User talk:Militaryboy

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Polish Air Force, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Polish Air Force was changed by Militaryboy (u) (t) deleting 16924 characters on 2008-02-02T21:54:51+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Air Force

Niestety połowicze uaktualnienie jest tylko mieszaniem. Stan jest podany na konkretny dzień i dopóki nie ukaże się jego oficjalna aktualizacja nie ma co poprawiać bo wprowadza to tylko zamieszanie (część danych zaktualizowana, część zgodna z datą aktualizacji), jednym słowem bałagan. Pozdrawiam Radomil talk 19:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

31 Baza Lotnictwa Taktycznego

[1]
[2]

Radomil talk 20:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ja tylko zmieniam, to co "poprawiasz" błędnie. "31st Tactical Air Base" to nazwa oficjalna po angielsku - dałem ci link... Nie wyręczaj w nazywaniu jednostek MONu ;) Radomil talk 21:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nie musi. Grunt, że to nazwy oficjalne. Radomil talk 21:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nie rób zamieszania. 31. BL była jednostką SP! Tak, nie wyposażoną w samoloty ale jednostką była. Radomil talk 19:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To był wpis prewencyjny, żebyś znów nie napisał jak przy tej zmianie sprzed miesiąca, że 31 BL nie była jednostką tylko bazą. Pozdrawiam Radomil talk 19:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Cougars

Hi there. I looked at the source you provided for the claim that Poland has FPI Cougars [3]. I don't understand the Polish but the photo shows Navistar MaxxPros, not Cougars. I can see the word Cougar in the text but are you 100% sure they are saying that the Polish army has Cougars and are not simply mentioning the Cougar as an example of an MRAP? Do they have them now or do they want them? It's just that Force Protection has never received an order from Poland. Is it just that there are Polish soldiers in Afghanistan using American Cougars? I'm still not convinced that the Polish Army actually has Cougars of their own. I trust your ability to understand the Polish in your source, I'd just like to be sure that it is accurately describing the situation.Dino246 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im 100% positive. The article says that polish MoD agreed to buy 30-40 Coguars and send them to polish troops in afghanistan later this year. They will serve with XA-360 that are already in Afghanistan. --Militaryboy (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To date, FPI hasn't received any order and the Polish forces have received no Cougars. The Polish army is not currently a Cougar operator. With your permission, please allow me to revert your edit.Dino246 (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked up for an additional info on the coguars and I've found out that the Polish Army will recieve those Coguars as a military aid from USA. Therefore the poles will be the offical coguar operators without acquiring them from Force Protection Inc. If you want you can revert my changes and wait until proper information is released in english. --Militaryboy (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. It's still discussing a future event though. I don't mind that it's a non-English source but let's remove Poland from the operators list until they actually have them. OK by you? Dino246 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you already reverted your edit. Thanks! We'll put Poland right back there as soon as some of their guys are behind the wheel of one. Dino246 (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source [4] the US military is loaning 40 Cougars to the Polish Army in Afghanistan. Does that make Poland an 'operator' or merely a 'user'? I'm not sure. I doubt very much the Americans have any intention of ever taking them back - this sounds like a back door way to give them MRAPs without having to go through a complicated political process of granting Poland military aid. I am adding Poland to the operators list with an "on loan from the US" proviso. Dino246 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Air Force

"Czlowieku jak masz pojecia na dany temat to nie edytuj artykulu." Nie rozumiem, mam edytować artykuły na temat których nie mam pojęcia? A Ty co, masz wujka w sztabie generalnym, że nagle stałeś się wyrocznią w sprawie przyszłości polskich sił zbrojnych? Mieciu K (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia opiera sie na zrodlach, a nie danych pisanych z glowy." Dane które były wcześniej, a także te które Ty wprowadziłęś też nie są poparte żadnymi źródłami. Cała ta tabelka to jedno wielke gdybanie. Domagasz się źródeł od innych a sam nie zamieszczasz źródeł.

"obecnie wprowadzane f-16 zastepuje su-22" nigdzie nie napisałem, że obecnie wprowadzane F-16 mają zastąpić Su-22. Su-22 powinny być wycofane w ciągu najbliższych kilku lat (około 2012) bo kończą im się resursy płatowców, jeżeli zostanie ogłoszony nowy przetarg to ze względów logistycznych duże szanse mają samoloty F-16 co nie znaczy że będą to F-16 C/D w wersji Block 52, mogą to być maszyny innej wersji a nawet samoloty używane.
"już w 2015 zakupimy samoloty 5gen" już za kilka lat (około 2015) MiGi-29 wykorzystają całe reursy płatowców, już obecnie ich wartość bojowa w starciu z nowoczesnymi samolotami jest symboliczna gdyż reprezentują poziom technologiczny wczesnych lat 80 XX wieku. Ich modernizacja jest mało prawdopodobna. Może Amerykanie się zlitują i pozwolą nam zakupić F-35A ze swojej puli. Biorąc pod uwagę wieczną prowizorkę i brak kasy w naszych Siłach Powietrznych (TS-11) to też tylko spekulacje, ale równie dobre jak spekulacje Panów z magazynów o lotnictwie wojkowym. Mieciu K (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Militaryboy_beryl_commando.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Militaryboy_beryl_commando.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive picture edits:

I'm concerned about all the excessive pictures in the Polish Land Forces section this dude is making a "train wreck" out of the page. I think we should revert back to an earlier section, how many f____ing pictures is this freak going to put in, just look at how sloppy the Air Force page is.... any thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.136.201 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:13 eltr.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:13 eltr.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Pais (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:MBoymap.PNG

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:MBoymap.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:31BLOT.gif

File:31BLOT.gif is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:31BLOT.gif. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:31BLOT.gif]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:6bds logo.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:6bds logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:3rdfleet.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:3rdfleet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Black Red White for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Black Red White is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Red White until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 09:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:41 elt.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:41 elt.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Pzl.png

Thanks for uploading File:Pzl.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]