Steve7c8

Welcome!

Hello, Steve7c8, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert

The reason you were reverted was because you didn't provide an edit summary and without that, how would anyone know your edit was sourced or not? (and some of the changes appeared to be unnecessary either way). You were also editing while logged out, which isn't forbidden, but does create it's own issues. For one, you were editing from a corporate IP address, so hopefully you are familiar with Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines (your contribution history shows edits made to articles related to that corporation). But as for the changes you made to the Montana-class, you can't really expect editors to read through every attached source to see if some random IP user's changes are supported, so they were reverted. Now that you've added a summary explaining the edits, I'll take your word for it and we can move on. But please keep the guidelines I've linked here in mind when making future edits. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 18:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I've only just started working for Boeing, and the edits to STS and Montana-class battleships are the only ones that I've made so far on the corporate network. The edits are made during my breaks and down time, they're not done on behalf of the company. DeliciousFart (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as COI is concerned, now you know the guideline, what you do going forward is up to you. As for the other policies & guidelines I noted, I wanted to point out that while edit summaries are not a policy, they are a widely accepted "community norm" and are extremely helpful to other editors, especially when you make edits to pages on their watchlist. If you start to build and monitor your own watchlist, you'll quickly see this for yourself. Your cooperation with this is appreciated. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 21:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, DeliciousFart, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" on their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Longhair\^talk 03:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Steve7c8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

'DF' (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Of all things to crack down on, it's my username?

Decline reason:

Please pick a username without reference to farts, one which adheres to WP:USERNAME. Yamla (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia admins have no sense of humor. DeliciousFart (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Steve7c8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

'Steve7c8' (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Lighten up, for Christ's sake.

Accept reason:

Since the blocking administrator said that your username is the only reason for the block, and you have now offered a user name that is acceptable, I am unblocking your account to allow a username change. However, I advise you that if your attitude to editing Wikipedia is accurately represented by your comments "Lighten up, for Christ's sake" and "Dafuq, are you serious???" then you may not last long without being blocked again. Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopaedia, not a place for people to show how childish their sense of humour is. Please select an option from Wikipedia:Changing username and file a request as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Dafuq, are you serious??? DeliciousFart (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• You were unblocked by JamesBWatson to request a new username, not to edit and create new articles. You should should edit with your new username, not this one. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 21:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I already requested a simple name change, but it's probably still processing. I'll sign off and edit then. DeliciousFart (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I can see why you might edit while you are waiting for your user name change request to be dealt with without meaning any harm, but I would advise you to wait. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Montana class

Seems our edits were just seconds apart, so I hadn't noticed your changes. (FYI) Carry on... - ^theWOLFchild 21:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Peer review

I noticed you requested a peer review. That's a good idea, but I would suggest you post that request at WT:SHIPS or WT:MILHIST. There is more traffic on those project talk pages. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 16:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't find those categories. How do I delete the current one and submit a new one? Steve7c8 (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Just click the links, they take you right there. No need to delete the current one, you can leave it there, and just post your request on those two project talk pages I linked (they aren't categories, btw). Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 01:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship

Howdy, I've noticed that your changing measurements in the Iowa class battleship article - which is fine, however when you change the measurements you also need to change the citation for the information, otherwise the info will end up being revert on grounds that the current information doesn't match whats in the citation (per verifiability, not truth). Keep that in mind: its not what's true, its what we can prove, and if the citations don't match the numbers then the numbers will get reverted. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The measurement source is from Garzke & Dulin United States Battleships 1935-1992. I didn't think it was necessary to list the citation for every value because it would look redundant, I just said it in the edit summary. Steve7c8 (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

People generally don't check edit summaries for refs. Some articles have thousands of entries in their histories, going back for numerous years. Tomstar81 is correct, if you change content, you need to add or update the existing source, or your edits can be reverted. You can use WP:REFNAME tags to make it easier. - ^theWOLFchild 18:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. The book itself was listed at the bottom of the article, which is why I felt it wasn't necessary to directly cite it. Steve7c8 (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, you can cite the book author and page number as long as the book is cited in its entirety in the references section. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I added a new sub-section called "General characteristics" that describes the same dimensions as in the infobox. I cited the author and page number there. Steve7c8 (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Another option to consider, if you will be adding the same values for various characteristics to multiple pages, is to use a template, like the ones seen here; for the Tico cruisers. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 05:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not quite as simple, according to G&D and Sumrall, New Jersey has very slightly different dimensions from the others, namely being longer by a few inches and narrower by 5/8 inch. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

In that case, you would need to attach a ref to that content if you want it to remain. I only mentioned the refname and template options above to make adding refs easier if using the same ref for multiple entries on the same page, or adding the same content to multiple pages. But either way, all content must be sourced, with refs attached on the page. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 16:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Steve7c8. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Iowa class infobox

The ship infobox is supposed to be a brief summary of the stats, roughly equivalent to an entry in Conways-type book. In addition I've gotten complaints that our infoboxes are too long and dominate their pages, so I'm trying to keep them as short as possible while providing basic info. Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide covers a lot of the basic info including what should go in each field (electrical power isn't one of them, I'm sorry to say). One thing that I try and keep in mind is what are the most important things in each category and to only use those; others can be used if they fit on a single line. For example, for propulsion I want to know the type of engine powering the ships and how it is actually propelled. Adding "geared" to the steam turbine entry isn't strictly necessary, but it fits just fine on that line. For armament, I want to know the number and size of the guns, the model and caliber length is of secondary importance. For ships with multiple changes in armament or function multiple infoboxes are probably the best way to show those changes clearly, though I'm uncertain if they're needed for these ships. See Japanese battleship Ise for a ship with three infoboxes, but notice that only the things that have changed are listed in the successive infoboxes. I'll watchlist list this page if you want to discuss this further.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I separated the decks, as as done on SoDak and NC articles. Full load displacement should also be there, IMO. Steve7c8 (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The American battleships tend to have the most elaborate infoboxes, especially the rebuilt ones from WWI, so you really can't use them as a guide because several editors have staked them out and are resisting any changes to their infoboxes. USS California (BB-44) has been recently been upgraded and also offers a good guide. Standard displacement is important because it ties into the treaty limits, so I like to use both that and full-load displacement. I disagree on the decks as we only want a rough idea how thick they were and a single line is all that's necessary. I'm indifferent if you want to cover the range of thicknesses of the individual decks or sum them up, either is fine, IMO. But only a single line for deck thicknesses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I have the three deck thicknesses in one line. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

How big's your screen? It shows up on two lines on my monitor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

One line of code, two lines of text. In this case, I think it should be fine, as it follows the same format as the South Dakota and North Carolina class articles, and all three decks are part of the horizontal protective scheme. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that gun length should be in the infobox. Almost all American battleship infoboxes list the guns as 16in/50 cal or 16in/45 cal. Also, I think 20 mm conversion should have two decimal points, as that results in two sigfigs, matching that of the 40 mm conversion. Adding the barrel length still fits in one line visually. 08:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westinghouse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Long-Range Engagement Weapon/AIM-260 JATM ?

Hello. It seems likely that the Long-Range Engagement Weapon program is at the origin or at least inspired by the AIM-260 JATM. When do you think ? If so, we should merge the two articles. Edit, this is confirmed by the article of Global Security : https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/lrew.htm Can you do the step on the English wiki - I am French and do not know the procedure -

L'amateur d'aéroplanes (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, the GlobalSecurity link simply copies and pastes a translated version of a topwar.ru source, so this is tertiary at best. Based on OSD funding documents, the AIM-260 is distinct from the LREW. Steve7c8 (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikiwings

		Wikiwings
		For outstanding work paring down Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II‎. - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Steve7c8 (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

F-35 paragraphs restoration.

Just to be clear, none of the things mentioned in the deleted paragraphs are addressed in the SAR report, so I restored them. If there are some other, more recent, sources explicitly stating the mentioned things are no longer there, then it would be fine to remove these paragraphs. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

See talk page, I addressed those paragraphs sentence by sentence. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

The article Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations! Great work! - Ahunt (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. It has taken many hours to get here, and I'm not alone in this effort. Steve7c8 (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Steve7c8

Thank you for creating General Electric XA100.

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

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

North8000 (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

F-35 Good Article

	Lightning Editor
	Congratulations on getting the F-35 page up to Good Article status! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Million Award for F-35

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (estimated annual readership: 2,900,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. While I did a large part, I'm certainly not alone in this effort. Naturally, through the upcoming service life of the aircraft, the article would need to be continually updated and maintained. Steve7c8 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

NGAD redirect

I recently changed NGAD to redirect to Sixth-generation fighter#United States, where it is actually mentioned. Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

When I get the chance I may want to create the NGAD as its own article. The confusing thing is that the Navy is also using the NGAD acronym, with the F/A-XX being the center piece of NGAD's "family of systems". Obviously, both the Air Force and Navy NGAD programs are conceptually linked together and are expected to share technology such as mission systems and propulsion, but they seem to be separate program of records. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Why delete refs in infobox in Montana-class battleship?

In your first recent edit to Montana-class battleship ("consolidated citation"), I see that you deduped the Newhart book, which is great. But why did you delete all the references to it (<ref name="USB" />)? This is a Featured Article. refs shouldn't be deleted without good reason.  — sbb (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I simply moved the book to the Further Reading section since the exact same pages of the book was being referenced repeatedly. To be honest, a few years ago I actually repopulated a lot of the figures in the infobox, using mainly numbers from Friedman and Garzke & Dulin, but at that time I didn't change the reference in every line. The main difference between those two sources and Newhart is mainly in the ship dimensions, which varied a few inches. Steve7c8 (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Understood. But if the book was actually cited/ref'd, it shouldn't go into Further reading, it would a cited source.

But now there's another minor issue: most of the infobox figures are uncited, and you're saying they've been mis-cited for a few years? Sounds like we need to verify and cite those numbers against Friedman or G&D.  — sbb (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I've put the Friedman and G&D citation in the infobox header caption. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Refs in ship infoboxes are discouraged by MOS because the infobox figures should be based on the info in the description section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake then. Thanks for the clarification.  — sbb (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Su-57 avionics and specifications

The PDF document (https://www.niip.ru/upload/iblock/1c6/1c679044d8c2dce0e6a3f62c27df725e.pdf) clearly says AESA radar has been dismounted from Su-57. Did you read it before posting it? That's what exactly Director General said in the interview. I also added additional references to support those sentences in avionics section.

Thanks Canberra2021 (talk)

You’re talking about an interview from 2014, where they dismounted the radar from the prototypes for debugging and testing. This does not say anything about the current status, which is why your additions are reverted; they aren’t currently relevant. Steve7c8 (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Steve7c8

You have removed latest references from 2022 from Algerian sources and newspaper. 2022 news says, Russia is yet to manufacturer an AESA radar for aircraft including Su-57. if you enter in edit war, I have to report you to the admin. Stop edit war.

Watch this RT video: It says phased array radar....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcTg0PsgtsU

Thanks Canberra2021 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources you post are littered with factual errors, or failed to verify what your additional sentences in the article state. Again, the interview from Yury Bely is from 2014, and does not represent the current state of the program. The Military Watch Magazine article says nothing about the N036 radar as is used on the Su-57, only that the current export options (Su-27 Flanker variants) to Algeria lack AESA. The sources that you have provided are quite lacking in terms of quality, and are rife with mistakes. The image is claimed by the article to be a Spanish brochure from Sukhoi, but there is no link to the primary source itself, nor is there a proper attribution. This is why the additions are being reverted. Steve7c8 (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Steve7c8

You're contradicting yourself. once sentence you're saying the Algerian variant does not have an AESA. Another section you are saying It does have AESA. Sukhoi Design Bureau is the primary source and original manufacturer of Su-57. If they are saying the fighter jet does not have an AESA. That means it doesn't have an AESA.

You have been reported to the admin for promoting country-specific propaganda and advertisement content in wikipedia. Canberra2021 (talk)

You're the one contradicting your own sources. There is no Algerian Su-57 variant. The statement about the lack of AESA is firstly regarding the Su-27 variants currently on offer, and secondly no statement from Sukhoi indicated the lack of AESA on the Su-57. It appears that you lack reading comprehension skills from the very sources that you've posted. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into M110A1 Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Noted. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

No offense intended

Hi Steve,

I just wanted to say that I meant no insult by my remarks at the F-22 article. I didn't look to see who added it, and in my opinion the whole thing was much ado about nothing. I get tired sometimes of all the armchair quarterbacking around here. I mean, if people are going to harp about sources, I think the least they could do is check the sources first, or maybe take a second or two to check google. If people see a problem, it seems to me they could at least try to fix it, or propose some kind of solution, rather than nagging about it. I don't see any problem with it as it was written, but I was trying really hard to play devil's advocate there and see it I could offer up an argument that might at least hold some water. You do good work and it's very much appreciated, so I hope you didn't take offense. Zaereth (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries, no offense taken. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from M4 carbine into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Nobody (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

F-22 maximum speed

22. april 2019 you edited F-22 Raptor page and added there a bogus "maximum speed" number of mach 2.25 with zero referenecs to where that number is from.

Based on anylysis of shock cone formation and shape of the plane, this number seems to be unrealistic, the shock cone will hit the wingtips at speed mach 2.07. And AFAIK the official maximum speed of the plane is only "mach 2.0" Hkultala (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Miller, Jay (2005). Lockheed Martin F/A-22 Raptor. Hinckley, England: Midland Publishing. p. 102. ISBN 1-85780-158-X.

The F-22 has a basic maximum speed of Mach 2.0 as well as a time-limited excursion above that speed. Jim "JB" Brown, former chief F-22 test pilot, said in a December 2022 presentation at the Western Museum of Flight (this presentation is easily found on YouTube) that at Mach 2.0, 40,000 ft, the aircraft is using 118% throttle; for reference, 100% throttle is full military power and 150% is full afterburner. That “sprint” speed information is CUI, as far as I know, which is why I’m using the published source above.

This information is also found in Mark Ayton's article in the August 2008 publication of Air Forces Monthly, as listed in the references of the “Specifications” section, and in fact, it was in the article for many years even before I made that edit in 2019. I’m not sure why you’re using such a combative language. Steve7c8 (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Northrop

Hello, Steve7c8. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Northrop_YF-23/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Ping. Please make the notifications and add that to the FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Ping. See the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Advanced Tactical Fighter

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Advanced Tactical Fighter you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DeadlyRampage26 -- DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Advanced Tactical Fighter

The article Advanced Tactical Fighter you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Advanced Tactical Fighter for comments about the article. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Advanced Tactical Fighter

The article Advanced Tactical Fighter you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Advanced Tactical Fighter for comments about the article, and Talk:Advanced Tactical Fighter/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DeadlyRampage26 -- DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Advanced Tactical Fighter

On 21 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Advanced Tactical Fighter, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Advanced Tactical Fighter program resulted in the F-22 Raptor? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Advanced Tactical Fighter. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Advanced Tactical Fighter), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lockheed Martin FB-22

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lockheed Martin FB-22 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Stivushka -- Stivushka (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lockheed Martin FB-22

The article Lockheed Martin FB-22 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Lockheed Martin FB-22 and Talk:Lockheed Martin FB-22/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Stivushka -- Stivushka (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lockheed Martin FB-22

The article Lockheed Martin FB-22 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lockheed Martin FB-22 for comments about the article, and Talk:Lockheed Martin FB-22/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Stivushka -- Stivushka (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lockheed Martin FB-22

Hello! Your submission of Lockheed Martin FB-22 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 18:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Mixing variant specifications

I reverted your recent edits to Sukhoi Su-57 as the brochure you used was for the wrong variant. The specifications section currently covers the baseline Su-57, while the brochure is for the Su-57E export variant. It is generally discouraged to use multiple sources for specifications, as sources for even the same variant can differ slightly (usually due to precision). Exceptions are sometimes made when no complete sets of specifications can be found, but we should be especially careful to not mix up different variants when doing so. - ZLEA _T\^C 08:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Presently, there is no difference in terms of air vehicle and propulsion between the Su-57 and Su-57E, both use the same AL-41F-1 engines, with the main difference being the avionics and the removal of some domestic Russian avionics systems and modes. This is also in line with how Russian export aircraft have been distinguished in the past, where the difference is mainly in the avionics. As such, purely for air vehicle performance the Su-57E brochure should be applicable. This is similar to how the domestic Su-27S/P and the export Su-27SK are nearly identical in the air vehicle and propulsion, and the difference was in the avionics. Steve7c8 (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is continued at Talk:Sukhoi Su-57#Use of ROE Su-57E product card. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)