User talk:Hcobb/Archives/2010/September

Anti Hindi
Either present day Anti-Hindi agitations‎ going on in Maharashra to be added in the same section of Anti-Hindi agitations or can be started as a special article to deal with all such agitations A Soosai Prakash (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. A pro-life website is not a reliable source. Scjessey (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ABC News is a pro-life website? At last the truth is out.  No wonder they were working so hard for Obama...  Hcobb (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Political positions of Barack Obama
Regarding your blunt and meaningless edit summary:"Providing refs rather than":

It is not my "job" to search for and provide citations for other editors edits. If an editor seems not able to provide any sources at all (and I'm not even bother to talk about RS's) there is no edit. That's it. Simple and no further questions to ask or needed. Got it? Best regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, ran out of field space on that one because some jerk picked a user ID that is way way too long. Hcobb (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your magnificent and delightful response. Some day you might learn how to make more space in the edit summary box in case you run into that "jerk" again. Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The best way is to delink his name, and/or shorten it, in the summary, then you'll have more space to write. You can also add an extra 50 characters in the Gadgets section of your preferences, under "User interface gadgets". Ask me if you need more help on that. - BillCJ (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yakovlev Yak-130
It might be best if you were to post a note on Talk:Yakovlev Yak-130, and add your references for the RoM's non-use of Russian planes there. Then at least there will be an easily-accessible record of the sources and the reasonings behind the removals. It's strange the things people like to add about certain countries. Turkey is quite popular for similar edits right now. Also, if Mexico had all the aircraft I've seen attributed to them in the last 3 years, they'd have a larger air force than the US, Russia, or PRC! (Possibly combined!) - BillCJ (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The ref is right there in Macedonian Air Force which is the most topical spot to discuss the aircraft they don't want. Hcobb (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but other editors will generally check the talk page first. It's the usual place to deal with matters direclty related to the article. As to why, probably because they can! - BillCJ (talk)

Welcome!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Roger Davies talk 16:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle off Samar
Thanks for catching that factual error. I didn't even notice that it said the Taffies were 3rd Fleet ships until I looked at the history... Magus732 (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

USCG Maritime Security Cutter, Large
Hello. I've converted your requested move of USCG Maritime Security Cutter, Large into a WP:Merge request. The destination page National Security Cutter already exists, and I assume you just want to move the content into that page, not replace it. If no one objects in a week or two and you need any help with the actual merger, just let me know. Station1 (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Hi there; I've volunteered to mediate a Mediation Cabal case with which you may be involved. Please read the mediator notes section on the case page or feel free to remove your name from the list of participants on said page. GrooveDog (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please keep your political commentary out of edit summaries from this point on. Here's a recent example:. Neither Gulf War was a "war on the people of Iraq," despite whatever propaganda you've chosen to accept as factual. Edit summaries are not the place for you to constantly insert your POV on a given subject. Thank you. ViperNerd (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

F-35
I did not mention a lift fan. However is there no place for what I posted (It also shows similar characteristics to the British Harrier (which the design is partially based around) for example; the single engine, single seat and vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) capabilities.)?

As this aircraft is going to replace the Harrier, and it does show similar characteristics.

Please contact me, thanks

Ryan, August 09 94.170.21.124 (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's talk about this on the F-35 talk page where I have already started a subheading. Hcobb (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

F-16
Thanks for pointing out that the F-16 is designed to be unstable and not for stealth. Apparently what I read, was somewhat of an overgeneralization, or I mis read it. Ti-30X (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a question here, and I think this is interesting. At Global Security.com, in the article F-22 Raptor Stealthit says "Radar absorbant materials, or RAM is applied sparingly on the F-22 airframe as opposed to the entire airframe on the F-117. This is because designers have incorporated curves on crucial surfaces and edges, which lessens the need for RAM." Yet on the first page of an article entitled Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings in the Washington post, you would think that the RAM coating covers the entire aircraft, and is dripping off the F-22, with oil pans to catch the excess underneath the wings (I exagerate a little to illustrate a point). What do you make of this incongruity? You can reply on my talk page, or here, and I will read it. Ti-30X (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference is between structural materials and paint. (The F-22's stealth depends on both.) Hcobb (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am getting the idea. I recall an article where the coating is first applied during manufacture anyway. From more reading I have been able to infer that the RAM is actually part of the metal skin, besides the small areas where coating is reapplied throughout its lifetime. But then you may have just wrote that above, in less words. OK thanks Ti-30X (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 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) 19:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

SR-71
Do you know if the SR-71 was actually thought of as a stealth aircraft? I am thinking the F-117 is the first actual stealth aircraft, in which, its mission was "stealth", along with its other duties, as an attack aircraft, etc., etc. Is this correct? Ti-30X (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Stealth was also an important element of the U-2 and SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft" - http://www.lockheedmartin.com/capabilities/air_power/stealth/index.html

But the F-117 was the first combat aircraft to actually complete (most) of its missions without being tracked on radar. Hcobb (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. You are very helpful. Ti-30X (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

F-117 merge?
I added some content to the Stealth aircraft article, in the " Background" section, because it was deemed off topic for the article I am working on. I was hoping you could check it out and see if it useful in this article, and if not you could place it where it is needed. It's the last editing addition, in this section. Ti-30X (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Stealth ships
I looked this up on Wikipedia. Very interesting. Thanks for pointing this out. Look, there appears to be some funny business going on with the editing, right now. I can't go into detail but I have reported it to an administrator, and another experienced Wikipedia editor. How about if I do a section on Stealth aircraft and another section on Stealth ships. I mean this is really good. This way, for one thing, there is not too much text in one section. Do you think this is reasonable? I appreciate your help so far. It has been invaluable. And to suggest that I put Stealth ships in this article, this tells me that you think highly of this article. Truthfully right now, I am honored. Ti-30X (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I was going to put your Wiki nickname in as an editor - author for the DYK nomination, as I did some of the other editors. It is just that when I finally realized that I wanted to do this the nomination had already been sent into the que, to be placed on the main page. I was too late. But the DYK nomination is yours as much as anyone else's, because your tips on stealth aircraft helped me. And the tip on the F-16 helped with my accuracy. Ti-30X (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok it looks like the funny business is over. So, I am hoping you like my proposal. Oh hey, maybe you wanted to do some writing on the stealth ships. Feel free. I can add the science after you do the write up. Just give some limitations to work with, please. Were you thinking along these lines? Believe me I wouldn't mind if someone else wrote this section. Well, let me know. I'll go ahead and open a section for stealth ships. Ti-30X (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open 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 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 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) 20:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 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) 00:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there
Your edit in Gaza War is better removed even if it point at an peculiar and bizarr circumstance. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

List of fighter aircraft
I don't understand why you have moved the JF-17 to "Under development". It is indeed undergoing further development, but it is also in production in China as well as Pakistan. The first 8 aircraft are referred to by the PAF as "small batch production" (SBP) and they are in service with the PAF. They have recently completed weapons integration. How can you argue an aircraft that is being operated by an air force is still under development? Then there's your edit summary stating the JF-17 is an "F-16 knock off" which is even more ridiculous, there is no basis for that whatsoever. Your edits are clearly not being written from a neutral point of view.--Hj108 (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you had new information (and links), the place to fix that up was in the aircraft's own page and not the general listing page. Hcobb (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't new information to anybody who reads the article properly. There are several sources to choose from in the Operators section. I've removed the "pre-production" wording from the intro since you seem to have used this as grounds for stating the aircraft is still under development, I'll tweak the infobox wording too.--Hj108 (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. List articles cannot be kept up to date if the subject articles falter.  Hcobb (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Eurocopter Tiger
What is your point when saying: Crews require extra training because the "workload can be very, very high"[5] on Eurocopter Tiger page?

The article you quote addresses more aspects of the helicopter than the fact that the crew has a lot to do. From your previous change on that page with a comment "Aussie's don't pay for what doesn't work", I sense that you do not approve of the Tiger. Which is fair enough, but I do not think that you make an impartial contribution here. --Christian Benesch (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Look in the history. It's an aircraft that isn't doing very much, but at least it has neatly whitewashed Wiki page.  Hcobb (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet somehow you think that it improves the page to leave irrelevant remarks? --Christian Benesch (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Workload kills aircrews. That's why the Americans are going to fifth gen fighters that reduce pilot workload.  This is only irrelevant if your aircrews are.  Hcobb (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't lecture me. The point is that your statement on this page is irrelevant. Your source does not make the conclusions you make. Just to leave a short sentence without context and with a lousy quote does not explain what problems there are, if any. If the Tiger is a failed machine, as you would like to portray, and which it well could be, then be a bit more verbose. Not only is your contribution biased, it does not make your point at all. I just do not believe you do your research very well, as your Australian DoD moan shows. --Christian Benesch (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 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) 18:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Babri Mosque Please Help
Thank you for making corrections to this article. I wrote the architectural section of the article which recently has been vandalised. My article had been there for four years withouth change and had stood the test of time. But then somebody keeps removing paragraphs. Please keep an eye on this work. I have restored it to the point 22:43, 26 November 2009 79.77.139.65 which are the last of my three edits. I have also put back a photograph of the Mosque. I do not get involved in the politics of the dispute, really I only write on architecture of old monuments both Jewish Hindu and Muslim in India and elsewhere. But as a architect i say again I only intrested in architecture of monuments. I would be very grateful if you can keep an eye on my article and revert to 22:43, 26 November 2009 79.77.139.65 which is the original for comparison. I originally wrote the article (architectural section) in 2006 and it keeps getting vandalised only recently as the Mosque has been in the Indian news. Of Course I welcome and would be very happy if the section was improved by a fellow wikipedian with an interest in architecture of religious monuments. 79.77.158.185 (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

AFD Notice
Just in case you've missed it: Articles for deletion/United States Naval Gunfire Support debate. - BilCat (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 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) 18:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User:RealFactsPLA
I've foundly found an issue where were on the same side! ;) Thanks for catching User:RealFactsPLA's edits, and reverting them. Sources are definitely needed to make the changes he's making. Frankly, between American guesses and PLA propoganda, I'd take the guesses everytime! Cited of course, and presented as guesses if that's what they are. I hope this isn't an example of the PLA trying to "correct" WP - a checkuser on this guy might be interesting! - BilCat (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 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) 03:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"NOT USEFUL"
Elaborate on that. I gave you links and even some photos. If you want more links I can give you more links.

And what exactly would you call a "reliable" source? A reliable source does not have to be hot-of-the-press comments by the government. Some of these are internet news articles that have been published over and over again. How much more "reliable" can that be?

You listed Sinodefence.com as a reliable source. It is actually run by a group of civilian volunteers in Britain.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by TomahawkHunter (talk • contribs) 06:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Original research and trolling
Please stop inserting original research into the Sukhoi PAK FA article like you did with this edit and numerous others in the past. You've already been warned on the talk page of the article by another user about trolling, and given your edit history, I have no doubt that you know what you're doing is disruptive and against wiki policy. Thanks. LokiiT (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 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) 03:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
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 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 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) 22:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Silent Eagle
Umm, I thought the 15Es are being upgraded from APG-82 from 70. It already has a functional AESA. Mind clearifying that?--Ao333 (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The APG-63 and APG-70 "X-band pulse-doppler radar" if the 82 is already operational then state so on the Strike Eagle page and even with that the F-15E will still lack full fly by wire so flunks the 4.5th checklist. Hcobb (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you read the definition on http://opencrs.com/document/RL33543/, it clearly states "... the term '4.5 generation fighter aircraft' means current fighter aircraft, including the F-15, f-16, and F-18 that 1) have advanced capabilities, including A)AESA radar; B)high capacity data-link; and C) enhanced avionics; and D) have the ability to deploy current and reasonably foreseeable advanced armaments." It didn't specify FBW or even the FCS.--Ao333 (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 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) 21:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 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) 19:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Supermaneuverability
Just a quick note to let you know that I removed the speedy deletion template you placed on Supermaneuverability because. Original research is specifically not a valid reason for speedy deletion. AfD looks appropriate though.

Please be aware that is normally inappropriate re-add a speedy deletion template when another editor (other than the creator of the article) has removed it, because speedy deletion is only for uncontroversial deletions. If you believe the article still needs to be deleted, please consider WP:PROD or WP:AFD which can be used for deletions which are not covered by the speedy deletion criteria.

I am not an administrator and I do not have any special authority in this matter. If you feel that I have made a mistake, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thparkth (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 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) 21:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I have removed a sentence you added to the article, see talk page for more information. - EdoDodo  talk 14:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Air Force Portal Administrator
I am looking for an editor or editors to take over administration of the US Air Force Portal. If you think you might be interested please see the Portal Administration section on the talk page to see what is involved and comment there if you’re interested or have any questions.Ndunruh (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

F/A-XX
I'm thinking the F/A-XX listing should be removed from the List of fighter aircraft article primarily because it violates WP:Crystal Ball. If the specifications/requirements for the type haven't even been defined and we can't confirm that the aircraft is even being actively developed, it seems a little premature to list the plane. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Vedant (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of aircraft on that page that simply do not exist and might not ever exist. For example the Silent Eagle.  Hcobb (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * True but Boeing has released a picture of the actual model of the aircraft. In addition, there are interested buyers and we know a fair bit more about the Silent Eagle than we do about the F/A-XX which to date remains in obscurity (perhaps intentionally). Vedant (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I'm not related to the individual who removed the listing from the page. Vedant (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II edits
I know they are all AGF edits, but your submissions invariably lead to a lot of cleanup by other editors. Please note the author, url (you seem to only have electronic resources), title, publisher, date of publishing and date of retrieval for all citations. FWiW, it only takes a moment more but it makes a difference. Bzuk (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC).

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please see above note. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC).


 * That's an odd template dump, given that I was reedited, not reverted. Hcobb (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting that there needs to be some care in simply putting in urls or less-than-complete references. The note was simply to get your attention. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Israeli Settlements
Don't you think your recent addition is a case of recentism? They are in very early peacetalks right now, and these things could change. I would support leaving it for now if you keep on top of developments and change the material if things change. Answer here, I will watch your talk page. Best wishes, ValenShephard (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If it was not a comment from a senior minister in the Israeli government I would not consider it noteworthy. Hcobb (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But is that decision official policy or just an idea on the table? ValenShephard (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is clearly noted as being the opinion of one of the most important members of the government on one of the highest priority items of the state. Hcobb (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dont be defensive, I am not trying to be hostile. I think it is too recent to add to the article. It is like news, its a piece of news that just came in, could easily change, and may never have been permanent in the first place. Do you know about recentism? ValenShephard (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The only way this could change would be if he issued a retraction. And that would be noteworthy. Hcobb (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually liked the addition... I just wanted to be sure. ValenShephard (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Gibson
I've moved this to Shimon Gibson to meet our MOS at WP:CREDENTIAL. Also, have you read MOS:BIO. Glad you started this one. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
Thanks for finding a replacment ref for the "blacklisted" one - very strange! - BilCat (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

REFERENCES!!
Please start formatting your references properly; I know you can do it and it just makes for more work, following up and cleaning up afterward. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't recall interacting with any of these candidates. This may be because I'm more current military than history. Hcobb (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

REFERENCES!!!
If you wish to try and argue that the VVS has 7,000 aircraft when the IISS in 2009 said est. 4000 with 1,743 combat capable, you are gonig to have to find some extremely good references. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)