User talk:Renamed user FoctULjDYf/Archive 2

; Archives
	Archive 1 (March 2006 - May 2006)

This is a subpage of Renamed user FoctULjDYf's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Quick Facts Archives ...

Close

Wow, you do spend a lot of time on here ;) The hip is feeling okay, I have an MRI in two days to make sure things aren't getting worse. Are you psyched to get back to Quantico? I would be, I can't wait to return. Openbah 12:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I change this statement because it is false. My F-14 book, and any other book on the topic mentions that maneuverability was the primary reason for the existence of the F-14, the Navy after combat in Vietnam. If combat maneuverability was not a design parameter, the F-111 would have been fine besides weight issues, and some said weight wasn't really the issue since the USN routinely handler even heavier types.

Please be aware of the Three Revert Rule, which states that you cannot revert an article to an earlier version more than three times per day. I am happy to discuss the changes I propose with you and any other party, and I do not engage in stale revert wars. There is no rush. I suggest you use the talk page of the article to convince me and other parties you are right, as opposed to reverting changes I or other parties make. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit, but do not remove substantive information from WP. Your edit is essentially a POV to remove any reference to Naval air superiority fighters, which inclusion in the Rand paper clearly shows, and the previous version apparently deliberately omits since the F-14 had the carrier borne air superiority role, as does the F-18E. Please review the rules on POV, reverting edits made in good faith, and verifiable information. Please maintain a civil manner. --Wiarthurhu 19:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to act snide and superior, I was just pointing out an obvious math error. One that still exists, by the way--apparently you weren't paying attention to my comments, but 265 (the number supposedly killed in planes) + 2595 (the number supposedly killed in NYC) + 125 (the number supposedly killed in DC) adds up to 2985, not 2986. It's too few. You pointed out that the intro states "at least 2986." If you'd paid attention, you would see that 2985 does not fall into the category of "at least 2986."

You criticized me for not doing original research, but I was using the wiki's own numbers, from the same entry. The conclusion from the erroneous total number seems to be that someone just messed up adding the total fatalities from the four planes, not that the individual plane numbers are wrong. Insisting on the 265 number not only means the four individual plane numbers are wrong, but that the total fatality number is wrong. It doesn't make a lot of sense...and God forbid I consider Wikipedia a reliable source of information!

Since you're intent on criticizing, and since I apparently can't correct an obvious math error without snide editorial "corrections," (apparently the simple addition I learned in grade school isn't "original" enough for you), I'm leaving the page with an obvious error on it. If I find the time I'll figure out where exactly the error lies. However, since you don't like my work, and seeing as you're as self-proclaimed "Mathie," please feel free to correct the error yourself. SharkAttack 23:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)SharkAttack

With regard to your response: fair enough, I can see where you're coming from. I know that original research is barred, but I didn't realize that the term applied to Wikipedia itself--the table looked accurate, and the table's numbers were in accord with the total fatality number. I was trying to make the article internally consistent.

That said, it does look like you're right about the fatalities from flight 93. There's clearly a mathematical error somewhere in the 9/11 entry, but its location is not as obvious as I thought. --SharkAttack 00:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Gosh you scared me. Thank you for your restraint.--Wiarthurhu 19:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a blog? I'd look at that. SkeenaR 06:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I know you were making a joke. Where is it though? I'd be interested. Military, 9/11 etc. SkeenaR 06:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, mostly personal. And hence, not something I'd post on wiki. Nothing personal, but there are some wierdos out there. And I'm (shockingly) not talking about any conspiracy theorists. Check out the history of USAA and it's talk page sometime. Some nut pushing a personal vendetta against the company. Got quickly permabanned when he started posting pictures of the CEO's wife and kids, along with some...interesting...comments. Taught me a lesson about shielding my personal info from wiki. --Mmx1 06:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll check out the article to see what you are talking about. I know what you mean, and I don't blame you. SkeenaR 06:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Archives 6 and earlier contain most of the early material. A lot of the more offensive later stuff got deleted by admins, although the warning at the top of Talk:USAA/Archive09 makes it pretty clear what was going on. --Mmx1 06:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This kind of crap is unfortunate to say the least. I would support anyone in combating this type of thing. SkeenaR 06:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watch it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific nations or periods.
Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 15:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If WP:RFC is unsuccessful at resolving a dispute, the next steps available are:

Request for mediation. Mediators will get involved, and suggest ways to resolve conflicts (focusing on the personalities involved and their conduct; not so much on the content itself, as the mediators are generally not subject matter experts). This is non-binding.
Request for arbitration. The matter is brought before the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, which studies the matter and can impose binding resolutions, and enforce penalties on any participant in a dispute, up to and including banning the party from commenting on or editing a particular subject, imposing probation, or (in extreme cases), banning an individual from editing Wikipedia altogether. Note that the "plaintiff" in an arbitration can be affected just as much as the "defendent". Like RFM, RFA primarily focuses on the behavior of the participants, and does not issue rulings on such things as who is right and who is wrong, or which source is more reliable or trustworthy. Note that personal attacks, 3RR violations, and such which weren't noticed and/or punished by an admin when they occurred, can be later sanctioned by the arbcom.

Please note that I wish no part of, and take no side in, your present dispute at F-14 Tomcat and elsewhere. My only interest is that discussion of this dispute is inappropriate for the article Wikipedia; and suggesting resolution procedures to any interested participant. I'll post this to User talk:Wiarthurhu as well.

--EngineerScotty 23:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You should remove the "Your case should look just like this when you have finished filing..." boilerplate text from the end of your RfM's section. Having an extra copy of the boilerplate text on the page might confuse people. Other than that, it looks like a very well-thought-out and well-written RfM, and I hope it goes well. Kickaha Ota 00:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Will you accept this as a reference? It was claimed the F-111B was cancelled because it was not agile enough, among other things. The author works for Janes, though you haven't stated if you think Janes, as an industry publication, is too biased to permit in WP article citations. --matador300 02:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

DEFENDING THE CARRIERS: FROM MISSILEER TO TOMCAT http://www.northshire.com/siteinfo/bookinfo.php?isbn=0-00-472254-x&item=0 F-14 Tomcat Holmes Tony Additional photos Price: $18.00 Availability: Special Order Paperback ISBN: 0-00-472254-x

Jane's At the Controls reveals what it is like to fly and fight in the F-14 Tomcat. Tasked with the long range defense of the US Navy's carrier task forces, the F-14 is now taking on new roles. On the hypothetical mission, set in the near future, you follow a flight of F-14s through all phases of an operation. David C. Isby is a Washington-based attorney and defense consultant. A special correspondent for Jane's Intelligence Review, he has contributed to many military and aviation publications and written extensively on the Russian armed forces. He lives in Washington D.C.

The Tomcat story begins in the 1950s, soon after the F-4 Phantom program was initiated. But unlike the Phantom, it would take 20 years before the US Navy's Missileer evolved into the F-14. With the progress of missile technology in the 1950s, long-range cruise missiles became the greatest threat to the US Navy carrier battle group. Launched from high-speed bombers at a stand-off distance of as much as 200 nm (nautical miles) (370 km), these missiles would demand an incredibly powerful radar to be acquired and tracked. An equally powerful radar on a long-range, fast, high-endurance platform would be required to attack the bombers before they could launch. The Navy's solution was a large, high-endurance aircraft, carrying several high-speed long-range air-to-air missiles. The missile chosen, in 1958, was Bendix's AAMN-10 Eagle; 16 feet (4.9 m) long and weighing 1,284 lbs (852 kg), it had a maximum speed of Mach 4 and a range of 110 nm (204 km). Eagle development was eventually transferred to Hughes, to become the Tomcat's AIM-54 Phoenix, but Douglas's F-6D Missileer was as different from the Tomcat as can be imagined. From its beginnings in 1960, there were objections to the Missileer. While it could carry three Eagles under each wing and two more under the forward fuselage, its fixed high wing and non-afterburning engines produced a top speed of only Mach 0.8. After it had released its Eagles, the Missileer would be an easy target as it flew slowly back to the carrier. Big, sluggish, as well as slow, the variety of missions it could perform was APN-1 22(V) radar continued, to become the limited by its defencelessness. On a crowded AWG-9 of the F-1 4A/B. aircraft carrier that just wasn't good enough. After the Missileer was cancelled in 1961, On the other hand, the Missileer's radar was new Defence Secretary Robert S. McNamara, designed to track multiple targets at extreme former Vice President of the Ford Motor range, in order to keep itself far from trouble Company, encouraged a common Air when it launched missiles. Development of Force/Navy aircraft. The goal was to the Hughes pulse Doppler/track-while-scan streamline programs and reduce costs. In some ways the Air Force's SOR-1 83 Tactical Strike Fighter (TFX) did share requirements with the Navy's ex-Missileer Fleet Air Defence Fighter (FADF). Both needed a heavy weapons load, high speed, and long endurance. But the Air Force wanted a ground attack aircraft and the Navy was pure air-to-air. While the Air Force eventually fielded the successful General Dynamics F-111A bomber, the Navy's F-111B was cancelled in 1968 for being overweight and not nimble enough for either carrier operations or fighter work. But the F-111B provided the seed for the F-14. Principal subcontractor Grumman retained the F-111B's variable geometry swing-wing concept and, unfortunately, its Pratt & Whitney TF30 engines. This became Project 303, which won the contract for the Navy's VFX fighter (soon to be F-14) in 1969. All that remained was a last minute change to twin vertical fins in back, and the Tomcat name. Vice Admiral Tom Connolly and Admiral Thomas Moorer had both been great supporters of the F-14 program, and combined with Grumman's practice of naming its fighters after felines (Wildcat, Bearcat, Hellcat, etc.), the project long known as 'Tom's Cat' officially became the Tomcat. The Tomcat took something from all these projects of the 1950s and '60s, but the end result was greater than the sum of the parts. Fast, manoeuvrable, capable of carrying six of the longest range air-to-air missiles in the world, and with a superb multi-target radar that has even been used as a command centre in a mini-AWACS (Airborne Warning And Control System) role, the F-14 was just what the Navy asked for.

--matador300 02:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to end this dispute, and to this end, I'm cleaning up the article now and I will give you an advance notice of the changes:

lowercase "j" in jets
cut "much less win" from sentence "survive, much less win a dogfight." if it won't survive then it's obvious it won't win, extra phrase is redundant
added ' to indicate possessive
rm hopefully unneeded hidden message
rm widely spaced engines adding hardpoints, F-14 doesn't make use of extra space
rm word much, isn't particularly needed
rm hidden message
rm part about F-14 being most maneuverable at introduction, uncited
rm sentence about skilled F-14 pilots, it is common sense that they could
tightened sentence about swing wings and low speed maneuverability
rm sentence about maneuverability, not hard proof it compares well
rm part about F-14 being first use TF30, F-111 was already using it operationally
rm portion saying AMRAAM being shorter ranged than Sparrow, it's not
mentioned F-14 never carried AMRAAM operationally
changed air superiority to fleet defence, fleet defence includes air superiority
added A in F/A-18
changed AWAC to AWACS

I will submit a list of these changes to Wiarthurhu and if you both find them to be satisfactory hopefully this dispute will be over. LWF 02:54, 1 July

2006 (UTC)

Ok, your edits are getting more reasonable, but could you wait 30 min for me to get my edits right, you're causing edit conflicts even when you don't wholesale erase my stuff. I'd still like a justification for removing, not just editing content, as removal that has a detrimental effect is moving towards the vandalism line as well. The F-18 in both variants will be the only jet combat type, and I think I've seen jokes about a F-18 with a radar dome on top already. It could actually be done with fixed antennas, but it's a shame they didn't keep the F-14 for the big and slow roles. --matador300 04:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I broke the diVFAX code!!!! This was all happeing when I was reading Dick and Jane at Cascade elementary in Renton WA, before my father brought home the latest Aviation Weeks tossed from the Boeing library.

Ok, this is what I trolled off the internet on the VFAX question. If you do the math, the solution is this: The VFAX was created to replace the F-4 and A-7 in fighter bomber roles since it was assumed anything big enough to replace Missleer couldn't possibly be agile, and F-4 was a bad excuse for a Mig hunter. This covers the air superiority and strike role. The F-111B has the FADF (that's fleet air defence) role. This offloads VFAX to be light. Meanwhile, the ironworks (that's Grumman if you haven't heard by now) they were already working on VFAX. The picture of the 303 on the base says VFAX if you look carefully. Grumman secretly builds their VFAX around the guts of the F-111B (not to be confused with the FB-111) and says to the Navy, what do you think of this? Just hang 6 phoenix missles from a Phantom sized VFAX. Navy says, great, we get everything in one plane. Navy writes VFX around the Grumman 303, screws MD, Lockheed and everybody else, and voila, F-14. They essentially make up charges that the F-111 is overweight and won't work on a carrier My F-111 book says so. A loaded F-14D is nearly 80,000 lbs, and the Viggie and Whale (look it up) were even heavier, plus they can't just tear up the contract for being a slug because that's exactly what they asked for. They say they don't want to compromise for AF AS role, so that they don't have to buy or wait for an F-15.

So you figure out how to write that, and I'll edit that, ok??? You'll need a separate article for VFAX/VFX, and we can throw in MiG stories there too. Also figured out the F-8 was the last AS Navy fighter, the F-4 was the missle interceptor, but happened to have a big enough engines and wing to cover the AS role as well. F-18 VFAX is actually a separate program, resurrected from the earlier idea when the F-14 that seemed so small and cheap compared to the F-111B ended up still being a pretty big airplane. This is not original research since we're just putting together verifiable pieces.

Here's the original references. Note Julian Data's table. No that's not made up, it has to be the only surviving list of what was on the VFX that made it to the internet. Now, get cracking, and we can call off that whole stupid mediation thing. You and I, we can conquer the aviation pages, MIT grad and whatever the heck you are. It is your DESTINY.. --matador300 04:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

When you read this, you can erase it, or retrieve it from the history.--matador300 04:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

f14

See air superiority fighter To be a sucessful AS after 1965, you would have to also be a dogfighter. The F-100 and F-104 were also built for AS, but did not have as stringent an agility requirement. --matador300 04:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The VFX and FX are virtual twins spec and philosiphy wise except for Phoenix. If the FX was built for dogfighting, then the VFX was .... not??

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/atf-1.htm

The USAF initiated its FX program, while the USN discarded its troubled F-111B bomber turned interceptor in favour of the new VFX. Both the VFX and FX exploited new propulsion technology, discarding afterburning turbojets in favour of afterburning turbofans which offered much better specific fuel consumption in dry thrust and a higher ratio of afterburning thrust to dry thrust. Experience in Vietnam clearly indicated that the endurance/combat radius of the 400 NM class F-4 was inadequate and hence the VFX and FX were designed to a 1000 NM class combat radius. Climb and turn performance dictated low wing loading and good AoA performance this in turn shaping the wing and inlet designs.

First to fly was Grumman's VFX, designated the F-14A, a large twin with swing wings and a pair of TF-30 fans. The F-14A had a large bubble canopy for good visibility during dogfights, a Head Up Display (HUD) gunsight, computer controlled automatic wing sweep and glove vane positioning, a massive AWG-9 pulse Doppler air intercept/fire control radar system capable of tracking multiple targets in ground clutter and an internal M-61 gun. It was bigger, more complex and more expensive than the F-4, but it also offered agility and manoeuvrability without precedent. The first of the teen series fighters had thus made its mark. --matador300 04:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC) its

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/F_14.html

Unfortunately, the early F-14 aircraft also included another late developing preproduction concept—deployable wing leading-edge maneuver slats for

- - improved maneuverability. ***

Early Grumman flight tests revealed that the F-14 modified with both the ARI system and the maneuver slats displayed unsatisfactory air combat maneuvering characteristics because the ARI rudder inputs aggravated lightly damped rolling oscillations (wing rock) induced by the slats during maneuvers. Because of this incompatibility, the Navy deactivated the ARI systems on all fleet F-14 aircraft.

On January 14, 1969, the Navy announced the award of the contract for the VFX fighter, now designated F-14, to Grumman. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy requested that NASA make a timely independent assessment of the technical development of the F-14. A NASA F-14 Study Team of over 40 Langley personnel led by Langley researcher William J. Alford, Jr. was organized. A briefing of the study results was given in August 1969 at the Naval Air Systems Command by a team led by Laurence K. Loftin, Jr., Mark R. Nichols, and William Alford. This briefing (which covered results in cruise and

- - maneuvering performance, ***

aeroelasticity and flutter, propulsion integration, stability, and control) identified several areas where further research would enhance the F-14’s capabilities. Following the briefing, Dr. John Foster, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, requested the support of Langley in the development of the F-14.

Here is one to add to the article - wing placement from NASA

One result of the LFAX-4 study that the Langley team emphasized was the critical location of the pivot for the movable wing panels. To minimize drag during transonic maneuvers typical of air-to-air combat, the pivots must be located in a relatively outboard position. Langley’s experience with the test and analysis of the F-111 revealed that large penalties in trim drag occurred if this key design factor was not adequately appreciated. Although the F-111 incorporated the variable-sweep concept, the full advantages of the concept were not realized because the pivot locations were relatively inboard. As a result, the F-111 suffered excessive trim drag at transonic and supersonic conditions. The designers of the F-14 were made aware of the significance of pivot locations by NASA briefings. Comparison of the NASA results for the LFAX-4 to those of the F-111 helped convince Grumman to locate the F-14 pivots in a more favorable outboard position.

http://www.georgespangenberg.com/a13.htm Exhibit A-13. A Retype of a paper by GAS published by the Association of Naval Aviation, The Gold Book of Naval Aviation - 1985 Naval Aviation Planning A Retrospective View (and some lessons for 1995)

This 1960's VFAX concept was a two place, twin-engined, variable sweep design which

- bettered in all respects the characteristics of the F-4 as a fighter **

and the A-7 as an attack airplane. New technology engines and a new weapon system were required to meet these goals in a design about the size and weight of the F-4. VFAX became part of the Navy's plan for the future, until the F-111B proved itself unusable, eliminating the constraint which had justified it.

The final step in the developments of the F-111B period was what proved to be a real solution to the carrier fighter problem. In essence, this was done by adding Phoenix and AWG-9 to VFAX, thereby completing the circle, nearly returning to where we had been in 1961 with the "Navy TFX". Still another "Fighter Study" was completed showing that

- - VFX, as it was called, was more effective and more cost

effective than the F-111B plus F-4, VFAX, *****

or other alternatives. After a competition, VFX became the F-14 Tomcat when a contract was awarded to Grumman in early 1970.

- - - - The F-14's design mission was in the air superiority role

carrying four Sparrows on a fighter escort mission. *****

A radius of 565 miles using internal fuel was estimated by the Navy. The FAD mission was treated as an overload, carrying six Phoenix missiles and external fuel. An attack capability carrying a wide variety of conventional stores with a visual delivery accuracy equal to the A-7E was also provided for in the basic design.

http://www.georgespangenberg.com/vf1.htm

- VFAX was designed to complement F-111B, F-14 would replace both **

The F-111B was most nearly useful when employed in a fleet air defense role, in effect acting as a MISSILEER but with half the capability. Other fighter missions, such as escorting attack airplanes,

- - had to be done with a higher performance, more maneuverable, ***

and more versatile airplane than the F-111B. Grumman, associated with General Dynamics, had performed F-111 improvement studies, under contract, ranging from minor changes to complete redesigns. McDonnell had also studied, under contract, various improvements to the F-4, including a design with a variable sweep wing. A new airplane, to complement the F-111B, was also under study by everyone. This design finally evolved as a multi-mission airplane, VFAX, capable of performing better than a F-4 as a fighter, and better than the A-7 as an attack airplane. The concept was valid only under the premise that it was complementary to the AWG-9 and Phoenix capability represented by the F-111B. However, as the latter design degraded in attractiveness, by 1967 and 1968, very serious study efforts were undertaken to find a true solution of the Navy's fighter problem. In essence, this finally evolved as upgrading the VFAX to carry the AWG-9 fire control system and the Phoenix missiles. The first definitive studies were completed by Grumman and provided the information by which the Navy convinced itself and the Congress, if not OSD, that a new fighter, VFX, could be produced which was more effective and less costly than continuing the F-111B and providing an adequate complementary fighter.

- - The F-14, the only fighter designed to counter the full spectrum

of the projected threat against the fleet, was finally on its way. ***

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a.htm

* Wing area increased to 565 square feet from 505 square feet. Increased

combat agility. Allowed use of simple hinged single-slotted flap, rather than complex double-slotted extensible flap. As a fallout, maneuvering flap is easily achieved.

Incorporation of glove vane. Superior supersonic maneuverability.

Reduced supersonic trim drag.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14-variants.htm A completely new fighter system was designed around these with emphasis on close-in fighting "claws" along with standoff missile fighting. From its first flight on 21 December 1970, the F-14A went through five years of development, evaluation, squadron training and initial carrier deployments to become the carrier air wings' most potent fighter.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avtomcat.html The wings feature spoilers to improve maneuverability, plus full-span trailing-edge flaps and leading-edge slats to improve low-speed handling. The inboard flaps are of course disabled when wing sweep blocks their operation.

http://www.defencetalk.com/air_systems/fighters/f-14_tomcat.html F-14 Tomcat Air Systems - Fighters After failure of the F-111 as a fleet defender, Grumman immediately began a new design on a clean sheet of paper of a new lightweight fighter, bodily transfer from the F-111B includes the TF-30 engine, Hughes AWG-9 radar and Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix long range AAM. The F-14 was a totally new and un-compromised fighter. The selection process out of five submissions from Grumman, General Dynamics, Ling-Temco-Vought, McDonnel Douglas and North America Rockwell (4 of the 5 design involved sweep wings), Grumman's design was announced as the winner over McDonnel Douglas of the hastily contrived VFX program. The first of the 6 R&D F-14 prototype flew on 21 December 1970. The maiden flight was flow by Veteran Bob Smythe and Bill Miller. Unlike the F-111B, no attempt was made to achieve commonality with any aircraft and the need of the fighter sweep/escort; CAP (combat air patrol) and DLI (deck launch intercept) mission was given priority.

This is MMx's defect that needs to be corrected:

Reference Encyclopedia - F-14 F-14 edit Web www ...The Navy issued an RFP for the VFX in July 1968, resulting in the selection ... an designed as an interceptor for high speed at the expense of maneuverability , the F - 14 ... www.referenceencyclopedia.com/?title=F-14 - 58k - Supplemental Result

Here's one for the other side: Mary is an engineer, but she's still wrong, we do see where the viewpoint comes from.

The F-14 wasn't

designed for knife fights with agile aircraft, because they weren't the threat. Bears and Bisons were.

Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it. or

Julian Data

posted July 27, 2005 09:24

The AIM54 was from an USAF design missile. The shear size is due to the requirement of it in which range was a major concern. You need a lot of propellant - rocket fuel - to carry a missile a long distance back in those days.

As the F-14, the AIM54 addition was thought afterwards to the aircraft's airframe design since Grumman concentrated on a proposal which encompassed air superiority first thus it had four AIM7 recession in the tunnel. Grumman was designing the F14 during the F-111B fiasco in which they were trying to lower the weight of the current TFX aircraft. When they knew that the USN no longer wanted the F-111B, Grumman and other aero manufacturers had VFX designs waiting in the wings.

Grumman figured a way to implement the AWG-9 design into the F14 by modifying it - lighter - and implementing the AIM54.

http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=73;t=004225 More from Julian Data

Posted by Julian Data (Member # 6271) on April 21, 2002 00:53:

During the design of the F-14, during VFX, it was to carry out the USN's plan for a Fleet Air Defense Fighter, FADF for shortly but during the Vietnam War with the F-4N, the FADF became "secondary" as the primary objective was to design an air superiority fighter first. When the final classifications of the VAFX/VFX came out it composed of the following:

1. Air superiority<--------- Maneuver is 1st 2. FADF 3. escort 4. A/G 5. Long loiter time 6. distance 7. Approach speed to the carrier

britgliderpilot wrote: -- Why does everyone fail to mention the F-14 in that -- it was specifically designed to carry and sling the -- AIM-54 Phoenix missile?! -

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/94610606/m/49710108/p/2 Common misconception, it was designed as a maritrime air superiority fighter first and FADF second. Take a look at the VFX requirements. It was a fighter to begin with hence the GUN.

Hubsu,

You're way off base, superficial W/S loadings are incorrect because it doesn't take into account the other lifting surfaces. The Tomcat is a lifting body. The actual lifting surface is bigger than the REF area lift listed at publications.

Your T:W looks nice but what pilot doesn't BFM wit a full load of fuel? Most USN and USAF do their tests at 50% fuel. Thrust always changes per speed and altitude. Needless to say, after talking to several F14 personnel, once the F14 goes under 60KLbs, it has the ability to stand on its tail when using the F110 engine.

Lastly, you're assumptions that the F-14 was just mainly an interceptor is also incorrect. Grumman designed as the aircraft as an air superiority fighter first (look at the gun, WVR modes with the RADAR, AIM7 recess sections in the pancake) and the FADF afterwards (they added the pallete concept to add the AIM54). Given the experiences in Vietnam, the USN and USAF didn't want just pure intercepter since the F4 had difficulty. Check the VFX and VFX2 requirements.

Take care,

Julian

http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-USN-95.html The Navy had by then concluded from experience over Vietnam, that air combat manoeuvring performance was still of fundamental importance. If it was to have a single fighter type for fleet defence and power projection, this type would have to offer excellent ACM performance and the all weather long range weapon system.

The idea of a VFAX multirole fighter was conceived during the early sixties, this aircraft was to replace the F-4 and A-7 in the air superiority and strike roles. The collapse of the F-111B program however left the Navy without a fleet defence missile platform, as a result the VFAX acquired the F-111B's massive AWG-9 fire control system and payload of associated AIM-54 Phoenix SARH/ARH AAMs.

By 1970 the VFAX had evolved into the VFX which became the Grumman F-14. The F-14 was a very large and heavy aircraft by virtue of its conflicting mission requirements, but offered major performance gains against its predecessors.

F-18 was resurrection VFAX

The cost and size of the F-14, and its commitment to the fleet air defence role, led very soon to the resurrection of the VFAX concept.

http://www.georgespangenberg.com/history3.htm I'll continue my version of history now with the VFAX program which of course evolved into the F-14. Some of the early stuff on this may be of some interest and may not appear elsewhere. In the year or two before the end of the F-111, as has been mentioned, lots of studies were being done both in and out of the Navy some funded, some unfunded , on how best to solve the needs of the fleet for an F-4 replacement. The big effort finally came about when it was apparent that the F-111B was not going to make it and the concept then became one of taking an airplane similar to the VFAX and adding the Phoenix missile system to it. I'm not sure how many other people were inventing that airplane at the same time but I remember being in Fred Gloeckler's office with a group of Grumman people for a VFAX discussion. The more you looked at the total situation the more you became convinced that a better solution would be to get a new fighter that would carry Phoenix and still have enough performance to do the other fighter missions. In essence, VFAX with the addition of the Phoenix system. Fred Gloeckler was the guy that first suggested it I believe. In short order Grumman came up then with some studies with that kind of an airplane. They all looked attractive. Another formal full scale study then ensued. Adm. Zumwalt in this case was the designated leader of the study while Capt. Mike Ames was usually my point of contact. It was a big effort. The cost effectiveness studies that used to be done routinely in Gloeckler's shop with his small group escalated to major efforts extending over a month or more of work with many people involved in the whole game. The "back of the envelope" studies were just as reliable when done by those knowledgeable in the field.

Needless to say, that fighter study then justified the need for the new airplane, with the designation, VFX.

http://www.planet.fi/~mohman/model/f18specs.html Here is a LONG description of Hornets history The VFAX was envisaged as a multi-role aircraft which would replace the F-4 Phantom, the A-4 Skyhawk, and the A-7 Corsair II in Navy and Marine Corps service. To meet the VFAX requirement, a stripped version of the Tomcat (named F-14X) had been proposed by Grumman, but

USN to initially seek an all weather missileer platform armed with

long range AAMs. This aircraft was to have been the the Douglas F6D, a two seat side-by-side 50,000 lb class twin turbofan subsonic missile platform. Powered by a pair of TF-30 fans, it would use its large fire control radar to target its payload of Bendix Eagle two stage Command Link/SARH guided AAMs. Designed for endurance, the Missileer/Eagle system divorced all weather fleet defence from the air combat manoeuvring role. This specialisation would allow the air superiority fighters to be smaller and more agile single seat aircraft, inherently more suitable for dogfighting.

DEFENDING THE CARRIERS: FROM MISSILEER TO TOMCAT http://www.northshire.com/siteinfo/bookinfo.php?isbn=0-00-472254-x&item=0 F-14 Tomcat Holmes Tony Additional photos Price: $18.00 Availability: Special Order Paperback ISBN: 0-00-472254-x Jane's At the Controls reveals what it is like to fly and fight in the F-14 Tomcat. Tasked with the long range defense of the US Navy's carrier task forces, the F-14 is now taking on new roles. On the hypothetical mission, set in the near future, you follow a flight of F-14s through all phases of an operation. David C. Isby is a Washington-based attorney and defense consultant. A special correspondent for Jane's Intelligence Review, he has contributed to many military and aviation publications and written extensively on the Russian armed forces. He lives in Washington D.C.

The Tomcat story begins in the 1950s, soon after the F-4 Phantom program was initiated. But unlike the Phantom, it would take 20 years before the US Navy's Missileer evolved into the F-14. With the progress of missile technology in the 1950s, long-range cruise missiles became the greatest threat to the US Navy carrier battle group. Launched from high-speed bombers at a stand-off distance of as much as 200 nm (nautical miles) (370 km), these missiles would demand an incredibly powerful radar to be acquired and tracked. An equally powerful radar on a long-range, fast, high-endurance platform would be required to attack the bombers before they could launch. The Navy's solution was a large, high-endurance aircraft, carrying several high-speed long-range air-to-air missiles. The missile chosen, in 1958, was Bendix's AAMN-10 Eagle; 16 feet (4.9 m) long and weighing 1,284 lbs (852 kg), it had a maximum speed of Mach 4 and a range of 110 nm (204 km). Eagle development was eventually transferred to Hughes, to become the Tomcat's AIM-54 Phoenix, but Douglas's F-6D Missileer was as different from the Tomcat as can be imagined. From its beginnings in 1960, there were objections to the Missileer. While it could carry three Eagles under each wing and two more under the forward fuselage, its fixed high wing and non-afterburning engines produced a top speed of only Mach 0.8. After it had released its Eagles, the Missileer would be an easy target as it flew slowly back to the carrier. Big, sluggish, as well as slow, the variety of missions it could perform was APN-1 22(V) radar continued, to become the limited by its defencelessness. On a crowded AWG-9 of the F-1 4A/B. aircraft carrier that just wasn't good enough. After the Missileer was cancelled in 1961, On the other hand, the Missileer's radar was new Defence Secretary Robert S. McNamara, designed to track multiple targets at extreme former Vice President of the Ford Motor range, in order to keep itself far from trouble Company, encouraged a common Air when it launched missiles. Development of Force/Navy aircraft. The goal was to the Hughes pulse Doppler/track-while-scan streamline programs and reduce costs. In some ways the Air Force's SOR-1 83 Tactical Strike Fighter (TFX) did share requirements with the Navy's ex-Missileer Fleet Air Defence Fighter (FADF). Both needed a heavy weapons load, high speed, and long endurance. But the Air Force wanted a ground attack aircraft and the Navy was pure air-to-air. While the Air Force eventually fielded the successful General Dynamics F-111A bomber, the Navy's F-111B was cancelled in 1968 for being overweight and not nimble enough for either carrier operations or fighter work. But the F-111B provided the seed for the F-14. Principal subcontractor Grumman retained the F-111B's variable geometry swing-wing concept and, unfortunately, its Pratt & Whitney TF30 engines. This became Project 303, which won the contract for the Navy's VFX fighter (soon to be F-14) in 1969. All that remained was a last minute change to twin vertical fins in back, and the Tomcat name. Vice Admiral Tom Connolly and Admiral Thomas Moorer had both been great supporters of the F-14 program, and combined with Grumman's practice of naming its fighters after felines (Wildcat, Bearcat, Hellcat, etc.), the project long known as 'Tom's Cat' officially became the Tomcat. The Tomcat took something from all these projects of the 1950s and '60s, but the end result was greater than the sum of the parts. Fast, manoeuvrable, capable of carrying six of the longest range air-to-air missiles in the world, and with a superb multi-target radar that has even been used as a command centre in a mini-AWACS (Airborne Warning And Control System) role, the F-14 was just what the Navy asked for.

Are YOU the guy trying to knock down this sandcastle?? What's the big idea? Why not go and get rid of every list of failures and flops in WP--matador300 10:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Will you !@#$% knock it off with deleting othe people's pages already? Watch Cars, the moral is that you need to be nice to your friends, not running around deleting their stuff when you realize you've been attacking other people to defend a completely baseless position. I've even posted the Flight article now. --matador300 00:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I still want to know why you are tossing an IED into the failure / success lists? --matador300 00:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

MMx1 is now guarding the Air Superiority Fighter Page

He's still reverting any statement that the F-14 is not an air superiority fighter, which is not supported by the Rand article -- it clearly states by its inclusion that it is a AS fighter which happened to put FDAF first. He has also tossed IED bombs into the list of scientic failures page, which is attracting other people who enjoy deleting other people's articles. --matador300 01:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, Mmx1 you've managed to destroy another good Wikpedia Article and the work and compilation of hundreds of contributors. Remember the bad guys always get it in the end, and I'll alway be on Snoopy's side.

Of the 7 keep votes (discounting duplicate votes), one was "it's edited a lot", two were "but this article was kept", three were "it's interesting", and one was "it's been around for over a year". The (12) editors arguing 'delete' made arguments related to its inherent POV, citing WP:NPOV, a lack of sources (WP:RS), and the subjectiveness of the subject and its title. I judge the arguments for deletion to outweight those to keep

And my apologies for the thousands of users who will miss List of famous failures in science and engineering which was nominated for deletion because user:Mmx1 was upset about my F-111 content.

Any other users having similar problems with Mmx1??

WP is like a cross between a word processor, WWF wrestling, chess and paintball.

(actually a composite of two users, but mostly the user:Mmx1 who showed enough consideration for others to shoot down an entire WP article with aFD IED)

People with no credentials who revert everthing I put as "vandalism". People who call an editor with an MIT education, a room full of reference books and magazines who has read hundreds of articles in magazines and books since 1970 and been published in Aviation and many other newspapers as a freelance columnist as "misinformed crap" and "made up shit". People who believe they are more qualfied than Janes to determine if the F-14 is what Grumman and the US Navy called it in 1969, though they present no evidence of education, job, or having read or watched even one print or broadcast source, or writing experience outside of WP. People who act as guard dogs over articles, making it impossible to change the mistake, entered by Red Baron in March 06 that the F-14 was never designed to optimize maneuverability, and then have it mirrored across dozens of other encyclopedias, and then appear as the opinions of other users who used the WP as a reference too. People who consider Aviation Week, Janes, Flight International, the U.S. Navy home page, a Grumman VP and former F14 test pilot, Modern Marvels and Aero books to be unreliable sources. People who interpret the WP encouraging removal of uncited material as removing all material without convincing citations. People who determine "I don't see mention of air superiority" in a single open source internet source means that it impossible for the F-14 to have ever been an air superiority fighter, and then use a paper that names the F-14 as one of 4 air superiority fighters as proof the F-14 is not an air superiority fighter. Sore losers who nominate a page to articles for deletion built over a year by dozens of editors because I finally showed him proof the F-14 was called an air superiority fighter in Flight International 1969 at the Seattle Public Library stacks, long before the F-15, and he found my contribution to the F-111 there, and the co-conspirators who second the nomination who have never before seen or used this page.--matador300 18:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC) The WP not only permits, but encourages this sort of behavor. Am I the only guy that feels this way about this wiki-madness? --matador300 18:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmx1, do you care to deny any of these situations now that you've accomplished your victory?? When you become an ace, I'm sure you'll get even more friends. --matador300 21:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm CQJ, and I'm an unofficial mediator with the Mediation Cabal. I'm not sure if you knew or not, but there's a request for us to help you guys out with the F-14 article. If you would leave me a message at my talk page whether or not it's okay that we help you out as soon as you could, I'd appreciate it. There's also a case page working at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05_F-14_Tomcat that we might use as well. Thanks! CQJ 07:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have submitted to you and Matador four content compromises. Please review them and either accept or reject them at your convenience. CQJ 19:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the source info. I'm trying to keep that page as clean as possible for outsiders who may or may not be completely aware of what the dispute entails - but I've maintained your original source information in the archive section. We will get to it sooner or later, I just want to pick the easiest place to start and start from there. CQJ 03:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, these are all starting points of compromise. These aren't going to be "the final word", these are only places where we can start tweaking content and what I see as either recurring themes or major parts where you all disagree, hence why I'm just asking for an Accept or a Reject. I've modified the second compromise, if you'd go take a look at it, I'd appreciate it. CQJ 11:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

By the Top Gun reference, If the F-14 was so uncompromising or unsurpassed, why was it phased out of service? :-) Like I said earlier, you can't believe what you see in the movies half the times....I'll take a look at the rest of your comments here in a minute. CQJ 22:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I had to copy and paste on this round.

* Well, I'm not clear if the body of the second compromise is supposed to be the body of your last comment there. It may help to delineate it separately from the commenting on the process, perhaps with italics. Also, I do think your refactoring should at least put quotes in italics, otherwise the grammar is a bit screwy and it's difficult to discern the meaning(e.g. in my refactored response to the 2nd compromise). Your comments look okay, though given the trouble we've been having with undue assumptions I think we should stick with precise terms other long-range Navy interceptors of the late 60's and early 70's rather than the imprecise other aircraft of its time.

It's a little bit of both. I'll fix it up appropriately.

* Secondly, I don't think "secondary design aim" and matador's view that it "was a consideration in the process" are exclusive. He does believe it's a primary design aim, which is a problem as it's unsupported by sources nor editors. I understand it'd be hard for him to accept the "secondary" wording, but I don't believe accuacy should be subject to the dogged persistence of one editor (and as a "watchdog" on the 9-11 pages I am well acquainted with dogged persistence). Leaving the language deliberately vague is a disservice and an invitation to introduce undue assumptions. I do believe consensus is with me on this point. Can I suggest that the language say that Grumman advertised the Tomcat as ...whatever the ads say, uncompromising, yada yada.... but the Navy specifications and doctrine called for fleet defense via interception as a primary consideration and maneuverability as a secondary consideration.

Okay, you'll have to forgive me. After reading all of the stuff that you guys have thrown at me over the last 48 hours, I was a little confusing on that one. Matador believes it's a primary cause, but it may or may not be. If you can prove that your assertion is correct beyond consensus, and you can provide two verifiable sources, that is what we'll base the compromise on. I'd prefer not to mention Grumman unless we can get an actual verified statement from someone from Grumman other than a television show or a paid advertisement in a trade magazine.

And I've already covered the last one in my last note. If the F-14 was so uncompromising or unsurpassed, why did the Navy take it out of service? Movies are good for enjoyment, but purely are horrible when it comes to facts about performance. Just because you upset a waitress doesn't mean the kitchen staff is going to mess with your food like in Waiting...CQJ 23:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody knows the exact reason, high maintenance hours seems to be a pretty lame excuse. Most old fighters are passed on to reserver units, I think it's very unusual that they're cutting them up for scrap while they are still the most capable overall air superiority fighters in the world when you factor in the long range missle capability to offset whatever penalty they pay in sheer size for agility. I suspect the pro-Hornet forces want to make sure this plane doesn't come back to haunt them. My guess is that fashion says swing wings and really big planes are out, it's ironic that they turned down the low-cost Tomcat because of the light weight YF-17, but it's grown up into something about as big and heavy as the original Tomcat, except with less range payload and without the AWG-9 Phoenix capability. --matador300 21:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please re-review compromise two at your convenience. If you'd rather change the wording, please feel free to do so. CQJ 18:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have IRC access? CQJ 21:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Mmx1 appears to be following me around reverting everything I do again. He's removing the aircraft commentary unilaterally determining that it's a bad thing. The cars movie page is full of car expert people commenting on the actual cars, and that's what makes that article great. I hope we don't end up settling this and having Mmx1 constantly getting in my way and tearing everything down. I wouldn't mind so much if he concentrated on tearing other people's articles down, but this is hardly a truce. Again, he's tearing down other peoples stuff that was done after I put it in first. Can't we give Mmx1 SOME guidelines as to manners rather than saying in typical WP fashion to go ahead and rip as long as it falls in WP rules???--matador300 22:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, on closer inspection he just trimmed it down, didn't delete the whole thing. That's much better. He didn't even erase "air superiority fighter".. Whew.. --matador300 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

On third thought, be careful what you delete. It is very significant to mention that this is the year the F-14 is being retired / cut into scrap metal, replaced by the Super Hornet which wasn't in the movie, and I think interesting to note is a distant relation of the agressor F-5. So Mmx1 please be a good boy and put it back. --matador300 22:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC).

I see that there's more going on than I anticipated and that this dispute has spread from F-14 articles to other aircraft and related articles.

It seems that the trend on this article is continuing elsewhere.

So I must ask you very nicely, but very firmly.

Please stop editing any article having to do with aircraft, things you shoot from aircraft, or anything that otherwise flies. We've got enough to deal with as it is.

Thanks. CQJ 22:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Lurking on freenode, #wikipedia-medcab until 4 pm local time. Stop in if you get a chance. User:CQJ posting as 68.58.17.130 19:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC).

I would just as soon stay out of this disaster if at all possible. If my technical or WikiProject opinion is requested I will of course chime in, but just reading about the whole incident tries my patience. Best of luck, and let me know if (and where) my input would aid in keeping the process neutral. ericg ✈ 20:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to mention the personal attack in RAH-66 in the talk page, and the one in my talk page under F-15, if you need additional evidence. If you need additional comments from me, then you just need to direct me to the section they need to be posted in.--LWF 21:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

RAH-66?? I don't think I was ever there--matador300 22:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoke to soon. Yeah, I was just pointing out there that somebody else was mad at Mmx1 and pointing out there was trouble at the F-14 page too. --matador300 22:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What's going on here? Just what do you want other than either one or both of us getting banished from WP?? Give me a list a demands, and I'll see what I can do --matador300 22:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Thank you for fixing that. I hope you saw the F-14 saying VFAX on the base by now, and that you are satisfied that Charlie Brown and Robert Kress knew what they were talking about. History Channel regularly gets people like Gunston and Palomar, the most respected defence and aviation authors on their programs. I suppose you're going to think I'd be biased if I said it was idiotic for McNamara to set up all the crazy rules of engagement for Rolling Thunder too. --matador300 05:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Convinced by a plastic model? No. --Mmx1 13:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it would be worth creating a template along the lines of the one for the United States Air Force. I think it would make the main USMC page look much sharper. Thoughts?--Looper5920 05:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"interpretation most commonly accepted one by journalists and academics" is not good enough for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, in particular the bolded statements below:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. Taw 15:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thumb — This **motivated** Tireless Contributor Barnstar is given to **Mmx1** for his tireless contirbutions to all articles relating to the United States Marine Corps. Presented by Looper5920 29 July 2006

Well deserved...really like the uniform page as well--Looper5920 15:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that somewhere in the RfC there should be a mention of the small dispute of whether or not Boyd, (who thought the F-14 was not maneuverable) is a better source than the sellers ( test pilot, engineering VP) because that is a genuinely good question. Which source should we treat as more reliable, the company, or the man who developed E-M (now used as an industry standard)?--LWF 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the Kent Lee article that you can add to a "References" section? — ERcheck (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just put in a second source, and fixed the formatting for the first one I put in last night. Adm. Lee published a collection of memoirs but I have been unable to locate a copy.--Mmx1 11:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Given your interest in conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, I thought you might be interested in one that was up for review. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks I urge you to carefully examine Wikipedia's policies and rules, and then carefully consider whether you have an opinion on the matter. I certainly do. Your friend. Morton Devonshire^Yo

Whilst on a short wikibreak, I missed this AfD, but I write to commend you on your participation there; you observed, as I'd have, the distinction between an article apropos of the incident (or a section of the Clear Channel article apropos of same) and an article that serves primarily to comprise a crufty list. It was unfortunate, though, that very few seemed to appreciate that distinction; good on ya in any case. Joe 18:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully request that you remove the AFD. It documents a commonly used term that deserves to be defined in a proper context. I would recommend that you edit the article as it does not meet any of the criterion for deleting an article. --matador300 21:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out the history of the F-14 Tomcat page and help me figure out what image should be in the infobox. I didn't think anything was wrong with the original one, it said copyrighted but free use. It was replaced and I replaced that one with another free image (Image:F-14B Tomcat over Lake Pyramid.jpg). The 42k replacement, Image:F-14 Across.jpg doesn't look too good on my screen, maybe my resolution isn't the greatest, so I'd like a 2nd opinion. Thanks. Dual Freq 00:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it's frustrating dealing with editors who are trying hard to violate Wikipedia policies by pushing their edits hard, but I just wanted to remind you that WP:CIVIL applies to those of us who have to clean up that kind of mess as well. This edit summary is incivil; I know the guy was exhausting patience, but that kind of comment isn't going to help diffuse the situation, which is why WP:CIVIL is important. Mango juice^talk 04:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. --Mmx1 04:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Care to dispute the accuracy of any of it?? Of course, I would never accuse you of such behavior. --matador300 23:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Does the phrase "verifiability, not truth" ring a bell? Somewhere in WP:V, perhaps? Cite your sources or it gets deleted. And yes, meta-observations about wikipedia constitute " a steaming pile of Original Research"--Mmx1 23:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little slow today. Could you explain to me the meaning of wth? and steaming pile? If it is what I think it is, could I use it to help verify the disputed content?? --matador300 23:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you dense or do you continue to ignore the rules despite multiple explanations? Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself, WP:RS. --Mmx1 23:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not dense at all. WP is entirely appropriate as a source of its own policy. While the creation of editors cannot decide fact, the use of uncivil language on WP pages is logged, and does establish as a fact the existence of such conduct. Unless users like yourself suddenly cease all such conduct, which I think will happen shortly before hell freezes over at this rate. I would certainly welcome such an occurence. Would you favor such an outcome when no one is uncivil towards another? --matador300 00:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Then discuss it on the WP:RS talk page and see if you can convince others to share your point of view. --Mmx1 00:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No offense intended, but I uploaded that YF-17 / F-16 image to commons less than a month ago, I added {{NowCommons}} to your image. Same image, same source, I didn't think to put it on the LWF page, but it was in the F-16 and YF-17 pages on commons. It might be worth a quick check over there next time. I think wikipedia is trying to get all of their free / public domain images on the commons. Dual Freq 03:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

to tell the truth, I am severely pissed at Wairthu, and I bet you are too. His acting to be a Wikicop has pushed me over the line. Plus, he was issuing a citation to a admin for blocking him. I don't think I did anything wrong by removing his comments. he was blocked, so he neds to shut up. Karrmann 16:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about problems in the Royal Marines article concerning content and behaviour. Perhaps you can help. Greetings Wandalstouring 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You may find the article Terrorists of Pakistani origin interesting. It may be deleted soon in perhaps a few hours.

If you have any views on having such articles on Wikipedia, please do share them at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terrorists_of_Pakistani_origin

--Robcotton 01:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Mmx1 I don't know if it was really a good idea to remove that huge portion of comparison to the army section. Unlike the reputation section, I didn't see any discussion on the removal of the comparison to the army. What may seem like an absolutely necessary removal certainly doesn't seem like one from here. I'm going to reinstate that section until we get some discussion on removing such a huge section. People put a lot of work into that section and it wouldn't be fair to just throw it all away without at least telling posting an announcement on the discussion section.Bubbleboys 12:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a nice day --matador300 18:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain to me the exact nature of your dispute. I simply do not understand the need to verify that the Phoenix was never used on any other fighter. I need to understand that you put in the tag because it was neccesary and not just a useless hindrance, which is just one step removed from vandalism or interference with another editor, both of which are not allowed on WP. --matador300 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mmx1, thought I'd alert you to a new development in the case of this banned user who is now asking for a lifting of the ban under certain conditions. As you took place in the original discussion leading to the ban I thought I should contact you directly about this new discussion. Thanks, Gwernol 21:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mmx1. I was wondering if you would be interested in joining the discussion re: the first paragraph of the bin Laden article. Cheers Levi P. 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarise, Añoranza is banned for one week and the principals in this matter are encouraged to enter into good faith negotiations regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames for which there are neutral alternative names in common use.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

1 Assault Group Royal Marines is perhaps not your scope, but it needs the attention of an expert on marine warfare to grow properly. Thank you. Wandalstouring 22:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is outside my main area of expertise (and I am no expert on marine warfare), but it's in my area of interest and I'll do some research. --Mmx1 23:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Deepthroat123 (aka Jesse Macbeth - no one else would defend so staunchly, or so weakly, this loser) has violated the 3 revert rule. I'm a little busy at work, but feel free to put his name on the list to be blocked.--Nobunaga24 00:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you please add the entire sockpuppet group to your report — the anonIP, Jessefriend, Deepthroat123, and the newest User:Nobunaga25 (who I blocked for impersonation). — ERcheck (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Used templates and lists to make it clearer. You'd think this story'd be dead by now, but apparently not. --Mmx1 00:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've put a 24-hour block on User:Deepthroat123 in response to your 3RR report. However, after a more thorough investigation of the sockpuppetry and vandalism the block may be longer. I'll review the evidence that you've provided. I'll probably return to you for more info. Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered reporting the other socks on 3RR? or on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI)? I you do report on WP:ANI, I suggest you include a link to your sockpuppet report. I'm a relatively new admin, so I'm stepping slowly through the process and trying to be sure all the correct steps are taken. — ERcheck (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't sure that would have been too much as I'd already reported all users on both the sock and 3rr pages but response seems to be slow tonight. I don't think separate 3rr reports are required for related cases; in the past I've seen multiple violations coalesced under one heading. But then again I'm not an admin. Will post on ANI and extend the existing 3rr report. If it is process you are concerned about, I do not believe a report is required for a 4th revert block; I have certainly witnessed much quicker responses when an admin witnesses one, and this is a particularly clean-cut case. --Mmx1 01:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

See this thread on my talk page. For now, looks like it is handled. Please feel free to let me know if the problem continues. — ERcheck (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Ryan Morton devonshire 20:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

See GabrielF/911TMCruft for a complete list of conspiracy cruft Afds. Thanks Gabe. Morton devonshire 01:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I noticed you making reverts yesterday on the main 9/11 article. Just want to thank you for watching it, and your help throughout the year on these articles. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 15:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

PS - I was busy yesterday, butting heads with Dylan, Alex, and other 9/11 truthers at the WTC site , and unable to help with Wikipedia. I'm glad that you and others were there to keep watch. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 17:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying sooner. "organized countereffort"? Not really organized at all, but was just four of us there (and estimated 1,000 truthers). A much smaller group of truthers is at GZ each Saturday, and the three other debunkers go down there each Saturday also. I'm considering going back up this Saturday, and more definitely in early October. You are welcome to join any Saturday (e-mail me for details), and I'm sure we will be back at GZ on 9/11/07. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 14:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the revert is that the compostion of the 2/9's Battailon is essential to the article since the composition of a Marine Corps Battalion differs from that of the Army or of some other country. This article has passed a review by many editors some of which recommended the Battalion composition. As such the article was promoted to a GA Status. There is no need to delete informative information from an artilce. I would agree to the correctio of some grammer, but not to the deletion of that section Tony the Marine 15:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Mmx1. I've removed Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg and Image:Vietnamescape.jpg from User:Mmx1/USMCHistory, as they are copyrighted, unlicensed images that are being used on Wikipedia under claims of fair use. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia policies, no fair-use images can be used on user pages; please see the ninth item of the Wikipedia fair-use policy and Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images. These images have not been deleted from any articles. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, they were just a workspace for a draft that's now been implemented. --Mmx1 17:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you were recently involved in a debate where Wikipedia:Notability (books) was cited. This proposal is under development and would benefit from being assessed by more editors. Perhaps you would be interested in expressing an opinion at the project talk page. NB This does not have any bearing on the previous debate in which you were involved. JackyR | Talk 19:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Once, when I visited your user page, I noticed a Userbox:"This user is a recruit of the United States Military." That is why I come to you with the following favor to ask of you. Recently, I've seen a documentary about US military conflits and their place in US politics, economy. I would really appreciate to know a pov on this documentary from someone from US military. It's 31min long, economists, militaries, authors, veterans speak there about recent US military conflicts. Here is the video from google video (don't get thrown aside by the title there - the documentary sais nothing about 9/11, I swear).

If you have time to watch it and then could share your thoughts, your reception of this documentary - I would very much appreciate that. Do you find it true/not true, neutral/little POV-pushing/very-POV-pushing, political/sincere ...? I came to you because you are the only person from US Military I know. Don't get angry and watch the video only if you can, thanks. --SalvNaut 22:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know whether or not you noticed, but I recently offered to mediate that case. So anyways, after you've had a chance to think about it, please indicate, on the mediation page, whether you accept me as a mediator, and whether you would prefer public or private mediation. Also, if you haven't already, it might be a good idea to watchlist the page. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 06:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry we (the MedCom) were unable to respond in a timely fashion. You said you would "participate in mediation if requested, but I think given the state of things, it's best to let things lie for a while." So, to clarify, do you still believe there is hope that the situation can be improved without undue stress? That is to say, would you like to continue mediation, now or sometime in the future, or are you merely willing to? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 07:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No sweat, CQJ said you guys were overloaded at the time. I would prefer to continue mediation after Wiarthurhu's 3-month ban on editing articles in the Wikiproject Aircraft scope ends, I don't think it's my place to override admin decisions. Again, run this by CQJ; as Wiarthurhu's mentor he'd be in a better position to determine if this can proceed civilly now, or if it's better to wait. --Mmx1 15:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I closed the MedCom case, but if for some reason you want to file another request for mediation from the MedCom in the future, if one of you drops a note on my talk page, I'll make sure it goes through in a timely fashion (assuming I'm around). If it makes a difference, private mediation is an option. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-31 User:Wiarthurhu mediation violation SteveBaker 22:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just went through the Marine Corps article again. Don't know if I ever said it but great work on the rewrite and citations. It looks and reads great. The one thing that is missing though is a sentence stating the number of killed and wonded and MOH recipients from the Vietnam War. I know you have the Simmons book at your disposal and would be able to provide a good reference for it. Thanks--Looper5920 02:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Set my focus on it and let inertia carry me through; the ranks section needs a bit of work, though. Simmons lists 12,926 killed and 88542 wounded (only haf of which required hospitalization) by mid-1972, no mention of MOH, but the Marine Corps gives 57 medals awarded in the conflict. The Navy lists 13,091/51392 KIA/WIA. --Mmx1 03:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that United States Marine Corps was just promoted to Featured Article status. Thank you for all of your work on the article. — ERcheck (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks
 Xiutwel (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What, am I blind? Several editors have explained to you why a negative leading to OR conclusions of your own is not appropriate. --Mmx1 18:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, look at my reply over there.  Xiutwel (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well played, good luck. · XP · 06:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

(diff) (hist) . . September 11, 2001 attacks‎; 02:51 . . Mmx1 (Talk | contribs) (rv tendentious tag; talk page consensus is clear)

Please explain if/how you still believe there is consensus, over there.  Xiutwel (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've continued the discussion on: Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/FBI_poster_controversy#Continued_discussion_from_talk_page. Would you please take a look?  Xiutwel (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You missed a spot :-)

Heckler & Koch MP5 in popular culture
Beretta 93R in popular culture

--Deon Steyn 06:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought there was a Beretta, but I was looking in the wrong place. Same with the MP5. Thanks.--Mmx1 16:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if I might suggest a small thing to you, please. I know or sense how emotionally and intellectually committed to neutrality and verifiability you are. I share your commitment in this. I was just thinking that you might express this just as assertively with a subtly different choice of wording on the talk page there. I feel that we should not discuss another editor's neutrality (or not) based upon (eg) seeing or falling for a misquote. You are right to point it out, undeniably right. It needed to be pointed out by one who had also checked the facts. I just think there are ways of pointing an error out that allow the one who made the error to appreciate the guidance more than simply being told they are wrong.

I wanted to talk to you about this thought away from the article talk and discuss it with you away form the article itself since I think it would distract from the discussions there. Fiddle Faddle 23:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I felt it had to be said, and in the way I did. Basboll claimed neutrality in garnering support for his edits to the Collapse page and garnered credibility for those edits; this neutrality is eroding in light of recent statements, particularly the one I responded to. That brings into question his assessment of what constitutes "important matter" - he is introducing a lot of his own judgement on inclusion/exclusion, particularly in the article, and this judgement would not be accorded many of the more obvious Truthers. These are judgement calls that need to be made when writing an encyclopedia (hence the vociferous talk page discussions), but editors must be aware of the motivations of editors here. These are clearer for some editors than others. I have not accused him of being a Truther and won't go so far; but I raised the question of neutrality, as I felt I should. --Mmx1 23:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I accept your rationale. I just wanted to make this suggestion in case it was of any use to you. All roads do lead to Rome. We just have different styles of walking along them :) Fiddle Faddle 23:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)¨

Hi, Mmx1. It looks like FF beat me to it. But, yes, I think you can stick to pointing out errors in fact rather than drawing conclusions, based on these errors, about other editors. In my own case, keep in mind that I'm not claiming to be neutral, or even knowledgeable, I just generally suggest neutral and informative edits. (Or so I like to think.) If my judgment turns out to be wrong every now and then (in this case I don't think I am wrong; but we discuss that on the page), that's fine with me. In the end (since I'm not a source) nothing really depends on the reliability on my judgments. With people like you working on the article, I think we will reach Rome, as FF suggests. I think the other editors are able to make up their own minds, and sigh accordingly, about how useful my contributions are. Since you seem to be explicitly engaging with (your idea of) my credibility, just make sure it doesn't become personal. I don't think there's any need for that.--Thomas Basboll 06:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Just stumbled on this page from a link on skepdic.com: http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/08/scholars-for-911-truth.html Being a blog, probably not something that could be included, but I thought you might be interested anyway, if you hadn't already come across it. Шизомби 03:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the blogosphere; nice to see they're catching up to us. Unfortunately it seems like someone on Kos was serious about promoting Bowman; sigh.... --Mmx1 15:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Bowman got about 98,000 votes in the election, and it looks like he spent only about $0.77 per vote, versus Weldon's $4.80 per vote. If I were Weldon, I might be a bit embarassed... Bowman did better percentage-wise than any of the Dem's previous candidates to run against Weldon since he was first elected, too (1996) (1998) (2000) (2002) and (2004) vs If Bowman's campaign had had a little more money, it's a scary thought that he might have made it. Frankly, I don't know why they didn't put forward a more likely candidate and spend a little more money, but then again the Dems don't impress me much more than they do you! Шизомби 04:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I keep running into the 3RR trying to keep vandals from inserting their "sources" to dispute Iraqi Freedom's connection to the WoT. Can we get someone to block them? It's getting old. Rmt2m 18:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Compile a list of the IP's doing it and request a checkuser; I strongly suspect JackNicholson is using IP's to get around 3RR and given his seeming familiary with 3RR, possibly a sock of a banned user. --Mmx1 19:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Submitted a checkuser Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacknicholson, dunno what it'll turn up. Add more IP's if you see them. --Mmx1 05:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A quick scan reveals

all made identical edits to Iraq War, adding the "source" about the Senate Committee. And that is just an extremely quick scan. Rmt2m 22:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Asked for a checkuser on 4 of them with Jack Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jacknicholson and got a "Likely"; they won't say anymore due to privacy concerns but I'll go ahead and fill out a sockpuppet report:Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets. --Mmx1 22:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to add these here, I'm not sure where the best place is. Rmt2m 22:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Andreas von Bülow; VMFA-232; United States Marine Corps Reconnaissance Battalions; FB-22; Tom Flocco; David Schippers; Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines; Operation Power Pack; Scott O'Grady; Variable-incidence wing; Operation Golden Pheasant; SEAD; Morgan Reynolds; VMFA-122; 1st Marine Expeditionary Force; X-44 MANTA; HMM-365; Kh-25; Webster G. Tarpley

Cleanup: Yakovlev Yak-141; Operation Restore Hope; Passive radar
Merge: Michael Ruppert; Fox co 2d bn 23d marines; Forward air control
Add Sources: List of proven conspiracies; William R. Higgins; List of war crimes
Wikify: Counter-terrorism; Hawaii Pacific University; Camp Hansen
Expand: Army Tactical Missile System; Mike Mansfield; Army of the Republic of Vietnam

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We have a nice and very unsourced edit war on blue water navy, green water navy and brown water navy. tradionally there was a clear division between the blue (moving across the seas and oceans) and the brown (guarding coast, lakes and rivers) navy. Now the US Navy made an invention (possibly under admiral Mullen): the green navy. It is somewhere in between the blue and the brown, but we are not able to retrieve any official definition (the net is spammed with unsourced definitions in wikipedia derivates). Do you know anyone who can help us? Thanks Wandalstouring 17:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at Talk:Charles de Gaulle (R 91)? We need some outside opinions on an ongoing dispute. Thanks. --BillCJ 18:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking for feedback on my edits. If you have the time could you possibly leave a review or comment on Wikipedia:Editor review/Jersey Devil. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 05:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the article you created:

History of the United States Marine Corps is currently featured on the United States Marine Corps portal as the Selected article. (7 November 2006)

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

First Battle of Fallujah and Second Battle of Fallujah could need some help. Some statements are dubious and could benefit from more research on the subject. Perhaps someone with some insight into military procedures could help to solve this. (I also contacted one of our editors with knowledge about Arabian POVs.) Greatings Wandalstouring 16:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your great work to make wikipedia.org what it is! If it's true that history is written by the victors, is it also true that victory can be achieved by writing history? Thanks again. JPatrickBedell 18:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You removed information on Colonel Sabow from the MCAS El Toro article. This was reverted by another editor who requested a discussion on the article's talk page. You might want to enter into the discussion. — ERcheck (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ar-15Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, fellow Columbian. I just created a WikiProject dedicated to Columbia University, the schools, environs, and the notable people who notably affiliated with it. If you want to be part of it, please check out WP:Columbia. It is very barebones right now, but with your help we can expand it and make it fully functional. If you have any questions please drop my a line on my talk page. --Valley2city^₪‽ 08:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

MMx1 is now guarding the Air Superiority Fighter Page

MMx1 is now guarding the Air Superiority Fighter Page

What's up Mmx1

F-14 Maneuverability

WP:3rr

Misformed Crap

September 11 attacks

F-111 links

Blog

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Dispute resolution

Your recent RfM on F-14 Tomcat

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

F-14 material submitted as permissable verification material

Changes to F-14, dispute

&nbsp;!@#$%% F-18

Study THIS

VFX vs FX

VFAX was to be better fighter than F-4, replaced by VFX

They're going to kill the scientific success list! You Bastards!

Curse you, Red Baron! They've killed famous scientific failures! You Bastards! =

What really&nbsp;!@!#$%es me off about WP

Hello!

Time out.

Re: RfC on Wiarthurhu

RFC =

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

Planform

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

Template

September 11, 2001 attacks

For you

More information for RfC

Kent Lee article

Cruft Alert

Please remove the afD

F-14 Tomcat

Reminder

(→Cyberspace - wth is this steaming pile of OR?)

Image:YF-16 and YF-17 in flight.jpg

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

Warithu

Can you help?

Article on terrorism

USMC

It's been a pleasure dogfighting today

F-14 citations

User:Wiarthurhu, redux

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

UBL Intro

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza

Can you take a look at this article?

Jesse Macbeth

Thought you would be interested

This is convenient

Thanks

Reason for the revert

Fair-use images removed from your user page

Notability (books)

The documentary I ask opinion about

F-14 Tomcat mediation

One last thing need for USMC article

Congratulations!

(rv poor faith insertion of tag to allude to content unsupported by consensus)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The AfD

pls explain consensus

Guns in popular culture AfD

th 9/11 Controlled Dem article

Bowman

Iraq War

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Help

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

Request for Opinon

My Editor Review

USMC Portal - Selected article

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

Perhaps you can help

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

!@#$%% F-18

What really !@!#$%es me off about WP