User talk:Stefanomencarelli

Archive 1

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stefanomencarelli (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No reason for unblocking given, and your ban has not expired yet. Please contact the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales if you want to challenge it. Request to unblock denied. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Give me a moment, i am still learning how pose the questions..

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stefanomencarelli (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Since 6 months i am blocked for Arbcom decision (1 year), but someone of arbcom said that the block could be lifted after 4-6 months. In the meanwhile i did not any contribution in wikipedia.en, in any form forcing the block, while i cared to work in several others wiki projects, and still i do that very heavily. But neverthless, i am still blocked here. It's time for me, to ask to lift this block, that basically gives benefits to none--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please address your request to the ArbCom per e-mail, see Wikipedia:AC#Mailing list. —  Sandstein  11:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Again, please see WP:BAN#Appeals process. You could, in principle, get your ban reduced to time served, but that's not within my (or any other single administrator's) authority. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It could be nice if someone could copy-paste my instance to ARBCOM, since i cannot do it directly. Someone could help me? --Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Still blocked and clueless. 'Someone' can explain if and what is happening now? Where were gone my requests?--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you manage to get someone to help you with contacting the arbcom? --MoRsE (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried the email option as suggested by Sandstein in the box above? --Red Sunset 17:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I should ask to Clint Eastwood too.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe you can ask the arbitrator who told you that you could be unblocked sooner, or Jimbo Wales directly. If they don't intervene, I don't think there are any more options to you; you'll have to wait another half a year. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

---

At least they could say: NOT, to be clear. Instead silence, silence and still silence. Such fair manners!. I wuold expect a bit of comprension here, even a murderer can be 'graced', not me. Not a single trolling, evasion to the block etc.. Well, perhaps i'll ask to Sir Jimbo. Maybe to Amnesty International too. But to be clear, it's not me that is loosing something, quite opposite it's wikipedia that looses. Now i'll stop this: someone could think that i am 'uncivil' contesting with irony this harassing situation, then he could have once more the wise idea to block the talk page too. Regards. No animals were hurt in the making of this post--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

---

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stefanomencarelli (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Since 7 months i am blocked for Arbcom decision (1 year), but someone of arbcom said that the block could be lifted after 4-6 months. In the meanwhile i did not any contribution in wikipedia.en, in any form forcing the block, while i cared to work in several others wiki projects, and still i do that very heavily. But neverthless, i am still blocked here. It's time for me, to ask to lift this block, that basically gives benefits to none. Arbcom was contacted, but in almost one month no answer were given. What's so difficult basically, to review this block? To be atlest clear with users? What's the point to appeal to a block if nobody answers, or yes, negatively?--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Maybe the point is that community or the ArbCom or both feels that you should stay blocked for now. And as the other declines have said, since the ArbCom banned you it must be they who unban you, if anyone does. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As expected..--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Unbanned

Hello Stefanomencarelli. Your one year ban will expire in about a few hours. At 02:42, 18 November 2008, UTC, to be exactly ;-). I have removed your name from Wikipedia:List of banned users, and have also restored your user page. Judging from the above unblock requests, you seemed to have been willing to continue your contributions a few months ago. Are you still? Or have you changed your mind? Well, whether you come back or not, I wish you good luck with whatever you do. Yours sincerely, Face 22:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Stefano, I did remember that you began to edit again and I am pleased that you are back. I have not noticed any of your submissions but I am sure that you will be adding to the wide range of topics in which you previously had made contributions. For the time being, I am working on one of the articles that you may have begun, the Caproni Ca.165. Take a look at the article as it is shaping up. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

Grazie Stefano

Grazie la tua bella e lunga lettera... anche molto interessante... alcuni dei dati da te forniti mi erano sconosciuti o almeno non li ricordavo... la cosa più interessante è questa che non ha proprio attinenza diretta con la storia dell'aviazione: che cosa è questa storia del bando da wikipedia? Che cosa ti hanno fatto? I bandi sono cose medievali... per reati di importanza capitale... ricordi Giulietta e Romeo? Mio dio, wikipedia sembra aveva qualcosa di medievale in questo... non può essere una libera enciclopedia se qualcuno ha questi sistemi... a meno che tu abbia commesso reati di lesa maestà... (chi è la maestà qua dentro se non la cultura?) fatto qualcosa di gravissimo, tipo distruuggere centinaia di pagine commettere errori grossolani e ripetuti... sono davvero esterrefatto.... tornando alla tua lettera, forse esagero, forse sono condizionato dai racconti di mio padre che era il motorista armiere di Gorrini... e lui c'era e non aveva questa considerazione per gli inglesi... a parte fatti orribili come sparare a piloti del 3° Stormo mentre erano appesi al paracadute, dai racconti dei piloti della Regia gli inglesi non sapevano volare, sparavano e scappavano via e i loro aerei tipici avevano come quelli americani dei difetti che non hanno mai superato.... Il Macchi 200, dici... vedi, io mi onoro di essere amico di un asso come Costantino Petrosellini, ex collaudatore della Macchi e direttore di scuole volo e abilitato a volare su 80 aerei diversi dal cr 42 agli f 86... be... lui non è assolutamente di parte... essendo il suo aereo preferito lo Spitfire IX, più del Macchi 205, più del G 55... lui ha conosciuto il macchi 200 come pochi altri e è riuscito ad abbattere un b17 da solo contro 24... abbattimento accreditato e confermato dai...membri dell'equipaggio atterrati col paracadute... beh lui mi ha detto che con il Macchi 200 riuscivano a spuntarla sia contro l'Hurricane, sia contro il P 40... che con il Macchi 202 se la battevano molto bene con il p 40 e anche con lo Spitfire 5, che pare non fosse 'sto gran caccia... tu dici: ma perché allora non hanno abbattuto più aerei? Perché? I nostri finché non hanno avuto la guida radar tedesca nel 43 o poco prima volavano alla cieca mentre gli inglesi ce l'avevano... sai no? Ti chiamavano alla radio e ti dicevano: sali tot metri, gira a destra vai su vai giù guarda là, ci stai proprio dietro, più in altro e magari con il sole già alle spalle... vai e buttali giù....- parole di Petrosellini - in aria vinceva chi stava più in alto anche se lui su Alessandria d'Egitto, quando fu attaccato da 12 P 40 su un macchi 200 fotografico se li lasciò tutti dietro... capisci? dodici aerei!! COn il vantaggio del sole, della posizione, dell'abitacolo coperto, di tutte quelle mitragliatrici... tutti e 12 provavano a beccarlo ma nessuno è riuscito a centrarlo con un colpo, quindi: erano così scarsi i piloti? Erano i P 40 che non andavano proprio? Era il Macchi 200 questa macchina meravigliosa? O Petrosellini era un grande pilota, grandissimo, che volava con il Macchi 200 ancora nel settembre 1943 e against all odds riusciva a tirare giù una fortezza volante? Mah.... forse un po' tutto questo... Gorrini :) Lo conosco bene, anche se non lo ho mai incontrato di persona... "era il mio pilota", mi ripeteva mio padre... Certo non era Marseille, né Hartmann, né Galland e nemmeno SAbuto Sakai... ma proprio per questo! Hai visto che cosa è riuscito a fare non appena gli hanno dato un aereo come il 205 forse - secondo questi qui di wiki en - nemmeno così eccezionale, e la guida radar? Se continuava così finiva che superava quota cento... Poi lo sai, no? La Macchi produceva un caccia e mezzo al giorno.... Breda e compagnia forse un altro paio .... i pezzi di ricambio non arrivavano né la benzina né l'olio né le cartucce.... mio padre me lo ripeteva sempre... non avevamo i mezzi, tutto lì! E la stessa cosa mi dice Petroselline... Una volta sul deserto 150 p 40 in formazione sorvolarono gli aeroporti italiani senza sparare un colpo.... capisci? Loro avevano forse la consistenza di mezza squadrigllia, uno contro 20... anche il Barone Rosse sarebbe scappato via sempre.... hai letto la sua biografia, no? Comunque ho deciso di lasciar predere di scrivere azioni di piloti italiani non vale la pena... scriverò solo qualche dato tecnico poco altro... Non ha senso... loro scrivono quello che vogliono e sono pronti a saltarti addosso in branco come lupi... Ancora Gorrini... quella che diceva degli ufficiali è una battuta, Petrosellini era tenente e doveva circostanziare per bene ogni abbattimento che veniva ben verificato perché c'erano anche dei soldi in ballo, il premio del duce, dato per ogni abbattimento... vado a farmi una passeggiata prima che tramonta il sole... Stammi bene anche tu... ma.. scusa vale la pena per te stare in questa wiki en? Ma ci tieni così tanto? Forse le stesse domande valgono anche per me... saluti gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC) E con lui Bordoni Bisleri e tanti altri?

Hallo Stephano. One thing that all of us have to accept is that overclaiming was routine in air-to-air combat during WW 2. It is so easy for us who have never been involved in air combat to underestimate the difficult circumstances under which all fighter pilots operated. That aircraft were shot down there is no doubt. There is also no doubt that pilots who actually achieved ace status made up a small proportion of these pilots. This was the prelude to that passage I wrote on Gian's page:

In the whirling confusion of fighter versus fighter combat, it was extremely easy for several pilots to fire at the same aircraft and each believe that he had been the sole victor, or to believe that damage was more conclusive than had been the case; or yet again, to have looked down a moment later to see an aircraft -or even a bomb- splashing into the sea and to have believed this to be proof of his own success...while there is little doubt that some over-enthusiastic and eager pilots tended to take a more optimistic veiw of the results of their attack than did others (Shores, Cull, Malizia, p.648)

I can understand Gian's concerns that Italian aircraft and pilots have been under-represented - none of the Spitfire articles, for example, describe any Italian aircraft while the Bf 109 & Fw 190 are well discussed and even the A6M gets an honourable mention. However, some sense of proportion does need to be involved as well. Going off in a huff and claiming editorial bias does not help the cause. Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators

As explained in the edit summary, you added data under an existing ref that did not support the text that you added. Please see WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you have reverted the removal of the unsupported text and added another ref. I have read both those refs and neither one supports what you added to the article. Nowhere does either indicate "10 squadrons with F-16 and 3 with Mirages". No squadron numbers are given in either article. As per WP:V you have to provide references or the text can be challenged and removed, which it has been. Please do not reinsert this without proper references.

Also please knock off the insulting language and read WP:Civil. If you cannot participate in Wikipedia in a civil manner, without insulting other editors, then please refrain from participating in Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

wikilibri?

Ciao Stefano!! Come butta? I wikilibri non so nemmeno io che cosa siano... ma temo di non avere tempo... dopo venti anni di collaborazioni il mio problema non è essere letto... quando ho tempo per scrivere libri lavoro al mio romanzo che dalle progettate 200 pagine è arrivato a 350 e mancano ancora tante parti di raccordo e il finale, che è solo un abbozzo... comunque grazie dell'invito... scusami ti volevo chiedere qualcosa a proposito della pagina sull'Hurricane italia... c'è scritto che prima aveva un motore Kestrel ma io ho una monografia sull Hurricane e non si parla di questo propulsore... nemmeno sugli altri testi se ne parla quindi sto per andare a modificarlo ma non vorrei che l'hai scritto proprio tu? :) Mi preparo per il lavoro, scuola... Io insegno e tu? saluti da roma gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This is en/Wikipedia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - english please. If you want to converse in Italian then use it/wikipedia.Petebutt (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

BAe Hawk article

Stefano, this is your original submission: "The cockpit in all Hawk aircraft includes a conventional centre stick arrangement. The main reason overall is the powerful turbofan engine, coupled with a moderate angled wing. Adour turbofan was similar to the ones in Jaguar (without A/B), and were preferred to the R.R. Viper in 1972. Trust and wing allowed to outperform the most of concorrence, apart from Alpha Jet (bi-engined). While Macchi MB.326 was the best of its generation, and the most european sold in this category, the next step, MB.339, wasn't awarded with the same success. The reason was the evolution of the training system: Macchi has a wide range of employ, from basic to advanced-operative training, but its turbo-jet engine has an high fuel consumption. The 'all jet-training', starting with the '70s, was less and less liked, so the right-wing and pure turbojet engine (less performances and endurance). RAF, instead, adopted Hawk and later, Tucano. This is another way to train: a powerful turbo-shaft and an advanced/operative trainer, to couver all the tasks, up to first line duties (as the 88 T Mk.1A adapted for AIM-9 Sidewinder). As light fighter, Hawk is capable to hold up to 3 t of stores and a 30 mm gunpod; it was even tested in a 1.454 kmh dive at 900 m (1,2 mach), and is capable to reach 9.100 m in mere 6 minutes. The turbo-fan engine allows to reach very long range. With 1.704 l internal fuel load, and two external tanks (455-864 l) Hawk Mk.1A is capable of a 3.150 km endurance (Mk.60 with 1.700 external fuel: over 4.000 km). The range with 4 1.000 lbs bombs and 130 30 mm rounds is 550-930 km (depending on the sources). MB.339A, as example, is capable of 370 km with 4 Mk 82 bombs. This explain how Hawk (and Alpha Jet) are a clear step forward as operational capabilities and its success in the '70-'90s."

My "edit": The cockpit in all Hawk aircraft includes a conventional centre stick arrangement. The powerplant was the R.R. Adour (as used in the Jaguar). The choice of a powerful turbo-fan engine allowed the Hawk to be used in a wide-range of missions from advanced training to fighter-bomber applications. As the T Mk 1A light fighter, the Hawk can carry up to 3 t of stores, including AIM-9 Sidewinders and a 30 mm gun pod. It was even tested in a 1,454 km/h dive at 900 m (Mach 1.2) and is capable of reaching 9,100 m in a mere six minutes. The turbo-fan engine provides very long range: with 1,704 l internal fuel load, and two external tanks (455-864 l), the Hawk Mk 1A is capable of a 3,150 km range (Mk 60 with 1,700 external fuel: over 4.000 km). The range with four 1,000 lbs bombs and 130 30 mm rounds is 550-930 km.

The remainder of the submission dealing with the comparisons with other aircraft and training requirements leading to design changes is off-topic, while interesting, it is incorporated into other sections. FWiW, there is still a tendency for you to write massive amounts of detail. Try to condense your work and only provide what is needed to describe or illustrate your points. Bzuk (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC).

Kestrell? :)

Stefano passo così tanto tempo a scrivere su wikipedia che se mi bloccano quasi mi fanno un favore!! Così tutto questo tempo lo passo a fare altre cose più vantaggiose, come scrivere articoli o il mio romanzo... anche per qusto preferisco non vedere che cosa sono questi wikibooks... già così wikipedia mi assorbe tanto tantissimo tempo ma non resisto alla tentazione! Mi sembra incredibile quello che mi dici... di questo blocco... anche perché che vantaggio dà scrivere su wikipedia? non c'è compenso, non c'è firma, perdi proprietà di quello che scrivi... bah... finché dura... poi mi occuperò di altre cose... grazie a dio il mio romanzo aviatorio continua ad avere riscontri positivi... mi dedicherò ancora di più a queste cose... sai... io ho scritto centinaia e centinaia di articoli alcuni dei quali selezionati tra i migliori della settimana in italian per cui non ci perdo niente a non scrivere su wikipedia, semmai ci perdono loro... ma quello che mi dispiace è che ci perdono anche gli altri... io vedo quanto i miei studenti la usano per le ricerche e ci soffro a vederla così povera per alcune voci... vabbé vado a correggere il kestrel... scusa ma non puoi aggirare il blocco con un'altra e mail? tanto chi conosce chi c'è dietro un nick name? saluti da roma! gian piero —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs) 13:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The differences between a magazine-style and encyclopedia articles

One of the statements you recently made actually touches on the reason that your submissions are often over-detailed. When writing for publication in a magazine or journal, the focus is on a singular or limited topic which is often fully developed. An encyclopedia cannot retain that amount of detail, as it is by definition, an encapsulated source of information. Encyclopedia articles provide data but whenever a fuller description is required, then readers should consult books or magazines. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC).

Further to my earlier comments; typically magazine articles can be 1,000 to 25,000 words or more, whereas a book ranges from 25,000 words to 300,000 words and more. Encyclopedia articles do not have the breadth, range or detail that is possible in a magazine or book. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC).

Ti ringrazio per i tuoi consigli ma io ti ripeto che chi te lo fa fare di stare qua... se vogliono farmi fuori perché ritengono che questo sia un bene per il progetto dell'enciclopedia lo facciano pure, magari sentirò che cosa ne pensa qualche admin o qualcuno che sta ancora più in alto che si può fare un'idea della situazione fin dall'inizio, ma non tollererò altre accuse diffamatorie come quelle di aver vandalizzato le voci di un'enciclopedia collegate e nome e cognome del sottoscritto, per un errore tipografico... Credo che comunque leggano tutto quello che scriviamo...

saluti--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Leonardo's tank

Yes, very interesting comments.

The question of Leonardo and the bicycle is quite hilarious. There is a page in the Vatican library which has some notation and a sketch by Leonardo. There are three other drawings on the same page. One is a vulgar drawing of a penis (if I recall correctly). One is a sketch done probably by a child of a little face in profile with longish hair. It is a crude, amateurish, scratchy little drawing. The other drawing on the page (obviously by the same hand) is a crude, scratchy, amateurish drawing of an early type of bicycle. There can be no doubt that the little face and the bike are by the same person, almost certainly a child, or someone with only the barest elementary skill in drawing. It is equally certsin that since one picture is of a bicycle, they are very much later than the work by Leonardo on the same page.

Yet the bicycle has been attributed to Leonardo.

Every collector of old books knows that many of them have anotations, pages torn and scribbles by children. I have a two-volume 18th century bestiary in which some naughty child (possibly my own uncle) has drawn (in pen and ink) "poo-poos" and "wee-wees" plopping from almost every animal in the book. Unfortunately the child has grown old and died so many years ago that it is too late to smack them!

We will never know who drew the bicycle on Leonardo's page, but I find it almost beyond belief that some writers attribute it to Leonardo himself. Amandajm (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Apology and a plea

Sorry about being so harsh in the Macchi C.202 discussion page; my father in law has just died and I have been under some pressure over the past week or so.

However you have to understand one or two things about the way you treat other editors;

sorry, but probably you have no clue of what you are saiyng.

How do you know what I know about this? I was merely pointing out that there was no reference attached to this statement.

So i'll learn to no loose time with people that don't cares to understand every and detailed fact

So, because I don't spout facts and figures the same way you can that makes me an ignorant peasent, right?

Oh, the might EH.

In other words EH expressed an opinion and needs a good put down..

I asked you to drop the sarcastic comments you were making; for that I was treated to even more sarcastic comments. I tried to explain to you very carefully that statements made without references can be construed as being original research - the same standards apply to ALL people who edit articles; please understand the difference instead of presuming that I was accusing you of OR.

I offered to you my collaboration before, you simply quit it

Really, and when did I commit this mortal sin? I have not REFUSED to work with you, I simply have a limited amount of time available to me to work in Wikipedia.

The issues I raised are legitimate and there was no need for you to treat me and other editors like ignoramuses. Other editors are entitled to give an opinion without being shouted down, and without such comments as "Oh, the might(sic) EH." Why do you have to do this? I have worked peacefully with you on other things and I presumed that I could do so again. Minorhistorian (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood and thanks for your kind words. Please understand I am not "agin" you, nor am I trying to attack your contributions; my sole intention is to help create a good article (GA) on the C.202 - one of the most important ways of doing this is to ensure that there is proper referencing on all major points. There is little enough information in English on most of Italy's aircraft of WW 2; Wikipedia should be one scource providing dependable and up to date information. Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Forse per questo qua si devono citare i libri... comunque Petrosellini, a cui ho detto quello che mi dite tu e minihistorian ha riso dicendo che gli Spit IX che hanno pilotato loro non erano dei ferrivecchi e che tutti gli aerei alleati avevano un coefficiente di resistenza inferiore a quello dei caccia italiani...

saluti!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs) 03:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Spitfire stuff again

Hi Stephano, There are several incidents of Spitfires breaking up in a dive during WW 2; the main cause was found to be bad loading at a unit level leading to a rearward change in the centre of gravity. In turn this led to the development of counterweights in the elevator control lines. Geoffrey Quill describes the problem and its consequences in his book while Morgan and Shacklady describe the "fix" in the chapter on the development of the Spitfire V.

Unfortunately the British had a habit of fobbing off their old Spitfires, many of which had hard operational lives, on other Air Forces, including the Italian "Co-Belligerant" AF and the Soviet Union. Although these were supposed to have been refurbished I doubt whether any of the main structural members would have been checked for fatigue, let alone being replaced. One wonders how many of these may have killed their new owners? Replacing the Macchis and Fiats with old Spitfires and P-39s was simply a convenient way of getting rid of old aircraft which should probably have been scrapped. The Free French, as well as the late arriving Brazilians were allowed to operate brand spanking new P-47s.

At other times Spitfires engaged in the fighter-bomber role (mainly Mk XIs and XVIs) suffered from wrinkling of the wing skinning around high load areas, especially after pulling out of a dive bombing attack. Spitfire Mk XIVs also suffered from skin wrinkles, which led to them being retrofitted with clipped tips. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Websites

Hi Stephano, It is indeed a shame that official documents on these websites cannot be taken at face value and used for references in Wikipedia; I started using material from WW II Aircraft Performance last year when developing some of the pages on the Spitfire; unfortunately another editor, who runs a rival website, took exception to its inclusion, stating that WW II Aircraft Performance is "revisionist" and unreliable. This information was removed, mostly by me, after a great deal of edit conflict and where possible information from published, secondary sources was used instead. I did not instigate this nor did I appreciate the tactics of the other editor. Unfortunately that is one of the hazards of working in this medium. On a more interesting note, here is an excellent site on Sweden's FFVS J22 which includes this PDF file on fighter aerodynamics. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

For a start the DB-605 was a heavier engine than the 601 (by some 140kg), some of the structure was redesigned and heavier to cope with this. Like all fighters the 109 accumulated extra equipment; there was extra instrumentation, the canopy structure was heavier etc, etc. Part of the reason the later 109s didn't have wing armament was that there was little internal room - the redesigned cooling/flap system took up more space - and it would appear that there was a fear that introducing internal armament would reduce the capability of the wing to take high g forces. The original 109 wing just had room to squeeze in either an MG 17 or an MG/FF; the MG/FF had part of its breech prjecting from the wing trailing edge and into a notch designed into the flap. It would be interesting to know how Hispano redesigned the wing to allow for an HS 404.

The biggest failing of the Ki-61 was that the engine, especially, and its cooling system was underdeveloped and highly unreliable. In the tropics of New Guinea and the Solomons it was a nightmare to keep serviced and running, which is one reason why the Ki-61 did't replace the Ki-43 as the main fighter of the JAAF. Nor was Kawasaki able to develop a more powerful engine as Daimler did with the DB 605. Messerschmitt designed the Messerschmitt Me 209-II in an attempt to address the design problems of the 109. This had a wide track undercarriage, larger wings and a redesigned cooling system, with an annular radiator for the more powerful DB-603. Also, to be honest, I think that much of the "Spitfire versus ...." is unnessecary; after all, few other aircraft articles have such 'in depth' analysis; I have been thinking about reducing much of this for a while, with the help of other editors, but I have other priorities outside of Wikipedia. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Troll in Bf 109 article

A troll seem to have has risen his ugly head in the Messerschmitt Bf 109 article, and is on the path of initiating an edit war with barely hidden motives. I know you care about the quality of that article, so I kindly ask you to take a look at what he does. Thanks in advance. Kurfürst (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Conversions

I noticed your edits on Guadalcanal Campaign. Thought you may want to know that if you want "14-inch (356 mm)" rather then "14-inch (360 mm)", you don't need to delete the use of the {{convert}} template. Just use the "sigfig" argument--Work permit (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

SPH

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. No problem, happy to help you out where I can. Thank you for adding sources to your previous edit. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your Request for information about RBS-90

Dear Sir,

I wrote an article in the late 1980s about the RBS-70. The RBS-90 was a private development in competition to the British Rapier. It was never adopted by any country. Basically it was an auto two launcher with a low light TV camera that was remotely controlled. But strangely Bofors eventually had luck and replaced their Rapiers with an improved model of the RBS-70 single launcher.

Finally, I have a lot of information on the RBS-70 including the No. 1 booklet put out by Bofors in the 1980s that gave an over view and a large number of early photos of it in operation. But I don't know how to make them available -- ie I am totally confused by the rules and have been posting links and suddenly it seems I was breaking every rule with for years I had not?????? If I am allowed I can post a link to all this information on the RBS-70, but please tell me if I would be in violation of the rules. Unlike most on cyperspace who love the fight I was a Sysop for Compuserve on its Military section for almost two decades. And as the old saying goes "In a 100 years, who will know." On the internet or other cyperspace it is "In an hour, who will know." <GRIN>. So unless I am told it is permitted by the powers that be, I will assume it is not permitted.

Jackehammond (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Jack E. Hammond/Indiana USA

Merry Xmas

File:Christmas Barnstar (aviation).jpg

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

You Otomat article - ie professional FIVE STAR

Dear Sir,

I wrote an article about the Otomat back in the mid 1980s. It was a small article ordered by my editors during the crisis with Libya and the USA. Today I judge defence articles by what I call the "1980s IDR" standard. That was the golden time of defense articles before Jane's bought IDR from the Swiss. Your article on the Otomat is better than many of the articles I have seen in IDR during the 1980s. Also, a trivia: The top photo of the Otomat being fired, I supplied it to the US Navy. Matra had supplied it to myself, and when the US Navy contacted me and asked if I had any photos on the Wadi class corvette missile boat and the Otomat I sent the material that Matra supplied me. The US Navy contacted Matra and they released the photo for the US Navy to distribute. It is sad that the French did not keep their contract with the Italians to use the EXOCET on small warships and the OTOMAT on larger warships. But they took full advantage of the Falklands War to sell the Otomat at the expense of Italy. I became aware of one item in discussions with the US Navy. They had nightmares about the Otomat with the Libyans due to its longer range and the terminal "pull-up-dive" mode. The ads in some defence publications showing a drawing of the Otomat attacking an aircraft carrier did not help their nightmares either. --Jackehammond (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Thanks for the message on my TALK page. I will try and reply to it fully soon as possible on my TALK page and will leave a notice of a reply on your TALK page. And you are 100% right in some of your statements.--Jackehammond (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Information on Italian Army organization

Hi Stefano,
I saw your note to Jack Hammond about the wikibooks in Italian and noted that you appear to have had a strong role in compiling the book's information. I have tried for a while to find information on the number of men in Italian infantry squads for the post-World War II era, but I haven't found very much other than it looks like it has varied from about 8 to 13 men depending on the year and type of infantry. Do you by any chance have any information about this? I'm trying to better understand squad structure for Italian foot infantry, paratroops, marines, Alpini, and mechanized infantry for each decade (or so) from 1950 until 2000. Thanks for any help. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. This is information is hard to find! Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

1976 sales of the OTOMAT antishipping missile

Dear Stefano, below is something you may wish to add to the Italian Wikipedia article on the OTOMAT that I came across. I have removed the reference markings as it would generate an error message on your Talk page. This is just my personal curiosity. Which do you think was the better attack profile for the OTOMAT: the Mk 1 with its climb-and-dive or the Mk.II with sea skimming? I am of the opinion that for larger warship like an aircraft carrier the Mk.1 attack mode was better, where as for light and medium warships the Mk.11 attack mode was better. And Libya: Talk about over-kill on its' orders for the OTOMAT!!!! And thanks for the reference to the Wikibooks. much appreciate. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• By the end of 1976 OTO Melara had reported that 210 Otomats had been sold: Italy 48, Peru 40, Venezuela 12, and Libya 110. Also at this time there were negotiations under way for the sale of 296 more missiles to various nations (ie Italy 48, Egypt 30, Venezuela 48, Libya 120, Indonesia 50). reference -- Ezio Bonsignore "The Italian Naval Exhibit" Aviation & Marine page 50 October 1976 published INTERCONAIR
  
  

• Greetings, Stefano, I have posted a long reply (more an article <GRIN>) on my talk page. I very much enjoy my conversations with your postings. Hope, my English is not hard for you to translate. THANKS! JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  
  

Hey Jack 2 - Reply (copied from my talk page)

• It's unbelievable how old is Bonsignore (i am S.M. unlogged).. yes, already in '70s he was on the air. Otomat was built 1.000 c.a., but italian weapon sellers were so smart(asse)s to sell everything they had to any costumer (no matter how he was an ass), Gheddafi was so engulfed of weapons (umbelievable how many OTOMATs!), that he even treated Italy, but it doesn't no matter, if some MM ship was sunk, then it will be another contract for italian industries to built new ones.. really annoying, but it's so. Actually, it seems that Italian industry is KO (-17% in 2009) except the weaponry industry..
  
  

Greetings! Yes, Bonsignore is old. But I can remember everyone in America bought "Aviation & Marine" just to read his column. He was very much respected in this country. As to Italy's weapon's industry, it seem strange that Italy was selling weapon to Libya at the same time the Libyans were digging up Italian graveyards in Libya. As to the Otomat, I do not think many NATO navies feared the Otomat being launched against their ships, as it being mounted under canvas on merchant ships and fired at Israel. The Otomat had that long of a range. The one weapon category that has seriously effected arms sales by Italy has been land mines. With the new treaty, a very lucrative market for Italy was closed. Which was not fair to Italy, because they developed self-neutralizing units for all the land mines it manufactures so if they were in the ground more than a year, they would self-destruct. But those political and human rights activists, just land mines based on the ones made in Eastern Europe, Russia, China and more important PAKISTAN. And a US fire base in the mountains of Afghanistan last year was almost over run with its US Army soldiers killed for the lack of land mines. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• It seems that OTOMAT was not so reliable with diving radar system (sea reflection), but unquestionably, this was the more advanced one (french.. and French navy did not buyed it). Bah. OTOH, Harpoon had the same diving attack system, later shifted to the sea skimming, right? Maybe it's better; but if the ship has very good CIWS perhaps the diving is better (who knows?). I read about modified OTOMATs successfully tested against USN CIWS and air defence systems (it would be very interesting to know more about it). But there are, and always be, some question i cannot understand, maybe do you have an idea about them?
  
  

Greetings! I have never heard of the Otomat being tested against the 20mm PHALANX CIWS system. I think I read one was tested against that Switzerland Contraves 25mm system that Turkey adopted. As to the pull-up-dive attack mode of the Otomat, I think that was abandoned for sea-skimming because they found out that the pull-up-dive mode was to vulnerable to systems like the 20mm Phalanx and the Breda 40mm Compacto. The higher the altitude an antishipping missile is in its terminal attack mode, the more effective radar proximity fuzes are (ie IR proximity fuzes in the 1970s and 1980s were more effective against sea skimmers, till Bofors developed an effective radar proximity fuze that would not explode from sea surface reflection. JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• 1-why Bell is falling so badly? Bell teached to almost the whole planet how to build economic and efficient helicopters (Bell 204-214s). But US helicopter industry, after many success designs, is apparently unable to cope with european competitors.. especially Agusta, that built many Bell models, and was enriched by many contracts about Agusta-Bell stuff (i.e. Persian empire, all italian services). Bell 222/230 was not that successfull either (and actually lost the competition, while it was meant to be a sort of answer to A.109). Quitting Bell-Agusta 139 was an unbelievable herror(horror!!), this model is actually a money well!

Greetings! The answer is simple: The MV-22 Osprey. The US helicopter industry has put all of its technology bets behind that one product. And the Europeans have just kept improving, and improving, conventional helicopters to the point that the world orders European helicopters. The only helicopter that has no competitor in the world that the US builds is the CH-47 Chinook. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• 2-naval gun. USN had the first efficient automatic gun (76 mm). OTO design was not so efficient in the early days, it took 10+ years to became a real efficient gun ( from the 'Sovrapposto' to the 'Compatto'). Not one of the other gun builder fought for this market (with a lot of FAC vessels in order in the '70s..), neither Bofors (why not enlarge the 57 mm?), nor Creusot (100 mm reduced), ROF (114 mm), US industry (a new 76 mm design); it's just the same problem with mountain gun. US had the excellent 75 mm (M8), but a new 105 mm gun was needed. Nobody did nothing while OTO Melara built 3.000 mountain guns (in 25 years!). I don't think it was a technology issue: after all, who built the first super-rapid 76 mm gun? Soviets, several years before Super-Rapido gun (AK-176).
  
  

Greetings! When it comes to naval cannons of the medium to heavy caliber, Italy is the "KING". The only reason that the US Navy buys US designed naval cannons is because of our Congress demanding it. The most intelligent decision the US Navy could have made was to have bought the Oto Malara 76mm Super Rapido. That "one" cannon does the missions of the 20mm Phalanx (as hard as it sounds, but it has that rapid a rate of fire and a good fuze and slew rates), the 40mm/57mm cannons and the 76mm medium cannons. The only role it can not do is the heavy 5 inch shore bombardment. But the one major error with the 76mm Super Rapido is that it uses a different ammunition than the older 76mm Oto Malara cannons. The reason was that the shell casing had to be redesigned to accommodate that high speed of loading and firing. But the Super Rapido can start engaging antishipping missile more than five times the range of the 20mm Phalanx and so many shells would be exploding around it, that it would most likely knock a antishipping missile out of the sky. Also, as the missile gets closer the cannon switches to submunition darts like used on tank cannon shells. It is an engineering marvel. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• 3-missiles. OK, there was the BGM-109 TASM, but even so, why not an enhanced Harpoon with datalink? It's so easy to increase the range, with a turbojet (just add 30-40 kg jet-fuel with a extra-section in the fuselage). I mean, a lot of ships with Harpoons were too short-ranged if compared to Gheddafi Navy, but URSS Navy as well. Is it even possible, that nobody said Ok, italian (and the french industry, but not the silly french navy..) did the Otomat, Gheddafi has it, then we add a 30-40 cm fuselage section, a datalink (Walleye?) and voilà, we have a super-Harpoon missile with 160-200 km range. I cannot understand, with the oustanding progress in missile technology, why US industry didn't this step. They did Skybolt, Polaris, Trident, but not this simple toy!
  
  

Greetings! I know someone who worked on the Walleye program. It has serious problems with the TV camera (ie the North Vietnamese drove trucks around targets that sprayed oil on the hot engine to cause the TV camera to break lock) and the data link. Anyway the US Navy is not that interested in engaging heavy warships or warships at long ranges. About the only need the US Navy sees for a long range antishipping missile is for its submarines. And it uses the Tomahawk for that role. Remember, the US Navy has large aircraft carriers. BTW, the Indian Navy says the British Sea Eagle is a total failure and have taken them out of service. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• To not to talk about European trainer industry: Italy did the excellent MB.326, but advanced too slow with the MB.339, while BAe did the Hawk and France-Germany did the Alpha Jet. But, since then, they never made a successor for them, while Alenia, at the end, did the M.346 (..that initially was the Yak-130, just like MDD did with Northrop and her YF-17..).
  
  

Greetings! Actually, the Italians took the right attitude. They just kept taking a good trainer design and improving it. A lot like the USAF and Lockheed has done with the C-130 Hercules. And they manufacture so many (like the old DC-3/C-47) that the cost is much lower than new designs. The only error of this type of system is that you can not take a pilot from very slow primary trainers to the MB.326 and MB.339. You have to have a few hours on an aircraft that lands and takes off at a much higher speed. And I think you will be surprised years later at how many MB.339s are sold. I really do. When it comes to "all glass" cockpits and monitors, the MB.330 is the only cost effective turbo-jet (there are cheaper turbo props) on the market today. What I would like to see them develop with the MB.339K Veltro 2 is one that can drop laser-homing and other guided weapons for war theaters like Iraq, where there is no problem with being intercepted by hostile fighters or modern anti-air defences. The USAF and US Navy have admitted they are wearing out (using up airframe and engine hours) the expensive F-16 and F-18s -- ie the US Navy has had to bring back the carries with the A/F-18Es and Fs and replace them with A/F-18Bs and Cs in storage!!!! The South Africa AF used the MB326K as a radio relay aircraft for its behind enemy line reconnaissances groups and in an emergency before the larger attack aircraft could arrive, they would give close air support. A US Special Operation team of four men were all killed except for one, because of a lack of radio relay in the mountains and it took to long for the F-16s to take off and give close air support. And it is ridiculous to use B-1B bombers in close air support and radio relay!!! Along with the USAF A-10Cs the next best aircraft today for Afghanistan is the AMX. Why less advance nations have not bought the AMX is a mystery. It is the aircraft that should be bought for the new Afghan Air Force (or those Czech light attack aircraft based on their famous L-39 trainer). JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, I wrote an article on the Breda Foglore. I have heard that the Italian Army is not that happy with the Foglore because it took so long to develop and its inability to engage heavy armour. If I were Italy I would offer them for sale to Afghanistan at a "good" price. They would be perfect as they would not dangerous to NATO heavy tanks or those fitted with "slat" armour. And the antiamour HEAT shell could have a delay added so it would crumble the liner making it useless against armoured vehicles, but a great long range anti-personnel fire support weapon for the mountains. Also, Italy could only supply reloads as they are needed to the Afghan National Army. Unlike other weapons the Taliban might capture from the Afghan National Army, with captured Foglores they have no ability to acquire reloads -- ie they are made only in Italy -- meaning they would be useless if captured. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"Il nemico ci ascolta"

I answer You in English, because they could complain and I am not in good waters with the main columns of en wiki... Da... I tried to work here as I suffered reading how badly were treated Italian (Japanese, Rumenian..) planes and how over-valued were anglo/american machines... even mostly unhappy craft like the P-40... it is a shame that no admin check what its happening here... anyway... we are guests here... what you say is extremely interesting and it is a pity that you can not or you do not want to find the way to write these things in the articles of the planes.. If >You cant, You could send me a scan with the data of the book and I will try to write them down... >By the way... have you read my book (not only mine) "Bomba a bordo e altri racconti" by Autori Vari, IBN editore? There is a short novel of mine and one of Nicola Malilzia... I would like to know your opinion... da skorogo (a presto)

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

P-40? No, thanks!

I answer you quickly as I am leaving Rome for some days... the P-40 was born already outdated, it was a mediocre fighter by all means... You should read something about Hans Joachim Marseille to realize how inferior it was to Bf 109... the Macchi 202 was much more maneouvrable and had a much better climb rate... the Macchi 200 too was not inferior... one day, Costantino Petrosellini was attacked from superior height by 12 P-40s while on reconnaissance in the sky of Alexandria of Egypt ... well, they could not catch him, they could not even shot a single bullet to him, that was diving in a tight descending continuos turn... and Petrosellini was an ace but not the world champion of fighter aviation... I know that the Russian appreciated it, the p-40, I wrote something about it in the article as I have more books about Soviet Airpower... but the Soviet refused the Mustang as well that most Historians regard as the best ww2 fighter, forgetting the the Macchi 205 knocked many of them... kind regards from Italy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs)

Macchi Vs. Dewoitine

I quoted the source, did not I? :) Read the article about the Dewoitine, what the Raf test pilot said about it: it did not fly beautifully even if it looked beautiful. Regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

They already told us (youu) that here the official language is English, so please let's be kind... You arrived in wikipedia before me, so you should know how it works, so, if You have another reliable sources about the Dewoitine, please quote it in the article according to wikipedia convention... thanks for the good advices and the pages about the REggiane 2000!

Be healthy! regards from Italy!! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Are You threatening me?? :) You can do what you want respetcing the wikipedia rules, but be careful: if you modify my edits or delete them I will put a warning of vandalims on you, and if You keep on wasting my work, I will ask that You will be blocked!

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The overclaim is a problem of every air force or pilots... RAF pilots overclaimed up to five times the effective losses of the Regia Aeronautica, in Greece, for instance... Tell me how many articles written by English-speaking contributors when speaking of kills against Axis forces are balanced with the other side losses...

God Bless you --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Good job!!!! WHy you dont do the same stuff with the overclaims of RAf and USAAf against Luftwaffe? You have the right books or do you want me to send you something? Read for instance The first and the last by Adolf Galland. Now I undersand why you like Malizia: you have the same autolesionistic taste to despise the planes and the pilots of his own Motherland...

no commnent!! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a little overheated is it not? One reason direct comparisons and descriptions of air-to-air combat is being actively discouraged in various articles is for this very reason: that there will be endless claims and counter claims being made about how many aircraft were actually lost, versus claims made in good faith, but in the heat of combat, by pilots who cannot see everything that is happening around them. I suggest both of you take a few days, go outside and smell some flowers or listen to beautiful music? Anything but sit fuming in front of a computer. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Text "dumps"

Stefano, please do not make massive additions to articles. The biggest problem is that these seem to be poorly translated magazine articles. These additions can be made in smaller amounts so that other editors can improve the spelling and grammar. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

1. All dates are fully written out, as 10 March 2010, not 10th Mar 10. In military aviation articles use the day-month-year format.
2. Aircraft is both singular and plural; there is no "aicrafts" which is the spelling you use.
3. Some terminology can be standardized: machine gun, not machine-gun
4. All "foreign" names/titles should be in quotes, even if it is an Italian word, in en.Wikipedia.
5. You still make the same errors in defining reference sources. The following is used for formatting: Author (last name, first name) followed by a period. Title (Book title in quotation marks and magazine article in "smaller quote marks" to show the difference, language defined if needed e.g. (in Italian)). Place of publishing (Rome instead of Roma for en.Wikipedia): Publisher, other publishing information as to volume, issue and page, date of publication. ISBN is optional.

All of these suggestions are given with the intent to improve your submissions. Treat them as such. FWiW, thanks for again coming to the fore in adding significant contributions to wiki aviation articles. Bzuk (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyGian Piero milanetti (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Gian Piero milanetti (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Flak

While I agree with the change you have made to the photo of the B-24 and the reason for it, your usual habit of attempting to pick a fight over some erroneous "anglo-saxon" conspiracy theory is completely unnecessary, as is your usual habit of trying to harass other editors into co-operating with you by accusing them of bias, or by making out that your "expertise" is superior to theirs. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Hello,

An article you have helped edit, Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II (which was formerly entitled "Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories") has been proposed for deletion.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. When you recently edited Fiat G.91Y, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AMX (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force

The article Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unneeded breakout from Hawker Hunter; the information can be summarised there, and the information here is heavily sourced to a website of questionable reliability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Stephano - Swiss Hunter deletion

Stephano I know the deletion notice is still in place, but I think maybe I have talked the administrators into allowing the article to be on probation. I stated that I would try and find some reliable references. I know I have them, but which magazine is another subject. Also, while I am not a good English editor (I rely on others) I will try and help with that subject. But if the page is deleted please try and ignore it instead of getting angry. Because I have a few friends who are not very happy with me now on this subject. I had the same problem when I first started editing on Wikipedia. I took all reverts and deletions as a personal insult. I soon learned that no one really new me and on Wikipedia nothing is personal. Please do me this favor. Because Wikipedia English needs you specialized knowledge. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Stephano Sadly I have to request you ignore the above message. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 05:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

.

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. When you recently edited Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ECM and John Lake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Otobreda 76 mm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to HE

Otomatic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Palmaria

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

English Electric Lightning

I am moving your latest submission back to this talk page, as it still requires a large amount of editing: "The F Mk.53 (F.53) was a "dual role" Lightning, with a full array of air-to-surface weapons and extra fuel, in order to cure the main shortcomings of this fighter. The early Lightnings were basically point-defence interceptors. Considered agile, but with very limited avionics, and the lack of a RWR limited its effectiveness. Endurance, at full throttle, was very limited; without external tanks, a mission of 40 minutes was quite normal, but with an heavy use of A/B (afterburner) it would fall even to only 15 minutes at low altitude. This was combined with the lack of external tanks, and the very limited use of in-flight refuellings, usually just for ferry flights.

Even so, the Lightning was powerful enough to not need the full power for much time, especially with the R.R. Avon 302C (5,671/7,393 kgf), the ones made for the Saudi Lightnings. The F.53 was capable to reach mach 1 without afterburners, and it was able to cruise up to 7,620 meters with only one engine lit. It could climb to the operational ceiling in 2,5 minutes, and accelerate from 1 to 2 mach in 3,5 minutes. The power did not lacked, and it was done everything in order to gain an useful load. Until then, the Lightning would have been only a powerful interceptor, but not different than the much more simpler and cheap aicrafts such the F-104, Mirage or the MiG-21.

Therefore, the Lightning weaponry was enhanced with four underwing pylons, each capable to hold one or (internal pylons) two 1,000 lb bombs, napal tanks, or SNEB rocket launchers (18x68 mm each). The dual ADEN pack (with 260 projectiles) could replace the forward part of the ventral tank. The Firestreak missile system could be replaced with rockets (2 packs, 22 weapon each, 51 mm caliber), both for air to air and air to surface role. As the Lightning fuselage cannot accomodate easily more loads, the wings had two unusual dorsal hardpoints: each could be equipped with a fixed 1,180 lt tank, or a 1,000 lb bomb (ejectable with explosive charges). It was also available the Matra JL-100 combo, with 18 SNEB and 250 lt fuel tank in the same system, up two units for every dorsal hardpoint (totalizing 1,000 l fuel and 72 rockets). The Lightning F.53 was therefore capable to hold up to 188 rockets (44 internal, 72 over the wings and 72 under), or six 1,000 lb bombs, and still retained very high performances and reasonable endurance. The Lightning F.53 had a total of 3,300 lt internal fuel, plus the external stores (the ventral tank was available in models from 1,100 to 2,770 lt). Usually it was not fitted any IFR probe, while the pilot had a Martin-Baker seat (Mk.BS4C Mk-2, effective from 0 meters and 167 km/h).

Lastly, the Lightning F.53 could also accomodate a recce pod, in the place of Firestreak or rocket systems. Every pod had 4 70 mm Vinten photograpic machines (Type 360). It could be optimized for recce missions from 61 to 9,145 meters (200-30,000 ft). For night missions it was available a flare-launcher system. Therefore, the original interceptor became a triple role machine: fighter, attack and recce. The maximum weight increased up to 18,914 kg, while the empty (with gunpacks and Firestreaks) was 13,426 kg. This did not allowed the maximum bomb load with the maximum fuel, but it was enough for archivie the air-to-ground capabilities. The take off run (at 17,6 t) was 1,006 meters, the landing (with parachute-brake) was 1,097 metres (at 13,154 kg).

All by all, the new Lightning F.53 was a much better war machine than the earlier models, but it still had some shortcomings, apart to be relatively costly and complex to operate. One was the lack of an RWR, became much more important, as the new aicraft was a fighter-bomber. Another one was the tendence to catch fire in the engine's exhaust/afterburner. Engine's fire caused the damaging of the tail controls and the loss of the aicraft was inavoidable. This was the most frequent cause of losses for the Lightning's operational units, and despite the modifics, it was never entirely corrected. One of the F Mk.53 lost for engine fire crashed in early 1970, near the Yemen border. Another issue was the lack of Red Top: atleast at the beginning, the Lightnings had the previous Firestreaks, as the Red Top was not yet available for export.

From 1967 the Lightning F.53s operated from the Khamis base, served by radars based at Usram. The last Lightning was delivered in 1972, during Magic Carpet phase IV. Only one aircraft (53-697) was lost to enemy fire; it was shot down by ground fire over Yemen on 3 May 1970, just before peace was declared. Saudi Lightnings were known to have suffered losses in 1967, 1968, 1970 (atleast two), while one was lost before the delivery and one was lost just after be taken in RSAF service. Another Lightning, a T Mk 55 (55-710) was lost at Warton, in March 1967.

All by all, the 'Magic Carpet' was successful and involved also the delivery of 25 Strikemaster Mk 80 and Type 80 ground control radar, while USA provided 10 HAWK batteries.

When Dahran airstrip was re-built, Lightnings were sent to Riyadh. When they went back to Dhahran (July 1970), formed the No.2 Squadron (10 F.53) and the LCU (5 F.53 and 6 T.55). The No.6 Squadron had F.52 and F.54s (two of the single-seat were lost by accidents), later received also five F.53s. Several Lightnings were held on reserve, at Riyadh. As Carter administration agreed to deliver F-15 Eagles for RSAF (despite the strong resistence made up by Israel), the Lightnings were phased out in 1986. In January, 18 F.53 and four T.55 returned back to UK with a direct flight. The most used F.55 had 2,304 flying hours, and the most used T.55 reached 2,484." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Aeroporto.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Airshows.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Insufficient reference information

Several years ago, you inserted at Dassault Mirage 2000 cryptic references to ‘Sgarlato’ and ‘Take Off enc.’. Could you please add up the details? We need at least author, title, year and page number, and preferrably also place, publisher, ISBN… Thank you in advance.

― 200.219.132.103 (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Stefanomencarelli,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Ca.165.JPG

The file File:Ca.165.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)