User talk:Hudicourt

Welcome!

Hello, Hudicourt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 13:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strategic Airlift Capability

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Strategic Airlift Capability, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.nato.int/issues/strategic-lift-air-sac/index.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), you can comment to that effect on Talk:Strategic Airlift Capability. Then you should do one of the following:

• Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state at Talk:Strategic Airlift Capability where we can find that note; or
• Send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Strategic Airlift Capability.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! -- ReyBrujo 16:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Il-76

Well you have encouraged me to do some deeper research into the operators, so I revamped the operator section of the Ilyushin Il-76 article (and added an updated map). Let me know if you have any additional data for the map. Thanks! Josh 06:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Leopards to Afghanistan

If the post on my page is in reference to an article, it's probably best to discuss this there, or at least give the article's name, so I at least have an idea what it's in reference to. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The C-17 Globemaster edit of Jan 28 2007

Re C-17 article

Sorry, I didn't realise that 'runway excursion' was a correct aviation term - I don't know much about that kind of stuff. However, neither will most of the people who read the article, so could I suggest that you use a non-technical term? (such as the aircraft 'left the runway when landing' or whatever is appropriate and correct. cheers, --Nick Dowling 04:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accident of chinese AWACS

I found some contradictory sources for the type of this aircraft.See China PLA Air Force KJ-200 Accident--Ksyrie 00:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact,if you carefully read the webpages what you had presented to my talk page,you will find the sinodefence's one [1]] claiming it was a KJ-200 was based on the chinese internet forum some Chinese websites have reported that the plane was in fact a KJ-200 AEW aircraft,because when I search in the chinese search engine by keyword KJ-200 and crash in chinese,I cann't find serious chinese site reporting it was a KJ-200 except some millitary forums--Ksyrie 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Real fighting in Afghanistan

I don't think your last modification in the War in Afghanistan was Neutral. The last time a Canadian was killed in "combat", ie in a firefight, was back in Oct 2006. Except for one who died in a mortar attack, all those that have died since, were killed by IEDs, mines, road accidents, friendly fire and self inflicted wounds. Based on that, you chose to put those that are better at driving over IEDs than those who are better at avoiding them but had recent firefight deaths? - Did I say that? Don't think I did.

I think that sorting them in Alphabetical order, or by numerical order as they were was a better idea. Wikipedia must not get involved in political debates....That is just as arbitrary and out of context (and lacking ‘neutrality’) as the order I placed it in.

In what about the French Fighter Bombers, who conducted Air Strikes in support of ground troops yesterday, that is not "fighting" I suppose. - Did I say that? Don't think I did.

And Australia, which has only a PRT team of a few hundred, and no aircraft, and which has only had four fatalities is, according to you, doing more fighting than France and Germany?

And of course you don’t measure intensity and frequency of combat engagement by the numbers of fatalities. Just because Australia has fewer fatalities than Germany, that does not mean Australia has had fewer combat engagements. 79 Spanish deaths compared to 4 Australian does not mean Spain has seen more combat than Australia (respect to the allied fallen, regardless of circumstances). A larger deployment involved in a quieter area, compared to a smaller deployment in a more intense area. Which is more significant is a matter of interpretation, and can be an arbitrary distinction.

The phrase ‘combatant’ and ‘belligerent’ are matters of interpretation. It is inevitable that people will have different perspectives. We could list every flag of every nation who has sent a soldier. But we would have 40 plus flags and it would look silly. And lack real world context. Or we could play the numbers game. But again that lacks context.

And any attempt to add ‘real-world context’ and we fall back into the old problem of who to include and who to exclude. What is combat and what is not.

If we say “well, we have to have the US”, then surely we have to have Britain. Then the Dutch? Iceland? Tonga?

In my opinion, there is a simple solution to this inevitably ‘matter of interpretation’ problem. Get rid of the flags altogether. And have links to articles (such as Afghanistan Coalition Allies and ISAF, and they both need work) where real context can be added, and people can make up their own minds as to who is doing the ‘real fighting’.

This needs wider discussion. Chwyatt (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:U-2-Intake.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:U-2-Intake.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of people who died after being tasered in Canada

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of people who died after being tasered in Canada, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. The Llama! (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of people who died after being tasered in Canada

I have nominated List of people who died after being tasered in Canada, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who died after being tasered in Canada. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Hudicourt. You have new messages at Ukexpat's talk page.
Message added 20:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

reason for deletion request of RD diplomatic incident page?

Hi Hudicourt, Are you at liberty to divulge to me the "reason" why someone has an issue with the whole article of the Raymond Davis diplomatic incident. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus Beluga

The official designation Airbus A300-600ST denotes the relationship between the Beluga and the A300-600. Also, books such as Airbus by Norris Wagner states In 1991, a new consortium called SATIC (Super Airbus Transport International Company) was formed by Aerospatiale and DASA, the two companies that bid the winning solution based on the A300-600R conversion. Furthermore, if you want to say the Beluga is based on the A310, please state a source; remember, no original research. Thanks Sp33dyphil ^(T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 06:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

WP:AGF Please don't lecture an established and experienced editor, particularly one cleaning up the crap from a disruptive sock puppeteer. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re.Drone attacks

Hello Dear Hudicourt, You recently reverted an edit I made on the Drone attacks article, would it be possible to get that better sourced then uruknet.info or Iranian press TV? Neither of which is a WP:RS. Thanks and regardsV7-sport (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dear Hudicourt, We can leave the information up as it stands on the Iranian TV citation I suppose, I have however had information sourced to www.uruknet.info removed previously. Do you object to keeping the language the same but removing that source? V7-sport (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, cheersV7-sport (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why are you lecturing me? I reverted a serial sock puppeteer who mixes seemingly legitimate edits with wikifiddling such as changing dates. You reverted the lot and then harped on about an irrelevant detail. I wouldn't care but the edit summary made this plain. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down and try putting your listening ears on. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment WAS 100% on "content". In a nutshell, my comment was that some users changed the name of the article from Civilian casualties caused by ISAF and US Forces in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) to Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), then using the new name as an argument, decided the article was not balanced (did not contain civilian deaths caused by the Taliban) and deleted most of its content. I explained the whole thing in detail and its all there for verification. The one who complained against me was also party to that little scheme Hudicourt (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not. Your insistence that there is a "scheme" behind the renaming and modification of the article is commenting on the contributors to the article and is a complete failure to assume good faith. There is no "scheme", there is no cabal, there is no grand plan to whitewash the article. Continued insistance on making this a WP:BATTLEGROUND will inevitably result in your blocking, so I'd suggest you step back, drink a cup of tea, and take a deep breath before commenting further, and editing collegiately and civily, as the next personal attack will result in a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, as it was called out the outset, was created in Nov 2005. It has been in existence for over 6 years. It has always been about the civilian casualties caused by non-Afghan troops and listed almost 200 referenced incidents. I contributed a lot of research to this article, as of 2007. User:Nick-D began editing this article on 12 September 2009. He knew what the article was about. He has since been closely involved with this article, making dozens of edits. Then on Dec 1 2011, he removed the entire list of almost 200 referenced incidents of civilian casualties claiming they made the article unfairly balanced against ISAF and the US [2]. If one can just rename an article to justify doing away with most of its content, Wikipedia will not survive as a credible reference. As for the gentleman who complained against me, User:Wee Curry Monster, he would do things like this: [3], remove the mention of a particular airstrike that had caused civilian casualties was a "US" airstrike although the referenced article clearly stated it was, or change the date of a strike to an incorrect one, using as a justification that the user who edited the correct date was a sock puppeteer and had no right editing the page. We had an exchange about this on his talk page which he deleted of course. This complaint is his payback [4] This same gentleman also engaged in Edit wars with others, on this same page. Anyway, User:Nick-D knew what the article was about, he had been closely involved with it for years, it was on his watch list, and yet he turned the article into another one which is not what it had been in the 6 years since it had been created. You ask me to have good faith in his actions. I will try. Hudicourt (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2012 (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) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]