Talk:Active attack/Draft: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Anthony.Sebastian
imported>Anthony.Sebastian
(→‎Comments: no further comment)
Line 26: Line 26:
*Submitted requests for comments/suggestions to mailing lists: Mathematics; Computers.<br>
*Submitted requests for comments/suggestions to mailing lists: Mathematics; Computers.<br>
*Submitted request on forum: "Please review "Active attack" for consideration of approval. —[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 20:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
*Submitted request on forum: "Please review "Active attack" for consideration of approval. —[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 20:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
++++
++++<br>
No further comments posted since requests for comments went out over a month ago. I know Pat Palmer wants to comment, and has been told there's no rush. To keep the approval process moving along, however, I will set a notice for two weeks hence. If the article receives approval by then, any substantive changes to the article that occur later, in response when Pat has time to review the article, will make new draft eligible for facilitated re-approval.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 14:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)





Revision as of 09:49, 5 June 2012

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 

Perhaps more of an aside from electronic warfare...

Rather than active vs. passive in electronic attack, the terminology nonkinetic vs. kinetic is used. Nonkinetic uses all the elegant electronic and computer methods, while kinetic is truly brute force. Many years ago, I was at an Armed Forces Communications Electronics Association meeting after the 1973 Middle East war. Someone asked an Israeli general how he preferred to counter a particular Soviet radar, expecting some involved imitative jamming technique. He said he really preferred a 500 pound bomb straight down the antenna. Howard C. Berkowitz 06:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


Call for review re approval

Approval Process: Review period

Call for review: Anthony.Sebastian 20:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Call for Approval: Anthony.Sebastian 22:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Approval Notice:

Certification of Approval:


Please discuss the article below, Active attack/Approval is for brief official referee's only!

Comments

++++

  • Announced call for approval.
  • Submitted requests for comments/suggestions to mailing lists: Mathematics; Computers.
  • Submitted request on forum: "Please review "Active attack" for consideration of approval. —Anthony.Sebastian 20:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

++++
No further comments posted since requests for comments went out over a month ago. I know Pat Palmer wants to comment, and has been told there's no rush. To keep the approval process moving along, however, I will set a notice for two weeks hence. If the article receives approval by then, any substantive changes to the article that occur later, in response when Pat has time to review the article, will make new draft eligible for facilitated re-approval. Anthony.Sebastian 14:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)