User talk:Capt Jack Doicy

Image Tagging Image:Para1.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Para1.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images 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. Hunter 16:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lustlogo.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lustlogo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 19:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CVF page comment.

Hi. I've replied as best I can to your comments. Mark83 23:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CVF beam

Hello, Captain. I was surprised that you elected to restore the 70m figure entered by User:82.26.105.33 for the beam of CVF, particularly since you did not complete an edit summary or give any explanation on the Talk Page. In inserting the figure of 39m from www.globalsecurity.org, I did both. For your convenience, I repeat my rationale, given at Talk:Royal Navy CVF programme, here:

"Remember that beam is measured at the waterline. A beam of 70m would imply a length-beam ratio of only 4:1, which is out of the question in a major warship. The image accompanying the article clearly shows a much greater length-beam ratio. Having revisited globalsecurity.org, I find that, as I suspected, 70m (give or take a metre) is the overall width and/or the width of the flight deck."

You advance no arguments to contradict this view. Why, then, did you change it?

One final question, which I hope you will not find discourteous: are you and User:82.26.105.33 one and the same?

Regards, John Moore 309 14:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You may post your reply here if you wish; I have added this page to my watchlist. John Moore 309

Hello again; I am posting to advise you that I intend to restore the figure of 39m for the beam of CVF, along with the links to www.globalsecurity.org, later today or tomorrow. Please let me know if you have any problem with this. Regards, John Moore 309 17:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i didn't reply sooner, i changed it to match the official navy listing, which list the beam as such, and i trust the navy to known the dimension better than some website i have never heard of, i don't think the website was reliable since though some of its information was true it was based mostly on armchair admiral speculation. And since this an encyclopedia i believe it wise to follow the RN site since it is their design if the revise their dimension and its the point at which Wiki should revise its dimension.

Thanks for this. I see where you are coming from, and in the ordinary way I would agree with you. Let me run a few figures past you (the Block coefficient is Displacement/(Length x Beam x Draught))

CVA-01 (our last major carrier design)
- Displacement: 54500 tons
- Length: 271m
- Beam: 37m
- Draught: 10.2m
- Length/beam ratio: 7.3
- Block coefficient: 0.53
Yamato (historical example of a CVF-sized warship)
- Displacement: 73,000 tons
- Length: 256m (waterline)
- Beam: 36.9m
- Draught: 11m
- Length/beam ratio: 6.9
- Block coefficient: 0.70
USS Nimitz (Supercarrier)
- Displacement: 101,000 tons
- Length: 317m (waterline)
- Beam: 40.8
- Draught: c.12m
- Length/beam ratio: 7.8
- Block coefficient: 0.65
CVF – MoD figures
- Displacement: 65,000 tons
- Length: 289m (waterline)
- Beam: 70m
- Draught: 9m
- Length/beam ratio: 4.0
- Block coefficient: 0.37
CVF – 39m beam
- Length/beam ratio: 7.2
- Block coefficient: 0.66.

Historically, the smallest length/beam ratio for a large warship has been 6.9, and the smallest block coefficient 0.53. Clearly a 70m beam at the waterline implies a spectacular excursion from historic design practice, with a length/beam ratio of only 4.0 and a block coefficient of only 0.37, implying a V-shaped underwater hull and impossibly fine ends. The 39m figure, on the other hand, fits in squarely with previous practice. Moreover, I have yet to find any record of a warship with a beam at the waterline excceding 41m. Incidentally, User:82.26.105.33 is wrong in claiming that the Nimitz was designed to transit the Panama canal; to achieve this, she would have to be no more than 294.1 x 32.3 x 12.0 metres (see Panamax).

Supercarriers pose special problems because of the gigantic overhang of their flight deck, and it seems that some Wikipedians consider the use of beam to mean “overall width” as legitimate usage. For example, the Nimitz article gives an “overall beam” of 76.8m, ditinguished from the “waterline beam” of 40.8m. It is possible that the editor of the RN website takes the same view. Would you be happy if I give the beam as “70m (overall), 39m (waterline)”, referenced to the RN website and GlobalSecurity.org respectively? Regards, John Moore 309 22:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats a fair solution.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Capt Jack Doicy (talk • contribs)

OK, I've done that. Thanks for your patience. Regards, John Moore 309 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial and potentinally libelous comments

Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Pope Benedict XVI. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. This applies to your comments in Talk: Pope Benedict XVI as well.

In addition, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for guidelines on biographies. Your repeated comments can be considered libelous, and are a clear violation of WP guidelines. Putting the NPOV tag is not something to be done lightly, especially when there is not consensus. Note that the article is rated GA. Anietor 16:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about your account

Please confirm whether you are also using 82.26.106.141 --Anietor 22:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looks like you've made edits and talk page comments using 82.26.110.246. Perhaps you are forgetting to log in to your account. I would recommend you log in every time. It will save confusion as to who is editing and commenting. It is particularly advisable for you, since you have been involved in some rather contentious discussions, and some controversial edit wars in Pope Benedict XVI. Some may think you are using the multiple accounts for improper sock puppetry. Just a word of advice. --Anietor 16:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its normally because i can't be arsed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capt Jack Doicy (talk • contribs)

Page renaming

Page renaming must be carried out ONLY by the "page move" function and never by cut and paste. `'Míkka 20:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angry rants can make you blocked forever. Cut and paste page moves are forbidden in wikipedia. Period. The reason is lost edit history of articles. While you are blocked fr 1 hour, take your time and read the wikipedia:Civility policy and osme other useful links in the wikipedia:Welcome page. `'Míkka 20:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a sock puppet of Sherzo

This account is a sockpuppet of Sherzo (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Capt Jack Doicy/Archive for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

File:Para1.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Para1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Secret ^account 03:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Para1.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Para1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]