User talk:Dodger67/Archives/2008/October

A400M

I removed the following from the A400M High performance turboprop engines will allow operation in a civil air traffic control environment. mainly because it does not make sense, as you have added it back in any chance of explaining what engines has to do with operating in a civil air traffic environment as the sentence is written. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Put it down to finger trouble - seems like I ended up reverting the revert of the revert that I actually wanted to revert! Confusion Rules! LOL! Roger (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No problems - had me confused. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, with my reversion I was making no precise judgments on similarities/differences between the A400M and the C-17, other than that they're both cargo airlifters, and the fact that the IP address that removed it originally left no explanation, AND was registered to Boeing (i.e., had the potential to be a subtle vandal edit by an employee at a competing firm). Best, umrguy42 18:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well Cessna Caravan is also a "cargolifter" and so is the Antonov 124. That fact alone is not sufficient to be called "comparable". Other factors such as size, role, etc. need to be taken into consideration. The A400 is intended to be a replacement/suplement for C130 and similar in-theater tactical transports while the C17 is doing the same for C141 heavyweight intercontinental strategic transports.

Cuito

Hi. Good work on the Cuito article lately, it looks like it's nearly a full-time job to keep some of the propaganda out. That last change you reverted was particularly amusing, what with the G6 claim amongst the other outrageous numbers. Honestly, if some of the pro-Cuban stuff that's come out since the war was true, the SAAF would have lost twice as many aircraft as it had in its entire inventory! Yet the claims still persist. So keep up the good work. — Impi (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's not much writing outside of guys like Steenkamp and Heitman that goes into proper detail on Orders of Battle and whatnot. Most other authors on this subject are just ideologues, more interested in grinding their own particular axe than in the real facts of the battle. This new editor is no different, judging by the sources he relies on and the way he starts to obfuscate when the obvious flaws in his claims are pointed out. It is immensely frustrating and a serious waste of everyone's time. The biggest culprit is that urrib2000 site, which pretty much every pro-Cuban wannabe relies on despite it being an obvious packet of lies and misinformation. But I suppose the 9/11 conspiracy theories are proof enough that reason and rationality aren't in strong supply these days. — Impi (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: New article Thunder City

Great, I will go over the article and look for any infoboxes, categories, stub icons etc. that should go with it. Any other style issues, or policy issues you need help with, regarding this article? -Marcusmax(speak) 21:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I put in what I can at the time, but the article should probably be expanded before a relevant infobox can be found. Maybe add a detailed history section, or info about past incidents etc. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for creating it. I had no idea they existed. (I wish I lived in Cape Town!) Any help I can be, let me know. (BTW, I watchlisted it for vandal patrol.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 23:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Help?

Looking at this, I'm wondering if you can translate Mokopa & Ingwe. Thanx. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 12:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Worth a shot to ask. Thanx anyhow. And I learned something about the mamba I didn't know, besides. ;) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)