Jump to content

User talk:Jackehammond/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

New talk page layout

Dear Dave, Thanks for the update. Especially where the archives are located with a search feature. Really appreciate it. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting development

http://news.yahoo.com/japan-britain-eye-joint-arms-development-media-034137203.html;_ylt=Ald3VDrt2g0Rov.GkyHfQ6NvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTNmdTZxdHViBG1pdAMEcGtnAzM2NzA3NWQ3LTNmMGEtMzM1MS1hMTMxLTE4ZjkzODNhZDJiNARwb3MDMTgEc2VjA2xuX0V1cm9wZV9nYWwEdmVyAzI0MmRhMzMwLTY0ZTMtMTFlMS1iZThmLWRhYzc0YzE1NmIxMQ--;_ylv=3

Potential for some interesting systems with this team. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wilson, The Japanese want to have the BAE world marketing team helping them. Don't blame them one bit. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


Hi Jack

I have a bit troubles with the page about Hawker Hunter. I am forbidden to edit there, because, it seems, i am not enough proficient with english. I think this is a bit exaggerated. Can you express an opinion about, as i write the censored paragraph in the talk? You can find it at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hawker_Hunter#Swiss_Air_Force

Maybe i am not a english teacher, but i don't see how such material can be kidded and rejected, despite the good amount of useful info inside it. Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Stephano, For the sake of revealing all before hand, I am friends with David: NOW. But before then and the first several month I edited on Wikipedia, I did not understand Wikipedia policy, edit rules, etc. David disliked me and would have liked to have seen Jack E. Hammond banned from Wikipedia. My mistakes were horrible. And many editors thought they were deliberate or I was attempting to insult the other editors. The reason I do not have any problems today with Dave or other members is because of an editor by the name of Wilson. He made it clear to Dave and other editors, that my mistakes were so obvious, that the only reasoning could be was that I was that stupid about Wikipedia. That no editors with the same brain cells of a monkey would be so obvious in not following Wikipedia policy. And then he informed me "Jack, Relax!" that worrying about edits being reverted or deleted only takes away from editors doing their job which is contributing to Wikipedia. And that he does not worry about reverts. The Wilson Policy for Wikipedia is my policy also. And unless I find something posted that is 100% false, I do not revert. Except for teenage vandalism I revert genuine edits maybe four times a year. I post a lot of information each week. And once a weeks I have my edits reverted. I just move on to the next Wikipedia page I am working on. Arguing about it on TALK pages just hardens most editors opinions and nothing is accomplished. I wish I had the Wikipedia page that Wilson sent me one time on that subject. But it was on his talk page and Wilson has many archived talk pages. And I mean MANY editors
As to your contributions. Part of the problem really is your understanding of English. (I thought I was going to be banned from German Wikipedia pages one time over a German weapon system when I used a Google translation that unknown to me had foul language in it). But also I think it is on the wrong page. Your information should be on the Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force. If I were you, I would not post all the information you have on the Swiss Hunter. But instead post part (maybe on paragraph) of your information once a week; or even every other week. That will allow the other Wikipedia editors to correct the English grammar and syntax. Instead of them being overwhelmed. And please take my word. I have not written a complete Wikipedia page in a long time. But when I did, I did a "sandbox' page first. Then when completed I would ask other editors like Dave, Wilson and Jonathon (Jonathon also kept me from being banned my first six months on Wikipedia) to review the sandbox page before posting it public. It saved me a lot of embarrassment and many Wikipedia editors going to the administrators asking the same thing Dave was thinking of requesting.
Finally, I Know my reply is not the one you wish to hear. But it is the most honest one I can give. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Dave, Let's just say you were not that happy me. I think you thought I was doing things deliberately and probably a bored teenager.<GRIN> Unfortunately when I first came to Wiki, after I while I just deleted all the replies, etc. on my TALK page till someone told me about archiving. But I remember in one message you stated that if I did not stop doing what I was doing you would report me to an administrators. That got my attention and I knew I had to start learning the right way to do things. Luckily I was able to convince you I was not trolling and causing problems: deliberately. And without Jonathon and Wilson I don't think I would still be here. Then you gave me a second chance and ask me to look over the SNEB page and I did some work on the F-94 Starfighter page. From then on it was smooth sailing. But before that it seemed to many, I was getting up each morning and saying after I brushed my teeth "Now which Wikipedia policy am I going to grossly tear to shreds today and make Dave's day." <GRIN> Jack
  • Actually, I was pretty peeved at you at first but later on I see your points and someone emailed me asking for me to cut you some slack because he says and I quote: "you're a serious and prominent contributor in a few other internet military forums". In fact, I did some checks after that and by comparing your style here and there, I was able to deduced that you are the real deal so I backed off and let you had more free hand. Best decision I made! And the rest was history. Wouldn't you say so? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Dave, Actually yes. I saw you in action on your talk page and decided I didn't want you mad for long. Great incentive to learn the right way to do things on Wikipedia. I now remember what was upsetting you now. On the RBS-70 page I kept posting a link to a page on ARMY RECON by the famous author on military weapons -- ie JACK E. HAMMOND -- and various editors would revert it and I would revert them, maybe five times in a day. Talk about, as the British say "Accidentally on purpose!" Only problem was those articles had no references and at that time some people had posted info they got off ARMY RECON which was 100% false and they got burned. So Jack was target #1 for those that had it out for ARMY RECON. Jack E. Hammond--Jackehammond (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Ha... glad you noticed that "100% false" part of Army Recon. Good times, eh~? To illustrate to Stefano as an example of the cooperation between Jack and me, after our conciliation, was the article page of 76mm/L62 Allargato, Jack contributed the bulk of the content while a few other editors, including me, helped to polish and refine the article until what it is today. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Dave, How about give me a couple of days. He is very knowledgeable and knows his stuff. But his honor -- rightly or wrongly -- has been wounded. I contacted Wilson and hope he still remembers that Wiki page that has some good advice for editors he sent me when I was getting bent out of shape and could look at things rationally and who have climbed up the one-way ladder Stephano has. You can get mad any time and go to war. But if he leaves he won't be back and will be cruising for any English speaker on the Italian Wiki. Jack E. Hammond--Jackehammond (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


Jack, holy cow, I wish I was half as cool and collected as you stated. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


  • WilsonLuckily I learned from three wise men -- ie Jonathan, Wilson and Dave. Did you have any help from anyone or were you on your own -- ie I can't imagine doing Wiki on you own the first month. Unfortunately for what ever reason Stephano decided from the start that Dave was his enemy and nothing so far sadly has gotten him to budge off that. And it is sad for Wiki because he is knowledgeable about a lot of military matters. Jack E. Hammond--Jackehammond (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Dave This is part of a message I posted on Wilson's talk page I think you may find of interest: I did not start archiving my talk page till someone told me about it. From time so time I would just delete the content -- I told you then I was Wiki-Stupid. I thought it was lost. Then I remembered "View History" and just clicked earliest. You can tell that in my early days I had an immediate effect on Dave's blood pressure. And I kept innocently pushing him the salt shaker. <GRIN>
Also, I sent Stephano this linke that Wilson had posted to me when I first came to Wiki and I was upset about a revert of some info "I" thought was important to the world: Wikipedia:No angry mastodons Jack E. Hammond--Jackehammond (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Everybody, Well I am going to stick my neck out soon, but I am going to disagee with marking the Swiss Hunter article for deletion. It is more than rubbing salt into an open would, but more like acid with Stephano. I know because it is done on other articles it does not matter. But if all the articles on Wiki were deleted for unsourced info Wiki would go naked. The request for deletion is not petty but it gives the appearance of such. Just my two bits. Thanks for listening. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Jack, you can do whatever you like but know this, all the Admins are not behind this and I'm not even involved anymore. As far as I'm concerned, Stefano can crammed all his crap up his arse and I still wouldn't care because it is so bleedingly obvious that the article page fails miserably on Wikipedia (per WP:POVFORK and WP:SPINOFF). In short, you're defending the indefensible. Good luck~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 23:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Dave, I know all that. And you were smart to back off this. I Have read the Hunter page and the Swiss Hunter page and both talk. If Stephano would just step back from the carcass as one Wiki essay says. But for some reason or another he has a fixation on you as his enemy. That was why I was glad I up front said you and I were friends. But I also noticed I got no more messages either in public or private from Stephano. I don't hope to save that page, I just hope they hold off taking an axe to it for a couple of months or merge it with the Hunter page. But Stephano has made so many people mad that I will probably be told to stay out of it or else. But anyway I am going to give it one last try. Finally, I have heard of people burning their bridges, but he napalmed his! Jack E. Hammond --Jackehammond (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Dave I read that article a long time ago. I think either you or Wilson sent it to me. And when it comes to my edits (pages I create or items I add to existing pages) I obey it to the hilt. I haven't done a page on a new subject in a long, long time for the reason you know -- ie btw it got worst. But I am still working on Wikipedia every day. Look at the contributions. Nothing big, just little things. No one will know, but me. And that is what counts to me. Notice my User Page. It is bare bones. The only people who need praise or constructive criticism are the newbies the first couple of months. Then if they don't have the Wiki bug to where doing it for just the sake of Wiki, then they had better go someplace else. But while you and I may disagree, nothing in that essay says to have a lack of concern. Stephano, for what ever reason saw enemies who were trying to humiliate him where there were none. But because of his reactions, he maybe doesn't have enemies, but he sure as heck lost some who were trying to help him. But you have been at this business a lot more than I have. Of all the person I know on Wiki I respect Wilson, Jonathan and You a lot. If you think Stephano is better off not being on Wiki/En I will abide by your decision. I will just drift away from this subject. I did not do what I did just to irk you. Stephano was honestly trying his hardest to be good editor and did not understand -- ie as we do -- why his honest best was not good enough. Then he made the cardinal error of giving-a-f*ck: Way to much for his Wiki health. Seriously. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

.

Hunter page

Jack, it looks like the real core of the dispute is the existence of the content as a separate article -- that is, an article space management issue. Questions I'd ask are "are there other articles of this kind" (aircraft X in Y-nation's service) and "how focused is this article?" A brief scan of the article reveals that indeed it does discuss the Hunters in Swiss service but also touches upon other issues such as Swiss air force procurement decisions. There is worthwhile content in the article, but it is not clear if the content should not be introduced into other articles that have a tighter focus.

Another option (if it looks like the article will be deleted) is to copy the current article content to a sandbox page you create so that you can preserve the content of the article while you are digging up citations for any contentious material in the article.

Offhand, I'd say the article can probably be preserved although there may have to be clipping done to keep the article well on topic and to make it look more like similar articles on Wikipedia (if they exist). One example is the Me-109. A Google search brings up book titles like "Me-109 in Swiss Service" but Wikipedia handles the Swiss service in the article Messerschmitt Bf 109 operational history -- perhaps a better article approach for foreign service of aircraft types. Hope this helps. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Wilson I thought they had taken the notice down. Guess I was wrong. If they are going to take it down soon, then the damage will be done. Stephano will leave. Probably for the best. Guess it is time to just "step-away-from-the-carcass" as they say. Btw, on splitting articles, I have not see what Stephano was attempting with aircraft much, but it is a normal thing with car. Look at the Chevrolet Corvette page as a good example. And thanks for looking at it. If Stephano had not upset so many people it would have been the best course. Well, back to pounding the old issues of PM and PS. Gawd, they are a gold mine. Found an old article that at last explains the construction of the old RING THEATER at the Miami U. Very interesting. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Jack, I think the following comments on the talk page of the article point out what others believe are the content issues.

An article that is created with material that was reverted and challenged when it was added to the Hawker Hunter article is not the best way forward, you should not by-pass the normal BRD process with content forks. Clearly all the factors that caused the content to be reverted at Hawker Hunter still apply, it is badly written and constructed and most of the material would not be suitable for merging or adding back to Hawker Hunter, either because it is unclear or just not needed. Discussion at Talk:Hawker Hunter clearly shows no consensus for keeping badly written text into what is a good article. The originator had good intentions and other editors have added reliable content based on some of the material, although a lot of it is referenced to a self-published website which we should not really be used when the article starts to climb the quality ratings. Bottom line this should be deleted as it does not add any value to the encyclopedia or add to the content already in the Hawker Hunter article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This is effectively a duplicate of information that is now in the main article - where the Swiss Air Force section now covers most of what is relevant and encyclopedic of Swiss Air Force service (omitting things like serial numbers, which is not. Any encyclopedic info on use of the swiss Hunters after retirement could be added to the appropriate part of the civil operators section is sourced to a RS and appropriately shortened to avoid weight issues.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

So I'd guess that any attempt to incorporate the content elsewhere should bear these comments in mind. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Wilson I agree. But I have a strong feeling the decision is already made. To keep trying to make all parties happy now is more than just "stepping away from the carcass." it is "beating the carcass" now. Thanks for looking at the article and giving your opinion. I really value you at times like this. Thanks! Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
to Wilson: to cut it short, your quote may have been true, IF the stuff remained the same, that is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawker_Hunter_in_service_with_Swiss_Air_Force&diff=482097565&oldid=481238274
The Child grew from 8 to 16 kb, it was linked, referenced, re-written, improved, organized, photograped, modified in the structure and whetever. Instead, i could ask the deletion of every wikipedia article that born 10-11 years ago, from the copying of an old 1911 racist encyclopedia.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Now to the reasons behind the born of this article:
  • 1- i tried to add some info in the Hunter article (main) but it was blasted until the last bit, forbidding to me even to correct the BS about the F.mk.6 with 4 AIM-9 and 4 AGM-65. This should not be allowed, as wikipedia is 'free' and you must be 'bold' in adding your contributions (while others are 'bold' in annihilating it, kidding and offending you and your 'ignorance'). So i started the spin-off.
  • 2-In the meanwhile, i realized how much important were the Swiss Hunter. So, while the Oman or Jordan Hunters may have not the needing to a dedicate article, the Swiss Hunter do have a 50+ years history and this is not even ended, and never will be apparently, as the Hunter are still used for acrobatic and operational tasks pulling 7,5G like eat pop-corn. That's why Swiss Hunters deserved that article, and this is why the article grew so much. There is simply a lot of important infos about the Hunter, that should be wrote in Wikipedia.
  • 3-Especially as Paul the Octopus gained a 45 kb article. Before to delete Swiss Hunters, why not to delete Paul the Octopus and merge the 'info' in the 'Octopus' article itself? Then i would accept the destruction of Swiss Hunter article!Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Not talk about the absolute lack of respect for the others: i was absent from Wikipedia for several days, the tag put in the Hunter article was meant to last until 18th March. Now i see that the Hunter, already since 15th March, was proposed and discussed for deletion. This is simply outrageus and needless to say, Dave is the autor of this 'brilliant' move. And i retain to add some other words, that could be counter-productives.Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.

More:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion

Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefano, I hold no strong opinion on the article. There seems to be a perception that one of the sources you used was self-published (by who I do not know). Are there other published sources that confirm the information you are trying to introduce? My only suggestion to you is to look hard at your own edits, what others like Milbourne One have commented about the edits (don't worry about the English grammar -- native English speakers can clean that up) -- and try to edit the article with a view to meeting the objections of others. Also -- don't be distracted by article deletion. What is important to this project is the CONTENT -- not how many articles exist. If your edits become the content of other articles, then the information is kept and not lost. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
If they wants to destroy that article, and they wants, then i do not ignore that attitude. The questioning of the article itself is 'illegitimate' and i will not waste my time fighting there. I will requested, if necessary to ARBCOM, to stop that riducolous discussion, started by our dear Dave (now blocked for personal attacks, go figure) ignoring the real discussions meanings. This is a principle question: is legitimate that someone can delete something just because don't like it? NO, it isn't. It's not because i wrote that article, it is a principle basic question. No NNPOV, bad written or poorly sourced stuff can be deleted at will like is happening. This matters.
And BTW, i did not only used a single source for that article, but a lot of them. So, then, help me to stop this rougue request made by Dave. I know he is your friend, but nobody should be allowed to pike such 'total-wars' like he did with me.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Stephano Wilson and I came to this discussion to try and help you with your Hunter article and make it more acceptable. But instead you are almost "demanding" we become involved in a feud on Wikipedia. If I had known this I would not have requested Wilson to look at your article. And anyone who knows Wilson will tell you that he is a true gentleman. And he at least deserves a "Thanks" for taking the time to review your article and offer some helpful advice. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Jack i did not asked for a feud. As Wilson, i did not seen any noticeable effort made in order to improve things. Surely not to quote an old critic made vs that article. Thanks God now it was ended, but i did rely on strangers rather than friends. So the things run nowadays.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

.

Interesting story from 1946 -- air rescue in the Alps

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,821515,00.html

Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Wilson That is one interesting story. I posted it over on AVSIG which is the oldest (ie started in 1985) electronic bulletin board in the world. They will love it. And while checking back PM and PS articles I came across this article on a unique US military extraction system. I know an old 1950s-to-1980s US Navy pilot and and F-8 pilot during the Vietnam War. I asked him why no one in the USN would volunteer to test it. He said they were worried the extraction forces would cause the guy's body to come out his anus. <GRIN> So they used pigs at first to test it. When they ran out of pig volunteers they used Monkeys. When the they ran out of Monkeys they had to use Marines. The Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals doesn't gripe as much if they use Marines instead of Pigs and Monkeys. Always has been a little war going on between the US Marines and the US Navy.<GRIN> Finally, I enjoy going through the back issues of magazines finding citations like some people do gardening. I find it fun. The Wiki page on the Fulton has the name of the first person to test it, but no citation. The link I posted on the testing of the Fulton Extraction System has the name of the first person to test it a Marine by the name of Woods. So I have now the citation and photos linking that page. Only problem is I know that the USN also tested the Fulton with the carrier based S-2 antisubmarine aircraft. That USN F-8 pilot I mention was the project officer in the early 1960s. Now I got a sentence with a citation at last, but I added one without a citation. Back to ground zero again. Its like fighting rust on a car. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

.

WSJ article on Wikipedia vs Britannica

Folks, Did anyone read the extensive article about how Britannica is no longer publishing in hard copy no more. But they have 500,000 subscribers who pay $70 dollars a year for access to the internet version and they have 100 paid editors. I maybe wrong but that is not bad money for an internet encyclopedia. Then they compared Britannica to Wikipedia. They stated that if my memory is correct that Wiki has 4 million pages. But I think the comparison is not a legit one. Like Wiki has a page on my hometown of less than a 1000 people. Britannica doesn't. And it makes sense Britannica doesn't and Wiki does. They state that Wikipedia's weak point of which some are worried about is they are loosing the base of voluntary editors. I think that is an over reaction. In the last ten years Wikipedia -- ie English version -- has filled out. Most of the work now is dotting the "I"s and crossing the "T"s on article already written. Their are few subjects left to add pages to. Most of the work now is finding citations for a lot of articles. And from my stand point of someone who use to write weapons articles, Wikipedia is light year ahead of Britannica. Wikipedia in the defense field provides information to the average person in the world which use to require some pretty expensive magazine publications dedicated to defence and reference books that start at $200 dollars to over a $1000 dollars each year. To wit, I think Britannica will do good in its nitch and Wikepedia its. I would appreciate any comments to this subject. Thanks. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Review time?

Dave It is a good article. The only fault I can find with it is the entry on the Shafrir. I think the Argentine AF had the Shafrir-1 on their Israel built Daggers but either way if it was the Shafrir-1 or Shafrir-2 the Argentine AF and Naval AF were not very happy with the results during the Falkland War in 1982. I will see if I can find that article. Also the Python was a result of a lot of work between Israel and South Africa. The Derby was originally developed to meet a South African requirement. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Jack, my source states that the Argies was supplied with only the Shafrir-2, as the Shafrir-1 was produced in very limited number in 1959 and was almost impossible to have been sold to the Argies in 1981. But, what puzzled me was that how was it not used by the IAI Daggers during the Falkland Wars? Oh... did I mentioned to you that I've merged the article page of Shafrir into this one because it was duplicating informations found here? I mean, even the "Hebrew version of Python (missile)" supports my merge~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Dave You are lucky. I guessed pretty close to which magazine and volume it was in. Volume 6 Wings of Fame Volume 6/1997 has an article titled Mirage and Dagger in the Falklands by Salvador Mafe Huertas states that when the Dagger carried air to air missiles it was the Shafrir II which the Argentines complained had "limited aspect engagement envelop." Very few were fired and for most missions except the first few days of the conflict the Daggers carried no air to air missiles. But on page 10 of that issue it is stated that May 1, 1982 Dagger serial C-433 piloted by Jose Ardiles engaged a Sea Harrier with a Shafrir which locked on but the Sea Harrier took evasive manuvers and the Shafrir either lost the lock or its rocket motor exhausted and it veered away. That was the first AAM fired of the conflict. The pilot tried to climb away to higher altitude where the Sea Harriers would not go, but as he was climbing Flight Leader Bertie Penfold fired a Sidewinder-L which destroyed Ardiles Dagger which he did not eject from. It was the first air to air kill of the conflict. The reason the Daggers were not used a lot with the Shafrir was because it was ineffective and second the Dagger had more fuel and time than the Mirage IIIs over the Falklands and were used almost exclusively in the anti-shipping role and ordered not engage in air to air missions. Not mounting the Shafrir increased the Dagger's time on target. The Mirage III lacked the range especially at lower altitudes and the one time they were used in the air superiority role over the Falklands they remained at higher altitudes because of fuel consumption problems and the Sea Harriers just ignored them. The Mirage III had one advantage. Just before the conflict started France delivered a batch of M.550 Magic IR missiles. Which while was not a full aspect engagement missile was far superior to the Shafrir and extremely maneuverable and and had a much better engagement envelop. If the Argentines could have modified the Daggers in time to carry the M.550 the British Sea Harriers would have had a few problems. Also everyone agreed that the older Matra 530 air to air missiles in either the radar or IR mode were almost next to worthless. But we have to remember the 530 was designed to combat bombers in all weather. Finally, the item about the Argentine air operations against the British warships was why they kept using iron bombs which required highly experience and trained pilot. The British were worried that the Argentine would attack with pods of French 68mm or US 70mm rockets which are far easier to employ against a warship (remember that most of British warships lacked any armor and used a lot of aluminum construction (the older County class being the exception). Which while would not sink the ship would cause a mission kill by damaging the above deck electronic like radar and weapons mount. The Daggers firing 30mm cannons did a lot of damage. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Cases closed and winnable battles

Dear Jack, i am glad to tell you that, atlast, the ridicolous request raised by your friend was closed with a clear judice: not only that article was notable and rightfully existent here, but also, the proposer failed (utterly) to show how and why that article should be deleted or merged. This seems to me as 'playing with rules' and 'abuse'.

What saddened me is, if yoy allow me, that you did absolutely nothing in order to make things better. You said that i requested to you or Wilson a feud. Not a chance. You expressed critically about that action made by your friend. So i asked just for a 'keep'; but you said, instead, that i waas searching for a feud and whashed your hands.

Thanks God, in Wikipedia there is still a fair amount of very reasonable guys that are not afraid to speak about what they think and their thoughs, fearing to hurt their friend's feeling. The battle, therefore, was far away to be lost by default as you said. I was right, i know to be right and i won, together with Wikipedia. Still, even in this happy day, i feel it as a bitter victory as i should look for perfect unknow buddies rather than to my frieds.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW i already wrote the wikibooks equivalent of that article: http://it.wikibooks.org/wiki/Forze_armate_mondiali_dal_secondo_dopoguerra_al_XXI_secolo/Svizzera-2. Apparently it was a very rightful decision, as we can see even here.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Stephano, First you are as they say in the America "Putting words in my mouth I never spoke." Second, there are no victories on Wikipedia when there is a debate between editors who demand a victor and defeated. NONE. ABSOLUTELY NONE! And your gloating over what you see as a victory deeply distresses and disappoints me. And I never went against my friend or you. I went for what was best for Wikipedia. Yes, We Wikipedia Editors are allowed to have disagreeing opinions on Wikipedia without becoming enemies. In fact if you check one of my messages to an administrator who was involved with the delete article tag the first sentence stated that your page "probably met the Wikipedia rules for deletion" but request some time to find citations for the article and help make it so it would not be deleted. Then I made a very large error. I requested help from a long time Wikipedia editor on military subjects who had helped me hundreds of time with editing to help edit your article for English and a general advice. And he came and reviewed your article at my request and gave some very helpful advice and told you not to worry about your English editing skills as he would take care of that personally. And in reply you kept on with your demand for a victor and a defeated and did not even show any appreciation for his kind effort with a two simple words: "THANK YOU." I felt terrible and told him that if he wish no further communication with me because of my having him involved in this affair I could understand. He replied graciously -- ie something you should learn -- that not to worry, as he was not, and to enjoy my Sunday. Finally Stephano. I asked you a few weeks ago to read the Wikipedia essay Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. Did you read that page. If not I really hope you will. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Jack, do not treat me as a idiot, please. Since i returned to editing in wikipedia, i was reverted and questioned at full throttle. It's almost a month and it is supposed that editing in wikipedia is funny. Even you know that it isn't. As the editing help, frankly speaking, i did not see any contribution in the page chronology made by your friend. So, if someone struggle to find sources, atleast decent (yes, so often there arent' better, sorry), if the request to deleting the article was repelled with several very good points against the proposer, then i call all this a 'war' or whetever you like. Yourself called the proposal for deletion as 'to spread salts, no to spread acid in the wounds' days ago. So you aknoledged that this could be considered a sort of hostile act vs myself, not vs the 'unreliable source'.

Quoting you:

Everybody, Well I am going to stick my neck out soon, but I am going to disagee with marking the Swiss Hunter article for deletion. It is more than rubbing salt into an open would, but more like acid with Stephano. I know because it is done on other articles it does not matter. But if all the articles on Wiki were deleted for unsourced info Wiki would go naked. The request for deletion is not petty but it gives the appearance of such. Just my two bits. Thanks for listening.23:22, 14 March 2012

Let's not be hypocrites, a lot of times the Wikipedia discussions are shifted on personal attacks (like your friend did) and harassment/mobbing. Then you are denying a clear truth: that someone, playing with rules, in fact exacerbated my mind with continous attacks made to my activity here, with even direct insults. My knowledge would be necessary here in wikipedia, but my health and time are even more importants. If the result of the PoD will be substantially not respected, then i will quit. And about some 'friends', i'd suggest to choose them more carefully. It is valid for me as well. Regards.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Stephano I think any further discussion of your issue with the Swiss Hunter page by you and I is of no value no longer. I may be many things on Wikipedia but I have never sought to be a Wiki Crusader or Wiki Fanatic. I have no wish to win battles on Wikipedia. Also I did not choose my friends on Wikipedia. When they saw I was struggling on Wikipedia in my first months they chose to befriend me. Something I cherish very much. To wit, I think it is best that this be my last reply to you. I hope you find the satisfaction you wish and you will cease being so angry. And I hope it brings also what you wish. What ever that is. Sincerely Yours, Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Neither i wanted to make Wikicrusades but just to add some stuff in the Hunter page. Just to clarify.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am saddened by these events. Although I predicted with all likelihood that Stefanomencarelli would emonise me the moment I chose to step into that article's editing history, I did so with all but readiness for what has been said. The insults have been nigh inbelievable, the level to which my words have been perverted and twisted in such a hostile manner; it has truely shaken me. I think I too will give up on these 'discussions', as you and several other editors have - I have been successfully shouted into submission. Some editors have no room for the opinons of anybody, except for their own - and that is the saddest thing of all. Thank you for recognising me as a gentleman and somebody who was trying to help, it is one of the greatest aspects I could hope to embody. I wasn't enough, I am not immune to the effects of endless lashings: maybe someone else can reason with him, and have more luck than the last half-a-dozen editors who have crossed his gunsights. Hope remains the greatest aspiration, and motivator, to us all. Kyteto (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jackehammond/Archive_10&oldid=1143540042"