Talk:Somali Air Force

Fair use rationale for Image:SoomaaliHunters.jpg

Image:SoomaaliHunters.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

anagu waxaan aaminsanahay in ay mar un ay qarannimadeena soo doqoneyso —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.46.111 (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Current inventory

Somebody keeps valdalising this article with references to purchases of 100 F16 aircraft and 50 F15s .

You should be careful about throwing around words like "vandalism". The fact of the matter is that this, like all official country military-related articles, is an important page. So important that you can't just go reverting information that doesn't please you for no legitimate reason. If you know for a fact that there aren't any F16s and F15s present in Somalia, then you have to produce a source proving this. Otherwise, it's actually your own edits that constitute vandalism since, in case you hadn't noticed, there's already a source in place for this information. It would've also been more helpful to add a tag requesting better sourcing rather than attempting to remove whole swaths of the article simply because one has mixed feelings about the article's content. Feelings don't count for much on Wikipedia. In the process, you've also completely undone a lot of much-needed rewriting of the article. Middayexpress (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The insertion of outlandish claims into what is a generally correct article about the Pre 1991 Civil War era Somali Air Force is Vandalism . Nothing more and nothing less.

In 2009

1. There is no Somali Air Force . 2. There is no order for 110 F16 and 50 F15 Aircraft or any of the rest of it .

Please don't tell us about the Spaceport either.

Wikimucker

Who exactly is "us" supposed to refer to, Wikimucker? Because last I checked, it was only you and I involved in this discussion until Askari Mark showed up after your latest post. And out of curiousity, what exactly makes you an authority on the Somali Air Force? Were you at any point a part of it? Are you, by any chance, involved in Somali Studies or are Somali? A military expert, perhaps? In short, what are your qualifications to speak so authoritatively on the matter? Judging by your next-to-nonexistent contributions, it's difficult to tell. I ask because you are relying exclusively on your word to prove your point; you haven't produced any sources substantiating your claims, as requested of you above.

Furthermore, when I told you to be careful about what you labeled "vandalism", I wasn't "talking tough" like you are, but referring strictly to policy. Here is what vandalism actually is:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism.

Here's how not to behave:

Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with them. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal comments.

Also have a look at the rest of WP:CIV and see how your rude behavior fits into that. Middayexpress (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Middayexpress, I don't have a copy of your stated source at hand, but it either doesn't provide such information or there was a terrible misprint. Somalia has no operational air force, is not a stable, unified country, and therefore doesn't have the funds to order such a huge fleet of aircraft. I track such orders professionally and would know about any such order. Frankly, even Iraq cannot afford such a large airforce, and it at least has substantial oil revenues. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Askari Mark, the source (i.e. "World Military Aircraft Inventory", Aerospace Source Book 2007, Aviation Week & Space Technology, January 15, 2007) isn't mine. Another editor added it some time back, and neither you nor Wikimucker has been able to disprove what it indicates other than to personally assure me that it is incorrect. In the case of Wikimucker, he thinks that rudely voicing his opinion is all it takes, but he is of course mistaken. At least you've attempted to present actual reasons for your stance, but even then, they are based on personal assurances and not reliable sources. However, looking at your contribution history and the fact that you've been editing mostly air force-related articles, I'm inclined to believe what you, by contrast, write. I therefore won't dispute your claim. Middayexpress (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Wikimucker should not have jumped to the conclusion of vandalism; it gets slung around all too readily. I can understand, though, why he might have thought it was vandalism or an intentional hoax; however, we are supposed to assume good faith because we all make errors sometime with the best intentions. It would be hard to provide sourced evidence that this particular error is untrue. It's the first I've ever encountered it, and it's therefore difficult to evidence that a novel claim is untrue. I have access to back issues of Av Week at work and will look up what's there. I'm certainly curious. I hope you will continue to make useful contributions to this and other aircraft-related articles. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 20:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all. The assertion that a country with no functioning government had the resources to place a valid order for 100 F16 and 50 F15 Aircraft ( and the rest) was so self evidently ludicrous that it amounted to Vandalism in my opinion.

The Implication that the country that produces and controls the export of such matériel would ever approve such an order in these circumstances was equally ludicrous .

Shorn of these ludicrous assertions the article is a good one.

Wikimucker 00:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That still doesn't mean you have to respond uncivilly. Everybody is entitled to be blatantly wrong at least once in their lives. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

One persons Blatantly Wrong is another persons Vandalism . Had it been 12 F16's i would have been far less judgemental of course . Wikimucker 00:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, Wikimucker, but Wikipedia is pretty explicit about what it considers to be vandalism and it requires a certainty of intent. This is easy with the most blatant vandalism (i.e., “Joe sux”), but given that WP doesn’t require editors to have any degree of expertise, some degree of forbearance is advised prior to discovery of a trend, even when the contribution in question is obviously ridiculous to an expert – and “ridiculous” would have been more appropriate description of the material here. Throwing the word “vandalism” around willy-nilly tends to breed contention and disruption, so it should be used advisedly.

In any case, as promised, I have looked up the original source and I can authoritatively say that the material Middayexpress was trying to reintroduce does not exist in the identified source. There is, in fact, no entry whatsoever for Somalia – not in the 2007, 2006, 2008, nor 2009 editions. This would be no doubt be the reason it was initially removed, although this is lost to us since so few editors on this article have used their edit summaries. Still, Middayexpress, it would have been better practice to investigate this further prior to reinserting it. It might be wise for us all to examine the given sources and insure they all actually do say what they’re purported to say. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I wasn't "trying to" reintroduce anything. I reintroduced the material. Period. And I did this under the assumption that the editor who originally added it was telling the truth when he/she sourced it to the aforementioned reference per WP:AGF, something both you and that other editor have been reluctant to do. Secondly, while your advice to "examine the given sources and insure they all actually do say what they’re purported to say" is well taken, there is no proof that you did, in fact, check the source in question other than your own word. You have not quoted any relevant passages from the source, or produced a gif of or link to its table of contents let alone the article itself. In reality, all you have again produced is your own personal assurance that it does not state what the edit claimed it did. This means that it is still your word against the person who originally added the material; nothing more, nothing less. What is even more certain, however, is that you are needlessly belaboring the point and for what appears to be no other reason than a wrong-headed need to WP:WIN since the material was, after all, long removed, and you were already clearly given the benefit of the doubt despite not having produced any concrete evidence back then either to truly warrant such consideration. Middayexpress (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Point taken on use of the 'V' work Askari Mark , I used the word 'fantasy' in the article revision history when I originally removed that material on the 24th of June. (talk) 20:41 , 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• AirForce Somali Uniform.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Grammar edits

Dear Benjamin22b thank you for your grammar edits on this page. However, part of the section you changed was a direct quote from Metz et al 1993, and the rewording means now that the quote reads incorrectly. Would you mind either removing the quotation marks from the section you've reworded, or reverting to the original text (possibly with some of your useful extra links retained)? Kind regards and many thanks again, Buckshot06 (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, sure thing! Sorry about that, Buckshot06, and thanks for your eagle eye!! Benjamin22b (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

All right Buckshot06, thanks to you I learned how to properly spell the name of what is now part of one of the world's largest aerospace companies, Agusta-Bell (and not Augusta; I've always mispronounced it) - good catch!

I corrected that error, and I just wanted to make sure you weren't (also) talking about the end of that sentence which reads (right after the semi-colon) "it was also equipped with a number of training aircraft." To me, that modified fragment makes sense because it still refers to what Metz et al. were talking about, while improving the style. But I may have missed something (else)!

Definitely let moi know if you spot anything... and thanks again!! Benjamin22b (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

'South African' pilots photo

The photo of purported 'South African' pilots is in fact of Royal Air Force servicemen. This is the original source, and I would recommend reading the full thread here UncleBourbon (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)