Jump to content

User talk:Wee Curry Monster/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Generalmesse is back

Yeah saw it - I reverted yesterday his insertion of a Propaganda communique by the fascists from July 1942 in the article First Battle of El Alamein... I don't think it is necessary to file a sock report. It seems to be a fixed IP. If he continues we go to WP:AIV and block the IP. Let's just wait a bit and see if he gives up. --noclador (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the page to my watchlist Justin. Just so your undo button doesn't get worn out :) --Narson ~ Talk • 16:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Whose that then? I'm sure I've seen that name around before... Ryan4314 (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
He is a chap who strongly believes that the Italians fought very well in North Africa and that the fact should be underscored by using primary references one hell of a lot. The typical reichstagger, who is out to undo some perceived great wrong. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah bless, also kudos on "reichstagger", never heard that term b4. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I have great affection for WP:Reichstag. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your message

It was hard to miss them both [1],[2]. The motives are transparant and the coincidences unkanny. Though, not sure what motivates him/them not to sign. Interesting how one attempted to drag me into an argument with a completely different user - rather presumptuous on ones gullibility. If you remember, 202.172.105.49 is from Sydney, as per http://www.ip2location.com/free.asp. 125.174.7.75 originates from Tokyo, an open network. Cheers, Romaioi (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My firewall log is showing that IP 202.172.105.49 (and other IPs from a similar locale, such as 202.172.101.38) has attempted to ping my computer.Romaioi (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Romaioi

That was nice to notify him. :) —the_ed17— 15:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL

Have u seen this!? --Ryan4314 (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Caption (Argentine Invasion)

No problem, Justin. I was the original editor of the caption, but I (over) corrected myself 'cause I was not sure about the use of an active participle there. Thanx for your English lesson, man ;). Regards.--Darius (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Scrapping

You know how to verify this? Ryan4314 (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Gib

Things going ok? You seem a tad stressed. --Narson ~ Talk • 08:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If that was a rule, all editing from scotland and the north of england would cease. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
He means he was "sober" at the time! :D Ryan4314 (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I like that verse. I used to murmer it to annoy my scottish ex :) --Narson ~ Talk • 20:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Britain or UK" website corrected

FYI - [3] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of inclusion of South Georgia GIS

While I understand the grounds on which you reverted this addition, I am afraid I do not agree, and feel you have acted hastily.

The South Georgia GIS is now the most important resource for environmental data in South Georgia, bar none. It is the most current information available, and it will be maintained to retain that currency. Much of the information in it is from ongoing research projects.

As such, it should be referenced on the South Georgia Wikipedia pages; I sure that if I hadn't put the reference in, someone else would have done so. Although I managed the project to create it, I have no financial interest in it. But this is not a personal project; it is a project that was carried out for the Government of South Georgia.--APRCooper (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see the general force of the policy, but surely the aim of an encyclopedia is to disseminate information and provide references for further reading? Of course web-sites that do not add to a reader's knowledge of the subject should not be linked, and of course many links will be there simply to provide authority for statements in the text, but in this case the new web-site gives far more information about the topography, history and environment of South Georgia than Wikipedia ever can, from an authoritative source and in a form that Wikipedia cannot support. If Wikipedia wishes to be authoritative on South Georgia, then I do not see how it can NOT provide a link to this site.

Perhaps a way round this would be to provide a link in another way, such as within the info boxes. Alternatively, I am sure there are other points in the article where a reference would fit naturally - but that seems to me to be a rather convoluted way of providing a link to a site which is so important to the planning, management and general information available on South Georgia. --APRCooper (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Might be worth bugging our old friend Dr Ivanov to rate its usfulness, Justin? --Narson ~ Talk • 19:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was just thinkng he might be able to say whether this site offers anything special etc. that might prompt us to use it as an external link without being a ref? I figure we have a specialist in the 'group', we might as well bug him like 12 year olds eager for daddy's approval! --Narson ~ Talk • 09:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course, I am perfectly content for the SGGIS web-site to be reviewed externally. We have just submitted a paper to the Journal of Climate Change which makes clear the utility of the SGGIS in looking at real issues. However, I should perhaps note that everyone who is currently involved in work on South Georgia is well aware of this site and has probably contributed to it. People who conduct field-work on South Georgia in the future will find that contributing to the SGGIS is a condition of their landing permit - see the Data Policy on the SGGIS web-site. --APRCooper (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Algeciras Bay

Yes, I knew it's interchangeably. The issue was that only "Bay of Algeciras" was mentioned but, when analyzing the infobox, I noticed the Battle of Algeciras Bay so I inferred that it was also a commonly used name. Otherwise I wouldn't even mention it. No worries. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Falklands coins

You seen this Ryan4314 (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty

I wasn't even aware you had the article on your watch list. Anyway, I'm going to ignore it for a day or two I hope, the SPAs are starting to wear on my nerves with the persecution complex they have. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't mind the guy, but I've get to see tensions go down after him joining a conversation. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Kind of sucks that those wanting the edit in can't be arsed to do the source finding. I'm going to check through the various library methods I have at my disposal. Maybe I should make the article a pet project. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I might do through metalib or athens. A journal I take it? Whats the full name? EDIT: Found it and logged in. I have access via my uni Athens account. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we have access to a ton of electronic source and journal collections. It is incredibly useful, you can do a lot of research independent of the uni campus these days. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Bupkiss has turned up. I've checked the Times Archives, I've checked JSTOR, I've checked Cambridge Journals, I've checked History Today archives. I've found no reference to it in academia, and none so far in journalism. At this point, I think I have to declare this a dead dodo. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Might be best to stop engaging PR until the legal threat is dealt with. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how drunk we would get if we took a shot everytime a SPA mentioned The Truth, requested someone be indef blocked for something trivial, posted a talk page comment over 7500 bytes, yelled about their 'rights' in some manner and tried emotive crap to make their POV seem reasonable? --Narson ~ Talk • 19:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

  1. What do you see as WP:UNDUE in my most recent entry? Appropriate coverage is exactly my goal.
  2. You have not addressed the numbered items. The most important one being the fact that it was an independent (non-government) investigation.
  3. I fail to see how WP:UNDUE applies to a valid investigation when it is not even listed as an investigation.
  4. What, precisely, is your objection to seeing this report listed as a third category of "Independent American Investigations"? WorldFacts (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The latest revert might be a tad extreme Justin. Some of the stuff there seemed ok. Certainly the BBC as a source passes muster? --Narson ~ Talk • 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus man, baby with the bath water? What is next, anecdotes that start 'When I was a kid and Ramsay MacDonald was prime minister'? --Narson ~ Talk • 23:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Justin, you seem to be one of the main writers on the USS Liberty page. On the discussion page, there is a list of authors who contend that the attack was intentional. Would it be possible to edit that list to include the theories that each of those authors have to explain Israel's motivation for attacking?217.132.60.99 (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If I may butt in (And I will answer here as your IP may be dynamic, 217.X, a user account is simple to set up and makes it far easier), the list is one created by a user called PalestineRemembered and is a rather lopsided bunch of sources. It wouldn't be right for Justin to edit another users contributions to a talk page except for fixing formatting etc, not content. The theories are, as you point out, quite diverse. Feel free to ask for such a thing on the USS Liberty talk page, we'd welcome fresh views. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Justin A Kuntz)

Hello, Justin A Kuntz. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justin A Kuntz, where you may want to participate. -- WorldFacts (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Since we can't seem to come to agreement on the USS Liberty Page, you, Narson and Jayjg will be part of a Request for Comment on users for your incessant removal of multiple versions of the Moorer Report entry on USS Liberty Page. My specific problem with you is that you are removing the entry without ever attempting to edit the entry to your liking. Simply removing the entry, and providing WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE or WP:Whatever as a reason without explanation is not acceptable to me. In some cases, you have attempted to explain yourself after the fact. However, it is your refusal to even attempt to edit the entry to your liking which leaves me to believe you are censoring the Moorer Report and it is that which I find intolerable. This is just me following procedures since I can see an arbitration will be required, and this process is a prerequisite. I'm actually 'in the process' of doing this - so it will be some minutes before the process is begun in earnest. WorldFacts (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And this is why pointing single purpose accounts towards dispute resolution is beansy. Want to file the complaint over his bad faith personal attacks or shall I, Justin? --Narson ~ Talk • 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration in this case is premature. You need to follow WP:DR first. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Polish matters

The plane crash of General Sikorski is actually a pivotal event in the history of Europe and shrouded in mystery. There is an excellent book about it by the historian David Irving, quite what they hope to demonstrated ny exhuming him now beats me, but it will be in the press as they do. The event is depicted in the fictional film 'The Silent enemy' which describes the development of underwater warfare in Gibraltar in a dramatised manner. With the entry of Poland into the EU this is an unresolved issue which has resurfaced. Conspiracy theories abound. --Gibnews (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen

Dear Justin, you might be interested to know that Solveig's article has been proposed for deletion. In my opinion that's an ill-founded idea, same like the suggested merging as several other articles have links to Solveig's one. Best, Apcbg (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion

Wanted to let you know that I've followed your suggestion and taken this to ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Srkris. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I've now made a couple of formal ban proposals - duration of either 1 year, or 3-6 months. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I did try to ensure that I've kept it within the bounds of friendly notices, but yes, I definitely don't want to let that issue arise either, particularly when it's avoidable. Cheers again, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hustler

Do you think we can now call this 'a load of wank'? ;) --Narson ~ Talk • 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Regarding your comments on ANI: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Your comment here borders on a personal attack. Cease and desist. Sarvagnya 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Retarded shit like this.....I almost reverted it for you Justin, but figured you'd want the pleasure. Hustler as a source and now templating the regulars. Today is a black day for Darwin. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
For now I'm leaving this comment as an example of how this group of editors have been trying to use wiki processes to intimidate editors. Justin talk 17:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

British Empire

Take care on that, the chap appears to have quite a low opinion of England (And I quote: i said the same , anglo-saxons should not be taken into account.). Not sure how he feels about you Scots. Maybe you are our lap dogs? If so, bring me lemsip! --Narson ~ Talk • 09:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ANd she went to scotland? Most of the spanish republicans just ended up in the south of France :P Anyway, I have my sister bringing me lemsip now. Standing up is a bit of a problem right now with all the liquid in my ears. Oh well, at least the fever let me buy an x-box without my conscience going YOU CANNOT AFFORD THIS. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Wait, what are you doing on here in the day? Shouldn't you be firing missiles at random bits of empty terrain and going 'Hrm. Yes. Very interesting' while having weird fantasies of Werner von Braun? --Narson ~ Talk • 10:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I imagine them to be wearing lab coats... Ryan4314 (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Ususally Dayglo Yellow hazard jackets I'm afraid. Justin talk 18:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Suez

I've taken a look at the sources provided. They would support a political victory for egypt, though I've not looked at who the authors/publishers are. A couple would also support a military victory for the coalition. It is situations like this that makes infoboxes such pains as you can't go into intricacies. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd already suggested a compromise by adding political victory in there, doesn't look like he is interested. He simply reverted before I had a chance to put it in. Justin talk 00:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Aye, political is certainly the best one could put there from the sources, and the most accurate. Pity we can't just put a link to the UN resolution as the result. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Atlantic Conveyor

The IMO (Inernational Maritime Organization) number is a unique number that identifies a ship throught her life, even if she changes flag, name or radio callsign. Pictures of ships in Wikimedia Commons are now categorized by IMO number. See also Commons:Category:IMO_6926036. Sv1xv (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a wikilink could be used. There is already an article IMO ship identification number and IMO number redirects there. Sv1xv (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

mediation

Attempt at Mediation

I am attempting to help with the dispute regarding the USS Liberty incident. If you are interested in participating, please add your signature accordingly. — BQZip01 — talk 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Weapons Tight

Hi, would you mind taking a look at an article I made here for any glaring omissions/mistakes, cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at this new article I made here, Plot (radar). I'm starting to get a creeping feeling that I've hideously got the wrong end of the stick. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I also think it looks minging so feel free to make major copyediting changes you see fit ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Be wary of dictionary definitions only though Ryan. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
What for, Weapons Tight or Radar Plot? I don't think we need to worry about that for Radar Plot, as I've just written the article and I still don't "get it" lol ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

South Georgia helicopter?

Hi mate, which helicopter do you think this is? It's on South Georgia, we crashed 2 of our Wessex there right? Naval Party 8901 shot down one of their Pumas n all yea? Doesn't look like Fortuna Glacier to me, seems more likely to be the Puma at Grytviken. although I can't imagine us just leaving a crashed helo, wouldn't we want to take it all back to Britian and have chaps like u examine it? ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea I spose ur right, probably wouldn't be much intelligence to gain from it after you've had all the documents and the little electrical bits out of it etc, which I doubt we did anyway as ARG then had a whole month of occupation to clean it up themselves. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

SINKEX

Hi, HMS Rapid (F138) was apparently sunk for target practice on September 3 1981. Ken says Cardiff fired a Sea Dart at it n all, don't suppose you know where I can get a ref for this please? I've tried Hansard, the MOD and IWM collections. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sea Dart has an anti-surface capability. Confirmed that with Jane's Weapon Systems 1982-83. I've scanned that and I'll email you a copy later. For that particular incident you could try HMS Cardiff's website but its the kind of anecdote that is really difficult to track down. Google is probably your best bet. There is a website www.sinkex.com Justin talk 10:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Not to make it really difficult for you Ryan, but there might be reports at the national archives if you are some form of cockney and thus near Kew. Or failing that, check newspapers. This kind of detail is really only noted on ephemera normally, transient records and all that. I might, and this is only a might mind you, have access to the times archives covering the period. I'll go have a peek later. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help guys, Ken said of the event; "Yes Sea Dart was designed for shooting the high fliers but remember Sea Dart has a surface capability also. I remember we fired at HMS Rapid (old frigate used as target) in 1981 and scored a perfect hit on her with a Sea Dart at 11nm. The warhead isn't up to sinking a ship though but can cause a fair bit of damage."
I've tried registering with SINKEX, but the activation process seems broke and I can't find the webmaster's e-mail. Not that I'm that hopeful about it, seems a predominately US orientated site. Narson, I am some sort of Cockney, but I would greatly appreciate you checking the Times archive, I might check the gazette n all, I'd forgotten about that. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Sea Dart's poor performance against low level targets in the Falklands War was basically down to the Type 965 surveillance radar that cued the Type 909 illuminating radar. Type 965 was an older system that struggled with targets at low level due to surface clutter. The Type 1022 radar that replaced it, gave Sea Dart its full capability. HMS Exeter was the sole Type 42 destroyer with the Type 1022 in the Falklands in 1982 and on May 30 splashed 2 A-4 skyhawks at low level. In the Gulf War, another Type 42 splashed a low level "Styx" missile with Sea Dart at comparatively short range. So Sea Dart was not exclusively designed for high fliers, like the Sea Slug it replaced, but its capabilities in Cardiff were hamstrung by penny-pinching that had caused the Type 42 to be fitted with an obsolescent radar. Justin talk 12:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
And Justin wins the triple crown as total nerd. You can know that and not work IRC...man...parents are so embaressing. And they don't even have to be yours! --Narson ~ Talk • 14:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Completely unreconstructed and unrepentant missile geek I'll have you know. Justin talk 15:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I've learnt so much since I came to "Missilepedia" ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey now Ryan, the love between Justin and a rocket motor is a perfectly valid life choice, no need to get all Daily Mail on him! --Narson ~ Talk • 16:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
And just to add to what Justin has said, the reason that Dart in the surface mode isn't up to sinking a ship is that it's really just a big, kerosene filled, bullet. I can't remember dates but the initial warhead was kinetic, designed to knock the wings of high flyers so wouldn't sink a ship. You don't sink ships by filling them full of air!
Best bet is the dockyard dandy, the editor is pretty good chap and can probably point in the direction of something. In terms of official records there will be something but I don't think it would be with the National Archive yet.
ALR (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought Sea Dart had a continuous rod warhead, pretty effective against monocoque aircraft structures but less effective against ships. Justin talk 22:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It did at the time, as far as I can remember, it's now an HE core with tungsten billets. From memory in surface mode the warhead wasn't active anyway but as the thrust jet had only been operating for less than half its range the main body would have been full of fuel.
ALR (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought most Surface-to-air missiles, including Sea Dart, "proximity fused"? (That does mean "explode when it gets near the aircraft right?) Ryan4314 (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak to missiles, but certainly with artillery fuzes, it is simple to turn off the proximity fuze if you want the shell to behave as a kinetic. At least it is with modern shells (I guess a result of ships being stuck in combat with only air burst shells left) --Narson ~ Talk • 16:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Debate on my talk page, can I join in? You're correct and incorrect. Most missiles would have both a contact and proximity fuze to be effective. Contact if you get a hit, proximity if you miss. Rapier had problems in the Falklands as it had only a contact fuze as it was considered so accurate based on testing that some moron decided to save money and take out the proximity fuze. Justin talk 16:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Yea I think I remember Sharkey Ward saying something about us really falling for our own propaganda with Rapier and even to the effectiveness of Sea Dart to some extent (although that might of been Jerry Pook who said that). Ryan4314 (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Quite a long time since I played the bombhead game but ISTR that dart was proximity only, the original continuous rod needed to have already opened up by the time it hit the target so impact was useless, similarly the more recent dispersing warhead needs time to actually expand into the destructive cloud.
As I recall the shot in Granby was from Gloucester.
ALR (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm more of a "mortar-porn" guy myself ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The medium range 10cm wavelength 992 was the main radar used to track and indicate targets to the 909 illuminating radars. 992 had a fairly high rotation speed (a lot faster than 1022/965) and a range of around 64NM. HMS Exeter had 992 also but had the far more advanced 1022 and, this is significant, new computer software that increased the time sequence for launching Sea Dart by up to 15 seconds. I can guarantee you that she did not shoot down the A4 Skyhawks on the 30 May using 1022 to Target Indicate (TI), the update rate within 16NM would have been agonisingly slow. In Cardiff we did not detect that raid till it got within 20NM (low fliers, curvature of the earth, radar horizon stuff) and we detected and tried to lock them up using 992 to TI. Exeter would have seen them on 1022 but would have opted to use 992 to TI because of the data update rate 992 would have given the Sea Dart system.
Also, all my cold war radar training was focused on tracking and shooting down with Sea Dart high flying USSR bomber formations up in the Iceland Faeroes gap.Griffiths911 (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Did the 1022 have Over The Horizon capability then? (In regards to the 20nm limit of low fliers). Ryan4314 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we're talking at cross-purposes Ken, the Type 965 was a surveillance radar that would make the initial target detection and pass to the Type 992 for target tracking and indication. A surveillance radar will always have a much lower rotation rate, as its designed for a slow wide area search, wheres the tracking radar will want as many paints on the target as quickly as possible. The Type 965 suffered from the classic radar problem of multi-path fading for low level targets. The Type 1022 that replaced it, was much more capable and didn't suffer this problem.
In answer to Ryan, no the Type 1022 doesn't have an over the horizon capability. Trying to simply explain multi-path fading, the target is illuminated by the radar, the radar beam is reflected off the target and at the same time a radar beam reflects off the target, bounces off the sea surface and both are received by the ship. Because the path lengths are very slightly different, the phase of the wave arriving back at the receiver is different. When the difference reaches 180° the two mutually interfere and cancel each other out. That is known as a multipath null. The Type 965 would have had a problem picking up an inbound low level target, the Type 1022 didn't. Exeter would have had better warning but what I wasn't aware of was the fact she also had the updated software that reduced reaction time. Justin talk 17:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
OIC, very interesting, here's another thing I'd been meaning to ask all you missile experts about; as you know I've been working on an article about Gazelle XX377. It's common knowledge that XX377's IFF transponder was turned off at the time it was shot down, but the sole reason normally given for this is that it "interfered with equipment". However I've have an MOD source that states that the "equipment" as being the Rapier missiles, does this sound possible to you? Could the transponder send out signals that messed up the Rapiers or something? Ryan4314 (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Can't think of anything off-hand. Depends on the system but often modern radars would stimulate the IFF to respond. Justin talk 20:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Justin, technically you make a lot of sense, however, you have to understand how the Type 42 air picture teams operated back in 1982...on all 42's. There were only four guys whose sole task was to detect and track air contacts. Two on 965/1022 and two on 992, they would all be on different ranges, same for the operators in Exeter (I've served in 42's and carriers with 1022 radar): 965 Op 1 - 256NM, 965 Op 2 - 128NM, 992 Op 1 - 64NM 992 Op 2 - 32NM.

Other members of the team would be on ranges that changed constantly depending on what was of interest to them at the time. But these four guys (Air Picture Compilers) were usually very young and inexperienced and had to follow procedures taught to them without question or deviation. Now, in Exeter the two 1022 guys would have, as the raid developed, reduced the ranges on their radars but NOT below 32NM (still need eyes at long range for any other threat and to track friendlies) but even if they could see a contact at close range (20NM is very close range on a 42) they would not initiate SP1 (telling ADAWS 'I have something') that would be down to either the 992 operators, who by this time would be hounded by the Air Picture Supervisor if they had nothing on these inbound bogies or the Target Indicator operator TI Op who is sitting near the Missile Gun Director Blind (MGDB) would take over the tracking.

My point is, on that scary day no one saw the raid till it got to about twenty miles, Exeter saw it first because they were closing Exeter more directly. I remember seeing Exeter's Data Link 10 tracks jumping all around the missile as they tried desperately to get a lock up...all within twenty miles of her. I'm sure 1022 would have had no impact relating to the shooting down the two Arg A4 aircraft, they would have been detected at around 20NM by a lot of people in the Ops Room but 992 would have been the radar directly involved and not 1022 as you stated.

Now, I may be going loopy and have got all this horribly wrong but I spent a lot of years in various 'gloom rooms' of our fleet and know quite well how we operated. Ah, this chat about radar takes me back.Griffiths911 (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG I've only understood about half of what's been said in this entire thread! Still, I liked the bits I did "get" lol. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The links you removed from the List of Falkland Islands-related topics are Wikipedia internal links. Please take another look. Thanks, Buaidh (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What are your objections to the following?

--Buaidh (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You bet! --Buaidh (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Justin Kuntz - you edited out material on the environmental impacts of the fishing economics in the Falklands with the comment "sadly one-sided and out of date," ignoring the link to the front page of that days BBC News??! I guess they are out of date, too? Sadly one-sided is a little more to the point, since it is a political persecution of an environmental whistle-blower I call attention to... I may not be a Wikipedia full-timer,so my edit may not be quite as slick as others, but basically, how else are readers going to get a balanced picture of the excesses of extractive economies without including references?? Your deletion without a trace seems "sadly one-sided" also.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.194.232 (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

new General Mese sock???

Did you see user:Bletcheypark? This edits summary makes him suspicious "The last sentence in the paragraph clearly mentions the part played by the Trento." sounds like an old friend... plus user:Bletcheyparks only other edited article points to him being Australian... better keep an eye on him. --noclador (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Willie Pete

Woah! Take a look at this sentence on the GADA 601 article;

"The building was already on fire due to the use of white phosphorus grenades by the British, it was then systematically destroyed by 35 mm rounds and burnt to the ground, resulting in further casualties for the paratroopers.[64]"

What d'you think ay, war crime much lol? It's referring to Darwin school house, when ARG turned the Oerlikons down onto the British troops. The ref is "Not Mentioned in Dispatches".

I did a quick Google search of; "White Phosphorus" Darwin "School House", and got nothing. Would you mind checking Freedman for me first, before I go on a reference hunting crusade. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Meat

You know what gets me? Why am I /your/ meat puppet? Is he saying I'm the bitch and your the butch? Because I really don't trust you to give a reach around... --Narson ~ Talk • 21:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Typical Scottish, always taking and not "giving". So what nutter is trying to say u 2 are socks? I wanna join in and make it a menage a trois lol! Ryan4314 (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Arn't you a /tad/ young for that kind of action, Ryan? ;) --Narson ~ Talk • 22:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Where does one put one's hand to manipulate a meat puppet? Seriously though the bad faith accusations are getting on my tits. Justin talk 22:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
It would be less funny were it true, but we disagree plenty. I do like that this time I get to be the angry guy while Justin is the restrained one. ;) --Narson ~ Talk • 22:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, check out WP:AN at the bottom. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm 23, I always assumed you were more or less my age Narson, aren't you a student? Or are you one of these mature "types"? lol Ryan4314 (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Narson, it would be a sad day if we agreed on everything but I do like the fact that you'll tell me when I'm being an arse in the knowledge I won't take umbrage and vice versa. Justin talk 23:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, we've run aorund the Falkland articles for long enough. And wow. Ryan is my age. (OK, a bit younger). And yes, I'm a student Ryan. Though as I'm over 21 at starting the course, I am classed as mature (Which we all know I'm not). --Narson ~ Talk • 23:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
LOL I was about to say "how much younger could I be?", but then I remembered we have 12 year old admins on here! So we're practically old geezers ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Making edits

Just letting you know, I will probably be making a few more posts on WWII artcles in the near future, some pertaining to Italian involvement. Some edits have already been made under operation crusader. I'm informing you because, being that is the favourite subject of certain socks, I suspect the socks may try to get more involved.....as one hs been stalking me online (I have been using romaioi as a username for around 8 years and he/she has located me at several forums and PM'd me), plus there are the messages they have made to me on my talk page. With that in mind, if you reply to me, please do so here. Merry Christmas. Romaioi (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty Incident

I think people are reluctant to get involved in these kinds of complicated topics. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Missile questions

There are some missile questions being asked here and here that I'm sure you'll be interested in. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain

Justin. Thank you for your advice. What is BRD? Brixtonboy (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Lasers and Air 2 Air

Sorry, 2 other questions I recently thought up for you;

  • You ever heard of Royal Navy using pilot blinding lasers during the actual Falklands War?
  • I see, me neither. This article says otherwise of course, and it's got 2 sources. We could probably send those sources down the gauntlet that is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but it I'd imagine it'd be tricky to find a source that specifically says we didn't use em.
  • LOL well seems we aren't the only ones who haven't learnt from our mistakes, thought their buddy bum chums the Americans would've tooled em up with Sidewinders b now. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Really? I knew ARG used some at Moody Brook, where/when did we use ours? Ryan4314 (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I'd characterise those claims as claims of use, neither look to be all that authoritative.
I've heard the buzz a couple of times, but I've never seen a photograph of the kit that would have been required fitted to a Corporate era platform.
Re white Phos. It's a perfectly acceptable weapon when used tactically in a combat environment, rather than indiscriminately as an area denial weapon.
ALR (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I can remember the media tantrum, but don't recall much other than that about the fit programme.
btw, you have mail.
ALR (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, we would've certainly seen a photo of it by now, even if it was forbidden to photograph of something silly, something would've turned up by now. So we're all agreed then, I'll start looking for sources explicitly stating we had some, but didn't use em Ryan4314 (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You probably know this already, but just read that we'll probably be operating the GR9s in the naval role until 2018! The GR9s don't even have air-to-air radar do they? Ryan4314 (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with Sharkey on most things, but this I certainly do, 13 years without any effective naval air-air capability is absolutely silly. I always hoped Argentina wouldn't invade us again because we'd beat em, but it seems the only thing stopping them is simply because they choose not to. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation Canbelow; This seems a mixture of truth and fallacy. I can't find this Op name anywhere, yet Sharkey and co certainly did fly a mission similar to this, although with an extra un-named Type 42 (deduction proves this would've been Exeter). Also I understand this was more about provoking Mirage IIIs then intercepting Canberras. Can you shed any light on this? Ryan4314 (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This backs it up too. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yea that's all I know of it too, the biggest inaccuracy is that the article says the mission didn't happen, shall we delete it? Ryan4314 (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I exhausted my paltry number of sources ages ago (Hansard, MOD, Gazette). I'll AFD it. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Avro Vulcan

No, I was not shoe horning a book plug as a ref. I was trying to merge info from another article that I am sure will be deleted, but several, including myself, feel the information should be merged into other article. I am NOT shoe horning any book, but giving ref to the source.--BSTemple (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Compliment

Nomination isn’t decided and may still be a merge, I was attempting to use the information before it disappeared and to make it useful. I have not attempted to put trivia but what I thought was interesting information. My purpose is to clean up the Wikipedia and where possible better it. No shoehorning, but I do feel information must have due credit from source and even then only a certain amount can be used or we enter copyright issues, please do not accuse genuine editors of shoehorning. The Wikipedia is a collective venture, which is a true group participation.

May I though, compliment you on patrolling, very well, the Avro Vulcan article, I am impressed. I see Lincolnshire get a few odd edits and the Wikipedia lists have been vandalised. But I’m slowly working at them. Kind Regards. --BSTemple (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hello there, just one comment. Please upload this File:FalklandsWarMontage3.jpg photo montage did by yourself to commons, It's very cool. We can't use it on spanish wikipedia. Thanks in advance.

See you later. --Ahabvader (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated, brother (sorry, but my english is not as good as I want it to be). See you, man, and thanks again.--Ahabvader (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your vote in the DCEETA AfD

That was an excellent vote in this AfD - you expressed everything that was wrong with the article succinctly and referenced all the applicable policies and guidelines. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Size of the British Empire

Reverted with explanation. Carefully read the source by Ferguson (p15)

"At its maximum extent between the world wars the British Empire covered more than 13 million square miles, approximately 23 percent of the world's land surface"

Thanks for your attention. - MainBody (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


Um....I think the edit summary was far enough:

"read the source carefully [Ferguson, p15]"

Have a nice day. - MainBody (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

About the Argentina section in the page Anglophobia.

The Argentina section I have added should stay as I have written it. My contribution is not political as I have contributed to it as an observer. The conent is acceptable and not emotive. Please do not erase the contributions I have made to this page. And do not add the tag "vandalism" to my revision of the section. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saguamundi (talk • contribs) 14:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

About highligting the name "Islas Malvinas"

About highligting the name "Islas Malvinas". As part of being objective the Spanish name Islas Malvinas has to highlighted along the English name Falkland Islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saguamundi (talk • contribs) 14:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it objectionable to edit? What am I doing wrong?

"The conent is acceptable and not emotive. Please do not erase the contributions I have made to this page." Why is it objectionable to that? What am I doing wrong? I do not intend any vandalism but contribute to an article. The tag of vandalism is unfair and offensive. The WP:OWN is definately not true and also unfair. You too also do not own an article. A thorough explanation will be appreciated. Thank you

Saguamundi talk

I confess that there was a bad faith assumption by me about the revisions about the articles that you and others have made.

I confess that there was a bad faith assumption by me about the revisions about the articles that you and others have made. I am sorry for any misunderstandings and I confess that I did get carried away about these articles. (I am not even English, Argentine nor Hispanic, if you were curious about it - I am Iranian, a world away from those places and issues). I thought that putting the Falklands issue concerning the Argentine people is very important as a major source of Anglophobia, they are still very obsessed about it and arguing with them about it is physically dangerous for an outsider/foreigner (I am not kidding!), even though for political purposes, after their defeat in 1982, the government of Argentina is not playing the Falklands card any more. Their claim as you correctly pointed out is "frozen" if not abandoned.

Saguamundi talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC).

Falkland Islands - Argentine citizenship

You recently reverted a change that I made. I do not believe the edit was a POV issue. The way the article reads based on your edit is that native-born Falkland Islanders are merely eligible for Argentine citizenship. In reality, under Argentine law, native-born Falkland Islanders are automatically Argentine citizens at birth. The word "eligible" implies that there is some sort of voluntary action required (such as registration or naturalization). This is not the case under Argentine law; Argentine citizenship is conferred automatically and involuntarily at birth to native-born Falkland Islanders. The article clearly mentions "under Argentine law", so it is understood that whatever follows in that sentence is from an Argentine perspective. Therefore, I believe the article should be written to reflect what is fact (under Argentine law); the terms used in your edit are unnecessarily vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.245.141.29 (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your intro. to Wikipedia. I am actually quite familiar as I have been on for many years, and among other contributions, I actively correct mistakes that I find. Regarding your comment about the issue regarding the fact that citizenship cannot be involuntarily forced upon an individual, from a legal perspective, is completely incorrect. As a former U.S. consular officer (and one that has been assigned among other places to both the UK and Argentina without any bias to either one), I can assure you that virtually every country (if not every country) involuntarily grants citizenship according to the laws of each country. For instance, the United States primarily grants citizenship based on birth in the United States, under a principle called Ius Soli ("Law of the Soil"). With very limited exceptions for children of foreign diplomats, anyone born in the the United States is born on a U.S. citizen, regardless of the wishes of the individual (they may, however, subsequently renounce their citizenship). There have been court cases (notably by Puerto Ricans) who do not recognize U.S. sovereignty and claim they are not and were never citizens of the U.S. All of the challenges have failed. From a U.S. legal perspective, the person is a citizen regardless of the person's individual recognition of sovereignty. Another example of involuntary acquisition of citizenship could be taken from European countries, which generally employ a principle of Ius Sanguine ("Law of Blood"). Germany is a particularly good example. It is possible for someone born in the United States to a descendant of German origin may be a citizen of Germany at birth according to the laws of Germany. This could be true even if the German ancestor is, say, five generations removed and none of these U.S.-born descendants has ever been to Germany. The fact that such a person does not recognize his or her German nationality is completely irrelevant from a German law perspective. This person is a German citizen in the eyes of German law regardless of whether this person chooses to recognize it. In short, personal recognition is irrelevant to the involuntarily acquisition of nationality. Returning to the Argentine example, Argentina, like the United States, employs Ius Soli as its primary foundation of determining nationality. Any person born in Argentina is an Argentine citizen at birth (with the exception of children of diplomats) regardless of any other nationalities that may be acquired at birth and also regardless of any personal recognition. The acquisition of citizenship in this case is NOT voluntary. Argentina claims sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. It would be inconsistent with this sovereignty claim if Argentina's nationality law merely made those born on the Falkland Islands "eligible" for Argentine citizenship, and Argentine nationality law is clear in this regard: using your words, Argentine nationality is indeed forced on those individuals born in the Falkland Islands. Just because a Falkland Islander does not exercise activities generally associated with citizenship (such as obtaining a passport or voting in elections), such a person's citizenship would not cease. From an Argentine law perspective, the only way a Falkland Islander could be without Argentine citizenship is if the Falkland Islander voluntarily and formally renounced Argentine citizenship according to Argentine law. Since the Wikipedia article prefaces "under Argentine law...", I feel it is important to actually reflect the law, which is that Falkland Islanders are considered native-born Argentine citizens (which is actually important because Argentina distinguishes in many important aspects of the law between native-born and naturalized citizens) and not merely individuals eligible for citizenship.190.245.141.29 (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wee_Curry_Monster/Archive_4&oldid=1140117608"