User talk:Flayer/before January 2012

IAF Gallery
I wanted to added the photos of WW2 area aircraft with the IAF since it is hard to find photos of them on the net. I thought that a gallery would work since there was not much room to put them in the right spot without looking off. If the gallery does not work then what would might be better? Articseahorse (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Until very recently the article was overcrowded by photos, it wouldn't be wise to fill it with photos again. If you are specifically interested in photos of WW2 era aircraft with the IAF, I would suggest you to place them in History of the Israeli Air Force article in some way. But only the very best of them. Flayer (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: GA Review Request
Unfortunately, I'm up to my eyeballs in lab work at the moment. If no one's picked it up by Saturday or so, then sure. Cam (Chat) 23:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello I read Arrow article its good. I tried to put Under review templet But I was not able to do it because Beta Labs was updating its software. I'll do it again on tommrow night.(Busy with my Engg collage)-- Suyog talk to me!  15:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Israeli air force size
Hi,

I just wanted to inform you that the INSS don't have serious mistakes, surely not when compared with other sources and as it's recent report of an official source it make the best source avialble to us at the moment. We may include in the infobox range of the different estimations (e.g., from 200[1] to 200,000[23]) but not to present information that is based on original research. As for decommissioned air-crafts, I know for sure that there is an active F-4E squardon -but thats take us into the original research area again.--Gilisa (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well noticed, all public intelligence reports include bullshit, except for rare cases. Let's go on the range solution. Cheers, --Gilisa (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem with the table at the moment, but notice that it represent very conservative estimations, probably underestimations, for the Israeli F-16's numbers. (I'm basing it on various information sources, including data on deliveries from USA, crashed air crafts and etc).--Gilisa (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's for sure, the son of late Ilan Ramon was killed in the crash of one of the first F-16's Israel recived and that participated in Operation Opera. The Israeli maintenance management is based on expiration/ operational period of at the least 25 years at the least. Still, even this time passed, no F-16's were taken out of service because of obsolescence-as the F-4E, the aged F-16's were extensively upgraded.--Gilisa (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I never heard about cannibalization in the context of F-16 overhaul in Israel. What more that to renovate the aged F-16's  by cannibalization you realy have to take parts from almost one third of the Israeli F-16 reserve. As I know few things on the IAF, I assume that they just bought many of these parts from the American Army overplus and the rest from the Israeli Air Industry that produce many parts of the F-16 under license.--Gilisa (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

רעיון לא רע ידידי, רק למה לא אמרת שאתה יודע עברית?--Gilisa (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

סבבה :)--Gilisa (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

very nice photo of the aerobatic team - much better than the one I found! Millmoss (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English.  When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments.  For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.   Edison (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

wikicommons
How do I do that? Millmoss (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Operators of Spike atgm.png
File:Operators of Spike atgm.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Operators of Spike atgm.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

GA for EL/M-2080 Green Pine on hold
I have placed the GA nomination of EL/M-2080 Green Pine on hold, awaiting improvements and expansion. Offliner (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving of pages
Hi there. I was wondering what your rationale was for the moving of Aeronautics Defense Dominator to Aeronautics Dominator? Talk page consensus had decided on the former name. Thanks. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ababil Drone picture
Thanks for the save, good that some people appreciate the effort. Bachcell (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No Sandcat entry on he.wikipedia
Do you want to have a go at writing http://he.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=סנד_קט&action=edit&redlink=1 ? Dino246 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ma Kore?
Why do you insist to make the Israeli Air Force smaller than it's?;)--Gilisa (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the wrong approach. I noticed this method of yours described before, and that's why I asked it. I don't insist to make the IAF larger than it's. There are sources counting aircrafts that were taken out of service and if I want to draw the wrong immpression then I would used them. Some sources suggest the IAF have more than 1000 aircrafts in service-we clearly shouldn't use them. Anyway, as for the Cobras, the IAF is still not taking those out of service. Do you have source that specifically say so? I'm not asking just to confront you, I'm realy asking. I believe that the number of Cobras is larger than 50, but as we have your source which state a smaller number and mine which state a larger number and both are RS, we are not allowed to make OR and to chose the one seems to us more without a reason we can source very very well by itself. I would suggest to use 33 -54 to be a good solution. Also, as for the AH-64, indeed I noticed the well seen underestimation, many times I heared IAF officials say that Israel recived more than 50 or 70 AH-64. So either I missed something or that the sources are poor. --Gilisa (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's good when you source it, as with every thing here on wikipedia. But this is not the case, you removed my source and prefered your source without indicating adequate reason for doing that so far. I suggest to add mine to yours and put the number on 33-54. Face that you don't have a clear and cut information about the number of active Cobras in the IAF--Gilisa (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't change anything that your source is newer, the sources seem to be in fundamental contradiction which is not a matter of date. If one source say 54 and another 33, then if you want only the lower estimation to be included in the article you have to carry the burden of evidence by presenting third RS which explain that the number declined from 54 to 33 by the very short time dividing between the time of publication of your source and of mine. You obviously have no such source, so I suggest, and my suggestion is more in line with Wikipedia guidelines, that you include both estimations. My source also indicates larger number of AH-64 so you may use it the same way there. --Gilisa (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Spike (missile), please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 12:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Spike (missile). Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 13:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have nothing against you, I sincerely just want you to be more cautious when conducting edits, particularly with citing references and WP:ES during such process. Take heed. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 13:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

August, 2010
Hi. Are we talking about the the same weapon? Because this is an automated item while the one that I added was about a remote-contolled item with a playStation-style joystick Userpd (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the only weapon there is a remote-controlled weapon station. It may detect targets automatically by sensors, but it doesn't shoot automatically. Flayer (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

with all due respect flayer im not vandilising anything you have stated bias information that you did not check to see if is true or not the isreali and sla casualties during the 1982-2000 conflict was by far more than 500 soldiers the average number of idf soldiers killed annualy was 24 which resulted in 1200 or more killed during the 18 year conflict and the sla sufferd major blows including 1500 sla members killed which you have failed to write down i have taken my numbers from diffrent sources that i believe to be correct but saying that only around 500 died is completley incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor keith donald (talk • contribs) 21:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

IAF squadrons
excellent work! Poliocretes (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate it! Flayer (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyrights
Hi Natan! I was wondering about the shoulder tags (e.g. Central Command) that you uploaded. They are copyrighted and belong to the state, AFAIK. Is there any indication that they are under a free license? If yes, please let me know and I will be overjoyed as it will allow the upload of dozens of tags. If not, then they should be deleted. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 16:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, they should be deleted. The Northern Command tag actually doesn't say that it's under a free license, and there is no indication that they are. However, if someone can prove that the images were first published before 1958 1959, it is possible to re-upload them. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 17:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I nominated the image for deletion because it's almost certainly copyrighted and the uploader is certainly not the copyright holder. If evidence can be presented that the image was published by the State before 1958 (making it PD), I'll gladly remove the nomination. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 19:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He almost certainly did, but you can't take a photo of something and claim that you are the copyright holder. If a copyrighted work happens to be in a broader photograph, then it is protected by the freedom of panorama (valid in both USA and Israel, but not in France, for example). However, if you take a picture that focuses on a copyrighted object, then the copyright holder is the one who holds the copyright for the object being photographed (it is considered a derivative work). If that wasn't the case, then I'd have made vector images of every single unit tag a long time ago. Anyway, as you probably know, the copyright of anything published by the State of Israel before 2008 expires on January 1 of the 51st year. The law in Israel can be found here. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A few of them are free, but most seem to be copyrighted. Thanks for letting me know though, there's an image I made there a few years back when I didn't know too much about copyrights! I will nominate it for speedy deletion. In any case, unfortunately I don't have time to go around Commons tagging all the copyrighted images, and someone should. However, what we really need is a trustworthy expert on IDF insignia who can pinpoint the years when each of these symbols were created and show evidence for those that were published before 1959. Many IDF units go way back and my paranoia over some of them might be for nothing. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 19:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Two more things you might want to know about:


 * 1) Israeli law has a "loophole" which allows anyone to reproduce those images which are permanently located in a public place (e.g. statues). For example, the municipal logo publicly displayed here makes this image free. While military bases don't count as public places, many IDF unit logos are permanently displayed just outside of bases. I am not sure this law applies if only photos of them are located in public places (not physical representations like the example above), but if you can provide examples of such occurrences, I can take them to one of Hebrew Wikipedia's resident lawyers for verification.
 * 2) You might like these images—all clean and resizable.
 * —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Crystal ball?
A  s of October 2010 Rich Farmbrough, 07:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Just a typo. :) Flayer (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

IAF Photos
Hi Flayer,

We need to do something about the images on the IAF page. I saw that you replaced the excellent photo I put in with another one because of the size. I think that is a mistake. What we should be doing is reducing the number of photos on the page, not give up on the good ones. First of all, the page looks really bad. There's just too many photos. Second, there are some really excellent photos in there (such as the F-15I, F-16Is, B-17, meteor), right besides rather poor photos (like the Bell-206, A-4, F-4, CH-53). The overall effect is bad.

We need to cull the images, remove the poor and unimportant ones, not give up on good ones simply because they are large. There no reason to have each and every active type in there. The text is the important stuff, the pictures should augment it, not take over the article. Let me know what you think, perhaps on the article talk page if you think more input is necessary. Poliocretes (talk)


 * I don't see how you can use the word uniformity to describe what's going on in that page. Photos should be used to augment the text, as decoration, not to insert additional information beyond that covered in the text. Most of the text deals with IAF history, yet it is crammed with multiple photos which are of little relevance. The first sections are ok, they show the historically important types, using good photos. But then it moves on to a point where practically every single modern type is depicted, sometimes using really poor photos - the Bell 206 is out of focus, the F-4 is cropped, etc. Take a look at United States Air Force. It has fewer images and every single image in there is great. The photos augment the text, they don't distract from it, and most are in the section directly relevent to them - the inventory.


 * Have you seen what the article looks like on a wide screen? It look awful. We need to use far fewer images, and every one of them should be top quality. We've got them, it is wrong to discard excellent photos in order to flood the article with unnecessary pictures of every type flying today. We don't need to force in a Lavi, we don't need two F-16Is, and we don't need an F-16B, a Nachshon, a poor CH-53, a poor A-4, as well as several others. Styling the article would indeed be a move forward, but there are so many photos in there that you're just as likely to distort the text rather than improve it. Poliocretes (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced, but I would not revert your edits. Flayer (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I'll start by creating another version of the article in one of my sandboxes, we can take it from there. Poliocretes (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Good idea! Flayer (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Flayer, I went a head and made quite a few changes to the IAF page in one of my sandboxes. You can see it at User:Poliocretes/Sandbox2. These changes include:
 * New a "mission statement" section
 * A new History of the Israeli Air Force page (right now at User:Poliocretes/History of the Israeli Air Force, which means I condensed the history section to the bare essentials.
 * I removed the weapons and missile section of the article and put it in a dedicated page with a link from the original (right now at User:Poliocretes/Munitions of the Israeli Air Force)
 * Less, a lot less, photos, and only good ones.
 * Reorganized the units section - removed the cumbersome graphic, removed red links from non-existing article, split the organization list into two for better appearance, removed squadron equipment from organization list (too much information, it looked like a mess)
 * Expanded the training section into Personel and added ranks
 * Created a new Israeli Air Force template (look at the bottom of the page, I haven't put it on a template page yet). This means that I will also remove the air bases and special units section from the air force squadrons template.
 * lots of links and references maintenance work

Anyway, since I'm almost done, please let me know what you think before I publish everything. Poliocretes (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks wonderful! There are two things I wish to stress:


 * The 'Future' section should not contain images (just as 'Current'). The images ruin the tables in some screen resolutions.
 * The overall feeling is excellent! Well done! Flayer (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I went ahead and made all the changes. I've also moved the image from the image section and added the orbat image, as you suggested. Poliocretes (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well! Flayer (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Pargo
The status of Pargo on Maccabi TA is unclear to me. He is still listed on the team website, but see this. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * His status is unclear indeed. We may note this. Flayer (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

AH-64 Peten

 * Relax, Bill got it covered and I've also corrected some obvious discrepancies in the content. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If I may ask you a question, since you are a native speaker of Hebrew, how is it that the word "פתן" can be interpreted as Viper, Adder and Cobra at the same time? Especially so when the word "צפע" means Viper... am I missing something? Please reply as I hope you can help to clarify this for me, thanks and best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It happens many times with biblical words. Clearly פתן is a kind of poisonous snake, but what kind of snake? Obviously, one the species the ancient Hebrews knew. Now, "cobra" in modern Hebrew sounds the same - קוברה. Black Cobra (Walterinnesia aegyptia) in Hebrew - פתן שחור, literally - "black peten". I would not insist that viper is the correct translation of פתן, it's just funny that we call AH-1 "Cobra" Tzefa צפע (viper), and AH-64A "Peten" פתן (cobra). Flayer (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, according to my Israeli contact in my previous employment as an Air Force crew chief, although the AH-1 is called a Cobra, it doesn't look like one but its speed and agility is what prompted the Israelis to named it as the Viper instead. As for the AH-64A, the frontal view of the helicopter when it pitches up gave the impression of a Cobra's erected posture and its prominent hood, hence the name. Also, I've seen other sources stating that "Peten" erroneously referring to the Mamba but they forgot that it doesn't live in Israel! Hey, speak to me sometimes when you have problem, don't edit war with us when we can discuss things together like what we're doing right now, alright? Thanks and best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you know? A funny thing it would seem that I didn't noticed this but if you had read Lightweight Fighter program, you would have noticed that the Northrop YF-17 was nicknamed the Cobra and that the competing General Dynamics F-16 was eventually nicknamed Viper. Things always have a way of coming a full circle, it seems. Cheers and best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. :)

AH-64 A vs. D


Hi Flayer, the image on the right is most definitely a Saraph and not a Peten. The lack of a radome is insufficient to identify it as an A model since the radar can be removed, and often is (see this Dutch AH-64D for instance). The rotor top of an AH-64A is quite different, with what looks like a sharp stick. The fact that it's a Hornet squadron bird also indicates it's a Saraph. Poliocretes (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know about the rotor top. Flayer (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Polio, what you're saying is exactly what I've stated in the note section of Boeing AH-64 Apache for that photo, I maybe a retired Air force crew chief but I can still tell you guys the difference between the two models. Cheers~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ну может хватит в незнакомом разделе статьи массово переименовывать
Обсуждать отказываетесь, в работе не видно чтобы участвовали, откуда вы там можете что-то знать, это непонятно. В английском-то вы тоже не очень. Объясняю: IAI Harop - это английская грамматика, буквально IAI-вский Harop. К чему пропихивать в русский раздел сами не знаете что, это непонятно абсолютно.Longbowman (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User:Dave1185, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)