Sacxpert

I globally agree with your edit. The sketches of Alsace class battleships are interesting, but I dont know from which data they are drawn. They are not based on Robert Dumas 's book, « Le cuirassé Jean Bart 1939-1970 », perhaps from « French Battleships 1922-1956 », by Josh Jordan and Robert Dumas ? I regret that there is no sketch of the layout of the project reported to have been chosen by the French Admiralty, with three triple turrets, and all the secondary 152 mm artillery in axial position.

I understand your edit on my remark about the interest of designing such battleships in the early 1940s. Nevertheless, it seems evident to me that the building of Vanguard is hardly understandable, even as her main guns were already avalailable. The good decision was the American one to cancel the Montana class battleships, which would have been contemporaries of the Alsace class battleships, in favor of more urgently needed aircraft carriers. But the decision, in 1945, to complete Jean Bart as a integral battleship is leading to think that « despite the war learnings, the outdated myth of big gun goes on dominating our (French) naval doctrine...» as wrote then a French admiral.

Same thing concerning your remark about the French specifity to prefer more lesser guns than few bigger ones. When the British designers prefer eight 15-in guns,on Queen Elizabeth class battleships, or the American, a few years later, twelve 14-in. guns on Tenessee, the French designers intended to fit sixteen 13.5-in guns on Lyon class battleships. We find the same thing, twenty five years later, with three quadruple 15-in. turrets, for the largest Alsace project, as, on a hull of same dimensions, the Iowa is intented to be fitted with three triple 16-in. turrets.Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I completely agree with your remark, in your reply, about the staffing of admiralties by aged admirals unable to conceive of naval warfare without battleships. In Robert Dumas's book, it can be read that, when the completion of Jean Bart was discussed, in september 1945, in a meeting of the French Navy Higher Council, the dissenting opinions about the completion as an integral battleship were those of three admirals, first, Admiral Fenard, formerly Chief of the French Naval Mission in the United States, who tried vainly, in 1943, to persuade Admiral King to complete the Jean Bart as an hybrid battleship-aircraft carrier (but Admiral King had his own good reasons), second, Admiral Nomy, who will be later Chef d'État-Major Général de la Marine in the 1950s, and had been a Naval Aviation Pilot, and third, Rear Admiral Barjot, who was only 46 years old, and wrote in the minutes of the meeting : « ...Despite the war learnings, the outdated myth of big gun goes on dominating our naval doctrine...It was surprising enough to see in 1945 the Navy General Staff supporting , doctrinally, against the aircraft carrier solution, the battleship solution. »

I forget Erin and Agincourt, but they were not have been designed by the Director of Naval Construction... But I surprisingly read recently that it was projected for the penultimate layout of the North Carolina class battleships, three 14-in. quadruple turrets.

About Admiral Darlan's ideas, we have seen that he has been able to abandon the all forward layout, but I dont know if there are some precise data about the Admiralty choice between the triple or quadruple turrets Alsace types. I think that the drawbacks of the quadruple turret are only acceptable in an all forward layout. And then, the Gascogne choice could have been linked to the delay to perfect drawings for a new triple turret ? But, all this is highly hypothetical...Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for working on the CVR/ATC transcript; the stuff you added is good. Lipsticked Pig 19:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The proper names for the Boeing 747 and Airbus A330 are Boeing B-747 and Airbus A-330. The manufaturer's initial must be stated in the aircraft name and must be seperated from the number like McDonnell Douglas MD-11 and the Edgley EA-7 Optica.

--202.95.200.12 02:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are incorrect. The Airbus fleet does not refer to its plane as "A-" anything. Visit their website. Neither does Boeing. McDonnell Douglas has always hyphenated its planes (and Lockheed did with the L-1011), but that does not make this an industry standard. Boeing documents don't refer to the planes as Boeing 7X7; read this [1] if you don't believe me. Also, read this page. Where is your source for the statement that a manufacturer's initial MUST be stated in the aircraft name, and then hyphenated with model numbers? We use the terminology that is applied by the manufacturer. What does Boeing call its jumbo jet? The Boeing 747. When they commissioned the 777, they had the plane flying around in Boeing livery, and it said Boeing 777, not Boeing B-777. What does Airbus call its monster? The Airbus A380 [2]. What did Douglas call its city-hopper? The DC-9. We use those names because the manufacturers do. Do not revert edits that conform to standard practice in this fashion, unless you can PROVE that you are correct with verifiable sources. Sacxpert 02:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

How come Boeing mentions "B-" in planes like the B-17 Flying Fortress and the B-50-D Superfortress? 202.95.200.12 10:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because those are military aircraft! The B- prefix means bomber. Boeing built the B-52 Stratofortress, a bomber. Convair built the B-60, also a bomber. North American built the XB-70, an experimental bomber. When Boeing designed fighter aircraft, they were labelled P-, because P stood for "pursuit" aircraft in the pre-63 designation system. The Boeing-built fuel tanker version of the 707 airliner was called the KC-135, and then there were planes like the C-18 Monomail. There was even a transport version of the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, and that was called the C-108 Flying Fortress. The Navy used a different system until '63, whereby the manufacturer's code was part of the designation: F4F meant the fourth fighter design by Grumman, F4U meant the fourth fighter designed by Vought, and F4B meant the same for Boeing. But in that system, which only the Navy used only for a time, the manufacturer's name was added at the end, and not hyphenated. The military assigns its own numbers and labels to aircraft based on their use parameters; Boeing had nothing to do with it. Army Air Force/Air Force numbers (until very recently) were all sequential -- Boeing had an internal project number sometimes. For any military aircraft, new-built or converted from civilian, the Air Force assigned a type (P- or F- for fighter, B- for bomber, C- for cargo/transport, H- for chopper, A- for attack, etc.), and then assigned the next unused number. So, B-17 just means "17th bomber design for the US Air Force." After the '60s, these number counts were reset, so that the B-1 Lancer bomber, designed by Rockwell, was the first bomber of the new series, but it didn't matter who built it; Northrup-Grumman designed the stealth bomber, and that's called B-2. You can read more about this here.[3] But this was not applied to civilian aircraft in the United States, nor was it an international standard for aircraft, US or otherwise.

Boeing adopted the "7x7" naming system for its planes on its own; it could have called them anything it wanted. They add a dash to describe most variants: 747-100, 737-800, and the like, but there's no hyphen for lettered sub-versions: 747-236B or 777-200ER, for example. Likewise, Airbus chose the "A3xx" system for its planes; to draw attention to the Airbus name, they added the "A" to the number, but again, that was an internal choice, and they did not hyphenate it. Some people do refer to Boeings 747s as B-747, but that's only a shorthand for "Boeing 747", and the manufacturer doesn't use it. The military system is completely distinct from this. Visit Boeing.com and Airbus.com, and see what terms they use to describe their aeroplanes. Now that you know this, please stop reverting edits, unless you can provide some authentic sources from Boeing or Airbus to prove that they actually refer to their planes as "B-" or "A-", respectively. Thank you. Sacxpert 18:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, the IP user hasn't made any edits in the recent past, so protection is not needed at the present time. However, if the user comes back, let me know and I'll see if protection is warranted in that situation. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I blocked the user for 1 week. If I see the user coming back and doing the same stuff, I'll re-block. If it becomes too much of an annoyance, then protection is justified. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a million! Sacxpert 01:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's not a problem. Moving the items from Mayday to List of... is perfectly fine. If you had requested List of... to be deleted, and then pasted the episode list, there would be a problem. Since you didn't do that, there's no problems here. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm looking into it right now. My initial impression is that the article is partly a hoax, based (weakly) on reality. There's nothing on the Mayday episode that I've been able to find as yet. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading Image:Titanbridger.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 21:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sacxpert. A quick question, what was the other ship sunk by sub since WWII? Thanks. Eoin Ekilfeather 09:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I remember reading that now. Funny to think how money has gone to submarines for so little effect :-) Ekilfeather 08:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Leopard2trainer.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) 22:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for uploading Image:Pionierpanzer-kodiak.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

You were wrong. Any Benz with the suffix '63 AMG' uses the M156, which is a 6.2L DOHC V8. Look it up. Space Turbo (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, maybe I was wrong. Perhaps you should write an article about this mystery engine, as Wikipedia does not seem to have one. Space Turbo (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, you should dig a little deeper on that. I'll keep my eyes peeled and help out here as much as I can, but the Mercedes-Benz articles on Wikipedia are such bags of hammers that I honestly don't know where to begin fixing them :( Space Turbo (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi all. I added back the Ferrari 365/512/512i cars because they are 180 deg V12s; still V12. The first para says V12s do not have to be 60 deg, and the second para actually says they can be 60 or 180 deg. Over on the Boxer pages, they say the cars are 180 deg V12s. I think the spirit of the V12 design is 2 opposing banks of 6 cylinders apiece. Buzzm (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Got your message on my User talk; apols if I don't know the protocol. No one has messaged me on User talk before so I don't if I'm responding in the right place. WRT to flat vs. V, I understand the subtlety here and yes, we all call them flat-12s. I am OK with going for the convention definition of V12 actually being a V, but then we should probably fix up the main page to avoid specifically citing the 180 deg V engine as a V. Consistency here is vital, and if you are actively managing these pages then by all means keep it crisp and delete the 365/512/512i from the list. Buzzm (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Works for me. Changing the lead sets the context properly for V vs. non-V. I am good with that. The technical definition of a thing often differs from the public definition of a thing; sort of an interface/implementation issue. No problems. Buzzm (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

The whole matter at Ungoliant was WP:OR and had to go. No reflection on your judicious grammatical attention, which is much appreciated. Elphion (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. I've never read the book anyway, although I ought. Thanks. Sacxpert (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for seeing that; those errors had been present since December. :\ [4] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

These are all interesting examples (emphasis on the word 'examples'). At this point the article is not 150k, why delete some interesting information about the engines which gives a feel for how they have developed? Surely we can worry about the article getting too big at a later stage. Moreover, these were some of the most crucial developments in the V12 for cars. Please consider this and undo your delete. Many thanks, Korzenioffski (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're addition to the page on the disaster involving the communications between KLM, Pan Am, and the tower, were very different than what was actually said. Here's just one source for the transcript.

I know where you got the cockpit chatter from, it was the show 'Crash of the Century'. Unfortunately parts of that dramatization are false. I removed the hidden section until someone can put a accurate one- William 22:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Atlantic hurricane records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I reverted your edit to List of fastest production cars by acceleration, since you apparently accidentally took out a large chunk of the text of the article with it. I didn't look at the content issue, so you might want to redo that.  — daranz [ t ] 06:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For fixing long-term vandalism in Design A-150 battleship. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Awww, thanks! Sacxpert (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've blocked the one you told me about, User talk:222.108.173.223; thanks for pointing him out. Other admins should feel free to adjust the block as appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to M51 (missile) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |vehicle_range=>10,000 km <ref>http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/2008/09</ref><ref>http://www.techno-science.net/?>
• |filling=M51.1 = 6 to 10 [[TN 75]] MIRV (100 [[TNT equivalent|kiloton (kt)]] (420 [[terajoule|TJ]]), with penetration aids.<br>M51.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the President of South Africa page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! If you're receiving this, it's because you like The West Wing—I happen to love the show, and I'm trying to set up a task force for it under Wikipedia:WikiProject Television to improve its coverage on Wikipedia. If you'd like to join, please leave your name here—hope to see you there!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nuremberg trials. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. (t · c) buidhe 19:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

You are engaged in the very behavior you accuse others of, and threatening me with a ban is uncivil on your part. I have not violated Wikipedia's 3R policy. I have initiated an RfC on the relevant talk page. Sacxpert (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply