Jimderkaisser

Unnecessary Information

Jim, re: LAV III article, "Undid revision 403316030 by Lexington50 (talk) unnecessary information..."

Does Wikipedia actually have a policy on what constitutes "unnecessary information" and if so could you please cite it?

Your personal OPINION of what is unnecessary is not a legitimate basis for deleting other peoples' edits. Lexington50 (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessary to add small arms after 7.62mm. Don't be offended because i removed your modification. If you want to discuss more about this issue go to the "Talk Page". De Grasse (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Afghan nationaly army

There are toooooo many unessary images in your version, many of them are doubles so please do not re-add them. This is an encylopedia not a blog site or a magazine. Please respect my edits. If somebody wants to see more images they can go down to where it says Commons images. Thanks for understand.--Omidirani (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User Pages

Please don't use the user page to leave comments. A discussion/talk page is provided if you wish to leave comments on something.Jonathon A H (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Citing Sources

Just wanted to say thank you for frequently citing sources. Since we seem to edit a lot of the same pages, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Citation_templates when using inline references. For example: <ref>{{cite web|url=www.website.com|title=Link Title|accessdate=2009-07-23}}</ref> etc etc. It helps keep everything documented. Thanks! - Jonathon A H (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Instead of using existing references and only changing the title and URL, could you please start with a blank citation template, or be sure to change all of the fields? I've corrected several references that have either had the incorrect ref name (which causes problems with existing references), date, type, author, etc etc. It may be helpful to make note of this quick reference guide: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference. Thanks again. - Jonathon A H (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Place Ville-Marie

Hi there,

I see on your user page that you live in Montreal. I am going to assume that you have heard of Place Ville-Marie in asking you this question. The reports of the number of floors in Place Ville-Marie vary from 43 to 46. Do you, with your Montreal expertise, know the actual number of floors in this structure, or could you possibly visit this building to find out? Thanks,

-Stuck in Edmonton 117Avenue (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know i suggest you to visit the official website of Place ville-marie (bilingual website) [1] , from wikpedia in french language, they said the Place ville-marie has 43 floors fr:Liste des plus hauts gratte-ciels de Montréal. Der Kaisser 01:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Could please change any reference to Place Ville-Marie in the French Wikipedia to 47 floors? Thanks 117Avenue (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: MWAV

Where are you getting "In total 43 small littoral warships and 22 auxiliary vessels with further option of 5." from? The government projects page only mentions an ISS contract, and nothing about new vessels. The other document you linked to was a study, not any sort of indication of an official project, and even so it mentions nothing to the effect of the information you included. Those numbers had to have come from somewhere. - Jonathon A H (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

During the Government Shipbuilding Forum in July 2009 ,the government of Canada had announced 26 large ships for the Canadian Forces including the Canadian Surface Combatant and also 29 large ships for the canadian coast guard including the Polar Class.[2] The government also announced 70 small vessels of less than 1,000 tonnes including the replacement of the obsolete fleet of Tugboat. [3] [4]

All of those 26 CF ships are mentioned elsewhere on the project list (SCSC, JSS, APS). Furthermore there's no mention of who the '70 small vessels' are for (they could be CCG which wouldn't belong on that page), or what they are. There's also no mention of 43 small littoral warships, 22 auxiliary vessels and any option for 5 more. Everything mentioned is very vague. The contract you point to on the government page is for service and support only - it makes no mention of type, whether they're new or existing vessels, or who they'll be for. I don't think that particular project should be listed on a CF projects page until it's clear that it is, in fact, a CF project and isn't already covered by one of the other items. - Jonathon A H (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The ERYX origins

A while back I sent an email to the project manager for the Eryx and he stated that while Canada is a co-producer of the Eryx, it was France that researched, designed and produced the first units. If you wish to add Canada back though, I will not contest your revision. Btw, your illustration of Canada's new Joint-Support Ship is impressive. --Jackehammond (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I always thought that ERYX had also Canadian origins. The Defence Research and Development Canada and Aerospatiale Canada had tested few warheads but also few technologies during the development program back to 1980-1990s. Der Kaisser 06:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not according to all the Jane's articles and other publications till the accord was signed with Canada. It is a similar situation, the Canada's production of the F-86. The Canadian was far superior to the F-86 versions flown by the USAF. But the country of origin was till USA. But if you disagree, feel free to change it back. I will not object or revert it. --Jackehammond (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you about my Joint Support Ship Der Kaisser 20:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Equipment of the Iranian Army, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Not reverted, but please add references. Hohum 03:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah i know i just forget the source Der Kaisser 04:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ship drawings

You drawings of the ships are great. Would it be possible for you to save a PNG or a SVG version of the drawings? The JPG compression causes slight distortion in the parts of the image where colour contrast is high. That problem wouldn't happen in PNG and SVG. Cheers. Rob. 86.25.165.142 (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your drawings they are really nice. Would you mind sharing what kind of software you're using?

Regarding the "destroyer" classification I am trying to keep things accurate and verifiable. No country can take a Vosper Mark V corvette / light frigate from 1966, copy it and then suddenly call it a "guided missile destroyer". That is dishonest, misleading and inaccurate.

National security geek (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much about my illustration. For your question i use the vectorial program called Adobe Illustrator, but you can also use Adobe Photoshop for same or better result. You can also use a freeware called Inkscape ,which don't have same result but it is free. De Grasse (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Salut

Judging by your history of edits and upload history, you obviously are in the CF or are formerly affiliated. Does your chain of command know you are posting all of this information to wikipedia? as a member of the CF you know we are all made to sign confidentiality agreements and forbidden from uploading pictures of training and other operations to facebook, wikipedia etc. but you have done so. Not only that, your edits clearly add lots of sensitive information to anyone who wants to see, including people who would like to harm Canada or its citizens. Not only that, you give your name and birth date on your user page.

--24.203.116.49 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What kind of sensitive informations you're talking about ? De Grasse (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

did you have permission for those photos in the training area? that is strictly forbidden, as are numerous other of your posts. --24.203.116.49 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Royal Canadian Navy

Since we don't often agree, I would be interestd in your take as a Canadian on the issue under discussion at Talk:Royal Canadian Navy#Canada's Navy. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Future CF projects and the national shipbuilding strategy

Once again: Most of those ships will be for the Coast Guard, and as such, have no place in an article about the Canadian Forces. Furthermore, most, if not all of the ship building projects are already individually listed. If they're not, add them as individual entries with proper citations, not some vague, grand claims that look like padding. - Jonathon A H (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

...who said all those ships will be for the canadian coast guard? DND website said 100 ships will be for the Canadian Forces !De Grasse (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC) [5]

No one said that they were all for the Coast Guard. I did say most based on television coverage. Of the very vague information available so far, many of the projects are already accounted for in the projects already listed, so listing this separately is like double-dipping. It's pointless to post this in the future projects section until you actually know how many, and what type of vessels are going to be built for the navy. Also, the DND reference does not say that the navy is getting 28 large and 100 smaller vessels - please re-read it. The strategy as a whole will call for 28 large, and 100 smaller vessels. Once again, you don't know how many of these are already accounted for, and how many will be going to the Coast Guard. - Jonathon A H (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I must admit this announcement is unclear and very vague. But next time please talk about any modifications on the discussion page. De Grasse (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that it was technically incorrect, or at very least misleading information it was best to remove it ASAP to avoid spreading confusion. Also, it would help if you used edit summaries to explain your edits - I explained why I removed it the first time, but there was no explanation for why you undid my edit. - Jonathon A H (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe during the next few weeks we can have much more informations about the size and the capacity of each vessels and how many for the canadian coast guard and the navy. De Grasse (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's hoping, but I wouldn't count on it. Nothing has moved quickly when it comes to capital projects for the navy. It would be nice to see the JSS and destroyer replacements fast-tracked ASAP, at very least. - Jonathon A H (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You're invited!

Hello, Jimderkaisser,

You are invited meet with your fellow Wikipedians by attending the Montréal meetup scheduled on Sunday, June 27, 2010; between 1500 - 1700 to be held at the Comité Social Centre Sud (CSCS), located at 1710 Beaudry, in Montréal. You can sign up at the meetup page.

The meetup is happening in concurrence with RoCoCo 2010, a free, bilingual, weekend unconference including many people involved with Wikis both within the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Community and abroad. You do not need to attend the conference to sign up for the Wikimeetup, but you are certainly welcome! Bastique ^{☎ call me!}

(PS: Please share this with those you know who might not be on the delivery list, i.e. Users in Montreal/Quebec)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

CF-18 Hornet

I realize all the submissions you have made are WP:AGF, but they have included errors. Please check the article and edit history. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Review

Thank you for reviewing the Karrar (UCAV). I really liked your work on the specification. Maybe we could mention that the launching Jet-fuel Assisted Take Off system could be truck mounted, making it possible to take off from pretty much everywhere. It can land pretty much everywhere also with its parachute system. I noticed your removal of verification note from the body. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the content of the article, so in the long run verification note might be removed from the lead unless discussed in the body. From other hand currently the article is really short and we don't need to pedantically repeat ourselves. Anyway, nice to meet you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

JTF2

Hello there; I removed one of the sentence you added in the "War crimes" section. The reference was talking about the Nigerian military and not the Canadian military. Cheers, and thanks for your contributions! - [CharlieEchoTango] 06:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Operation LOTUS for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Operation LOTUS 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/Operation LOTUS 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 23:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Quebec#Economy

I've seen your edits on Quebec this morning and there is a problem. Have you checked the dates of the info you have put back in the article? The reference is dated 2005 and quotes 2004 data... That's why I've put the first two grafs of the section as comments. I certainly agree that international comparisons are important, but let's make sure we're comparing with up-to-date data (especially when the comparison involves Greece, as you can certainly understand)! Bouchecl (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

ok mais on s'en sacre tu de la date...pas besoin de supprimer l'article au complet pour une date. De Grasse (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Task Force Arrowhead for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Task Force Arrowhead 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/Task Force Arrowhead 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Quebec, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mohawk and Oka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Quebec

Hoping to jog your memory. On 19 January you made this edit which included the named reference "SQRI". However, that is the on occurrence of that reference name and there is nothing to go with it. Do you recall what it was supposed to be? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quebec, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CAE, Bombardier and Creaform (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quebec, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Battle of Italy and Saint-Eustache (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quebec, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages French and Algonquin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Bixi (company)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Bixi (company) —has been proposed for merging with PBSC Urban Solutions. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mindfrieze (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!