User talk:John Smith's/Archive 5

CVF

Seems like we have the same articles in our watchlists! Thanks for removing the images from the articles where they shouldn't have been. I think we have covered all bases now. Thanks. Woodym555 22:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dispute over WP:CON

Hi, Daniel. As you're often involved in mediation cases I was wondering if you could help with the application of WP:CON. The recent arbitration case I was involved with hasn't resolved the dispute and now some users are trying to claim consensus was reached on disputed material even when that was clearly not the case - otherwise why would there have been dispute resolution at all? I'm not asking you to make a decision on the content dispute, just whether consensus can be reached through a majority of users expressing an opinion one way or another. For reference this was done through a RfC - a number of users left a comment each and then that was it. The dispute is on Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story. I've also asked Picaroon for his views, but I thought it might be good to open the point to someone who wasn't in arbitration. John Smith's 19:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have had a look at the discussion, and was glad to see there was no edit-warring and the discussion got off on the right foot.

With regards to that discussion, I do not believe that consensus exists yet. Although 2-1 forms a majority, in my opinion you'd be better to open up an article requests for comment on the issue, which should generate a better 'consensus' with more people involved. That way, if people all come in and agree with you, you have a true consensus of both involved and outside people, and there can be little argument against that. Cheers, Daniel 01:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 18:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No Mao!

Hi John, I'm about to embark on what is hopefully a lengthy wikibreak to attend to some work which needs serious attending to. I think we've come to a decent consensus on the review section of Mao: The Unknown Story and hope you're basically okay with it too. Quite frankly it's been a fairly frustrating discussion that took up more time than I would have imagined, but in the end I think we improved the quality of the article which is something to feel at least a little bit proud about. Even if I did not always show it when our debates got heated, I really do appreciate your willingness to talk out disagreements and work toward some kind of consensus. The next time we meet on-wiki we might well be arguing again, but I want to note for the record that you're a good editor and I appreciate your contributions. See ya around.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Link

Okay, some questions. Palaceguard says "It is referenced". I (briefly) scanned the pdf and saw no references to any works besides, of course, Jung's book itself. Were there any? If not, it doesn't really qualify as referenced - you can't cite the work you're criticizing as inaccurate as a base for your own claims, as that is tantamount to calling it accurate... He also says it "has been acknowledged by Chang herself." When was this, may I see a link? On a cursory glance, I find myself largely in agreement with Folic Acid's points made at 13:49, 5 November 2007. Picaroon (t) 00:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sky Bow

Yea, i was thinking the same thing last night. Since all of them are quite short we should put them under "Sky Bow Missile System". Sorry about the missing citations and all that, Most of the stuff on there was based on me being told by the TV live broadcast of the military parade explaining what the thing is, how it works, etc. Some i found off websites, so yea. I'll try to put in references etc. You have my full support to merge the articles, i could help if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kliu1 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Welcome Back

Thanks John. I've been busy in real life. Plus, I needed a break from Wikipedia after Arbcom. I'm back to concentrate on limited topics for now, such as Yokohama-related articles, CJK collaboration, etc.--Endroit (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits

Is there something wrong with the edit (i.e. giving a fuller sense of Schram's conclusion)? Cripipper (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, no - just on the back of what was being discussed, and since I had the article to hand, I didn't think there would be any objections to giving a more balanced sense of Schram's conclusions (in the spirit of those same conclusions!) Cripipper (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: ROCN Pictures (again)

Well, i'm uploading some old pictures i have now. But yea, I'm going back to Taiwan this saturday, i'll try to get as many pictures as i can during my 2 month holiday. (Kliu1 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Hey, sorry about that. I put all of my taiwanese military pictures in one place, the ones I download, the ones I take and the ones that friends give me. The national day celebrations one is mine, the other (ROCN Cheng Kung-class frigates) i dont think is. I'll try again going through all of my pictures and get the right ones. I'm also asking my dad to get pictures that he had while he was with the ROCN. So yea....sorry about the mix up. (Kliu1 (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

By the way, because you said some of the pictures were incorrectly tagged, i dont know how to retag them, could you do it for me? or tell me how to. Thanks (Kliu1 (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

Hi, I'm in Taiwan right now and don't really have alot of time to do this sort of stuff, as I have limited access to computers and the internet. I'll probably fix those up when I leave Taiwan or something. So yea..... (Kliu1 (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Re: Consensus (again)

Have you tried compromising with the "other user" who isn't agreeing? If so, and they refuse to give anything, then use WP:RfC to get more independant input. Consensus is often best judged from that — if there's overwhelming support from involved and non-involved users (the latter who have come via the RfC process to offer a view on things) and only one user refusing to budge, I could agree that consensus exists. However, I don't think it is present at the moment — it is merely a problematic situation, which is best resolved from outside input. Daniel 00:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

President of the Executive Yuan

Hi John. Recently I proposed a move of Premier of the Republic of China to President of the Executive Yuan. The reason was simple: Premier of the ROC is not a common name nor is it an official name while President of the Executive Yuan is the second most common name (after Premier of Taiwan, which is not neutral as Jiang stated) and the official title of the position in both English and Chinese.

Another editor Chris, insists on opposing the move while not providing any sources asserting the statement President of the EY is not common. And then another user Sebastian came and opposes the move because I did not provide any sources either, he then decides to make a table for us to see which term is more common, it turns out I was right. However, Chris still disagrees as he thinks the ghits aren't reliable, while still not providing any sources for his assertion.

Due to my limited English-speaking skills, I am not able to express my thoughts thoroughly on the topic. I think you aren't going to oppose this reasonable move, can you provide your opinion on the move here?--Jerry 16:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Premier of the Republic of China, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 01:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Premier of the Republic of China. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Translation

I do not know if you need all of them translated, so I am just going to go ahead and read it, and put the summary in English.

The Legislative Yuan passed the 2008 Central government budget. Because of the hope that the Pan-Blue is going to regain presidency, they only removed NT$ 13,700,000,000 from the budget. The three most important weapon-acquiring budgets are passed too.

Military budgets:

• MIM-104 Patriot and P-3 Orion (anti-submarine aircrafts): all passed
• Submarines: 2 billion, passed
• F-16 Fighting Falcons: 20 billion, froze (waiting for US permission)
• Hsiung Feng IIE: 2/3 budget kept
• 30 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters: passed

That's about it. If you have any questions feel free to ask, I'd be happy to answer if I could.--Jerrch 22:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, and it doesn't say how much they're going to be cost either.--Jerrch 23:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I found some info on the Patriot missiles. It says the budget for four sets of missiles is passed, and two sets are frozen.[1] Hope that helped.--Jerrch 20:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan Defence Budget 2008

Hi John, a partial translation follows. -Loren (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

立法院今天三讀通過97年中央政府總預算，由於預期藍軍明年可望重新執政，對多數預算以凍待刪，最後只刪除一百三十七億元，刪減率不到百分之一，創民進黨執政後的新低。今天通過的總預算案中，最受矚目的三項重要軍購獲得大部分解套，其中愛國者飛彈、P-3C反潛機全數過關，潛艦預算也放行20億元評估費用。(李人岳報導)

The Legislative Yuan passed the 2008 central government budget in the third reading today. Due to expectations that the Pan-Blue bloc will regain control of the executive branch next year, several items were frozen rather than being eliminated entirely. In the end, only NT$137 billion was eliminated, accounting for less than 1% of the overall budget, the lowest since the beginning of DPP administration. Among the items passed today were parts of the three most significant arms purchases, the PAC-3s and P-3Cs were approved in their entirety. NT$2 billion was also approved for a preliminary study for submarines.

其他軍事採購方面，200億元的「鳳隼專案」Ｆ-16Ｃ/Ｄ採購預算暫時凍結，等待美國同 意出售之後，就可以動支。另外，「雄二Ｅ飛 彈」也保留三分之二的預算，30架阿帕契戰鬥直昇機的預算，也都全數通過。

In other military purchases, the NT$20 billion earmarked for F-16 C/Ds were frozen until the US approves the sale. 2/3s of the request for the Hsiung Feng (Brave Wind) 2E missiles was also approved, as was the entire earmark for Apache attack helicopters.

WP:NC-ZH

Hi John Smith's. There's a new discussion on the ROC naming issues again at WP:NC-ZH. I hope you will participate in the discussion. Here's the link: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#About_ROC.2FTaiwan_Naming_Conventions.--Jerrch 00:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Geisha of Gion.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Warn

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Giovanni33. You both seem to be pushing the limit. While they may not technically be violations, it violates the spirit and is blockable as disruption. Next time I'll block. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yuan Class AIP

hello,

The addition of the Yuan class AIP section was done only after I have checked Jane's Navy International awhile back. (22 March 2007).

14:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koxinga CDF (talk • contribs)

I understand that Jane's isn't always right, but as far as Chinese matters are concerned, we are unlikely to find any other Western publications giving similar coverage. For the matter, if they do, they end up quoting Jane's. Short of actual photos and description given out by the Chinese navy or manufacturer, such reports are the best anyone can get.

Koxinga CDF (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser or sockpuppetry report?

Hi, Blnguyen. I've got a case where I suspect a sockpuppet, but it isn't what I normally file a checkuser request for so I wasn't sure.

On the Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story, I'm having a discussion with User:Xiaodingjin who has previously attempted to insert links of his own work onto wikipedia. After April 2007 he disappeared, only to re-appear recently and complain about the removal of the links to his work.

Then another user appeared today, User:Dariusdaman. He created his account at 17:03, 15 January 2008 and then edited the Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story page at 17:19, 15 January 2008 to support Xiaodingjin. This clearly indicates he arrived just to support Xiao as he hasn't done anything subsequently (so at least probably a meatpuppet), but I think their standard of English suggests they are the same person.

I could file an ordinary sockpuppet report, but as that's very backed up I wondered if this might warrant a "G" checkuser request - I didn't want to waste people's time if it would automatically be rejected. My reason for the request is that Xiao knows he can't insert the link (was blocked for 3RR and then indef banned, only having it lifted when he promised to stop) and has not had any support since he came back - so he could be trying to influence the decisions of other users by creating "supporters".

Your thoughts would be welcome - please respond on my talk page. John Smith's (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked it as a meatpuppet. It appears to be in different locations though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

you're revert

Was not vandalism, as you characterize it in the edit summary. Rather it was an a good edit that was discussed on this talk page. Please revert yourself unless you can support with several specific issues in the article so we can fix them and get rid of those tags. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Provocations

RE: Stone put to sky's talk page.

I would consider it something of a provocation for someone to continue posting on a topic on another user's talk page when the user had indicated several times that s/he did not want to continue the discussion. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

After he said that he was too busy to carry on the conversation, I offered for him to contact me at his leisure - I would have said the same had he done so earlier. I also didn't keep pushing the original question, rather tried to understand why he had reacted somewhat sharply. So I don't see that as provocation. John Smith's (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Warn

See my comment here, consider it a final warning. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Arb Enforcement Report

Honestly John, do you really think it was worthwhile to report Giovanni for making two completely unrelated edits in a six day period which are admittedly probably technically both reverts? I'm sorry but that just strikes me as rather petty. Of course there is nothing edifying about either of your conduct here: Gio reports you to ANI, you report Gio to an admin (said Admin then warns both of you to knock it off), and now you report Gio for what is at best a trivial infraction. You apparently had to dig to find it because it happened four days ago. Do you really think any of this is helpful? Would not the best thing to do (and I have said this to both of you on Rlevse's talk page and ANI) be to simply ignore one another as much as possible? It's also worth pointing out that the current imbroglio undoubtedly stems from your decision to edit at Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States - on which Giovanni has made the most total contributions during his entire encyclopedic career (counting article and talk page edits). Nothing formally prevented you from editing there, but can you see how it would strike most outside observers as extremely ill advised? (You have both wikistalked each other in the past, but I'm dealing with what is happening now). Neither you or Giovanni are doing yourself any favors in continuing this dispute and I wish you could both just learn to avoid one another completely.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether you dug or not to find the diffs, or whether or not you want Gio blocked or just want to log his behavior, I just don't see how the report is helpful in dealing with the dispute between you two. I just posted a note on Giovanni's page floating the idea of you two agreeing to some sort of separation of your editing in an informally agreed upon matter. Neither of you seem able to drop this debate, but I think neither of you really enjoy it either. Would you be interested in coming to some sort of agreement that basically separates the two of you into separate corners so to speak? If not that's totally fine, but it seems like a solution worth exploring and I would be willing to try to help work something out if you would consider me a neutral enough party. You can reply here as I'll check back.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to work something up on my talk page and maybe we can discuss it there.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've started something on my talk page and am inviting you and Giovanni over there to discuss further. Let's see what happens.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi John, I did not edit yesterday but I've continued the discussion with a new thread on my talk page so take a look when you get a chance.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sino-American War

The Sino-American war article, I hope you will agree has no business on wikipedia. I would like the help of an experienced editor in renominating this article for deletion. --Jscheiner (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

ElevenOfHearts

Hi, I'm not actually an administrator, so I can't do much about him. You should try filing a request at WP:RFCU or reporting him to the administrator's noticeboard. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Tibet

Thanks for the heads-up and thanks very much for your support. I really appreciate it. Alexwoods (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been kind of a trying experience, but I am trying to stay calm. The problem with the 3RR rule is when someone makes a nonsense change, and I revert, and they revert, and so on, and voila, I've reverted 3 times, even though the other party is the one defacing the article. Anyway. Thanks again. Alexwoods (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to your remarks on my talk page

Beeblbrox (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Invasion of Tibet

Hello Smith's. This is the former Alexwoods. Someone has proposed a move back to the original title of this article. It would be great to have your input. Please chime in. Thanks. Yunfeng (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR report

With all due respect I have seen many cases where editors have been blocked for four reversions outside of 24 hours. Sure it can't be too great, but I think four reverts within 26 hours is quite similar. If you want to say that the period was not large enough, ok. But you are not being correct when you say there must be 4 reverts in 24 hours. I'd appreciate it if you could ask another admin's opinion if you are still not convinced. John Smith's (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Posted as such on the 3RR noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

When one person does 4 reverts on a page within 24 hours, if certain exceptions don't apply, then there is a 3RR violation. In case of a violation, the closing admin can choose to issue a warning, block, protect the page, etc. If there is no 3RR violation, there may still be a violation of WP:edit warring. It's up to the discretion of admins to determine when there's a sufficient problem with edit warring to take any action. They may take various factors into account; and they can IMO feel free to use the 3RR noticeboard to simply enforce 3RR or choose to also consider general editwarring or other problems with the page and users mentioned. Sometimes action is taken in response to 3RR reports even though there is no 3RR violation, but I've also often seen a simple rejection of the report on the grounds that there is no 3RR violation. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your note User talk:Coppertwig#Continued edit-warring: I'm not an admin, so I can't close 3RR reports; I've been helping in other ways at the 3RR noticeboard. I think I saw the report you mentioned; I'll look again but might not have anything to add to it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Human rights in the PRC

Got your message. I'm keeping an eye on that page. BTW we are voting on whether or not to call the Younghusband Expedition the "Peaceful Liberation of the road between India and Lhasa by the People's British Army". You should consider voting over at British expedition to Tibet‎. Cheers. Yunfeng (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rafaelsfingers#Additional_evidence. Anything to add? Ultramarine (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I think you have already made the point - it is a tad suspicious. John Smith's (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hey John, I answered your question posted in the oppose section, hopefully to your satisfaction. I appreciate that and your other questions in the RfA and don't at all mind the vetting! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning

I know you're a busy editor so you may not have got a chance to read into the Allegations page. But we're actually currently waiting on a Third Option Wikipedian to come in to make a decision, and the revert was because someone came in and changed it while we we're waiting. Just trying to maintain the status quo until we have a consensus, especially on such a volatile topic as that. Just for some more information. If even doing that is incorrect, I'll note it. Hooper (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't necessarilly that I disagree, I actually agree alot with changing it so that it isn't as biased as it is, which is on the talk. Its just that the editor in question never brought it up as he had said, and he could of read that a agreement was reached to hold off until we had a third party see it. But I understand what you're saying, and no problem. (Though does it count that so far I've only got 2 reverts?  ;) ) Hooper (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your post re: involved parties

At RFArb, we only ask for enough information to explain why a case is needed. Because of this approach, frequently all involved users will not be listed at the RFArb. If a case is accepted, then evidence can be provide that explains how a particular user is involved in the situation. An Arbitration Committee clerk will inform an user if there is significant evidence provided against an user so they can respond. If the case ruling might name a particular individual, then the Committee wants to give an user adequate time to respond. Because some of the involved users will not be familiar with the Arbitration process on Wikipedia, we try not make it too rigid and heavy on process/procedure. It is more important that we make a good ruling based on evidence than worry too much who is officially listed as a party at the start of a case. In our acceptance votes, arbitrators will frequently mention that all involved parties will be looked because we want to make it clear that the case is not focused solely on one or a few parties. If you have more questions feel free to contact me or an Arbitration Committee Clerk. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have added your name to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:William_M._Connolley as you seem to have knowledge of the situation. Feel free to comment. Jehochman ^Talk 20:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Advice

G33 and friends rabbit endlessly; ignore them, don't feed them [2]. The arbcomm can see through it all; trust them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33

Hi -- thanks for pointing this out. Done. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop POV changes

Apologies -- I didn't think they were POV! I've made changes in several pages, so just let me know which ones you have in mind. ch (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good -- the Mao Unknown Story article does need further changes, especially to boil it down and reorganize. It seems to me that many of the quotes from the learned professors are repetitious and could be reduced to the main points of the argument. I'll put suggestions on the article discussion page ch (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

T45 Destroyer - number building

John Smith - thanks for your message. I changed it in the first place because the headline figures show 6 planned and 5 building - which intimates that 1 hasn't been started yet. Daring isn't completed yet - her handover to the RN isn't until Dec 08 (and her in-service-date isn't until 2010), and while she's not actually at sea, the shipbuilder is certainly still conducting work on her (does that constitute "building"?). I've changed it to read "5 (+1 conducting sea trials)". If you can think of a clearer indictation of the state of the build programme, please help. Gratefully, Shem (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Careful

This [3] is just asking for more wurble from G33. Better to just say you agree (or not) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

heh

Giovanni is now threatening legal action if he loses. I don't think I need to suggest the implications of this. *hands you some popcorn* Jtrainor (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:T45 and military spending.

Arghh, don't get me started on all this. It is bad enough that we have Type 42s without missiles, let alone cancelling the remaining 45 orders. I think this quote sums it up: "But Conservative MP Mark Pritchard told the Commons: 'One of those capabilities is not being in two places at the same time." In reality, we will only have 3 active destroyers, and this will have to be used to protect the active carrier. But, small mercies, at least we have 6 ships, and (crossfingers) two large carriers. Disillusioned isn't the word for it at the moment. Oh well. Best regards. Woody (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see that as well. But if we want to move towards a blue water navy and having a power-projection capability, then we need to be able to project that in more than one place in the world at any one time. It is all good having extremely capable destroyers, but if we need a presence in the Middle East, and then Argentina start rattling sabres at the same time, we are left in an extremely bad position. That being said, we lowly wikipedia editors can only gripe, not influence defence policy! ;) Personally, I wouldn't be that worried if they started investing in defence spending for once! Regards. ;) Woody (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)