User talk:Necessary Evil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Necessary Evil, 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!  --Nlu (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] List of Military Operations - change of Canadian Flag

THANK YOU! Meant to do it ages ago but didn't want to go rooting around looking for the right one. You even picked the flag with the green maple leaves and boobies on it. Well done.Michael Dorosh 04:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't thank me, it was User:Folks at 137 who found Image:Canadian Red Ensign 1921.svg for Operation Jubilee (1942) 2006-07-16. I just changed with it. By the way, it was me who originally put the modern canadian flag at D-day 2006-07-07.--Necessary Evil 23:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air forces in the Falklands War

The Argentine numbers you just add are not accurate (daggers 35, 707 4, A-4B around 35, pucaras at least 70, ... ) I suggest remove them until we found correct data. --Jor70 19:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've only counted those Argentine airplanes in flying condition during the war, and those involved in the war. The Argentine Navy had 5 Super Étendard, but one of them was used for spare parts; the Argentine Air Force had scattered Pucarás all over Argentina, but only 24 on the islands etc.
We wouldn't count RAF Germany on the British side either. The B707 flights before the hostilities might have involved all 4, as you wrote. --Necessary Evil 19:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about aircraft deployed to Patagonia, the only ones that remains in the north were those out of service. In any case, you should clarify what those numbers means --Jor70 20:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
An Argentine aircraft should be part of one of the following organisations to be part of the list:
  • Teatro de Operaciones Malvinas - aircraft based on the Falklands Islands.
  • Fuerza Aérea Sur - medium-to-long range combat, reconnaissance and transport aircraft based in Southern Argentina.
  • Teatro de Operaciones del Atlántico Sur - shipborne aircraft.
Necessary Evil 22:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The IAI Daggers were bootleg copies of Mirage aircraft, sometimes authors mix the Argentine Daggers and Mirages.
The skyhawks were Vietnam Veterans, bought without garanties, some of them were not airworthy.
What is your numbers, Jor70 ? Regards --Necessary Evil 01:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of air forces accents

Hi Necessary Evil, thanks for noticed that! I've already uploaded the emblem you ansking for: "Italy-Royal-Airforce.png". Use it where you want. Bye! --F l a n k e r 09:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: Marinavia is a telegraphic address of direzione generale della aviazione della marina (ie. navy aviation head quarters). The name of the navy aviation is Aviazione Navale Italiana. The Italian Navy internet address is www.marina.difesa.it/ if you want some infos, and specifically [1] for the aviation.

Thanks again! --Necessary Evil 13:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't the Corpo Aeronautico Militare use the in world war one?

Yes

Personally I find both and a bit to cramped as thumbnails.

Er... Yes, but I've thought that the ones interested can click on them and watching in bigger size.

Did the Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force use on the wings in 1943-45?

I think (I'm not 100% sure), but is the Aviazione Nazionale Repubblicana (aviation of the Italian Social Republic), but the Règia use . I found that image: [2] and that [3].

Bye! --F l a n k e r 09:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure! Yes, or also Aviazione Dell'Esercito (Army Aviation). But I think that Cavalleria dell'Aria (cavalry of the air) the official name. F l a n k e r 17:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Libya: OK, I've uploaded the .svg file, but I think there's more to do: Libyan cocardes.
Links: er... I don't understand the problem very well... (probably is my rough English). If you can give me the internet address for the link, I can try to do the job for you. Bye! --F l a n k e r 09:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now I've got it, sorry! Your Italian is OK and nascondo finché non si fa la voce means litterally "I hide until an article is maded". It is never happened a thing like this to me... I've maded a lot of wikilink to articles that actually don't exist. Bye, F l a n k e r 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the tips, I'm relatively new here... For corcerning the vector graphix program, I'm using Inkscape, it's simple and usefull and you can download it here (is opensource): http://www.inkscape.org/. Bye, F l a n k e r 09:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of air forces

Hi Lars,

Please describe the exact quality problems, you feel you have with this article...

I've left an example of what I have in mind as section D; if nothing else, I feel the flag/roundel icons could benefit from some alignment. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice table, perhaps every country should have its own table, with voids between them. So nobody would get confused regarding what belongs to Denmark and Djibouti. Else the national flags should be placed at the top, and not in the middle as it is now.

Glad you also like the table approach – though I reckon a separate table for each country might be overcomplicated. I'm confident it's possible to use a class="..." or the like to distinguish countries; I'll make some enquiries.

One of the headlines is Air Force, the article includes naval air arms, army aviation corps, and coast guard aviation. Maybe 'Service' and 'Native name' instead?

Good idea; I've amended the table accordingly.

Have you any idea, regarding all the work that have to be done ;-) Necessary Evil 16:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, once there's a straightforward way to distinguish countries, it amounts to copying/pasting the article's information into tables built from this template: | {{flagcountry|Country}}
|align="center"| Roundel image
|
[[Service]]<br>Native name
|align="center"| Dates
| Notes
|- class="...something..."?
 I'd be happy to help convert some sections. Yours, David (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope that you're VERY happy to convert sections ;-) A fat line between the countries is okay (you were debating it with another user)Necessary Evil 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of air forces table discussion

Hi Lars! Would you mind making suggestions regarding my notes in Talk:List of air forces#Issues related to the changeover to the new table format? Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 16:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

From December 22., Necessary Evil is having a white week all x-mas, sorry. Necessary Evil 16:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sea Harrier

Hi,

I couldn't help noticing your Sea Harrier picture appears not to be the FRS1 as used in the Falklands, but the FRS2/FA2 of later design.

I've posted some picture links at Image talk:Sea Harrier front view.jpg for your perusal.

Thanks,

--BadWolf42 13:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Absence of the pitot tube and absence of the refueling probe; FRS1½ ? This picture looks like something taken during the war, I didn't wrote the present picture text regarding FRS Mk. 1. It was User:Raoulduke47 who December 29th replaced the photo and changed the text from "Its predecessor, the FRS Mk 1..." to "These aircraft...". Perhaps the best would be Fleet Air Arm Sea Harrier. These aircraft performed admirably during the conflict. As long as there aren't outrigger legs between the pylons, I'm happy. The missing pitot tube could be air battle damage. Necessary Evil 14:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all FRS2/FA2s had refuelling booms ([4]), and it's still clearly not an FRS1 from the shape of the Blue Vixen radome. I doubt it's a war picture as it's in a gear-up, flaps down, no pylon configuration which was common at airshows.
All Sea Harriers were Harrier Is, none ever had Harrier II outriggers.
I didn't realise the commentary wasn't yours, though, so sorry for alerting you incorrectly.

--BadWolf42 14:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Any mention of FRS Mk. 1. should be removed from the picture text. I will replace the picture text with: Fleet Air Arm Sea Harrier. These aircraft performed admirably during the conflict. What I meant with war-like photo, was that it wasn't on an air base, sorrounded by civilian spectators. Have a nice day Necessary Evil 15:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Forget it, I read your e-mail before I read my watchlist (and your edits of the picture text)! Necessary Evil 15:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

You can't suppress the facts with childish vandalism. It does not help your case at all. Please try to be more constructive in future, thanks, Gravitor 04:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

When I listed the different space agencies on Talk:Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings, it was because I was unsure who you believed were independent. I didn't want to dig up information from ESA or JAXA, if they weren't considered independent. Since you failed to categorise the space agencies in independent and dependent, I stroked those space agencies, that I found could be doubtful. Only China seems to be totally independent, especially after they shot down a satellite. The PLO started as a terrorist organisation, but later founded a government, perhaps Al-Qaeda will do the same, and launch their own moon probes; it wasn't a joke. Feel free to categorise the space agencies, as it would be useful.
I think the article need to tell readers and writers who is considered independent; you mentioned: independent scientist got their Moon rocks from NASA, so not being part of NASA isn't enough to be independent. Regards Necessary Evil 15:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thankfully, this is a collaborative project - please feel free to make constructive contribution to defining independent. The page currently defines 'independent' as not being a subcontractor. Gravitor 16:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] junior ranks

Thats what I first said. But Lestermay told me that the word conscript is not well understood in english. Being I not native english-speaker I dont really sure what does he means. Jor70 20:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jor70, in my country, Denmark, young men are being drafted to compulsory military service as conscripts. But some of them become conscript NCOs or even reserve officers. On the other hand, junior ranks could be professional lieutenants or captains. In Denmark conscript soldiers (Menige) are NATO-translated to Conscript Privates. I think that Soldado Conscripto should be translated to conscript private and I'll change it now!
By the way, how would you translate an enlisted private (professional) in the British army to Spanish? Soldado de primera is my suggestion. Necessary Evil 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In Argentina, we had the same compulsory military service up to 1994 and they were called "soldado conscripto" but more comonly just "Conscripto", some conscripts could have a greater rank called "Soldado Dragoniante" . After Conscription was abolished and a volunter force formed, they are now "Soldado Voluntario" that will be "volunteer soldier". --Jor70 00:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Jor70 Necessary Evil 01:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

I Angelbo award you this Barnstar for your military, air force and danish related contributions
I Angelbo award you this Barnstar for your military, air force and danish related contributions

Hi Necessary Evil
Her is a barnstar, you really earned it.
Perhaps you would be interested in joining WikiProject Denmark or WikiProject Military history, or some of its taskforces

Best regards and happy editing
Mads Angelbo Talk / Contribs 07:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mads, thank you. I would like to thank my history teacher in high school, who taught me to see history from unconventional angles. I'll look at the wikiprojects, you've mentioned. Regards Necessary Evil 22:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your breach of WP:NPA on editors talk page

I was disgusted to find this comment you made about me on an editors talk page. How dare you call me "anti-British" can you please provide diffs and evidence to show were I have been anti British. I have tried to bring balance to articles that are written from a purely British perspective but that does not constitute being anti-Britsh. I consider that a breach of WP:NPA. Please strike through that comment - and an apology would not be out of order either! As for that editor stating that he never heard of the term "Malvinas War" 1. you is winding you up, 2. he is a sockpuppet and 3. He states that he has never heard of the term Malvinas - which I believe is a lie and his real reasons for removing the malvinas is highlighted later with "We fought to defend the right of people not to talk Spanish and not to be bullied by Argentinians" and "its just a leftie term used by those who would weaken the prestige of Great Britain in the world" - if he never heard of the term how could he analyse why and how it is used? Vintagekits 13:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vintagekits, I was actually defending your malvinas war. Furthermore I thought that you'll be proud to be called an IRA-fan and anti-British. Regarding the last part of your section here; what is "you is winding you up" supposed to mean? (it's a linguistic question!) I admit that Swuekilafe's contribution isn't articulate writing, but why are you telling me that? Regards Necessary Evil 23:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Wel you thought wrong. I am from an Irish republican background but to state that I am a "IRA-fan and anti-British" is oversimplistic, incorrect, insulting and childish. I would appriciate if you used more intelligence in future when approaching this type of subject and I construed that as a direct personal attack. I now accept that you did not mean it to be have in future please be a little more careful. regards--Vintagekits 08:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. All the Irishmen and Irishwomen I've met in Denmark (10-12), are all proud of some sort of IRA. Regards Necessary Evil 10:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US measurments in US articles

Actually, it was a revert, not deletion.

Anyhoo, try:

  1. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Scientific style: For units of measure, use SI units as the main units in science articles, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to do so (for example, Hubble’s constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s−1). For other articles, Imperial, U.S. customary, or metric units may be used as the main units of measurement.
  2. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement: For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon.
  3. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content guidelines specifically allows for either imperial- or metric-first measurements in the Specifications templates.

In summary, as articles on US aircraft are not scientific articles, therefore they can use US measurements first. Hope that clears up the issue for you. If you disagree with the WP:MOS guidelines, please take up the issue there. Article pages are not the place to push metric-first/-only agendas. - BillCJ 20:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. US laws: "Metric Conversion Act of 1975", "Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988", "Savings in Construction Act of 1996", and "Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004" stated the metric system as the preferred system of weights and measures for US trade and commerce and directed federal agencies to convert to the metric system. Ronald Reagan didn't felt comfortable with the metric system, so he advocated keeping inches, yards, feet, miles, and pounds. A lot of old people didn't felt comfortable with new things like computers monitoring aircraft, patients etc. but it's only a transition. United States is converting to the metric system, so why are you fighting it? The longer it takes to convert, more accidents will occur; (Air Canada Flight 143 & Mars Climate Orbiter). Let the new generations grow up in a world without two sets of measurements. The US automobile industry, US aircraft industry and other are already metric.
When I was an air mechanic, I repaired Anglo-French Lynx helicopters. The airframe had mm nuts and the Rolls-Royce engines had inch nuts. The interface, between the engine and airframe was a mix, so I should carry two sets of tools. It was like if Britain introduced right hand driving tomorrow, but in the beginning only for trucks, later also for small cars!!
So the Wiki guidelines isn't steadfast inch-first. Your revert was an interpretation, like my contribution. Your revert, wasn't more correct then mine. I think that your revert was a waist of wikiresources. I rest my case Necessary Evil 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact that the US measurement was already first in the sentence, you were going against guidelines and article consensus to change them in the first place. Thus, that edit and your revert would also be a "waist of wikiresources" (is there even an essay against that??)

Again, if you want all US articles to use metric-first measurments, you'll need to get the MOS changed. Until then, changing such measurements in such articles would be disruptive. Wikipedia articles are not the place to make a Point. - BillCJ 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Metric Board, which was charged by the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 with managing the transition, declared failure in 1981 and was dissolved by Congress in 1982. The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 modified the 1975 law to mandate metric usage by agencies of the federal government, but this was not extended to the states or the private sector. As a result, the U.S. remains a “soft metric” country. Since Wikipedia is not a government agency, it is not required to enforce metric primacy. Since Wikipedia is oriented to the general public, the consensus in Wikipedia MOS and WP:Aircraft has been to use first whatever is employed by the populace in the country producing the item – or to use whatever preference the original author used. So BillCJ is correct that wholesale changes should only follow successful pursuit of a change in consensus, at the very least with WP:Aircraft. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
US has different antitrust laws, inviting to competition. So it's only natural to have competing standards ;-). Thank you BillCJ and Askari Mark for digging up information. USA is certainly an odd country but don't worry, I won't change the F-15 article. Regards Necessary Evil 23:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Rigspoliet

Then please be bold and fix it! :) I don't really know anything about the subject I was just trying to take the first steps in filling a gap in wiki's coverage. If you know more about the subject please feel free to contribute. Cheers SGGH speak! 09:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "[t]"

Usually in English a lower case letter is supposed to follow a colon ( : ), unless the next word is a proper name. In cases where a direct quotation follows a colon, square brackets ([ ]) are used to indicate that the original quotation has been altered. But it's no big deal ;-) Grant | Talk 13:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Necessary Evil 14:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No need to apologise. I enjoy reading your contributions on the Falklands/Malvinas etc. Grant | Talk 12:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, thank you very much, Grant. In Danish a colon is always followed by a majuscule; nationalities, months and weekdays begins with a minuscule so there are many possibilities for translation errors. Have a nice day Necessary Evil 14:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gazelle

THanks for the link opn the Rambo III pic. I request sources as much for information as for verification, as I like to read more on the items cited. Though the pic is very fuzzy, it doesn't look like a Blue Thunder cockpit. As to it being called an Alouette, I have the Blue THunder DVD, and the commetary and docus all call it an Aloutte also, even tho it's clearly a Gazelle with the fenestron. Makes me think that maybe Gazelles are informally called Alouettes in some circles. I think the A III and Gazelle used the same engine, and there maybe some shared airframe components. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:BillCJ (talk • contribs)

Well, to Hollywood anything French or Soviet is alike, even though a lot of French helicopters are purchased by US companies and the US Coast Guard. Both the Gazelle and the Alouette III have ONE Turboméca turboshaft engine; Gazelle an Astazou (1957) and Alouette II & III an Artouste (1947). To laymen, they are the same. Regards Necessary Evil 20:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Euro consortium roundel.svg

Eh eh eh! OK, I don't remember when and why I've made the roundel. I think you're right about the colours, so can you correct them or want I to do the work? Thanks anyway for point me out the mistake, and sorry my "one O'clock (in Italy)" English... F l a n k e r 23:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, I have uploaded a new version of the file. Please, tell my if it is correct now. Bye and best regards, F l a n k e r 23:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Position changed: I've also added a white cross to divide the four roundels. I don't know where my mind was when I've meded this image... Thanks again, and give me your feedback, F l a n k e r 10:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
It's perfect and beautiful, thanks Necessary Evil 11:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British fanatism

Hi, could you help me introduce User:Kernel Saunters to the matters at Argentine air forces in the Falklands War ? I think he had read so much british bibliography that he didnt even believe me that the KC-130 were used!. thanks in advance Jor70 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took some time, but I was away from my library. I haven't got the foggiest idea why the tanker-issue is debatable, the Argentine tankers are mentioned in practically all the British books I've got my hands on. It's like being asked, to find a reference stating that the Earth isn't flat! Of course the 25-anniversary has flooded the world with biographies from Britons, who participated in the war - of various qualities. The different Wikipedias' 'Falklands War'-articles are at the moment being edited, by readers of newspapers with 80's sources. (E.g. 368 dead on ARA General Belgrano, more than 750 dead Argentines etc.).
Regarding grammar, I've been editing the German, French, Spanish, Swedish and Norwegian Wikipedias and the natives there have just corrected my small grammatical errors, without messages like write in proper German/Spanish... I don't think your English is bad, but sometimes when people run out of arguments, they begin to criticise the opponent's grammar. Necessary Evil 12:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks Jor70. All you had to do was to add a reference. Also, the use of 'British' here is a reference to my background which is a breach of wiki rules. Kernel Saunters 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Then may I suggest you next time talk in the page (or even better, READ THE TALK PAGE and the ARTICLE) before delete at once all the hard work other people done. The fact you didnt know about something isnt enough to suppress other users improvements Jor70 12:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that material added to articles is referenced as per wikiguidelines and that you stop attempting to suggest that is is acceptable to make personal attacks. Kernel Saunters 12:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Microsoft Powerpoint

I wrote that because I couldn't find a version of PowerPoint 7.0 that existed for the mac. PowerPoint versions 5.0 and 6.0 dont exist regardless but from time lines I found on PowerPoint release for the two platforms, I could not find a PowerPoint 7.0 for the mac. PowerPoint 7 came out for windows in 1995 but I could not find a release in or around that year for the mac. PowerPoint 98 came out in 1998 for mac a year after PowerPoint 97 for windows which came out in 1997. Microsoft releases versions of office for windows a year before mac but the release are still the same version number, ie. PowerPoint 2007 is the same version as PowerPoint 2008 for mac when it is released. Sorry for the confusion, you can check the pages I used as references for more information or ask me another question.--BaRiMzI 20:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you, I didn't want references, I was just confused, that's all. OK, so there isn't any PowerPoint 7 for mac and PowerPoint 98 (mac) and PowerPoint 97 (windows) are both PowerPoint 8.0 in the About-message box in Help ? Regards Necessary Evil 22:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italian miliatry ranks and insignia

Hi, sorry for disturbing you, but I don't know how to do elsewere. There is an IP (88.153.99.244 and address like this) that modify the pages of the ranks of the Italian Army (Italian Army Ranks and Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/Italy). He adds the rank of Maresciallo d'Italia (a rank that was in the Royal Army and was abolished in the Republic) and other minor modifications. I can't reach him and he continues to modify the ranks, how can I do? Thanks in advance, F l a n k e r 16:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi F L A N K E R.
  1. If 88.153.99.244 is contributing with the Army Ranks of Regio Esercito, the article Règio Esercito Ranks or something like that, should be created. Then 88.153.99.244's contributions, if it's correct, should be removed to it.
  2. Ask Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for a semi-protection of Italian Army Ranks and Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/Italy. Write something like:
===={{la|Italian Army Ranks}}====
Semi-protect. An anonymous user from various IP-adresses is persistent in ruining the page. This is a list of the present ranks, but he repeatedly adds ranks from the World War Two-era. I've tried to contact him (her) User talk:82.81.182.117 and another user has tried too User talk:88.153.99.244, but he keep on doing it. He has no explanations at neither Edit summary nor Discussion. With regards, F l a n k e r 20:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Regards Necessary Evil 20:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English wikipedia's article, regarding Règia Aeronautica

Hi Necessary Evil, nice to read about you!

Yes, you are absolutely right about the translation: “Royal Aviation” is the more literal translation, thanks to point it out.

About Italo Balbo, sorry I don't know the story so well, he flew from Orbetello to Rio de Janeiro (17 December 1930 - 15 January 1931) and from Rome to Chicago and New York (1 July - 12 August 1933). I think the information in the Italo Balbo article are more complete. Cheers, F l a n k e r 11:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Ehm, sorry. A friend of mine in it.wiki, EH101, said that the term air force is better than aviation, because aviation is used for the air arm of the Navy. Moreover Military Air Force is used in some source like here and here. So really I don't know... but I think that probably EH101 is right. --F l a n k e r 22:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi F L A N K E R.
"The Règia Aeronautica (literally "Royal Aviation") was the Italian air force from 1923 until the end of World War II." is the current introduction. I think it's ok, it shows that Régia is Royal and Aeronautica is Aviation - and it means the Italian Air Force.
I don't understand Military Air Force, is there also a civil air force?? With civilian fighters and civilian bombers? Perhaps it's a bad translation from Aeronautica Militare.
Regarding Italo Balbo, I can't read Italian, is there anything about his round-the-world flight in it.wikipedia.org? If he 'only' flew to America, 3 years after Lindbergh, what was the stunt? Regards Necessary Evil 00:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, let's see one issue at the time. First: What is the proper translation for the Italian word "Aeronautica"? I do confirm that "Air Force" is more appropriate than "Aviation". The last is the term adopted for navy or army airplane component and referring to Regia Aeronautica it is out of doubt we are talking about an independent armed force (historically one of the first to be independent in the world). Second: Why there is such an Italian phrase like “Aeronautica Militare” (military air force), is there an “aeronautica civile” ? (civil air force). The answer is Italy has a “aviazione civile” public department (civil aviation). So once again, it was preferred the term aviation for something different from an independent air armed force, and it was added the word “military” (militare) in Aeronautica Militare in order to stress the concept for people not being fully aware of this subtle difference. So, at the end we have an “Aeronautica Militare” vs. an “Aviazione civile” (Military Air Force vs Civil Aviation). In the light of the above, the appropriate translation for Regia Aeronautica is “Italian Royal Air Force” being “Royal Aviation“ linked to a not-existing at the time Navy air component. Moreover, take into account Regia was founded as an independent armed force, few years after the British Royal Air Force (1918 vs 1923) and inherited the definition.
Relevant to Italo Balbo, I wrote in Flanker’s talk he is fully right saying no fully world tour was made by him. He had such this project in his mind in 1932 but he cancelled the plan due to the China-Japan conflict of the time getting unsafe the flyby of the zone. The stunt was the flight was made by several airplanes all together (so called a “fleet cruise”) showing reliability and feasibility of regular back and forth air links over the ocean and not a pioneer-heroic (read very dangerous) flight. This was saluted at the time as an extremely important achievement. Hoping being of help, let me know your point as I expect the wiki article to be modified. See you around. EH101 (it wiki) 05:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Hi EH101, thanks for the Balbo information. I'm writing a da:Règia Aeronautica article, and a Danish book stated that Italo Balbo flew round-the-world, but I couldn't find any reliable source for that.
  2. How about this:"The Règia Aeronautica, meaning (Italian) Royal Air Force, was Italy's independent air force from 1923 until Italy's transformation to a Republic in 1946."
  3. Is Giornata dell'Ala a name for an Italian aerobatics team in the 1930's? Regards Necessary Evil 13:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Here I am! I double checked on my sources and I do confirm Balbo has never done a complete tour around the world. Nevertheless, his two Atlantic cruises impressed the world.
  2. Ok ! Just a little modification like “… was Italy's air force established as an independent armed force from …” (the independence is from Army or Navy not from the government)
  3. Giornata dell'Ala (litterally “wing day”) is the name sometimes given, even nowadays, to aeronautical conventions or fairs in Italy. During the first one in history, the one kept in Rome in 1930, the Italian Lt.Col. Rino Corso Fougier presented for the first time to the public some extraordinary solo aerobatic manoeuvres, among which “the bomb”, later adopted from many national aerobatics teams in the world. Good job ! All the best --EH101 17:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much, EH101. Necessary Evil 18:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Falklands War

Regarding your recent edits which were reverted by another user; what you say is a viable point of view, however it is not a neutral point of view. Most serious writers admit the strong possibility that the Black Buck operation had some value in letting Argentina know that Britain was serious, and particularly that Briatain had the capability to bomb the Argentine mainland if necessary. Please discuss further at Talk:Falklands War if you wish to add this or similar to the article again. Best wishes, --John 19:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

POV is a very funny thing; Argentina vs. United Kingdom, or Royal Air Force vs. Royal Navy.
The British commander of the Ascension Island (from RN) was stunned to hear about the Black Buck plans. The limited room necessitating parking aeroplanes in Gibraltar! The Task Force wanted more Nimrod reconnaisancesorties, not Vulcan-raids.
Argentina already knew that Britain had the capability to bomb the Argentine mainland if necessary. RN had four HMSm Resolution-class SSBN of 16 Polaris missiles of three 200kT warheads each.
This 25-anniversary seems to have flooded Britain with Falkland Wars-newbies, rerunning dubious conclusions and lies from the eighties.
Thank you for correcting my grammar, regarding the defence cuts. Necessary Evil 20:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I certainly hope you don't count me as a FW-newbie! Neither do I consider edit summaries like "It's John's idea of a reference for every word, not mine" to be at all helpful. --John 22:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't meant you; it was the lazy British journalists who wrote all sorts of crap in their papers around 14th June (to forget the situation in Iraq) and all the new wikipedians, who faithfully recited The Sun etc.
If I read something doubtful, I won't just erase it, I'll tag it [citation needed] (except if it's "Thatcher is an Alien"). Furthermore I think that it's ludicrous to demand a reference regarding the Argentineans ability to fill a hole.
Your 1983-book is too close to the war to be NPOV, IMHO. But I'm using it myself, so what!!
What's the fuzz, regarding the epic, but useless Operation Black Buck? Are all Britons being brainwashed regarding Black Buck-successes, like the Argentine pupils having atlases with huge Falkland Islands? Have a nice day Necessary Evil 23:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This time I am formally warning you. This edit is offensive to me. Deliberately mis-stating my user name, needlessly personalising a dispute which only has to do with Wikipedia policy; I don't agree, in fact I strongly disagree with your POV on Black Buck, but we can surely disagree without being rude. Please don't do this again or I promise to take the matter further. --John 20:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, never disagree with an Administrator, I get the picture. Necessary Evil 22:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) No, you can disagree with me as much as you like. Just try to keep it civil and focus on the content rather than the editor, please. --John 23:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merbold a "defector"?

What is your intention of calling Ulf Merbold a "defector"? He did what millions of Republikflüchtlinge did, getting out of the Soviet zone or GDR before it was too late. Besides, he was born before 1945, so why not using Flag of Germany? Or Flag of Germany/Flag of the German Democratic Republic/Flag of Germany? --Matthead 01:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


I have nothing against Ulf Merbold and the "defector" label was not meant as he was a traitor. My addition of Flag of the German Democratic Republic was simply an information like Michael Foale former British citizen Flag of the United Kingdom or Paul Scully-Power former Australian citizen Flag of Australia.
According to the wikiarticle "Defection": During the Cold War, the many people escaping from the Soviet Union or Eastern Bloc to the West were called defectors., so Merbold was a defector.
Adding the Flag of Germany is perhaps correct, but in my opinion not necessary. When Marc Garneau was born the Canadian flag looked like this Image:Canadian Red Ensign 1921.svg, not Flag of Canada. (I hope you were joking)
Regarding Sigmund Jähn, I don't think that the /Flag of Germany should be added, else all the Soviet cosmonauts should have their present CIS republic flag added too. That would really confuse the readers. Viel Vergnügen! Necessary Evil 06:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sea Eagle-armed Sea Harriers in the Falklands War

Hi Justin A Kuntz. I'm sorry, but I've lost track of things, why should you find a Sea Harrier source? It was the Splendid business I was thinking about.
Well, your [5] source revealed something new: <<The only good thing to come out of it, as related by John Farley, was that the Argentineans found the missile control panel in the wreckage, and thought "Christ, they’ve got Sea Eagle operational already ! " - thus keeping their ships in port.>> As Nick Taylor's XZ450 Sea Harrier was taken from the Sea Eagle test programme, it still had the control panel, and was the first wreckage examined by the Argentines. If the Argentine Navy thought that the Sea Eagles were operational, it could have been the last straw which broke the admirals fighting will. Unfortunately, the source is evaporating - and it could be an urban legend. I don't know how to deal with removed home pages. --Necessary Evil 19:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah because I referred to all of the available Sea Harriers heading south. That was the only Sea Eagle capable aircraft in the inventory at the time. They were still in the process of clearing Sea Eagle from the aircraft. It isn't an urban legend but its the kind of small detail that usually doesn't make it to open press. I have other sources but they would be WP:OR. Sea Eagle was never deployed. I've lost the Splendid reference unfortunately. Justin A Kuntz 20:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Damn, the Sea Eagle control panel could have been a funny information. There is also one regarding British passwords being Jimmy [6], because Spanish-speaking people pronounced it Himmy.--Necessary Evil 21:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've come across that before, 3 Para used in on Mount Longdon. I think its in Graham Bound's book. Justin A Kuntz 21:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
OK --Necessary Evil 21:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Harrier page is back up, guess it was a sever glitch. Justin A Kuntz 13:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logos, etc

Sorry but logos are used under Fair use, whcih does not apply to templates. I know this is hard to understand. The only time I was ever blocked was for that same reason (i.e. re-adding a logo to a userbox/template) Regards, --Asteriontalk 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, you live and learn, thanks.--Necessary Evil 23:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW, how could an anonymous editor [7] (217.250.178.228) edit a semiprotected page (Template:Public sector space agencies)?? --Necessary Evil 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not semiprotected at the moment. Regards, --Asteriontalk 06:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
But the article has a padlock in the upper, right corner. --Necessary Evil 06:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well spotted. It should have been removed after the semiprotection expired but I guess the enforcing admin forgot all about it. I have removed it. Anyway, if I see signs of anonymous vandalism I would not hesitate a sec to reinstate the semiprotection. --Asteriontalk 16:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hiroshima

U saw the bombing of Hiroshima!?? Ryan4314 10:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, on the telly! Necessary Evil 13:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't sure if you were joking, but I wasn't born in 1945, so I haven't flown with the B-29 Necessary Evil, I just like the name. Necessary Evil 13:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh lol, you got my hopes then, I was gonna pick ur brains Ryan4314 22:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Necessary Evil was the photography plane on the Hiroshima mission right? Ryan4314 22:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Hiroshima 6 August 1945:
  • Nagasaki 9 August 1945:
    • Bomb carrier - Bockscar.
    • Scientific instruments - The Great Artiste.
    • Camera/Observer plane - Big Stink.
  • Kokura 15 August 1945: postponed
    • Bomb carrier - Big Stink.
    • Scientific instruments - The Great Artiste.
    • Camera/Observer plane - n/a
  • --Necessary Evil 22:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments are invited on a proposal at WP:MILAIR

As an editor who has been active in working on air force-related articles, I’d appreciate your input on a a proposed generic structure for "XYZ Air Force" articles. I’d like to get broader inputs and would appreciate your suggestions on improving the proposal. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 20:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider adding Hvidbjoernen (F360) Thetis class frigate.jpg to commons

Hi. Would you please consider adding Hvidbjoernen (F360) Thetis class frigate.jpg to the Wikimedia Commons and the category Thetis-class (Denmark) there? That way all the wikipedia-projects can benefit from the photo and all the photos of this ships-class are joined in one place. Kind regards Hebster (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is done. Actually I just changed the name from "Vaedderen (F359) Thetis class frigate.JPG" to the present. As there was painted a big fat white [F360] on the hull, it couldn't be Vædderen. Necessary Evil (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South Atlantic Medal

What source does it say that in again??? ;) [8] Ryan4314 (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources in the article.
  • sama82: "nearly 30,000 of these medals were awarded" and "medal awards: Royal Navy 13,000; Royal Marines 3,700; Royal Fleet Auxilliary[Sic] 2,000; Army 7,000; Royal Air Force 2,000 and Merchant Navy/Civilian 2,000.". It is doubtful that EXACTLY 7,000 soldiers from the army received the medal, that EXACTLY 2,000 airmen from RAF received it, that EXACTLY 3,700 marines received it or EXACTLY 13,000 sailors from RN, EXACTLY 2,000 sailors from RFA, EXACTLY 2,000 sailors from the merchant navy received it. The whole idea is that Royal Mint or whoever manufactured the medals minted exactly 29,700 medals and distributed these medals in nice round numbers to the services. In case the recipients lose their medals, there are extras to replace them.
  • britains-smallwars: "7.000 issued to the Army, 13.000 to the Royal Navy and 3.700 to the Royal Marines, Royal Fleet Auxiliary 2.000, Royal Air Force 2.000, Merchant Navy and Civilians 2.000". So the RAF Medal Office or whatever it's called is issued with exactly 2,000 medals and RAF has awarded a number of medals to their airmen.
  • On the bottom line; 10 medals awarded meaning ten men have received a medal each, 10 medals issued meaning ten medals have been produced (and perhaps all of them awarded]. At the Olympic Games or championships an exact number of medals is predicted and the number of produced and awarded can be equal. In a war the number of participants are seldom nice round numbers, and to foresee sudden declassified participants (SAS-parties in Argentina, Canberra spy planes, ELINT gathering submarines, agents in Buenos Aires etc.) an extra number of medals must be ready. Necessary Evil (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I've read what you said and I normally I agree with you Narson, but don't you think it's better to keep "approximately" then, instead of "less than", because it "less than" is OR? Ryan4314 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this a message to Narson?? You're right in tallying the numbers to 29,700 is OR but there was a dispute regarding the number of Britons participating in the war. Having "Awarded: 29,700" in the infobox is however untrue. Feel free to change it as long as nobody will get the impression that exactly 29,700 men and women received the medal. Necessary Evil (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yea, ok cool. Sorry about the Narson thing, I'm tired and you both start with N ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAA Lear Jet

HELLO! Don't suppose you know what ship took the Argentine Lear Jet down please? [9] Ryan4314 (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Battle Atlas of the Falklands War 1982 a Sea Dart from HMS Exeter downed the Learjet with five casualties, 7th June over Pebble Island. BTW the second downed Canberra was shot down the 13th June, not 14th June. It happened 10:55 pm local time but 14th June UTC. I assume local time is correct here. --Necessary Evil (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image links

Good question - I don't know. It would help on the table of ISS visitors by agency. Regards Rillian (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks anyway. Nice agency table by the way. As far as I know there will only be one more minor space agency; (South) Korean Astronaut Program with Ko San in April 2008. The next two Soyuz' flights will have tourists and then from Soyuz TMA-15 July 2009 there will only be astronauts from ISS agencies.--Necessary Evil (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scary Movie

Thanks for reverting RobJ1981's deletion of parody information. He's doing that on all the Scary Movie pages, but he refuses to discuss here. You might wish to make a comment. If there aren't many comments soon I may make a request for comment. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I sense a snob effect among some Wikipedians — the parodied movies in Scary Movie are as important as the isotopes of Praseodymium.
BTW the Scary Movie 2 list is IMHO better than the Scary Movie (1) list. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Total Exclusion Zone

Great contribution, I certainly didn't know that. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Royal Navy submarines were the first to arrive in the area - good against ships, useless against aircraft. Therefore it initially was a Maritime Exclusion Zone. Later the Task Force arrived with Sea Harriers. Aircraft could now be intercepted and MEZ switched to Total Exclusion Zone.
Can you do me a favour? I don't have Rowland White's book, so I'm not sure if the refs. are correct. Did Rowland White wrote MEZ declared April 12 on page 162 and TEZ declared April 30 on page 482? If he didn't, the refs. must be switched or we'll have to find another source. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Page 162 says "British declaration of the Maritime Exclusion Zone on 12 April", page 482 is the glossary with the MEZ acronym on. I'm actually still reading the book at the moment, I flicked through the April 30 chapter but couldn't see TEZ, however TEZ is in the glossary, so I think it's probably in there. I'll let u know when I reach it. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, it's your book so don't spoil the reading by reading the last page first. Take your time to read the whole book.
Spoiler warning: The text below is about parts of the story or how it ends.
United Kingdom won the war!
Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Aw man! I was cheering on the Argies n all! I wonder how those devilishly handsome imperialists could've pulled it off ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

8-) Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reached the change over from MEZ to TEZ, don't think it's good enough for a source though. He simply uses the words "Total Exclusion Zone" on a page talking about the 30/04/82, and from then on uses the TEZ acronym. Shouldn't be hard to find a source for this online though, I just haven't looked. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I placed a ref from RAF's own web site, that'll do it. Grammatically the article should be in the past tense - can you help? Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL [10], I take it you've seen his commons page Ryan4314 (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a sad feeling that some pencil necks have deleted a lot of Ken Griffiths' images due to some overzealous robots. The man participated in the war and took some valuable pictures. He now offers these pictures to Wikipedia and is a bit green in the correct licensing. I think that there should be something like "Have you taken the picture with your own camera?" and then Wikipedia should fill in the rest. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Woah, can you link me to these deleted pics? Shit I spent ages fixing the licences for them Ryan4314 (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh hang on, do u mean all those warnings on his talk page? Don't worry about that, they were all cropped images of what's on here now, that and a couple he accidentally added without resizing. Although he did "up" a couple of crown copyright ones, but nothing spectacular, he's ones are much better. LOL yeah it took me a little while to sort out all the licensing for commons n what not for him. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Then I'll like to thank you for helping us getting his images. I've had many problems with BetacommandBot and other §!"#¤%& bots deleting images because of technicalities. And also thank you for showing him commons.wikimedia . I've used some of his war pictures on the Danish Wikipedia.Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll tell him u said thanks ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COAN

Hi, [11] although is in spanish I think you might be interested in this PDF about ARA's Trackers and EMB111 ops --Jor70 (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've downloaded it, nice maps! What does "Grande" and "Medianos" mean? Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Its means big and medium radar contacts (some of them being fishing/merchant vessels). The book racounts each mission from Rio Gallegos AFB base view --Jor70 (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mirages & Black Buck

Just out of interest, you do realise that the original source for that story was a senior Argentine Air Force officer? It is not British propaganda. Justin talk 09:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[12]"As a result of these heavy losses...it was decided to pull the Mirage III's back to the mainland to stand alert for a possible Vulcan attack."

See also [13]

Both are not British sources, they quote interviews with Argentine officers. Justin talk 10:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Justin A Kuntz, I forgot how trigger happy you are with the [undo] button. Instead of reading other users' contribution you just [undo] [undo] [undo]. In RAF Mount Pleasant I did three more or less individual contributions in the same revision. But you disagreed with my Mirage contrib. and removed it ALL. Either you are very lazy or you want Wikipedia's readers to think that RAF was idiots, since only one of twenty-one bombs hit. The average reader might not think 4.76% hit rate was a "highly successful" raid. I haven't read your above mentioned sources carefully, but they seems to be tertiary sources. However I will not reinsert my Mirage deletion - but I still wonder why you are so [undo] trigger happy! Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually if I removed anything else that was accidental, for which I apologise. I improved the Black Buck article as well, with details of what the raid expected to achieve - 1 and possibly 2 bombs on the runway. And actually seeing as you brought it up again, long after I was prepared to let it lie, I had good reasons for reverting you previously, you never once assumed good faith in my reasons for doing so. Try it, you might get to understand people better. Justin talk 22:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It is difficult to assume good faith in people who revert the WHOLE text even if they are only disagreeing partially. But I understand that you are a little bit under pressure at the moment.
You're heavily relying on a British source (Vulcan 607) for your Operation Black Buck revision, but you know that, right? Regarding Black Buck Seven, Sharkey Ward is cited for the text after Fact|date June 2007, if you delete the 21 bombs not exploding text, you must delete the source too. The Fact|date June 2007 is related to the text before the [citation needed], not after.
The whole Black Buck business is lacking RAF's minuscule information status in April 1982. I think it was a brilliant idea from a British point of view to commence the operation, I mean perhaps the Argentines could have lengthened Stanley's runway since 2. April and deployed two or three squadrons there to meet the Task Force. All I've read is post war attempts to glorify and exaggerate the results to justify the huge ressource consumption. I miss a frank source with a "yes we overestimated the Argentines and launched Operation Black Buck. It was paramount to knock out Stanley's extended runway to prevent the deployed supersonic jets in striking the Task Force. It later turned out that our assumptions were wrong." Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I only reverted the whole text when you insisted on putting it into the article before a consensus had been agreed. I made this plain to you at the time.
Actually I have a source somewhere that says basically they British assumed the Argentines would do what they would do and go balls out to get the runway operational. They were astounded that the Argentines never did this and this is exactly what they did after the war, helped by the steel matting that the Argentines kindly left behind. The reasons they didn't do it was down to their lack of transport aircraft and Galtieri's insistence on filling the islands with troops; catch 22 they couldn't airlift the troops and the engineering equipment to lengthen the runway properly. By May 1 they'd begun to lengthen the runway and install arrestor gear but it was too late. They did operate the A-4Q Skyhawks of their naval avaiation around April 17 but withdrew them to the carrier for the attempted pincer attack on the task force.
Much of what is written about the attacks is incorrect, both with the intentions, expected results, the story about the craters.
For info, I relied on a number of sources not just Vulcan 607. BTW take Sharkey Ward with a pinch of salt, he has a huge chip on his shoulder and there is no small amount of cap badge rivalry there.
As far as the bombs not exploding, the technical details were incorrect so I removed them. Feel free to remove the citation if its now incorrect - I'm going on a break so I'll be away for a week or so. Justin talk 10:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was that if you remove the "unexploded bombs" text, you have to remove the Sharkey Ward source, since he mentioned it. It's a package the text and the reference. Else it would be an orphan ref. I'll remove it.
I'm looking forward to see reasons for the Argentine lack of establishing a proper air base in print with sources. I've read a lot of US post war discussions and they all are wondering why the h... the runway wasn't extended - as many wikipedians are wondering too.
Nice vacation or whatever Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I guess I misunderstood. BTW thanks for correcting my SNAFU on the article. Justin talk 19:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I was going to suggest you checked Google Earth. When there isn't snow on the picture you can clearly see three lines of 21 bombs corresponding to the Black Buck missions. So much for non-exploding bombs. Justin talk 19:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I like your urban legend section in the "Operation Black Buck" article - I think I once read in a newspaper that the Argentine constructors drawed the runway at another position on the map - that was the reason RAF didn't hit it with all 3*21 bombs. :-)
You apparently have an insider friend in the bomb disposal business. The Argentine air forces in the Falklands War#Armament's bomb section is very slim and the General-purpose bomb#Modern British GP bombs too. Could you persuade him to write something? Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I do, I am an Aeronautical Engineer whose worked on weapon systems for close to 20 years. I'll see what I can do with unclassified sources. Justin talk 22:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
OK! Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Falklands War

I had assumed that is what was up acctually :) It seems to be a fad on wikipedia for people to fill the belligerent sections with everyone who vaguely went 'boo' in concern of the war. I think the Iran-Iraq War now lists everyone short of Andorra as having fought the war. Narson (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, noticed this thread. I was (unfortunately) involved in the Iran-Iraq war thing, the change of name from "combatant" to "belligerant" in the infobox was done by one user to try and appease both sides of an argument. Basically the problem was that a group of editors were attempting a POV push, fixating on a name in a box, so as you can imagine the problem was not with the infobox format but with the Iran-Iraq war crowd. I'm gonna change it back it, will you guys support me? Ryan4314 (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I like belligerant, acctually. Anything that stops people adding 5 billion things to the damn info boxes. They are quick glance bits of info, not damn articles in and of themselves. People need to be less lazy and read the bloody article and leave complicated stuff out of the infobox. Narson (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That's why we should go back to "Combatant", "Belligerent" was put in because the word covers a wider spectrum. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry my late answer. I'm not sure what the difference is between the two words, I've failed to dig it out of the Iran-Iraq war article. Is it something with aggressors? Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Belligerent is any party who does anything that would, in the eyes of a neutral country, make them legally a party to the war (and thus subject to any laws or such that may govern war) Narson (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Then it must be OK in the info box. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL but in practise "a neutral country" is just some pissed Argentine kid who's convinced that the Sidewinder really did make all the difference. C'mon where are you gonna find a source saying "I, the president of Neutral Country A, think Country B was bang out of order interfering in Countries C and D's war" and then what happens if Neutral Country E says "no they weren't"???
So then reams of debate ensues on the talk page, everyone raking over references with fine toothed combs (see here, just so you know the whole talk page is one discussion w/ headers to break up the arguments) which is all original research anyway...
And then lets take the very good point Necessary Evil made of "I'm not sure what the difference is between the two words", Narson how do you know ur idea of what a "belligerent" is, matches up to what some idiots approximation of it might be? I'd never looked the word up in a dictionary until I got drawn into the Iran-Iraq thing. Then add in the language barrier difficulties, as the opposing party is probably foreign (this is about a conflict template after all), and you'll just end up with a big ol nasty, POV pushing, edit war.
Far better to use a simple word (like "combatant") that everyone understands, for a simple thing (like an infobox). Ryan4314 (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Simplicity is a pain in the arse, but, well, I'm not going to get involved in the whole thing directly Ryan. I have enough of a headache with 'Color' and 'Aluminum'. Narson (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL, surely u mean 'colour' ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear gentlemen. If this is a Narson/Ryan4314 discussion, I'll suggest you find somewhere else, thank you! 8-) Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you was meant to get involved too, but I think it's over now anyway ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Falklands War Task Force

Hello! I was considering setting up a wikipedia task force on the Falklands War and noticed you had made several edits on the page. Would you consider joining the task force if it was created, prehaps contributing some Naval knowledge? Thanks! --Tefalstar (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure! Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft Home article

I want more info on this topic and want to ask you something. Can you email me? My email is the same as my Wikipedia user name and the domain is live.in - xpclient Talk 09:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My "E-mail this user" is enabled. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)