User talk:Cobatfor

just to thank you for your persistance in getting a nice pic. hope this one remains. --Jor70 (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! However, Argentina is half way around the globe for me, so we have to rely on others to provide us with nice Fightinghawk pics! --Cobatfor 20:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a PR pesron with the NATO E-3 component want to post pics of their E-3s on WP. Do you know an admin on Commons who could help with this, preferably someone who knows how to use the OTRS? While the person does speak English, the appear to be a native German speaker. Please e-mail me if you can help. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can contact the German admin High Contast[1]. He is sometimes a little more than necessary correct but he seems to know the system. The German OTRS explanation is at Commons:OTRS/de[2]. However, the easiest way is to dwonload one of the ORTS forms and get them signed by a person or spokesman who has the copyright (NATO E-3 PR office?). Sent it to OTRS and get a ticket. If there are more questions this person can also contact me on my talk page in German. Cheers Cobatfor 19:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! - BilCat (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camaraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest is almost over, but another begins October 1. Since this contest is still in its early stages, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 17:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those 2-8 photos - they really help the article! - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! If you go here: Library of Congress there are many more coloured photos, plus some b/w ones, if you look a little around. --Cobatfor 18:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accessed the link just fine... maybe the website was going through maintenance or had a problem and it was off-line for a period of time. I searched for "F-100 Super Sabre" and it came up with many photos. Seems to be working. Glad to assist you in wiki endeavors. Cheers, Lance....LanceBarber (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, still does not work, I try to reach it for some months now, without any success. The old DVIC site was always accessible. I would like to open a discussion somewhere where people could file similar complains with this website or (more hopefully) solutions. I was even suspecting that it was closed for non-US users... Maybe it is a technical problem, but I am at a loss. Two mails to the defenseimagery webmaster were not answered. Cobatfor (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darn! I can still access it okay. Some other possibilities could exist with your Internet Explorer/Internet Options settings under Security/Privacy/Contact/Advanced Tabs... or if you are using Vista which does have problems with accessing some websites. Try using another computer... friend, work, or library... and check the version of Windows and IE settings and they compare those settings to your own. See if you can duplicate your same conditions. I had similar problems accessing components of COMCAST.NET, and found some settings that had to be changed. I'll check back later. Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried it all. I use the firefox browser, I tried the IE, I tried from another computer, and this problem persists since they moved from DVIC to defenseimagery. Originally it took some 20 to 30 tries to reach the site, but now it is impossible for months. I have another German user experiencing the same problems. It always only says "Defenseimagery takes too long to answer..." If I try navy.mil or any other US Government site, no problem, just the darn defenseimagery site is unaccessible. Cobatfor (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try to turn off all IE restrictions to low or off for a quick access to DefenseImagery/DI, and the return it to your std/default settings. I wonder if your ISP is the problem, having a filter on locations for its users' accesses... or maybe the converse, the DI site is limiting your ISP domain name. LanceBarber (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Presented to Cobatfor (talk · contribs) for an impressive body of contributions to naval ships and aircraft, and uploading photos for these articles on Wikipedia, and specifically for your generous willingness to lend us your expertise in these areas, I award you this Original Barnstar. You, sir, are long overdue. LanceBarber (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with over 1300 edits over the past couple of years you have earned a Wiki Apprentice Editor Service Badge:

You can move this Badge to your main page, and update it with future badges as you reach each level. See Wikipedia:Service awards. Thank you for your contributions. LanceBarber (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you! I feel honoured. Cobatfor 09:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your great work. I noticed you uploaded this image, so perhaps you can figure out why it's not displaying correctly. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please specify the problem, as it displays correctly when I open the pages on en.wikipedia or Commons. Thank you - Cobatfor 22:32, 04 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my entry on your Wikimedia user talk page. —Quicksilver^{T @} 05:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate. I note you just changed the Corsair picture on Battle of Kapyong - just curious was there something wrong with the image I originally used? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well the original image was of a factory-fresh USMC AU-1 (I also found a coloured version of this photo from a slightly different angle [3]). However, the other photo shows AU-1s of VMF-323 actually over Korea, circa 1953 (although the photo is of less quality). As it is mentioned in the text that there was an attack of two Corsairs, I thought this would better illustrate it. What do you think? Cheers -- Cobatfor (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No dramas, I thought maybe I had the wrong make or something. A photo of two Corsairs probably makes sense. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I did question the change but asked for clarification and the edit is now reverted to reflect the designation system in use. FWiW, the article still needs more citations. Bzuk (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get my User:BilCat/Sandbox/Sikorsky S-60 sandbox page up and running in the next few weeks. One thing I'm lacking is a good public domain photograph. You seem to be able to find rare and needed photos of aircraft, so could you look out for this one for me? You don't have to make a special effort to find it, but if you know where one might be, it would be very helpful. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, acutally the only free photo I found is this: File:Sikorsky S-60 crane helicopter 1959.jpg. I hope this helps you. There is also a little text on the S-60 on p. 58 of the source publication. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You're fast! - BilCat (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, there is no set (permanent) formal relationship that persists after the deployment is over, no established command heirarchy that sets these VMFAs under the CVWs (except when they are aboard ship), or a regular exchange (in the sense that it is up to chance which squadron gets sent to which wing, and that any consistancy over time is purely coincidental). If you have a reference that disputes this, I'll be more than happy to reintegrate the edits; otherwise, anything about it is mere speculation/OR. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Concerning CVW-9, VMFA-323 is/was not assigned the wing anymore, see CVW-9 official website. However, it is still my opinion that all squadrons should be listed (in wikipedia) at a CVW, that are momentarily (meaning: during a deployment) assigned to the CVW. For example, VMFA-312 is now assigned to CVW-3 aboard USS Harry S. Truman. On the official CVW-3 page it is listed as a CVW-3 squadron [4]. Also, VMFA-312 aircraft wear the "AC" tail code of CVW-3 and not their own tail code "DR" [5]. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine, if properly worded to emphasize the temporary nature of the deployment and that the Navy wing and parent MAG share ownership. And referenced, of course. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you run across any P-D images of the Allison TF41‎? This is the engine used in USAF A-7D and USN A-7E Corsair IIs. Thanks - BilCat (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got this for you: File:Allison TF41-A-1B engine.jpg and File:Allison TF41 engine of A-7E Corsair 1969.jpg. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You're good! - BilCat (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Talk:Cuban Missile Crisis#Possible incorrect picture of Kasimov, because the info that you added to File:P-2H Neptune over Soviet ship Oct 1962.jpg may be incorrect. The bottom of the Kasimov is dark in the one picture, and not in the File description. The info from USN doesn't identify the ship by name. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I copied a wrong infromation (sorry, I cannot read Russian). The freigher is most probably the Okhotsk, which left the left the port at Nuevita carrying 12 IL-28 airplanes on 5 December 1962 ; see [6], [7], [8]. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm glad it's straightened out, credit Miguel for catching it! It was really interesting to read your source links, I'm amazed at how the original pilots left messages at each photograph describing what they did back then. What a snapshot of history! --Funandtrvl (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, you've now earned the Journeyman Editor Service Badge! Thank you for all your help! --Funandtrvl (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Cobatfor (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- if you think it needs to be deleted, then you have to post it to WP:AfD. Nobody can delete it without a discussion first. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask for additional help with the carrier photo at this offsite forum, which has some very knowledgeable participants. The image link, however, now appears to be dead. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the U.S. National Museum changed its search function twice in the last week, now reverting back to the original (better) one. The link is the following: [9]. Or you could go on the search function [10] and seach for photo 2007.084.001.267. The US NMNA description is: "Photograph captured by U.S. forces in the Mariana Islands that shows a Japanese carrier. Item part of a scrapbook assembled by CDR William H. Balden, USNR, documenting his World War II service." Thank you for your help! Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I, and the rest of the community, very much appreciate you transferring images to commons. Just a small request while you're at it: could you make use of the {{subst:ncd}} template rather than directly using {{NowCommons}}, as the ncd template dates the image transfer and makes for better organizing. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, I was not aware of the template. I will use it from now on. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have you run across any design images for the Vought Model 1600/1601/1602? These were Vought/General Dynamics' submission in the Navy Air Combat Fighter (NACF) program. The Model 1600 was a navalized derivitive of the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, but lost to the Northrop/McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. The years the program was active were 1974-1975, but no actual Model 1600/01/02 aircraft were built, if that helps. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a really difficult one. Non-free [11]. Here is some info on the procurement decision: [12] (starting page 308). I'll keep looking. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Don't spend too much time on it, but just watching out for a PD image would be helpful. - BilCat (talk) 06:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering splitting the Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger off of the Grumman F-11 Tiger article, and could use some more images. The only pic in the F-11 article of the Super Tiger was upleaded by you. Have you run across any other PD images? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that man is demanding!!! See on what I added to your article! Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I tried to phrase it poliitely. :) But it's your fault for being able to find these rare images, and in PD no less! Thanks always for the great job. - BilCat (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found two other photos and made an own category on Commons. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Did you find File:Grumman F11F-1F in flight 1956.jpg online, or did you scan it? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the book as a pdf-file. However, I always use only photos where the copyright is clear. Sadly there are no coloured ones without copyright, mostly are Grumman photos. Cobatfor (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about the copyright. I had noticed a couple of USAF photos (but no USN photos) in the print edition of the book when I was re-reading it yesterday for info for the article. I hope to add some info on the non-US competitions with the F-104, as they aren't well covered eslewhere, and are fascinating stories. Meyer is definitely biased towards Grumman's POV, and understandably so, considering the Lockheed bribery scandals. - BilCat (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the German Minister of Defence, Franz-Josef Strauß, who was responsible for the Starfighter-deal, was a very controversial politician. The high loss rate of the German F-104 pilots is today mainly attributed to insufficient training and maintenance. In my opinion, Strauß wanted a deal with the US. The best plane under consideration was, as I see it, the Mirage III, but this aircraft was French and France had optend against a European Army in 1954, and was opposing the US on various occasions. Cobatfor (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's me again! I'm looking for photos of the Pratt & Whitney F401. I'm currently trying to expand it's coversion in the Pratt & Whitney F100 article, with a possibilty to spilitting it off in the future. The F401 was a derivitive of the F100, and was planned for the US Navy's Grumman F-14B Tomcat and Rockwell XFV-12, so you might find some pics in the Navy archives that you usually find rare pics in. (I'm in no hurry, and am actually on a semi-wikibreak.) Thanks again! - BilCat (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Pratt & Whitney F401. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! - BilCat (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Was unaware of those sub-categories :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know about every squadron, but to answer your question, the "CT" tailcode was assigned by by the 27th Tactical Fighter Wing when the squadron's F-86H aircraft was attached to the 27th TFW on active duty at Cannon AFB, New Mexico, during the 1968 Pueblo Crisis.

Tailcodes began appearing during the Vietnam War early in 1966 on USAF aircraft when they began to have camouflage paint on them rather than just be the natural aluminum color and have squadron colors be painted on them. The wings assigned individual squadron tailcodes back then to identify aircraft, "C" was used by TAC for Cannon AFB aircraft; CT was assigned by the 27th TFW....

All that became confusing and it wasn't until 1972 that AFM-66-1 was changed to the standard single tailcode of one per Wing that is used today, with different color/pattern tail stripes to identify each squadron. This is the only time actually I've seen at tailcode on a Sabre, as well as painted in the Southeast Asian color scheme. I WISH I had found that in color. Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly no USAF photos: http://www.nyaviator.com/F-86H_July_2009.htm http://aircraftmilitery-go.blogspot.com/ Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have another image request, for when you have time. Another editor has created Lockheed L-1249 Super Constellation, wich covers the R7V-2 and YC-121F, powered by Pratt & Whitney T34 turboprops. Thanks, and we're in no hurry. - BilCat (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are lucky, the National Museum of Naval Aviation just posted one this year. However, Swanborough/Bowers, p. 299 (ISBN 0-87021-792-5) gives the date of the first flight with 1 September 1953 (not 1954). Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, but I'm not lucky, you're just really good! And it's a great b/w image too. I'll double check the dates and correct it. - BilCat (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Characteristics Summary for the YC-121F [13] from 1957 lists the first flight in September 1954. Probably a mistake at Swanborough/Bowers. Cobatfor (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Airborne Warning and Control System (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) 10:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Setting (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) 10:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit of the page for VF-191 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VF-191), dated 00:17, 5 January 2008‎, you have added that they were first called the "Bulldogs". You seem to use http://gonavy.jp/SqnDeployment02f.html as the reference. I have been researching this squadron for some years now, and have never come across any official reference to them using the name "Bulldogs" - I have the official command history reports from WWII and later years, and there is no reference to this name. It seems always to have been "Satan's Kittens".
I have tried contacting the owner of the gonavy.jp website several times, but have never received a reply. Have you any documentation that indicates that the squadron were originally called the bulldogs?
best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.119.65 (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry, but the only source I have is gonavy.jp. As this site offers a huge amount of information that is normally reliable, I did not question it. However, I also once tried to contact the site (years ago) about the "new CVW-10" of which the second VF-191 was part in 1986 and I did not receive any reply nor was my info (proven by photo) added. So, maybe you want to delete the "Bulldogs" nickname. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, maybe it would be best to remove it until proven, or could be marked as unsubstantiated? I'm not sure how wiki works. With regards to CVW-10, I have the command history reports for VF-191 for 1986 to 1988. If you want to find out specifically about CVW-10, then you can apply for the command history reports for carrier wing at the US Government's Freedom of Information Act web site - the Navy page is: https://foia.navy.mil/foia/webbas02.nsf/%28vwwebpage%29/home.htm?opendocument.

all the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.119.65 (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (to Finland?)! Thank you for your link, but I don't know what term to put in the search field to get any results. Thanks and cheers Cobatfor (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update on "Bulldogs" - I found on Ebay, some yearbooks for Airgroup 19 (Item number: 380414088660) In one photo of the Jan 45 to Oct 45 book, there is one photo (BkCrsC011.JPG) there is a photo of some F8 with the caption "Satan's Kittens" - I think this clearly puts the name issue to rest! Bets regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guntherbraun (talk • contribs) 15:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the railcar but the station is Buff Bay, Portland. Janvo (talk) J.Aldred 18:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Cobatfor (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cobatfor- thank you for uploading these shots of VAW-12 Skyraiders in flight. I stumbled across them while searching old aircraft and was very intrigued to find my grandfather in the cockpit (his nameplate on the side profile). After seeing photos of the same squadron from other deployments, I was hoping you may have a broader collection or perhaps higher resolution copies that you might be willing to share. Vielen Dank! 40ayoh (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am very sorry but I stubled across these photos more or less by chance. Well, of course I was looking for nice photos but all are from different sources, the U.S. National Museum of Naval Aviation, a cruise book, and the Naval History and Heritage Command. The NMNA mostly provides the highest resolution photos here: NMNA search site. The NHHC normally has only photos on the range of a few KBs, so you would not be able to read the pilot's names. Normally, people more hope for grandfathers to provide their photos to the public! :-) Here [14] is a very nice collection of USN cruise books, and you'll certainly find your grandfather there if you happen to know when he was deployed, like here [15]. VAW-12's deployments are also listet here: [16]. That's how it goes, search, search, search... Cheers from across the big pond and Happy Easter! Cobatfor (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for adding that photo - it's an excellent find which will be useful in a number of articles. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent addition BTW! I've been looking for a PD photo of a 9 Sqn Iroquois for a long time. May end up using it one of my articles. By any chance do you know if any photos are available surrounding the actions of the unit at Long Tan in 1966? Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice that you like the photo, although I came upon it only by chance. Some photos of Australian soldiers are here: Allied Participation in Vietnam, as you probably know. Here Stemming the Tide, May 1965 to October 1966 are sadly no photos of Australians. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cobatfor, I'm trying to expand the Carrier onboard delivery page to cover other aircraft beside those used by the USN. We could use a pic of the Royal Navy's Fairey Gannet COD.4, if any exist in PD. Do you have any suggestions of where to look? Thanks as always. - BilCat (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, British aircraft, very difficult, as long as they did not land on a U.S. carrier. Maybe you want to contact users User:RuthAS or User:TSRL on Commons, as they took photos of British aircraft at a time when I probably did wet my diapers (or even before). Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might also contact this author [17], as some allow photos to be used on Commons, liken this photo File:RAAF Phantom Finney.jpg. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to USS Bon Homme Richard (CV-31) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• on 9 January 1947. She was motballed at the [[Puget Sound Naval Shipyard]], [Bremerton, Washington]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Henry W. Tucker (DD-875), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Task Force 77 and Long Beach (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) 08:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USS Ingersoll (DD-652), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ponape and Task Force 77 (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) 08:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you don't mind me reverting that photo out of this article. While I'd love to see it included, in my experiance the Naval Aviation Museum database contains a lot of Australian Department of Defence photos in its Robert L. Lawson collection from which this is sourced, and the record doesn't explicitly state that it is actually a US Navy image. I'm pretty sure that I've seen this photo in 1990s-era Australian Department of Defence/RAAF publications. Is there anywhere on the website where it's asserted that 100% of the content of the database are US Government images? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, One one hand, Lawson was a USN photographer, but "collection" does not mean that he took the photo himself. As there is no correct date and the NMNA descriptions are often nor correct, the photo may have been taken in the US. However, be that as it may, the NMNA wrote the following mail (forwarded to Wikimedia): "Our photographs are public domain, with very few exceptions which you do not need to worry about. However, if a photograph is used in a publication we request the image be labeled "Courtesy of National Naval Aviation Museum". Roger Mott- Library Volunteer 9/11/09." Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. If we have that assurance the photo is presumably usable. I'll revert it back in. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cobatfor.
Your recent edit here, to Douglas C-54 Skymaster created an error message at the bottom of the page:

Cite error: There are <ref group=N> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=N}} template (see the help page).

Which says exactly want needs to be done, add a {{reflist|group=N}} like I did here, under "Footnotes".

Please preview pages and check at the bottom of the page for errors like this before saving. Regards --220 of ^Borg 08:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I recognized it but I could not find out how to correct it. Cobatfor (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You'd be surprised how many 'cite errors' are caused because a page doesn't have any references section at all! See Category:Pages with missing references list.--220 of ^Borg 12:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the VP-19 page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined your "now Commons" speedy deletion request at File:HSC-12 emblem.jpg because the Commons version and the local image are different file types and our speedy deletion criteria does not allow for such deletion. I would recommend taking the image through the WP:FFD process for deletion. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I knew of the problem and now tried it the other way. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning. Am I replying here, on your talk page or on the article talk page? That is always a bit of an issue. First of all, I realize your edit was not vandalism once I saw your other edits and your user page. Sorry about that. Next, if there was no NIMBUS STREAM, the article ought to be deleted, not tagged as you did. Look at your edit, you did not even use paragraph form. I presume you were busy. Finally, my cite is my book, which is long out-of-print, Codeword Dictionary. As i do not have a copy with me here in the Middle East, I truly cannot provide a better cite at the moment. I expect to be home for the holidays. I suppose what we ought to do is tag the article with "Needs better citation." Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do not know what source the book cites, but if you read the US Navy final report (use the link on the Nimbus Stream talk page), there is no mention of Nimbus Stream. Therefore, I presume that the author got it mixed up. For example, the ship-raising was called "Nimrod Spar", but is sometimes wrongly described as "Nimbus Spar". Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy yourself. You know, I cannot rely on my memory. All these names run together. As like or not, my source was the Washington Post when these events were happening. I seem to recall the NIMBUS STREAM was the clearance of the two ports, not the canal. Why not post a deletion stub for a month or so and then delete it if nobody comes to its defense? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would merge the "Nimbus"-articles into one. I created a category on Commons "Suez Canal Clearance Operation (1974-1975)", because I find it difficult not to confuse the "Nimbus Nimrods". Maybe "1974 Suez Canal Clearance Operation" would be a good title. What do you think? Cobatfor (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(What do I think? I think it is remarkable our little article is just about the only memory online of this important operation. I think Wikipedia is great.) Please proceed along the lines you mentioned and ask me anytime I can help you in any way at all. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi thanks for your edit on Spangdahlem Air Base. I saw your reference was >http://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123435814<. This is a raw link and susceptible to wp:link rot, nobody van reconstruct it when dead because parameters like date title author, work are missing. Please consider full refs. thanks--Wuerzele (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Well, I tried to improve the citations. However, I always welcome people who help with own research. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! i did nt see this(lack of ping) until I looked on the watchlist - yes, everyone welcomes help. FYI: I never add incomplete sources when I add something. Cheers.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember if I've asked before, but do you think you can find any public domain pics of the Vought Model 1600? This was the main competitor in the competition that led to the F-18 for the USN, so there might be photo somewhere in Navy material from the 1970s. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I did ask before, at #Vought Model 1600! Sorry. Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Fighter Squadron 1 (United States Navy), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: VF-1. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Fighter Squadron 1 (United States Navy) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Hut 8.5 22:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been directly copied from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/kms-dithmarschen.htm, a copyright web page. The material also appears at https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/dda9e948-7907-4d46-9978-254495b8ee94/Raeder-versus-Wagener--Conflict-in-German-Naval-St.aspx, a paper that appeared in the Naval War College Review, and I am pretty sure that material is protected by copyright as well. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I may have made a mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least according to German copyright law it was not directly copied. I changed the sentences and quoted where the information was taken from. That would be correct in ANY German scientific publication. It was NOT Strg-C + Strg-A. How about changing it more instead of removing it? However, I just found out, that I could not retrieve the old version to further change it. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have to follow the copyright law of the United States, as that is where our servers are located. Some of it I did paraphrase myself, and for the remainder, please see the source webpage from "The Dithmarschens could each carry nearly nine thousand tons of fuel oil..." — Diannaa (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about: As Germany did not possess any ports on the Atlantic Ocean or any overseas bases, the Dithmarschen-class combined the roles fulfilled by tanker, repair ship, ammunition ship and dry cargo ship. The ships were even equipped with a small hospital. The main cargo were almost 9,000 tons of fuel oil and 400 tons of lubricating oil. As it was probable that the ships were underway for an extended time, the range was 12,500 nm at 15 knots. The maximum speed was 23 knots. A heavy armament was fitted, consisting of three 15 cm/L48 guns, two 3,7 cm and four 20 mm anti-aircraft guns and eight machine guns. Cobatfor (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that version is good. Thank you for your patience and taking the time to do this. — Diannaa (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give VP-4 a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Patrol Squadron 4 (United States Navy). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. I've tagged it with histmerge for an admin to act on. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for finding the original USN photo files for the VH-92 in front of the White House and the Washington Monument. I looked online, but wasn't able to locate the originals. Thanks very much and I hope my efforts didn't cause you too much work to correct. - BilCat (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be possible to find the original file for File:VH3D and VH60N.jpg? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and same to you! Cobatfor (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around far too long to be adding unsourced dates of birth for living people. I'm sure you know better. Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well. Cobatfor (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ryan Aeronautical Company logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has made an svg. file from it and has failed to mention it. I corrected it. Cobatfor (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realise that my moving the description from ship caption to ship photo you are making it invisible? Lyndaship (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think, I get what you mean. Yes, I know that, but most of these ships were in commission only in 1945. Also, you can read it, once you move the mouse on the photo. However, for your sake, I added it, again. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the ships infobox usage guide: Do not include a caption in the image code as there is a separate |Ship caption= field for that purpose. Lyndaship (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this does not answer the question, if you should include a caption at all, especially as some are 3-4 lines long. However, I would welcome, if you stick to Wikipedia etiquette and use something like "hello" and "cheers" or so, at least in your first post. Kind regards Cobatfor (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cobatfor, it's been a while since we've chatted, but I see you're still active. Would i be possible to extract the GE1 photo from this page? I'm trying to get the Draft:General Electric GE1 article to mainspace, and a rare photo of this mostly unknown engine would be a great addition. I think I can make a valid fair-use claim for the photo, but I have no idea how to extract the image. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm obviously getting old, since I am around since 2007 ... As I can see, the publication was from the U.S. National Aerospace Education Council. I didn't know something like this ever existed, but do you know if this was a government institution (PD-USGov)? Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I didn't think of trying that tack, but I've never heard of it either. The only thing I can find on a Google search is this, which reads, interestingly, "National Aerospace Education Council (U.S.)". If it's NASA, it should be PD, unless otherwise stated. Good catch! BilCat (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I put the photo in the draft, although I could not find anything about the NAEC. Maybe it was absorbed into NASA, no idea. I just put the author as "unknown" and made the NAEC a USGov institution - until somebody proves otherwise. I think that the photo may not be an official GE photo due to the two people in the photo. A photo as an advertisement is normally without spectators. Best Wishes from across the Big Pond Cobatfor (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cobatfor,

This is to let you know that File:USS Johnston (DD-557) underway on 27 October 1943 (NH 63495).jpg, a featured picture you helped to restore, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 25, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-10-25. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, thank you! Cobatfor (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Glenn L Martin Company logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]