User talk:Motorfix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Motorfix, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Contents

[edit] Artillery

Hello Motorfix. You asked me for my opinion on your changes to artillery, as I had made some changes in the past. I'm not a great expert, so don't pay too much attention to what I might say. Your additions plug a few holes. The comments I'd make form my perspective of what an encyclopaedia should do (if the bits I'm referring to aren't yours, apologies, I haven't distinguished carefully between new and moved material):

  • Service: ammunition used in combat situations. Sercice ammunition is also used for live fire training.

[Notes: service ammunition in combat is what artillery is actually for, and must come first. Live ammunition is not only used in wartime, nor even necessarily in true combat.]

  • Practise: Ammunition with a low, or no explosive charge for use under training conditions to practice aiming, loading procedures, etc., without the hazards and expense of live ammunition.

[What's the difference between practice ammunition with no charge, and dummy ammunition?]

  • Dummy:Ammunition with no explosive charges for display or training use.
  • Blank Ammunition with a low explosive and no projectile used for training or cermonial use (e.g., salutes). Blank ammunition makes a noise as if the gun had discharged, without the danger of a projectile.


My opinion is that everything should be explained briefly.

  • Artillery ammunition consists of three components
  • 1: The Fuze
  • 2: The Projectile
  • 3: The Propellant"

We need to describe what each of these things is and does. There is the usual Wikipedia problem that there is a separate article on shells.Also, I don't know at a quick glance if the shell article gives a brief general description of what a shell is.

I would say in artillery (very roughly): "artillery fires projectiles, usually explosive shells. The shell comprises fuze, projectile and explosive charge, propellant. See the article on shell"

In shell, I would ensure that we have a brief description:

The fuze is a charge of sensitive explosive designed to explode under specified circumstances (e.g., when the shell strikes), and to cause the main charge to explode. etc.

I think it was you who added that the shell, rather than the gun, is the weapon of the artillery. I think that that is just plain wrong. Yes, the shell is what is delivered, but it is generally understood that a projectile weapon is something that fires projectiles. If you say this, you imply that shotgun pellets are a weapon, but a shotgun is not, etc. Whoever invented this aphorism was trying to point out that it's the shell that does the damage, obviously true, but it doesn't remove the gun from being the weapon.

I didn't mean to say so much, and have to get on with other things. Hope this helps. It's probably a bit incoherent (no time to revise).

Best wishes, Pol098 08:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Artillery itself as a combat profession considers it's weapon the projectile. Perhaps a rewording. As for the difference between dummy and practice, is that dummy ammo would for example, be used in a classroom or museum and would not have any explosive. Practise, may or may not have explosives. For example, a practise anti-tank heat round, would have a proppellant, and possable tracer, but no actual heat warhead.

Motorfix 01:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "weapon": it's the use of language that's in question here, not the significance. Obviously the shell is what you're delivering, and the gun is just a tube. But in non-specialist circles I don't think people think of the shell as the weapon; it's not what hte word generally means. If it's common usgae in artillery circles to sprak like this, it's clearly relevant to the article to say so.

Regarding dummy, prcatice, etc. ammunition: the use is fairly obvious, but it's up to an encyclopaedia to say the obvious. Artillery is for firing shells in combat situations, why have practice rounds? To let gunners learn to aim, to let them practice loading and procedures, without the distraction, damage, danger, and expense of HE shells. Why use a small charge? To show where the shell has landed, give some appearance of realism, etc.

But i'm just trying to answer the question you asked, not to impose my opinion. The changes you made are an improvement.

Best wishes, Pol098 03:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi Pol098, Thanks for the great feedback. You may have a point about the wording of proectile being the weapon. Perhaps I could say within the military community, the projectile is considered the weapon of the Arty. Or I could leave it out entirly.

As for the ammo question, You don't need ammo to learn how to aim. Practise ammo for training in loading/ unloading for example, would have no explosives at all. Practise ammo for dirrect fire (anti-tank) obviously is leaving the gun, and has a live proppellant, and maybe a tracer in its base (to obsevre the round in flight) which is also an explosive. It may also have a lox power explosive charge that detonates when it hits the target, but would not have an expensive HEAT charge. Live ammo is used for general everyday training under field conditions. Practise would be more common under classroom, or supervised training.

Ugh! I am no good at writing... have I clarfied anything, or just confused it? How to clarify on the Artillery page??

thanks again,

Motorfix 20:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My "explanation" of what a practice round was for wasn't particularly meant to be right (I thought it was, but if I'm wrong it's irrelevant, you obviously know what you're talking about), but to point out that in my opinion you need to explain, not just list, everything you say. Don't just name practice ammunition, say briefly what it is for. And the same for the other types. And the section headed Fuzes, which starts, "Quick or super-quick; delay; hardened-delay or concrete-piercing; timer; proximity", where it should start something like "The fuze is a charge of sensitive explosive designed to explode under specified circumstances (e.g., when the shell strikes), and to cause the main charge to explode. Fuzes may be of the following types: Quick or super-quick; delay; hardened-delay or concrete-piercing; timer; proximity". To avoid doubt, my intention in my comments to you is not to actually explain what a fuze is and does, but to point out the necessity for this sort of information to be at the beginning of the section.

What would you say if I wrote an article, or a section, for non-experts beginning "Fricatives may be sibilant, non-sibilant, or lateral; there are also pseudo-fricatives". You would expect first to see "Fricatives are consonants produced by forcing air between the lower lip and the upper teeth". (the analog of a brief explanation of what a fuze does before listing types). And you would expect me not just to list the types, but to clarify "When forming a sibilant, in addition the tongue is curled lengthwise to direct the air over the edge of the teeth to make a sound similar to whistling." (the analog of saying what practice ammunition is for). (By the way, the sound of "f" in English is fricative, "s" is also sibilant).

I hope I am getting my idea across. I'm not trying to discuss details - you know the subject better than I do - but the generalities of explaining things fully for the non-expert.

Best wishes, Pol098 23:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I will review and makes some changes as you suggest when I have time. Thanks for the feed back- I have never heard of a Fricative before... Motorfix 19:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject

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.
  • Our project worklist contains some of the articles we're working on, together with a rating of their quality. It's not nearly complete, though, so please feel free to add any articles you work on if they aren't already listed there!

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

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 03:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox

It's generally preferred that experiments and tests, like sandboxes, stay out of main article space, so I've moved your sandbox page to User:Motorfix/Sandbox, where it'll be a subpage of your user space. Happy editing! Night Gyr 14:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An apology

Sorry, Bdr. I knee-jerked (emphasis on "jerk") on two successive posts (the previous spelling Lt as "lieftenant"); I should have checked the signatures, and not assumed they were the same poster; and even so, I should have assumed good faith. Mmmm, tasty combat boot. No hard feelings, I hope. (Note: This is duplicated on the relevant talk page) --SigPig 08:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aldergrove

I hoped you'd have a source for the relay site point. I believe it to be true, I just thought we'd need a citation for calling it "longest." I was looking for one a few weeks back in an effort to expand the article, but finding any information on Aldergrove's millitary base is difficult. Thanks for the effort. :) -- Steven Fisher 20:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operations

I looked at the article; great start. I just fixed some typos etc. I never realized that there were so many domestic ops. I can't even name all the domestic ops that the CF have been in, and I was in the CF for 20 yrs. The CF really needs to do some better PR. --SigPig 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Template

Well, I would think that a personalized message would be better than a template; but if you'd like a templatized form:

  1. The easy way would be to write up a message in your userspace and copy it whenever you needed.
  2. A more complicated approach would be to use actual template code. Thus, you could create Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force/Invite with something like:
    Hi! I saw your contributions to {{{1}}} and thought you might be interested in joining the Canadian military history task force of the Military history WikiProject. Blah blah blah...
You would then use it by adding {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force/Invite|name of article}} ~~~~ to a prospective member's talk page. Kirill Lokshin 03:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation PEREGRINE

Updated DYK query On 11 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation PEREGRINE, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Nice article! Enjoyed the read. It's on the main page for DYK now. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 21:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

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)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

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 -- 12:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties in war in Afghanistan

I got your message Motorfix about not including the american soldiers killed outside of Afghanistan on the list of casualties in the war in Afghanistan. You removed 61 soldiers from the count of 333 who have died in operation Enduring freedom puting the number 272. OK I will agree not including the 14 soldiers killed in operation OEF Horn of Africa,14 soldiers killed in operation OEF Philippines and 5 soldiers killed in operation OEF Guantanamo bay. But that leaves 28 more soldiers. I guess you removed the soldiers that were killed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Bahrain, Jordan and in the Arabian sea. Well in that case we should remove also more than 50 soldiers that have been killed in the war in Iraq from that list because they were killed in these places too. C'mon man think. They were killed suporting the war in Afghanistan. OK I agree about the 33 in Africa, Cuba and the Pacific but these guys should be listed as killed in the war in Afghanistan. So let the number be 300 killed american soldiers OK? Also stop removing the South Korean soldier listed killed. If you want to confirm these than go to yahoo, search for afghanistan timeline 2003 wikipedia dn check the date january 28th, you will see a report about the accidental killing of a south korean soldier in Afghanistan, even his name and rank.

If you don't belive me abouth the south korean then here are the information: In the Bagram Air Base barracks north of Kabul, Afghanistan, South Korean army major Lee Kyu-sang shot and killed Captain Kim Hyo-sung. The captain had refused an order to speak quietly on the telephone. The call involved the leasing of construction equipment with some Afghans. Kyu-sang, who said he didn't know the gun was loaded, was arrested. That was january 28th 2003/

[edit] WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

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 - 19:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

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 22:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - 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)


[edit] Lend Lease to Canada?

Hello. You removed Lend-Lease Sherman tanks from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force but User:14thArmored on Talk:Lend-Lease Sherman tanks stated that Canada did receive Lend-Lease Shermans so could you please visit to help resolve this issue? Thank you.Wikist 13:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ontario Regiment.jpg

I notice that you uploaded this with a description of "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/ Public Domain" - I've relabelled it accordingly as CC-by-nc-nd, but this is an unfree license according to our image use policy. Could you clarify where you got it from and what license it was under? Shimgray | talk | 19:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

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 23:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

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)

[edit] WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

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)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

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 14:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

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)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

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 19:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/t/User_talk%7EMotorfix_caf5.html"