| Revision as of 02:25, 28 October 2006 editUberCryxic (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,162 editsm →FN Charles de Gaulle← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:26, 28 October 2006 edit undoUberCryxic (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,162 edits →FN Charles de GaulleNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| Let me know what you think. Thanks.] 02:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | Let me know what you think. Thanks.] 02:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Do you think the source is good? And do you think the source satisfies some outstanding criteria? Once again, thank you.] 02:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:26, 28 October 2006
NOTE: Most comments will be deleted by me after one week. Also, if you are discussing an article, I would prefer to use that article's talk page. Please limit this page to discussions not related to any particular article, if possible. Thanks.
FN Charles de Gaulle
Looks like the discussion is running in circles. My primary concern is that the article gets 'locked-up' while we wait for Misplaced Pages's rules and policies on content submission to be enforced.
- Hey, to answer your inquiry in the talk page, yes the Journal of Electronic defense is an independent and very prestigious publication that comments on the joint Franco-American operation in its August 2002 article, "It Takes Two to Interoperate."UberCryxic 23:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi BillCJ, I removed your comment to Elaragirl on hte straw-poll section because I could not keep the counter working otherwise. Can you place your text elsewhere please. Sorry for editing you. :-) Natobxl 00:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey I just wanted to clarify something. Right now you have a vote under Keep and Neutral. Is there any particular stance that you prefer over the other? It might not be a good precedent to have votes under two different categories, though I'm not implying that it's against a strawpoll's rules or something. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you.UberCryxic 01:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey great idea! I like your compromise.UberCryxic 02:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey again, I don't want to feel like I'm chasing red herrings and make an idiot out of myself, so I decided to bring this up with you personally. I found another source. See this:
This fits with recent Pakistani reports that during June, French Rafale fighters and airborne control stations maintained combat air patrols across the probable path of fighters flying between Karachi and Mumbai – probably to stop surprise attacks on Indian nuclear facilities near Mumbai.
The Bharat Rakshak Monitor was "the first online journal dedicated to Indian military and strategic affairs." (see here)
Let me know what you think. Thanks.UberCryxic 02:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you think the source is good? And do you think the source satisfies some outstanding criteria? Once again, thank you.UberCryxic 02:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)