User talk:Jackehammond/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pontiac?

  • M39 cannon
  • Hi Jack! Just saw you editing on ERYX and was wondering if you might have something detailed to describe the abovementioned article page? TBH, I lost my head on my talk page after an asshole accused me of wrongful accusation of him vandalising that article, you can find the rest of it on Talk:M39 cannon. As usual, your insight is most welcome as I'm dead certain that M39 shouldn't be attributed to just Pontiac (as what that moron had thought!), because I'm dead sure but I can't recall if Ford Aerospace, Loral and/or GE/GD was also involved in M39's production at one stage or another. Thanks again, and I'll be watching from the sideline for now until I've cleared out some stuffs from my castle. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
Hey Jack, I got a barnstar for my WW2 contributions and was asked to pass it on to another editor who had contributed a lot. This is for your contributions to defense and technology articles. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)



Dear Wilson, Thanks. I appreciate it. Btw, I have the 2011 of The World's Defence Almanac in case you need any defence numbers of a nation, etc. JackJackehammond (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


Funny you mention this, Jack. I'm not looking for any data at the moment, but read last night in a 1982 work by Jim Dunnigan that a rough way to assess force quality was to calculate how the defense budget works out per man in the force. Roughly, as examples, US: $235K, UK: $170K, Germany (and France as well): about $85K, Iran: $17K. Kind of a neat tool, it would probably be a better indicator if one could break out the manpower and budget allocations for each army, air force, etc. Of course, like all numerical indicators, this one has its limitations. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


Dear Dave. Enclosed are the four pages from TWDA-2011 that deals with Singapore. Page 370; Page 371; Page 372; and Page 373. I hope they are of some help. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wilson. Hang in there. I will address your request tomorrow and make a comment. If you have a chance look at the pages I provided Dave, so you can see what TWDA provide. JackJackehammond (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Citing Sources

The easiest way to remember this is that ALL referencing uses this basic formula: Author, title, publisher, date (in that general order, albeit with some variances). Your version:

  • The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft pg. 382 ISBN 0-7607-0592-5 printed 1997

Correctly referenced:

  • Donald, David, ed. The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1997, p. 382. ISBN 0-7607-0592-5.

Correctly referenced as a citation and bibliographical notation:

  • Donald 1997, p. 382. (Harvard Citation)
    • Donald, David, ed. The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1997. ISBN 0-7607-0592-5. (Modern Language Association style guide for referencing)

Your periodical version:

Correctly referenced (Modern Language Association style guide for referencing):

RE: "Thank your for the ex link on Aerial Refueling"

Hi Jack.

Thanks for the message on the User talk:80.4.57.101 page. I used to have an account but stopped using it. Now I just add the occasional bit here and there. BTW, you're welcome - the Flight magazine has lots of interesting information on aviation developments in all nations right back to 1909. Have a look through the archives sometime, I'm sure you'll find something of interest:[1]. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Bofors 57 mm gun

Hello Jack, hope my message finds you well. Just wondering if you could take a look at the article page of Bofors 57 mm gun? Of late, I've done some major overhaul there and could use some feedback, particularly from you as I know that you have more to give than meets the eye. Thanks and best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 22:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Dave Sorry I have not replied sooner, but I was away on a road trip up north hunting fall leaf colours. I will take a look at that article soon and get back with you. Jack --70.225.141.183 (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Dear Jack, please take your time, I'm not in a hurry when it comes to road trip and so should you. Best and out. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Dear Dave, You did an excellent job! I mean great. But FYI, the difference between the Italian Breda 76mm and the Swedish Bofors 57mm I think you will find of interest and if I ever find the articles I will post the references for you. Their are three main roles for ship cannons: 1> Shore bombardment 2> Anti-Ship 3> Anti-Air. Until the advent of the anti-shipping missile the Breda 76mm was superior with its round. But its slew rate and reload is to slow (ie till the Super Rapido which is expensive). The Bofors 57mm ammunition is superior in all the roles including anti-aircraft, anti-missile and anti-ship with the exception of shore-bombardment. In addition since WW2 because of the Japanese suicide aircraft the USN and other navies wanted a cannon that could literally knock an aircraft out of the sky. That meant an auto 3-inch or even a 5-inch auto cannon. But today, ships have short-medium range surface to air missiles like the Sea Sparrow or the Sea Wolf that can do that job easily. Jack-Jackehammond (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Jack! I'm well aware of the differences between them and no prize for guessing why Singapore along with South Korea has chosen the OM 76mm SR, for shore bombardment in support of the Army/Marines. Honestly, I think there is room still for improvement on the Bofors 57 mm but what I really want to do now is to add a new section on Bofors 40 mm about the Ammunition, especially the new Bofors 40 mm 3P rounds (like those of the 57 mm) and the new Bofors 40 mm Mark 3, which is very similar in appearance to the 57 mm Mark 3. Any chance you might want to collaborate with me on this? Oh, and I was also thinking about writing a new article or as a sub-section about the Bofors 57mm L/60, which was available in single or twin-cannon mounts. Thoughts? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Dave, What is needed with the Bofors 57 mm gun and the Bofors 40 mm: is 1> a split for the 57mm cannons for those before the modern much lighter dual purpose ones designed for light attack craft used today and the older much less known or used anti-air ones. Sort of like we split off the first much heavier 76/62mm Allargato from the lighter more famous Otobreda 76 mm. And 2> for the Bofors 40mm a section for the L60 of WWII fame and the post WWII higher velocity L70 used today. While both the Bofors 57mm and 40mm cannons share the same diameter caliber, they are two distinct differences in design (for the 57mm family) and two distinct differences in ammo (for the 40mm family) -- as L60 and L70 can not fire the ammo between them, but the 57mm Bofors can, no matter the year of manufacture. So I would have a section titled Bofors 40mm(L60) and Bofors 40mm(L70) and I would use dates for the delimiters for the two sections of the 57mm cannon families. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear David, As you have said I seems to be in hibernation. I have been posting small stuff I find reading books and magazines, but it has been a while since I did some real research and started a page or really did the work properly on a page that really needs it. The Otobreda 76mm needs it bad as the older 76mm Allargato which is used by one country and hardly at all has a lot more info and the Otobreda 76mm cannon is the most popular and widely used naval cannon in the world! And has seen a lot of combat where the Bofors 57mm has to my knowledge never been fired in anger. And the amount of content an info should be the reverse on the two pages. But at this time I am in a funk do to family problems. And like it seems all family problems in the USA it involves drug use (not me or my wife) and like most family members drug use, you are totally helpless, and all you do is watch them descend into the depths of addiction. I hope to come out of it soon and have the old excitement I use to have. As I really enjoyed and got great personal satisfaction working on pages with Wilson and you. And to my surprise I actually enjoy and get more personal satisfaction on working on Wiki articles in which there is no byline or payment as when I wrote article. Decades from now the article will still be there and I will be gone. But I don't care. I know I was involved with a great bunch of other editors in it. And that is enough. Also -- to Milborne's and your great relief <grin> -- I at last got an understanding of Wiki rules and culture and am staying out of trouble and have not stepped on any toes accidentally anymore. Jack -- Jackehammond (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't lose hope, if it is someone we care and love then we should never despair. Later, I'll send you an email which I'm in the middle of composing. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Jackehammond. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Editing/citing a periodical

Note the differences:

  • Your edit: <ref> "Huge Super Charger Drive Plane to New Record", April 1932, bottom of page 591</ref>
    • My edit: <ref>"Huge Supercharger Drives Plane to New Record." Popular Mechanics, April 1932, p. 591.</ref> FWiW, subtle but important changes to look at: title has to be precise, I note you are using title capitalization which is fine but non-standard for periodical titles, typically written in sentence form; titles have to be separated by a period and when there are two titles, the article title is in quotation marks and the periodical title is in italics; other information "tracings" include publishing information (Volume, Issue, number, etc), date of publication and location of information (page number only is needed). Read this note in the edit mode to see all the changes. Bzuk (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC).
Dear Bzuk, Thanks for the information on the corrections.Jack Jackehammond (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Bzuk, I see you already beat me back to the B-23. Jackehammond (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Multiple page range

Re your question: "Dear Bzuk, how do you handle multiple page articles. Is it p.165-168 or is is pp.165-168 or pg.165-168? Jack Jackehammond (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)." Response: Although Wikipedia advocates no particular system and allows a wide divergence in format, the actual correct page range is written: pp. 165–168. (note spacing and use of emdash, can also be written in Wiki "markup" as: pp. 165—168.) As to the period, I add the period (full stop) because I was taught in my library referencing course (yes, there actually are such things), that all statements should be ended (this is obviously a connection to an earlier time, when all work was changing from a type-written to keyboard generated data, with the convention established to use a full stop to complete the statement). The reasoning is also due to the use of a standardized style guide for bibliographic notation, typically in American Psychological Association (APA) or Modern Language Association (MLA) formats (the two most common bibliographic style guides and predominately used in Wikywackywonderland), where strict requirements for "tracings" are given, in this case, p. means "page" (not pg. which does make sense) and pp. means "pages" or "page range". FWiW, no charge this time for the dissertation ... (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC).

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC).


Thank you. Best Wishes to you and your family. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Railway Carriage for 12-Inch Mortar

Nice catch with the link you added to this article! I had been unaware of this arrangement, and added a few details that I got from a standard coast defense reference book. Pgrig (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Actually, in going back to check, I found some information that suggests that this RR mortar may have only operated as a "test bed" at Fort Hancock in Sandy Hook, NJ, with two mortars that fired only from 150 foot-long spur tracks. I will try to check this out, but your addition is still a very good one! -PGrig
  • Thanks for the information. It makes it a lot better. I want back and put the designations in bold letters so the Wiki Search can find it easier. Might even make a redirect to it. Also, have you seen a copy of John Gordon's book FIGHTING FOR MACARTHUR. The description of the defenses of the mouth of Manilla Bay are unbelievable. At last someone has gotten all the information in one book. The part of the minefields that the USN and US Army shared responsibility for explains why the Japanese had to take both Bataan and Corregidor Is to open up Manilla Bay. Again, THANKS.--Jackehammond (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just curious: Why is it that certain article are defended by a group that at fanatics?

Folks,

With experience and the help of some old time editors, I have not had it happened in a long time. But I got a revert done on an edit I did recently on Hoover Dam. It was just a little paragraph and a good reference and I have learned to just let it happen and move on. But what I can not figure out is that certain article which are not that important are defend to the hilt against any edit not done with a certain group of editors permission. Sort of like the watch dogs they have in Mekka or Medina to keep unbeliever our. Now I can understand it on certain subjects like religion, a politician or wars, or Elvis, but a dam? Why? Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Jack, forgive them and move on, you'll feel relieved and they'd be irritated to high heavens because of your forgiveness. Think about it, letting the matter stay on in your head is liken to letting someone (not related in anyway, of course) live rent free in your house. Just to let you know that your fans are atill adoring you, ahem! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I do Dave. But it sounds more like Alcoholics or Narcotic Annoyminous than Wikipedia. <GRIN> Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I concur and this whole addiction thingies isn't too far from the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

US Army tanks and cannon designations: Houston we got a problem

Folks, I was doing some entry on a 155mm self propelled cannon that can into use shortly after the Korean War ended in 1954. The Cannon is the M-44. It uses the drive train of the M-41 light tank. Now comes the problem (and I have checked and checked and I am 99.999% I am right). All the designations of US Army tanks and other armored vehicles are minus the dash "-". For example the Sherman is listed at the M4 and the Bulldog as the M41. There official designation is M-4 and M-41. Artillery is listed as for example M114 or M113, except if it is a an artillery piece developed specifically for a self propelled mount. Is this important. Because if you all feel it is, there is going to be a sh*t pot load of work to correct it. Comments please. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


Jack, I go with this site -- this person is very serious about their U.S. AFV data. No dashes on this site. Good to see you're still kicking around here. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


Dear Dave and Wilson, I think the best is to leave it alone. Most of the 1950s articles based on press releases from the manufacture or the military have a dash. And all the old reference books. A change was made sometime for some reason. But a change now would cause confusion I think. Look at this page for US Army M-numbers for example! We would be dead by the time we made the changes on Wiki. So I am just leaving a note in references stating many article originally referred to the item with a dash between "M" and the numerical designation. Anyway people can still find the pages by doing search and us having redirects or entries on the disambiguous(?) page. Yes, I am still kicking around. But sort of the lazy-Wiki editor. I am cruising the old issues of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics and I find a lot of articles of forgotten items. A lot of forgotten aircraft and weapons and even ships with a drove of info. Usually when I post a link I check the article out and find something incorrect or not enough info and I take care of that. Believe it or not I stumble on hardly any disputes. I keep the page I have added to, on my watch list and after a month delete it. And only once in the last year have I had an edit reverted. And for what ever the editors are fighting like cats and dogs over the Hoover Dam page????? Last I would like to thank you all for just taking a look at this issue. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


Jack, FWIW, the 1944 Catalog of Standard Ordnance Items does not use dashes in the M-codes. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Wilson, Glad I asked before doing anything. I can't figure it out, in the 1950s and even 1960s articles (even publications like ARMY) they have the dashes and then non-dashes. Glad I just left it alone. Btw, Christopher Foss is one of the most famous in armoured vehicles -- like Ian Hogg is to small arms -- and he shows them with dashes. Now I could see US military editors making that mistake. But the British!!!! Again thanks. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jackehammond/Archive_9&oldid=1143541049"