Talk:List of World War II electronic warfare equipment

message: This list was put into H2S radar‎ by user:Lincspoacher in February 2005, I cut and pasted from there  to here on the 1 March 2005. --PBS (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin

message: ZahmeItalic text Sau, Razzles and Gardening are not related to electronic warfare. Paul, in Saudi 15:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But they are  names for news tactics that resulted from developments in electronic warfare. --PBS (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I have created a section for tactics derived directly from the developments of electronic warfare equipment.
I removed "* Razzles - air-dropped incendiaries for starting crop and forest fires" because as Paul pointed out it is not fit either category. --PBS (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not related to electronic warfare

message: I have found reference to a device with the designation FuG 240, but it doesn't include a word like "Neptun" or "Lichtenstein". Can somebody help me out?
Magus732 (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FuG 240 "Berlin" was a very late-war german centrimetric airborne interception radar. Was only installed into some Ju 88G, almost all of them were later found in Denmark. A google search will help you find more infos. --Denniss (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, man.
Magus732 (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A useful source here (PDF):   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.26 (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Unknown German electronic device

message: I have been through the list of requests made in these two edits:
*Revision as of 21:49, 8 March 2013 N2e (cn)
*Revision as of 04:10, 25 June 2013 N2e  (removed unsourced assertions that had been fact-tagged for over two months; please add back in if you have a reliable source citation you can add to support the claims)
I have not watched this page for may years and I am here by chance (so I will not look for a reply if you want me to reply then ping me or leave a message on my talk page). It took me minutes to find citations for all of these "citation needed" requests. However this is a list and I do not think that when the name of an entry links to another article it is reasonable to request a citation on this page unless there is a specific item on the line that the person asking for a citation wants to see. In which case they should either explain here on the talk page or add a supplementary hidden comment with the  template. For this reason I have removed the  templates from lines like
*Huff-Duff – Allied HF/DF High Frequency Direction Finding
As the linked article explains what it is and has references the challenge with "" on such a line is unreasonable (as the main subject on the line is clearly verifiable) without a further explanatory comment to explain why else the citation is required.  Therefore I think placing such templates on lines with a linked subject, or deleting such a line because it does not carry a citation, is disruptive.
I am disappointed in several ways over these requests
#N2e you do not seem to have made any effort to look for citations yourself. Remember that WP:PROVEIT states "if you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." you do not seem to have made any effort yourself, and surly you did not think that "Airborne Cigar (A.B.C.)" was unverifiable when a simple Google book search returns a score of hits for "ABC (airborne cigar)". So OK you may not have thought that one was easy to find, but it beggars belief that you could not find one source for any of the thirteen items you tagged and apparently intended to delete, and so IMHO such deletions are disruptive.
#I am amazed that no other editor who looked at this page over the last few months can be bothered to look for citations when they are requested. The ones I have found are not the best (found by quick Google searches and selecting the first that coves the subject). A slower more methodical approach would probably turn up a much better source that covered many of the items in this list.
-- PBS (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: @N2e: I see you have made another similar edit to the one you made in March last year (Revision as of 16:54, 3 March 2014 ). Why have you not found a source for any of the 14 entries in the list you marked with ? -- PBS (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed