User talk:BadWolf42

SHAR's performance at Falklands War

Thks!, it is more clear and shows more neutrality now. Jor70 12:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I know the Argentine pilots often mention the Sidewinder-lima and Thatcher talked it up to keep the Americans on-side, but I suspect this is similar to every German fighter pilot being downed by a Spitifre, instead of the (more likely in real life) Hurricaine. ;)

Most of the engagements were clear tail-shots anyway, and at least two were with guns, including the Pucara who's pilot survived and later went on to act as a much needed interpreter for the POWs.

There can be no doubt as to the bravery and integrity of the pilots of the Argentinian FAA (note you always have to point out which FAA you're referring to as the Sea Harriers were FAA too).

thks, I appreciate it. I'm not against the SHar, of course is a noble aircraft, but I recognize I'm a little contrary about it due all the British bibliography, specially those that come out at the 80s mentioning as a fantastic and invincible. In any case they mention that they fought against planes without RWR, without radar control, without fuel to engage and finally without any capable AAM. Of course is a long discussion and probably the same could be say about Sirian pilots over Bekka :-)

Ascention to Falklands an--BadWolf42 13:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)d the record being broken

Hi BadWolf42.
I don't think the USAF B-2 Spirit long-range bombing record during the Gulf War was a memorable record. USAF had friendly bases in Saudi Arabia so the range was self-inflicted. Furthermore several tankers, launched from Europe and the Middle East met the B-2's. The Black Buck missions were memorable, because the nearest friendly base was the Ascension Island, and all the tankers had to fly all the way from the Ascension Island too.
The B-2 record was like eating 30 eggs in a minute; a record, but not a necessary record.
By the way; B-2s debut was during the Kosovo War in 1999, so don't you mean the 50 hours mission in Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2003??. In Afghanistan, the aircraft landed at Diego Garcia, so the USA range was self-inflicted. Regards Necessary Evil 12:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I thought it was in '91 the record fell, perhaps it wasn't B2s. I'll do some checking.

You're right that the Vulcan's feat is more impressive, which is why the record is mentioned, but since we're writing an encyclopedia it seems sensible to mention the manner in which that record was broken, if anything to highlight what was needed to surpass it.

Cheers. --BadWolf42 13:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My error -- turns out they were B52s.--BadWolf42 13:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British spelling

Hey, thanks for reporting your problem with the British form being corrected. Your comments were copied there and I fixed it =D. User:Mboverload/RegExTypoFix#.22Despatch.22_and_variants. Anyway, if you're interested you can see the whole list and look for other errors. Anyway, thanks for recognising the problem! --mboverload @ 11:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reacting so fast and changing the program. It looks an excellent tool. :-) --BadWolf42 13:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate names for Falklands War

BadWolf, your rcent edits are not what is agreed.--Vintagekits 12:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's been agreed, however this proposal has had some backing. Other suggestions have wanted the original changed anyway, but to something bizzare. This is, at least, internationally recognised, isn't in a foreign language and is a suitable compromise between what I want (no Spanish reference, same logic as displayed here) and including Las Malvinas. --BadWolf42 12:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Orbiter-mir.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Orbiter-mir.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 18:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Orbiter-ariane5.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Orbiter-ariane5.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands War

[1][2][3] I think you'll find that most of the low level release of bombs in the Falklands War used retarders. Justin talk 09:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, both Mike Clapp and Sandy Woodward's books are quite quite explicit. Retarded bombs' fuses would have been perfectly adequate below 500'. Free fall bombs wouldn't. It's very simple.BadWolf42 15:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked this out with a colleague of mine, who is an EOD specialist. The bomb that sank Antelope was a Mk17 1000 lb bomb, fitted with the 117 tail and a 951 fuze. Attacking at low level with a free fall bomb is suicidal, those references are wrong. Both are naval officers with little knowledge of the technology. Justin talk 20:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit war over this, it would be good manners to respect the fact that I have some expertise in this area and I took the time to dicuss this with you first. Justin talk 20:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, noticed this discussion (I watch the Falklands War article). I am inclined to agree with Justin, because he's generally right about this sort of thing, but also when considering Justin's conduct in the past, I don't believe he would pursue a point unless he was correct and by "correct" I mean "having evidence". Now I see what you mean about the books, but the problem with Falklands books is that most of them were written just after the war (not allowing time for post-war debriefing, which is still going on today) and that they're all inconsistent with each other over the minor details. This is meant to sound friendly by the way, us Falklands editors have got to stick together, I remember u were the guy who did the good work with the "AAF" abbreviation. :) Ryan4314 (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't follow. Every book written, re-released and revised by the commanders of the day are consistent and point out that retarding devices had to be improvised later in the conflict. The whole reason for the fuses *not* arming is that they *were* free-fall bombs and that's *why* they didn't arm. It *would* have caught the planes. The whole paragraph has been mangled beyond comprehension by the various bits of minuteae and misinformation. The sentence before and the paragraph after are now both contradictory. I give up. --BadWolf42 10:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Orbiter-ariane5.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Orbiter-ariane5.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [4], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Orbiter-ariane5.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]