc. I've just made this edit. As you and I both well know, the South Atlantic is *not* in NAVCENT, Naval Forces Central Command - it's in United States Southern Command. Fundamentally, Second Fleet operated in the U.S. Atlantic Command area, and NAVSO operated in the U.S. Southern Command area - check the verified, proper Unified Combatant Command boundary maps as of 2004, not that silly, inaccurate, unsourced map which was made up by some WP contributor out of thin air which is currently in the article. I say NAVSO because my tracking of Task Force designations indicates that NAVSO uses Task Force designators in the 125-138 ish range; over 100 anyway. CJTF 138 led PANAMAEX 2005, and my old notes indicate that CTF 125 seemed to be NAVSO. Now, Wikipedia operates on WP:BURDEN - the person adding the information has to justify that the information is WP:Verifiable. I have not specifically checked the press releases for the Reagan transit around South America again, but the point is that if you want to say Second Fleet in that section, there should be some source, and ideally, reference to a task force designator which would have to be in the CTF 20-29 range. Please do not readd the words 'Second Fleet' to that section without a WP:Verifiable source. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Areas of Responsibility
This is 2008, I believe, but the boundaries between SOUTHCOM and what was USACOM now NORTHCOM haven't changed too much. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your speedy response to my message. However, while few of the references mention NAVSO, *none* mention Second Fleet, and the mention of Summer Pulse in the UNITAS story about the amphibious assault, plus the quote from COMNAVSO, support the fact that it's in the NAVSO/SOUTHCOM, *not* Second Fleet/ACOM (former LANTCOM) area. WP:BURDEN requires a *source* for information, and there is *nothing* mentioning Second Fleet. I am going to remove the words 'Second Fleet' again; please *not not* readd them without a WP:Verifiable source. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Marc, sorry, I've had to revert this edit. We don't make links in pages that link to themselves; see Wikipedia:Self link. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding all the references Marc. I've checked the three old issues of Ships and Aircraft for which I have the fleet command sections (1978, 1984, and 1987), and they all list TF 138 as South Atlantic Force. I was really reluctant to acknowledge FAS.org, which could have copied stuff from anywhere, as a source. However a close read of this document : http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/D0005057.A1.pdf - appears to suggest that Second Fleet did superintend vessels doing training in South Atlantic waters (as opposed to CTF 138, South Atlantic Force or Western Hemisphere Group). Yet as always it's a little difficult to be exactly sure, given the ambiguous wording. Please feel free to take a look at the document and tell me what you think, as well as using it as an information source for this and other articles. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, Buckshot06. Sorry that I have not corresponded here regarding your diligent work on the article, but I have been in the process of changing jobs. That CNA article was intriguing, and it should be added to the U.S. Fourth Fleet and USNAVSO articles. I have two more recent editions of U.S. Fleet, 1993 and 1997, and Polmar notes that the Second Fleet's area of responsibility encompasses the South America and the Caribbean Sea. Now, I think the notation on SouthCom and NorthCom from Longshore and All Hands cover UNITAS, SIFOREX, and Gringo-Gaucho. Regarding UNITAS, initially, it involved TF 138 circumnavigating South America conducting joint exercises. However, beginning in the mid-1990s, UNITAS involved multi-national exercises in three phases - Caribbean, Atlantic, and Pacific. The 2004 UNITAS amphibious landing mentioned in took place in Peru during that year's Pacific phase. Regarding FAS, it and GlobalSecurity.org does a lot of cut-and-paste from public-domain sources, but that means that FAS info on the Second Fleet was accurate as of 1999 as annotated on the Numbered Fleet page at the FAS website. Given that and the CNA article, I think sticking with the Second Fleet is the way to go. I will link U.S. Southern Command to USNAVSO, and add the CNA article to U.S. Fourth Fleet and USNAVSO articles. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Marc. I went specifically to our National Library to get the fleet-command chapters of the copies of U.S. Fleet that they had. They do not have anything more recent than the 14th Edition (1987). No other library in NZ has U.S. Fleet. Is there any way you could copy and send me the fleet-command chapters for the two you have? Drop me a line thru the email-this-user function if you can; we'd probably benefit from talking off-wiki as well. Despite our different emphases, we both have a powerful respect for the Navy and what it can do. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot06, I will see what I can do about this. Regarding the U.S. Navy's current organizational structure, please consult the U.S. Department of Navy Issuances web site, particularly about the U.S. Navy's operating forces and shore establishment. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Marc. I know the current SNDL is there, and have a downloaded copy on my computer. Also have a bunch of old SNDLs from the last ten years. The current SNDL was the basis of the listing at Commander, Naval Surface Forces Pacific. Would you believe it, when I first requested a copy of the SNDL ten plus years ago, they still sent it out on a floppy disc in Word Perfect form! No, I'm definitely looking for older listings, as in Ships and Aircraft's editions. The Naval Aviation Organization that you found (congrats for that!) is great, but only lists aviation units; we really need the full SNDL Fleet Chain of Command right back to 1945 or earlier. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carrier Air Wing Five, 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) 14:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CruDesGru 2 / BALTOPS[edit]

Hi Marc, hope you're well as winter begins in the U.S. Wanted to query you about this edit. You appeared to remove data about CruDesGru 2 which I worked hard to locate from the BALTOPS and other articles, and add so we can eventually have a good history of the Group. Would you mind please explaining your rationale? I've readded the data for the moment but if you can tell me why you acted as we did, maybe we can move it somewhere else or something.. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot, currently I have been concentrating on the 2011-2012 operations section in the Carrier Strike Group Ten article, and I do not recall deleting the BALTOPS '90 information although I did add the HSTCSG abbreviation. In any case, it is an important addition, and I found a reference for the Gdynia port-call and added it to this article, as well as the BALTOPS and USS Harry E. Yarnell articles.Marcd30319 (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CATEGORY[edit]

Hi Marc. You'll see if you pick a random category (for example Category:Divisions of the United States Marine Corps) that they do not contain a general description of the category subject. WP:CATEGORY specifically states that '..The category description should make direct statements about the criteria by which pages should be selected for inclusion in the category.' not other stuff. Please remove the general statements in the CSG categories. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carrier Strike Group Twelve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberian (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) 11:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSG 7[edit]

Hi Marc. Just wanted to let you know that I will be putting this article thorugh a A Class Review or possibly another PR at some point in the future. Have asked Nick D to give some informal comments, which he's put at the article talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marcd30319/Archive_2012&oldid=1079547243"