User talk:Ryan4314

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
Jan 07 - Dec 07

Jan 08 - Mar 08

Apr 08 -


Contents

[edit] GA

Yeah, it's my first :) Yours too? I'd review it, but I'm trying to learn how. It's good that since you don't want to focus on the meta stuff, you are able to work on articles. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 15:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cardiff

Don't quite remember how I came to be there actually, probably from the Falklands War article, or maybe talk MILHIST, or maybe from Good Article Nominees David Underdown (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest you first inform yourself (or at least use the talk page) before actually delete something ?? [1] --Jor70 (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The plural of Hercules

is C-130s. :) HausTalk 19:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Or Fat Alberts, as opposed to Fat Albert
ALR (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Look! There goes a Hercules! Look! There's another one! Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL, this is the biggest response I've had to a question... ever ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: HMS Cardiff - LOCE

I will do some copy editing on the article soon, a few questions first about things I found unclear:
1) 'She was launched on 22 February 1974, by Lady Caroline Gilmore and commissioned on 24 September 1979' what did she do during this time?
2) Does to the Falklands war and the Gulf war sections need to have the dates by them (were there 2 wars of the Falklands?)
3) 'Cardiff's arrival in the Total Exclusion Zone (TEZ) on 26 May, allowed a damaged HMS Glasgow to return home for repairs.' you might explain where/how Glasgow was damaged?
4) 'Since the Gulf War, Cardiff's deployments have included a deployment with the Standing Naval Force Mediterranean' you might add a sentence explaining what the 'Standing Naval Force Mediterranean' is.
5) 'Cardiff underwent a further period of maintenance' what is maintenance? (I mean is it repairs, training or what?)
6) 'After taking part in the multi-national biennial exercise Bright Star' What is the 'multi-national biennial exercise Bright Star'?
7) What does the 2nd paragraph in the Gulf War section have to do with Cardiff?
These questions I'm afraid display my frightful ignorance of this period of history, but I think it is better to verge on explaining too much than leaving the reader confused. :) Harland1 (t/c) 19:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Saw this and posted a couple of answers on Harland's talk page. Justin talk 20:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks here are my answers
4) You should be consistent if you feel a link is enough then you should take out all the comments in brackets in the second paragraph in the Falklands section which make it very hard to understand.
5) Yes I think if you can't find out what it is you should drop it as it only confuses the reader
6) I want this to be put in the article, just a sentence would be fine.
Thanks, Harland1 (t/c) 09:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
One more thing: 'In November Cardiff became the first Royal Navy ship to enter the Lebanese capital of Beirut for 27 years' November of what year? (1995 possibly but mayhap not?) Harland1 (t/c) 09:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No I just mean explanations. Harland1 (t/c) 09:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah that's fine I'll do some work on it later today probably but I am very busy at the moment, I got back from holiday yesterday, so it may have to wait till tomorrow, but yes I definitely will do it. Harland1 (t/c) 10:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mirages

According to Freedman's Official History of the Falklands Campaign, the attack on 13 June was by Daggers not by Mirage III. Externally they're virtually identical so it would be an easy mistake to make. I don't have much information on the activities of the 707 but I've an Argentine friend who might know. I'll get back to you. Justin talk 11:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I see, I think its a case of mistaken identity then. Freedman is notoriously anal for checking his facts, misidentification was common during the war leading to all sorts of errors in the books published immediately post conflict Justin talk 11:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Freedman doesn't name his source unfortunately, it was actually a flight of four Daggers not three. These engagements could get very confusing as the formations were broken up. The Mirage did have a rocket pod but I'm not sure that the Argentines used it. I'll check. As far as I know the Mirages weren't flying over the Falklands at this time. Justin talk 12:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
My information on the Argentine Air Force in 1982 indicates that only the MB339 and Pucara had rocket pods. They weren't used on the fast jets. Justin talk 19:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Three F-5 Dagger, callsign "Gaucho", armed with BRP bombs[1]. Mission: hillside Mount Longdon. Crew (1) Captain Norberto Dimeglio, (2) First Lieutenant Cesar Roman, (3) Lieutenant Gustavo Aguirre (the latter did not take off due to brake failure). 1 and 2 took off from Rio Gallegos at 11:00. En route, the rain forced them to abort[2]

Near the islands, they saw a helicopter flying at low altitude. The dropped external stores[3] and attacked. The helicopter pilot conducted evasive maneuvers and evaded two attacks by the Daggers with cannon. (It was the Sea Lynx XZ 233 - pilot Lt.. CH Clayton, from the frigate Cardiff operating in Falkland Sound). They returned to GAL, landing at 13:00 hours.

I think the next bit says something like (but not 100% sure):

Mission called for 6 Dagger from Rio Grande escorted by Mirage M-III from Rio Gallegos.

BTW Estrecho de San Carlos is Falkland Sound and not San Carlos bay. Justin talk 11:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Spanish slick/retarded bombs
  2. ^ (I presume from assigned mission)
  3. ^ presumably dropping stores to improve air combat manoeuvrability

The first mission was shortly after 11 am, three MV Dagger to bomb the foot of Mount Longdon. One of them had to return immediately following problems with the landing gear. The other two, when they arrived in the islands, met a helicopter of a radar picket and three Harrier aircraft, which meant the element of surprise was lost, they returned to their base. The second was in principle identical to the first (curiously, there were the three members of the squadron "lathe" that on the May 1 conducted the first attack on the English fleet). One of them was unable to take off due to mechanical problems and the other two, captain and first lieutenant Dimeglio Roman met a patrol helicopter, which they attacked, but once again had to abort the mission.

I've assumed fiota was a typo for flota, which means fleet. Justin talk 07:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just about to load a couple of pics. I've looked at Morgan for 13 June but I can't see mention of three Harriers. Were you thinking of the near blue-on-blue on June 12? Justin talk 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
OK they're not mentioned, Morgan considered the 13th a "quiet day" from an air defence perspective. Justin talk 21:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The other thing you might consider is Sharkey Ward's book but I don't have a copy. It could be they were from Invincible rather than Hermes. I did check with a mate who was deployed in 1982 and he doesn't recall any sightings of Daggers by Harriers on 13th June. Justin talk 21:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Possibly they were GR.3 but checking several sources I can't find a British reference to this particular attack. It could be they spotted Harriers but in turn were not spotted. a) Blue Fox performance over land was pants and b) GR.3 and SHAR relied on visual search over land so it is possible the Argentine pilots spotted the Harriers but in turn were not detected. Justin talk 22:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL there is more than a grain of truth in that version. Justin talk 22:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of HMS Cardiff (D108)

The article HMS Cardiff (D108) you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:HMS Cardiff (D108) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Million_Moments (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar
Congratulations on getting your article up to GA! Keep up the good work! Justin(Gmail?)(u) 17:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Well done. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Cannon was done with the help of these guys. My GA is our next goal to FA. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 02:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Argentine 707

Apparently they only had the one, Freedman/Gamba-Stonehouse, Signals of War and Argentine air forces in the Falklands War. Justin talk 23:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See what you mean about that source, although TC-91 could be a typo. Justin talk 23:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like they were wrong, there were 3 707 in-service [2]. Justin talk 23:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
TC-91, TC-92 and TC-93 [3] Justin talk 23:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry just off to bed, I can check out your email tomorrow. Justin talk 23:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cardiff

I wasn't involved in Cardiffs participation, but I have been involved in a number of USN experimentation exercises in different ways. They're generally quite interesting, and have now ramped up to a more joint approach. We tend to run the UK end out of dstl Portsdown Hill.

ALR (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Found some pics of Tiger Bay in 1982, whilst in Argentine service in Stanley. Any use? Justin talk 21:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Minor point the Type 42 were fitted with the DS30B, mounting a 30mm KCB cannon - not the Oerlikon. It wasn't removed when they fitted Phalanx. At least that was the case a few years ago. Justin talk 13:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Linky [4] Justin talk 13:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You might need to get back to Ken. The pictures shows a GCM-A03, which has two 30 mm cannon (BMARC from memory but they went bust years ago). Last time I worked on the Type 42, they had a Phalanx Block 1B and a DS30B with a single 30 mm KCB cannon on each side but that was about 4 years ago. I vaguely remember the BMARC were replaced by the DS30B when Phalanx were fitted. Justin talk 15:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ATBE

Hi Ryan, thanks for the question. Could be "All Things Being Equal" or possibly "Average Time Between Edits" depending on context. Where did you see it? Dreadstar † 15:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, the chart, yes, that's "Average Time Between Edits". You can check edit statistics with this tool. Select the project (e.g. en.wikipedia) then put the page name in and click the search button. Check it out, it's a cool tool. Dreadstar † 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-class review for HMS Cardiff

Hi. I've just opsted my thoughts on the state of the HMS Cardiff article, and will freely admit that I'm pretty tough and nitpicky.

To show my intentions as good, I humbly request permission to go to town on the article, and see what I can do to nullify my complaints and get the good ship to A-class and beyond. -- saberwyn 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough on the slow reply, I don't expect anyone to be sitting in the Wiki 25/8.
I will say that the edits you've made over the past few hours have really improved the quality of the article. Also, I don understand the effort you've put into this... I know from experience how hard dragging an article to FAC is, and I don't want to steal any of your thunder. Instead of messing with the article itself, I've been working in my userspace on some tweaks, mostly phrasing, layout, and some MOS fixes (see User:Saberwyn/The Slab/HMS Cardiff-Saberwyn goes to town). Feel free to run through there and steal whatever you think is worth anything.
During my work, I noticed a few minor things you may want to look into.
  • There is a little bit of excessive wikilinking - links to topics that aren't really relevant to the reader. For example, in the Falklands War paragraph, you currently have. "Cardiff's crew performed various training exercises such as; air defence (involving simulated attacks by British Harrier and Jaguar aircraft), Nuclear Biological Chemical Defence (NBCD) drills, diver training, first aid lectures and practising Exocet (a type of anti-ship missile) countermeasures." From that, I'd probably remove the first-aid and frogman links, as Average Joe Reader is very likely to have a basic enough understanding of these subjects to not need direction to an article, and increased knowledge of the subject is not going to aid the understanding of the ship's history. To prove the flip-side, Average Joe Reader likely knows very little about Harriers, Jaguars, and Exocets, and being able to better understand those will lead to increased understaning of this article. You may also want to have a read through Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context
  • Putting in explanatory material in brackets breaks the flow of the article, and in several cases isn't necessary. Instead, it can usually be easily worked into the text, or omitted entirely. To use the above example, the break for the Exocet explanation can be rewritten as "practising countermeasures against Exocet anti-ship missiles." The sentance flows better, takes up less space and fewer words, and if the reader needs more info, there's a handy wikilink there for them. Later in that paragraph, you've got "...four SAS troopers (British Special Forces)..." You could get away with omitting that entirely, or by spelling out and wikilinking Special Air Service, because the wikilink and the surrounding context establish that these four soldiers are pretty special (for those few that don't know that SAS is short for Elite AwesomenessTM)
  • There may be an excess of citations as well. I will admit here and now that I haven't looked at all of the cites (my boss is happy for me to muck around on Wikipedia, but is somehow less happy if I'm 'just bumming online'), but I think its a bit over the top in some parts. Example: the last line of the Fa;klands War paragraph talks about new anti-missile weapons for Cardiff. There are three citations for "later replaced by the Phalanx close-in weapon system." I've managed to look at all three, and all you need there is the first, which states that "the Phalanx CIWS replaced the 30mm cannons".
I might have some more stuff you may want to look at later, but we'll see how things go. If you need to talk to me at any time (i.e if you have questions, rebuttals, abuse, etc for me), buzz me. 137.111.143.135 (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
And next time, I might actually sign in to reply. Sorry. -- saberwyn 00:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Glad you approve. I usually play around with Royal Australian Navy ships, but its good to see that my skills can be applied elsewhere. I'd be happier if you merged the material you wanted into the mainspace article. That way you get the best synthesis of the current main and my fiddlings, and then I could copy the updated article back into my userspace and mess around a bit more. Keeps things under control and focused on the end goal... a shiny star in the top right corner. Regarding your comments:
  • Refs. Fair call, it was just an observation.
  • First construction sentance: In that sentance, I felt that having a link to the class was more relevant than having a link to HMS Sheffield, because (theoretically) the former has information on the class as a whole, while the latter only has information on one ship. Its not that big an issue to have a wikilink below an identical {{main}} link.
  • TC-92: Fair enough. I haven't done any research myself yet, just been playing around with your words. It may be better to state that there are conflicting views, and provide both (with sources, of course).
  • GroupX-ray: Oops. I am ashamed. :P
Play aroud with it, merge in what you will, and let me know so we can do it all again! and maybe next time I'll actually sign. I'm useless, aren't I? -- saberwyn 21:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Drop the Sheffield/class link.
  • TC-92: Maybe a sentance or two (at most) each explaining the opposing viewpoints, there's no need to go to town here. I don't know what the sources say, but something like "Source A attributes the miss to the distance between Cardiff and TC-92,[citations] while sources B and C claim the pilot successfully evaded the missile.[citations]"
  • But first, get some sleep! We have until the deadline to finish this. I'm going to be busy for the next few days anyway, and while you do the merge, I'll do some reading and get to know this fine ship a bit better. -- saberwyn 23:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the A-class passing! Next step, FAC, but before then we need to do a bit of work on the article... the shinier we can get it, the less painful the Featured Article run is going to be. -- saberwyn 01:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Had a play, and have a few questions/comments. (1) On what day did the TC-92 incident happen?

(2) I've re-jimmied the section on the Dagger attack of the helicopter, can you make sure the sources line up? Otherwise, looking alright! -- saberwyn 21:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with it, but I'm going to have a play with the TC-92 section over the course of the day. I'll move it to the article and drop you a line when I finish, seeing as its probably some ungodly hour where you are. -- saberwyn 23:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
All cool. What's next? -- saberwyn 07:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to work it in, by all means go ahead. I didn't think the reference added anything to the information in the article, as everything in that particular section is covered by other sources. Although, I do admit that I was using a machine translation (AltaVista's Babelfish) to read it, pnly had a few minutes to skim through it and try to find relevant information, and I may have missed the significance. -- saberwyn 11:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan, congrats on the A class article status. Well deserved. I noted some of the comments on RFA Tidespring and for information the RFA didn't have the air surveillance radar to detect an aircraft. Mk 1 eyeball could have played a part but I'd have though Cardiff or Bristol would have had it nailed long before then. Justin talk 12:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last Canberra

Just a heads up... I've got some sources that attribute the kill of B-108 to HMS Exeter (D89), not Cardiff: This Naval-history.net page and the book Falklands - The Air War by Rodney A. Burden and published in 1986.

[edit] Images

No, don't worry about it, it was like that before you did the changes. There are a number of very interesting images on commons, we just have to make sure we don't cramp the text. I have to say, this is a rather rare occasion, a multitude of images as opposed to a dearth of images! ;) Woody (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Cardiff (D108)

Congratulations! It's an A-Class article. There's plenty of good advice from the A-Class review to follow if you decide to take this to FAC. The article does need a good copy-edit though. You might ask Maralia (talk) for this; she's very good and knows an awesome amount about ships :) The downside is she's busy so it might be a while before she gets round to it. Good luck and well done, --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done! I'm always here if you require any more material.Griffiths911 (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ryan. I've given her a copyedit. There are a few sentences that I think need a little more rewriting, but not so much that we couldn't handle them at FAC. My one remaining overall concern is the use of italics: there are so very many ship names that are (rightfully) italicized that you need to be really careful not to gratuitously italicize other words, like the names of operations, exercises, etc. Foreign language words should remain italicized, but in some cases those are both italicized and marked with single or double quotes, and that's a bit of overkill too. Could you give it a readthrough for extraneous italics? If you're not sure what I mean, drop me a note and I'll point out some examples. Maralia (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Potential revert war at Iran-Iraq

I personally agree that the US flag doesn't belong in the infobox, but I'm concerned we have changes and reverts from an editor who isn't explaining it. I will send him a message, but you might want to call for Admin help before it gets to 3RR.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Falklands war task force

Hello :) I'm considering setting up a Falklands war task force on wikipedia and noticed you've edited the subject quite a bit. Would you consider joining the group if I go ahead and create it? Thanks, --Tefalstar (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha sixth sense or what :P I've been editing and organising with the Crusades Taskforce for ages but I've done all I can and the Falklands war has always been my other area of military interest. I've sent Justin a message and it would be great if we could all get something going together. --Tefalstar (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries man, all we need is enthusiasm. I'm not really up to scratch about running the thing, but I reckon a few of us interested in the topic could make some real headway together. I'll wait and see what Justin and a few other people say and we can make a move. Would be a good learning curve for us all anyway i expect. Glad your interested anyway man :) --Tefalstar (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Done and done --Tefalstar (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind giving this a go, give me a few days to sort a few things out and I'll start to put things together. I've a lot on my plate at the moment so it may be slow. Justin talk 11:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC for Cardiff

Well first off I think you should list the article for Wikipedia:Peer review, which is normal before listing for FAC. I notice that it has had a wikiproject peer review, but it's useful to get comments from people who know nothing about the subject in case there is jargon ect. In my opinion it is an excellent article, the only article I have ever passed without it having to be put on hold first. But I do suggest a peer review to avoid having to make to many corrections during the FAC process. I will take another look at the article either here or on the peer review page should you list it. Million_Moments (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortuently I am too bogged down at the moment to look at her, however I will look at the article when I get back. Sorry for any inconvience this may have caused. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confused by what happened

It's now out from under Cardiff, but I don't understand why it's red-linking. AFAIK, I followed the peer review procedure. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cardiff 1982-1990

Just looked at the FAC but I thought I'd raise this with you 'offline' first. Is there nothing you can find for the history from 82-90? Surely there is some mention of her participation in exercises, etc? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you in the UK? Have you checked your local public library? Or rung the Naval Historical section - address is in a talk archive - and stated your question - need verifiable data - and asked for help? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not Wales that's important, it's your distance from MOD in London. But these chaps might help: the Naval Historical Branch
Naval Historical Branch
Admiralty Library,
Naval Historical Branch (Naval Staff),
No 24 Store (pp 20),
Main Road,
HM Naval Base Portsmouth,
PO1 3LU.
Tel: 023 92 724327 or 725300
Fax: 023 92 724003

Ring them and explain you need verifiable references, not original documents. I'm sure you'll get pointed to masses of various sources. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 09:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have some yummy revenge...

Hey - just in case you feel like getting back at me, I just opened a peer review on the bulk carrier article. Cheers. HausTalk 03:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Task Force

I'm working on it.... Justin talk 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

 The WikiChevrons 
For working on HMS Cardiff and promoting what I believe to be the first destroyer ever to achieve Featured Article status I herby award you with the WikiChevrons. Congratulations, and keep up the good work. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested to know that I believe that the Cardiff was only the second destroyer to attain A-Class, the first was HMS Ledbury (L90). -MBK004 07:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Aw yes, but it was the first British, Cold War Destroyer named after a capital city beginning with a "C" to reach GA class ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blurred RMs pic

Hi Ryan. I had to enhance this photo by using a watercolor effect (another guy changed the contrast and uploaded it to Commons later) because the original was in a very bad shape. If you, or somebody can find a better copy of this original -scanned from the defunct Argentinian magazine Siete Días-, feel free to replace my version. Thanks.--Darius (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Starting a new taskforce

You mean for the Falklands War, or something else? In any case:

  1. The appropriate thing to do would be to propose creating it on WT:MILHIST.
  2. Given how inactive the South American task force is, I'd encourage you to use that for the time being, as I rather doubt there's enough activity that an entirely separate task force would be needed for the Falklands at this point.

Hope that helps! Kirill (prof) 23:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Falklands War Montage.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Falklands War Montage.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 15:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC) --Polly (Parrot) 15:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 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) 01:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)