text:
Lydia Koidula

Lydia Emilie Florentine Jannsen (24 December 1843 – 11 August 1886), known by her pen name Lydia Koidula, was an Estonian poet. Her sobriquet means 'Lydia of the Dawn' in Estonian. It was given to her by the writer Carl Robert Jakobson. She is also frequently referred to as Koidulaulik – 'Singer of the Dawn'.

In Estonia, like elsewhere in Europe, writing was not considered a suitable career for a respectable young lady in the mid-19th century. Koidula's poetry and her newspaper work for her populist father, Johann Voldemar Jannsen (1819–1890) remained anonymous. In spite of this, she was a major literary figure, the founder of Estonian theatre, and closely allied to Carl Robert Jakobson (1841–1882), the influential radical and Friedrich Reinhold Kreutzwald (1803–1882), writer of the Estonian national epic, Kalevipoeg (The Son of Kalev). Over time, she has achieved the status of the national poet of Estonia.

Biography
Lydia Jannsen was born in Vändra (Fennern), Estonia. The family moved to the nearby county town of Pärnu (Pernau) in 1850 where, in 1857, her father started the first local Estonian language newspaper and where Lydia attended the German-language grammar school. The Jannsens moved to the university town of Tartu (Dorpat) in 1864. Any kind of expression of nationalism, including publication in indigenous languages, was a sensitive subject in the Russian Empire, however the rule of czar Alexander II (1855–1881) was relatively liberal and Jannsen managed to persuade the imperial censorship to allow him to publish the first Estonian-language newspaper with nationwide distribution in 1864. Both the Pärnu local and the national newspaper were called Postimees (The Courier). Lydia wrote for her father on both papers besides publishing her own work. In 1873, she married Eduard Michelson, an army physician, and moved to Kronstadt (Russian naval base on an island near St. Petersburg). In 1876–78 the Michelsons visited Breslau, Strasbourg and Vienna. Koidula lived in Kronstadt for 13 years and albeit during that time she would spend the summers in Estonia, she reportedly never stopped feeling inconsolably homesick. Lydia Koidula was the mother of three children. She died from breast cancer on 11 August 1886. Her last poem was Enne surma — Eestimaale! (Before death, to Estonia!).

Works
Koidula's most important work, Emajõe ööbik, (The Nightingale of the Emajõgi River), was published in 1867. Three years earlier, in 1864, Adam Peterson, a farmer, and Johann Köler, a fashionable Estonian portraitist living in Saint Petersburg, had petitioned the emperor for better treatment from the German landowners who ruled the Baltic provinces, equality, and for the language of secondary and higher education to be Estonian instead of German. Immediately afterwards they were taken to the police where they were interrogated about a petition that 'included false information and was directed against the state'. Adam Peterson was sentenced to imprisonment for a year. Two years later, in 1866, the censorship reforms of 1855 that had given Koidula's father a window to start Postimees were reversed. Pre-publication censorship was re-imposed and literary freedom was curtailed. This was the political and literary climate when Koidula started to publish. Nevertheless, it was also the time of the national awakening when the Estonian people, freed from serfdom in 1816, were beginning to feel a sense of pride in nationhood and to aspire to self-determination. Koidula was the most articulate voice of these aspirations.

German influence in Koidula's work was unavoidable. The Baltic Germans had retained hegemony in the region since the 13th century, throughout German, Polish, Swedish and Russian rule and thus German was the language of tuition and of the intelligentsia in 19th century Estonia. Like her father (and all other Estonian writers at the time) Koidula translated much sentimental German prose, poetry and drama and there is a particular influence of the Biedermeier movement. Biedermeier, a style which dominated 'bourgeois' art in continental Europe from 1815 to 1848, developed in the wake of the suppression of revolutionary ideas following the defeat of Napoleon. It was plain, unpretentious and characterised by pastoral romanticism; its themes were the home, the family, religion and scenes of rural life. The themes of Koidula's early Vainulilled (Meadow Flowers; 1866) were certainly proto-Biedermeier, but her delicate, melodic treatment of them was in no way rustic or unsophisticated, as demonstrated in the unrestrained patriotic outpourings of Emajõe Ööbik. Koidula reacted to the historical subjugation of the Estonian people as to a personal affront; she spoke of slavery and the yoke of subordination as if from personal experience. By the time of the National Awakening in the 1860s, Estonia had been ruled by foreign powers – Danish, German, Swedish, Polish and Russian – for over 600 years. In this context, she was conscious of her own role in the destiny of the nation. She once wrote to a Finnish correspondent: "It is a sin, a great sin, to be little in great times when a person can actually make history".

The Estonian literary tradition started by Kreutzwald continued with Koidula but whereas The Bard of Viru tried to imitate the regivärss folk traditions of ancient Estonian, Koidula wrote (mostly) in modern, Western European end-rhyming metres that had, by the mid 19th century, become the dominant form. This made Koidula's poetry much more accessible to the popular reader. But the major importance of Koidula lay not so much in her preferred form of verse but in her potent use of the Estonian language. Estonian was, still, in the 1860s, in a German dominated Baltic province of Imperial Russia, the language of the oppressed indigenous peasantry. It was still the subject of orthographical bickering, still used in the main for predominantly patronising educationalist or religious texts, practical advice to farmers or cheap and cheerful popular story telling. Koidula successfully used the vernacular language to express emotions that ranged from an affectionate poem about the family cat, in Meie kass (Our Cat) and delicate love poetry, Head ööd (Good Night) to a powerful cri de coeur and rallying call to an oppressed nation, Mu isamaa nad olid matnud (My Country, They Have Buried You). With Lydia Koidula, the colonial view that the Estonian language was an underdeveloped instrument for communication was, for the first time, demonstrably contradicted.

Drama

Koidula is also considered the "founder of Estonian theatre" through her drama activities at the Vanemuine Society (Estonian: Vanemuise Selts), a society started by the Jannsens in Tartu in 1865 to promote Estonian culture. Lydia was the first to write original plays in Estonian and to address the practicalities of stage direction and production. Despite some Estonian interludes at the German theatre in Tallinn, in the early 19th century, there had been no appreciation of theatre as a medium and few writers considered drama of any consequence, though Kreutzwald had translated two verse tragedies. In the late 1860s, both Estonians and Finns started to develop performances in their native tongues and Koidula, following suit, wrote and directed the comedy, Saaremaa Onupoeg (The Cousin from Saaremaa) in 1870 for the Vanemuine Society. It was based on Theodor Körner's (1791–1813) farce Der Vetter aus Bremen, (The Cousin from Bremen) adapted to an Estonian situation. The characterisation was rudimentary and the plot was simple but it was popular and Koidula went on to write and direct Maret ja Miina, (aka Kosjakased; The Betrothal Birches, 1870) and her own creation, the first ever completely Estonian play, Säärane mulk (What a Bumpkin!). Koidula's attitude to the theatre was influenced by the philosopher, dramatist, and critic Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781), the author of Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts (The Education of the Human Race; 1780). Her plays were didactic and a vehicle for popular education. Koidula's theatrical resources were few and raw – untrained, amateur actors and women played by men – but the qualities that impressed her contemporaries were a gallery of believable characters and cognizance of contemporary situations.

At the first Estonian Song Festival, in 1869, an important rallying event of the Estonian clans, two poems were set to music with lyrics by Lydia Koidula: Sind Surmani (Till Death) and Mu isamaa on minu arm (My Country is My Love), which became the unofficial anthem during the Soviet occupation when her father's Mu isamaa, mu õnn ja rõõm (My Country is My Pride and Joy), the anthem of the Estonian Republic between 1921 and 1940, was forbidden. Koidula's song always finished every festival, with or without permission. The tradition persists to this day.

Memorial Museum of Lydia Koidula
A branch of the Pärnu Museum, the museum gives an overview of the life and work of poet Lydia Koidula and her father Johann Voldemar Jannsen (author of the lyrics of Estonian anthem), important figures in Estonian national awakening period in the 19th century.

The Koidula museum is located in the Pärnu Ülejõe schoolhouse. The building was constructed in 1850 and has a unique interior. It was the home of Johann Voldemar Jannsen and the editorial office of the Perno Postimees newspaper until 1863, now it is under protection as a historical monument. Jannsen's elder daughter, poet Lydia Koidula grew up in the house. It is the main task of the museum to keep alive the memory of Koidula and Jannsen and to introduce their life and work in the context of the period of national awakening in Estonia through the permanent exposition.

There is a monument of Lydia Koidula in the citycenter of Pärnu next to the historical building of Victoria Hotel on the corner of Kuninga and Lõuna street. The monument dates to 1929 and was the last work by Estonian sculptor Amandus Adamson. Finally, she was on the pre-euro 100 krooni banknote.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Lydia Koidula


text:
Norton Commander

Norton Commander (NC) is a discontinued prototypical orthodox file manager (OFM), written by John Socha and released by Peter Norton Computing (later acquired in 1990 by the Symantec corporation). NC provides a text-based user interface for managing files on top of MS-DOS. It was officially produced between 1986 and 1998. The last MS-DOS version of Norton Commander, 5.51, was released on July 1, 1998.

A related product, Norton Desktop, a graphical shell for MS-DOS and Windows, succeeded Norton Commander. It came in two variants, Norton Desktop for DOS and Norton Desktop for Windows.

Background

John Socha started work on Norton Commander in 1984; at the time, he called it "Visual DOS" or "VDOS".

Norton Commander was easy to use because it had a constant view of two file manipulation objects at once. After starting the program the user sees two panels with file lists. Each panel can be easily configured to show information about the other panel, a directory tree, or a number of other options. At the bottom of the screen, Norton Commander displays a list of commands that are extended on demand by the CTRL and ALT keys. Thus, without heavy use of the mouse (although mouse functionality was integrated around version 3.0), the user is able to perform many file manipulation actions quickly and efficiently. Additionally, it also includes a built-in text file viewer (invoked with F3 key) and text file editor (invoked with F4 key).

Norton Commander was very popular during the DOS era and it has been extensively cloned. For example, the IntelliJ IDE used to include a "Commander" plugin that performed file manipulation using the same shortcut keys as Norton Commander but the plugin is now obsolete.

Long filenames
Windows 95 included a new graphical shell called Windows Explorer and supported long filenames (LFN). Symantec released Norton Commander 5.51 to support long filenames using the standard Windows APIs. In order to preserve LFNs while working in real mode, Norton Commander 5.51 required the use of a terminate-and-stay-resident (TSR) utility. Norton Commander did not have native support for LFNs in real mode and would truncate them.

End of life
According to former Peter Norton Group developer Mark Lawler, after Symantec had acquired Peter Norton Computing, Symantec had speculated Microsoft Windows would be a success, so the key PNC resources had been diverted, while new programmers for the Windows platform were hired. Enrique Salem (who eventually became Symantec's CEO) led the development of a Windows shell replacement for Windows File Manager and Program Manager released as Norton Desktop for Windows.

Norton Commander for Windows
Norton Commander for Windows was a Windows 95 variant of the classical DOS file manager.

1.0
Version 1.0 was first released in 1996. It supported both Windows 95 and Windows NT.

This version fully integrated with Windows features such as the Recycle Bin and Quick View. Quick View feature was supported via the included basic Quick View Plus.

Version 1.02 added Windows 98 support.

2.0
Version 2.0 was released in 2000. It supports Windows 2000 and functions under Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7. Installer included Network Utilities, Norton Commander Scheduler, and the Norton Commander.

Network Utilities allows for viewing devices and systems on network, connecting to remote systems, mapping network drives, network monitoring, and more.

Norton Commander is little changed from previous versions, and includes file compression/de-compression of various formats, network utilities access, disk cleanup, files and folder compare, FTP connection management, and more.

The last Windows version of Norton Commander was 2.01.

Norton Commander for OS/2
Version 1.0 was released in December 1992. It supports OS/2 2.0 with HPFS or FAT file system.

It does not include the command prompt found in other versions of Norton Commander.

In June 1993, Symantec lowered the price of Norton Commander for OS/2 to $49, and soon ceased sales.

Reception
BYTE in 1989 listed Norton Commander 2.0 for DOS as among the "Distinction" winners of the BYTE Awards, stating that "navigating through a crowded hard disk is a breeze".

Norton Commander-inspired software
There are several programs that follow the style of Norton Commander. Examples are:
 * ACE Archiver for DOS in the first versions had a NC-inspired interactive interface
 * Altap Salamander for Windows
 * BeFAR for BeOS
 * Commander One for macOS
 * Demos Commander for Unix and Linux
 * Directory Opus for Amiga (1990) and Windows (2001)
 * DOS Command Center (DCC) DOS and Win95 versions
 * DOS Navigator for DOS
 * Double Commander for Windows and Linux
 * FAR Manager for Windows
 * fman for Windows, Mac and Linux
 * Ghost Commander for Android systems
 * GNOME Commander for Unix-like systems
 * HiFile for Windows, Mac and Linux
 * Krusader for Unix-like systems
 * Midnight Commander for Unix-like systems (including macOS) and Windows
 * muCommander for Java platform
 * Music on Console for Unix-like systems; actually a music player
 * PowerDesk by Avanquest, of which an evaluation version of Version 4 is included in Microsoft's Windows NT 4.0 Resource Kits
 * Stereo Shell for DOS
 * The DOS Controller by Søren Kragh
 * Total Commander for Windows
 * Volkov Commander for DOS
 * WinNC for Windows 10
 * RAR archive manager used to have Norton Commander-like interface, the last version with that interactive file manager interface look-alike was DOS version 2.50
 * Xfolders for OS X

References in popular culture

 * Norton Commander is a song released by the Montreal indie group, Men I Trust. While the song contains no literal references to the Norton Commander file manager, it is speculated that the song's subject matter of comfort and familiarity relate to the familiarity and reliability of the software.

title: Norton Commander


text:
User talk:Quietly

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Hey does this look right, it was on my company webpage as a trivia question,

Solve for x if 2x - 5 < 11 and x + 3 < 20  Answer:  Combining two inequalities with 'and'. The answer is x>8 and x<17.

Let me know what you think,Strangealibi 12:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

See if this one makes sense, I'm confused by it indeed,

If x2 + y2 = 100, and xy = 18, find the value of x - y (** note - that is x and y squared, which is difficult to display in html) Answer:  The solution is 8 or -8

This is how it was displayed, I believe this problem does not have a real solution, Strangealibi 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

re Victory at Sea and notability
Hi. I think I owe you some answers... As an admin I can delete articles, but it doesn't necessarily follow that I always delete the right articles - I may remove stubs I shouldn't and leave alone some pieces that are better removed. In short, I make mistakes. You may be right, and the band may be notable.

I suggest you pop over to Notability (music) and confirm if your article did comply with the criteria. If the band does qualify, or even if it needs a bit more work, then you can recreate it or request I undelete it and you can work on it some more. I don't recall the article, but I possibly didn't find enough independent third party sources to establish notability to my satisfaction. If you can provide these references then the article can be resurrected. Of course, you might find another admin at WP:BAND who will do that bit for you.

As for your other question, although your suggestion may limit the damage caused by vandalism it would also limit the good work done by ip editors. While vandalism can be irritating and tedious to clear up the thinking is that there is more good stuff than bad created by anonymous contributors. Also, not all vandalism is by anons - so limiting ip participation does not stop vandalism.

I hope this helps. If you need any other help (like undeleting an article) please feel free to contact me. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you answered your second question yourself; we should only react to vandalism. Also, ip's can be reassigned so we don't want to wipe out good edits by someone for something bad someone else did. Thanks for caring and asking, and happy editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There you go... happy editing.LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mathmo
hey cody, try taking this test it is for fun, http://www.mathmo.org/test/mathmotest.html Strangealibi (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Curvature
I don't think I understand this. I think all circles and shapes have the same curvature, depending on how close you are to it. As you zoom in on any value of curature it should be reduced, and as you zoom out it increases. Thoughts?Strangealibi (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Quietly


text: Category:Bastrop County, Texas

title: Category:Bastrop County, Texas


text:
User talk:Tmiski

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

title: User talk:Tmiski


text:
User talk:Hexii

Hey Hexi!
Hi Hexi! I love the game. Unfortunately, it looks as if it's going to be deleted from Wikipedia. Do you have any idea when the next version will be released? It's been quite a while, so I was wondering if the project is dead. The community is alive and well though...--Planetary 23:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hexii


text:
Talk:Anti-aircraft warfare

Gap in US Army Equipment?
I belive the statement, "The United States Army has disdained air defense for ground units, counting on achieving air superiority. This has left a gap in American military equipment between the man-portable Stinger and the theater anti-missile system Patriot." should be removed. The existence of the Avenger Missle System, which has been in service since 1989, seems to disprove it.

 * It would be good to find a source which confirms or denies this statement. The presence of the Avenger alone doesn't really prove anything; it depends on the level of deployment, the presence and nature of AA assets at coy, bn, bde, div levels, doctrine, etc.  —Michael Z. 2005-11-5 17:08 Z

 * By checking the Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE), a US Division has 1 battalion of Air Defense Artillery assigned with between 1 and 3 batteries (companies) using the Avenger (12 Avengers per battery). Heavier divisions also have M6 Linebackers assigned (anti-aircraft versions of the M2 Bradley IFV).  Check it out at GlobalSecurity.org.  I think that disproves the statement in question. Movementarian 14:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

 * If there are no objections I am going to replace the disdain statement with something about the US Army Air Defense Artillery Regts. Movementarian 18:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The replacement to the above statement creates a misleading sense that the US Army has a comprehensive air defence system. The statement above is actually very close to being accurate (much closer than its replacement). Avenger and Linebacker are both glorified FIM-92 carriers+rangefinder. I'm not sure "disdain" is appropriate (and the XXI division has a MUCH strengthened SHORAD component in comparison to the older organization), but they definitely don't pay as much attention to it as some other Armies. So I replaced everything by listing out the main tiers and letting the reader decide the difference. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Structuring needed
The article needs disambiguation and restructuring badly. We should distinct between the weapon systems (i.e. mostly technical issues) and military organization (strategy, tactics, battle history, ranks so forth). One should know that "air defense" is not just a type of warfare, but also a name for the distinct military detachments (or whole forces - such as in USSR and North Korea). Would someone fix this because my English military terms are relatively poor (but ready to consult and discuss). AlexPU 17:06, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm working on this. Making some progress. Nvinen 15:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Move to "Air Defense"?
The title "Anti-aircraft" sounds funny. Is it a noun? "Anti-aircraft warfare" or "Air defense" sounds much better. Comments? Kowloonese 21:39, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to get some kind of consensus on what the title for this article should be, since the current title seems awkward and ungrammatical. Something like "Anti-Aircraft warfare" or "Air Defense" would be good, I think. Something that's a noun, at least. Night Gyr 19:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to "Air defence", with a link from "Anti-aircraft" and possibly "Anti-aircraft warfare". I suppose it doesn't really matter if it's defence or defense but I'd put a link from one to the other to allow other articles to use either form. Nvinen 08:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. Anti-aircraft warfare is the best choice. So I moved it and all links. Nvinen 14:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Air defence isn't just about ground-based weapons. It includes, for example, fighter interception, radar and observer corps (historically). So two separate articles are needed: an overview article about air defence in general, and a separate one that deals with AAA. Spliced 21:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

fuze/fuse
Is there a good reason "fuze" was changed to "fuse"? In my experience, the type of device we're talking about (proximity fuze, contact fuze, etc.) is usually spelled with a z. Dictionary.com agrees with me:. I use fuze for this type of situation and fuse for, say, fusing two items together, despite the fact that I speak British English...

Shooting down aircrafts with small arms?
The current article states that most aircraft casualties in modern war are from small arms fire. that smells like bullshit to me. Fighters are armoured and it would be extremely difficult to shoot down a jet aircraft moving at mach 1.5 with a 9 mm. Shooting down low flying aircrafts with a bofors 40 mm would be much more likely.I would love to see some proof that most aircraft casualties are from small arms fire.

The above comment smacks of battlefield 3 tacticool.

Does man-portable AA missiles count as small arms? (Forgive me if this question is stupid...)--Kultz 02:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

No man portable AA missiles are not small arms. Small arms are conventional man portable firearms which shoot down a extremly minute amount of aircraft. Whoever wrote they shoot down the majority of aircraft must have missunderstood or something.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 10:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've often run across the claim that an advantage of the AK-47 over the M-16 is that the larger calibur ammunition was not particularly helpful against personell, but was an advantage in shooting at aircraft.
 * Perhaps, but when you're trying to shoot down an aircraft...you want full-auto like that of the AK-47 --mboverload 00:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I think "shooting down aircraft with small arms" mean shooting down helicoptors, not jets.

Tangential comment: small arms have a very low chance of hitting and damaging airplanes, but I understand that the Soviet Cold-War antiaircraft doctrine was that ever available weapon including small arms would be trying to fill the air in front of a low-flying NATO jet with lead. I suspect pistols and SMGs would not be eligible. —Michael Z. 2006-05-17 15:53 Z

 * That was US doctrine also; I recall questioning it at the time ;) DMorpheus (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's an army manual on small arms air defense; it includes heavy machine guns as small arms.
 * Additionally, I wonder if anyone knows if anti-materiel rifles (.50 BMG) could actually be used in the AA defense. I've heard that the Finns shot down a few planes during WWII using their 20mm rifle, but I'd like to see a definitive study/manual about using anti-material rifles this way. (IMHO, shooting the pilot really shouldn't count as an AA kill...) --UnneededAplomb (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Of course it counts as an AA kill. Unless of course you shot the pilot on the ground outside of his plane, maybe in a a bar or at his home. I don't think that would count as an AA kill.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the statement regarding aircraft casualties reflects combat situations more than the suitability of small arms for the purpose. The majority of recent aircraft losses in combat have been situations where an industrialized nation completely controls the airspace over a numerically superior force armed largely with small arms. Small arms will cause the majority of aircraft losses when small arms are the only thing being fired at aircraft. Despite measures taken for pilot protection, jet turbines operate at high speeds and high temperatures within close tolerances; and are easily damaged by any solid material, including bullets, ingested pieces of a damaged forward airframe, and broken turbine blades. Hydraulic systems necessary for actuation of control surfaces are similarly vulnerable to damage causing leaks and ultimate loss of aircraft control.Thewellman (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

German Term
The german term stated as the root of flak is different from the one stated in the wiktionary. Here it is Flugabwehrkanone (and in the disambiguation page for flak), Wiktionary states Fliegerabwehrkanone.

(unsigned)

The correct German term really is Flugabwehrkanone. Please have a look at the German sister page as well as at at least somewhat authorative sites like http://www.geschichte.luftwaffe.de/portal/a/luftwaffe/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN48PDnYDSYGYAYb6kTChoJRUfV-P_NxUfW_9AP2C3IhyR0dFRQAq1YIQ/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUMvNElVRS82XzdfU1NI (History pages of German Airforce, sorry for long url) or http://www.bundesarchiv.de/bestaende_findmittel/bestaendeuebersicht/body.html?id_main=1643&where=naeheres&what=id_bestand&id_bestand=1643 (Federal German Archive catalogizing documents from WW 1, see first blue box). --MBP 22:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin Middlebrook's The Nuremberg Raid (Cassell, 1980) gives Fliegerabwehrkanone in a footnote. Perhaps both terms are correct or, at least, were widely used. I note also that linguistically Flug doesn't make much sense — "flight defence cannon"? Flieger or Flugzeug makes much more sense assuming an accusative as in, say, "Abwehr gegen Flieger". PT 22:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As a German I can confirm that FLUGabwehrkanone is at least the more common than FLIEGERabwehrkanone. And FLUG is CORRECT, it may make no sense, but that is what it is known as, a Flugabwehrkanone! 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * see also the German Wikipedia: FLUGabwehrkanone 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Decline in conventional flak
I have removed the passage that stated large long-range AAA guns like the 88mm no longer exist. This is incorrect, while their use has declined in favor of SA missilesthey are still used due to thie relative inexpensiveness.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 10:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * It would seem reasonable to say that modern missiles have partly replaced the need for very large AA guns. —Michael Z. 2005-11-5 17:09 Z

Barrage balloons?
As someone who recently read Steinbeck's "Once there was a war", I got interested in the use of barrage balloons for air defense. As "Air defense" is redirected to "Anti-aircraft warfare", it would have been interesting to read someone knowledgeable's description of their use and effectivity.

Perhaps someone could add a section about that?

Anders Berglund 09:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Need separate article on AAA
This article is on the general topic. We have a specific article on SAMs, but we need an overview of guns too. Anybody up for splitting it out and repointing the redirects? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Presumably it would be good if this anti-aircraft warfare article fitted into the same pattern as Armoured warfare ie that nice nav box down the side. Though how assymetric got in there - longbow vs french cavalry - not a sole technical advantage but more a combination of weapon and disposition. .55 Webley vs Maori war club that's a technical advantage. But I digressGraemeLeggett 09:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Skysweeper but no Soviet/Russian Guns?
Russian AAA weapons were utilized in air defense in North Vietnam and in other conflicts but is not mentioned in this article. Also, where would be mention of such weapons as "Shilka" or various other mobile AAA? Hatcat 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

B-24 20mm?
There is an amazing image of a B-24 breaking up after being hit by flak. The caption states it is 20mm fire, but the image page does not specify the source. Looking at the picture I'd estimate the aircraft is over 10k feet in altitude which makes it extremely unlikely this is a 20mm hit, and almost certainly an 88. Can anyone say more about this image? Maury 04:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Could be lots of things - 105mm flak, fighter cannon - who knows? I don't see how we can possibly know the bomber was hit by 88 mm fire. DMorpheus (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

 * The wing of the plane is burning and tearing off, which suggests something lit the fuel in it. I'm not sure that Flak can do that, but my intuition claims that it was shot with by a German Interceptor, which usually has 15, 20, and 30 mm light cannons. Victory in Germany (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Consistent Mistake regarding 1-pounder Guns
The article claimed twice that guns firing a one-pound projectile are of 20 mm caliber. That is technically impossible, the heaviest 20 mm projectiles ever used were around 150-160 grm in weight, which is only a third of a pound. The actual caliber of the one-pounder guns used first as AAA, e.g. the Maxim Pom-Pom, was typically 37 mm. Now corrected. Textor 09:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I can only find one instance of "1 pound" in the article, and no calibre is mentioned. Am I missing something? Maury 13:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes - my previously unmentioned edit of said problem. Look at the article's history, and compare the current with an earlier version. Textor 21:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Claim that Nike Ajax SAM was based on German Wasserfall
I deleted the following statement on the Ajax guided anti-air missile: (based on the German Wasserfall). According to the articles on the Nike_Ajax and the Wasserfall, the former was developed independently of the latter. The legacy of the Wasserfall is described as: After World War II, the Wasserfall design was used as a basis for both the American Hermes-A1 missile and a Soviet research programme under the codename R-101. Textor 16:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Need for Consistency across Articles on the same Subject
user:Maury_Markowitz reverted this delete, stating that the Wasserfall-NIke connection is well documented. In this case, may I suggest that the sources proving this connection be referenced, and the respective articles on the missiles updated to include the information? Otherwise, they will appear inconsistent, if not contradictory. Personally, I have currently no such sources available. Textor 20:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Uhhh, last I checked, both the Wasserfall and Project Nike state this. Oh, no, I take that back, it appears Project Nike does not have this statement, at least any more.
 * The history that I have read, in several places, states that reports on Wasserfall were captured and returned to the US where they were evaluated as part of the existing BTL work on missile systems -- these had started in early 1944, but had remained strictly paper projects until Feb '45. Additionally, several Wasserfall C-1's were sent to the US. I've read this on several places on the 'web, and I believe I first heard it in one of Ian Hogg's books (typically fairly well checked, if lacking detail), but I'm guessing he was just quoting Lussar. At least one of these still exists, on display at Aberdeen.
 * That's not to say it's correct, however. I also have conflicting information which states that Wasserfall data was not known when they were compiling the AAGM Report of May '45. It was this report that led directly to the go-ahead on Project NIKE. But given this conflict I went with what I had seen "everywhere else" (for instance, Ed Thelen's notes). Nor should the language state that Ajaz WAS Wasserfall, Ajax was, of course, a far more developed and practical weapon. Maury 22:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've continued to try to find more information on this, and failed. It appears I may have been repeating an internet myth! I'm going to take the Army's word for it and move the mention of the possible Wasserfall link to a separate sentence. Maury 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Removal of PZA Loara Image
Three reasons: 1. the image was put in the introductory section, instead of the one on Post-War developments. If you want to restore it, please put it there 2. The PZA Loara may lack notability as a representative example for SPAAGs, compared to others: it is a recent project, used solely by Poland, and its technology appears unremarkable. Older, more widely employed SPAAGs like the Russian ZSU-23-4 Shilka, or the German Gepard, may make more recognizeabale examples. Alternatively, the Tunguska-M1 could be used as an example that is both more widely employed and technologically advanced. 3. The image is also already used as an illustration for the SPAAG article. Textor 19:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To the owner of the IP 89.76.87.63:

how about an explanation why you put up the above mentioned image again, in the same inappropriate place, in spite of its dubious relevance? Are there any good reasons why it has to be posted twice, in this article and the one on SPAAGS? Textor 22:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

effective altitudes
what a funny article...the whole thing is about anti-aircraft weapons, but no information is given for effective engagement altitudes of the weapons mentioned, or define what the various altitudes are in terms of defining the AA/AD units. --Mrg3105 02:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sawing off wings
The article states:
 * Because the Quad 50's 4 separate guns could be pre-set to converge at a given distance, it could saw off the wing of a low-flying enemy plane attempting to complete a strafing run.

This sounds like a military urban legend to me. Simple analysis: WW2 fighter plane speeds varied from about 275 knots (450 fps) to 390 knots (640 fps). Let's work with 450 fps to be conservative. The rate of fire of the .50 cal is around 500 rounds per minute, so a quad 50 is about 2,000 rounds per minute, or 33 rounds per second. Hence, if a plane flies past perpendicularly the average spacing between (potential) hits is 450 fps x 1/33 s = 13.5 feet, which is obviously not even in the ballpark of "sawing off wings". This spacing can be reduced by a factor of sinθ if the plane is flying not perpendicularly to the line of fire, but more or less straight at it, but it is going to have to be almost perfectly aligned to do any "sawing". In short this claim looks bogus to me.-- 202.63.39.58 11:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is very likely a legend, though for different reasons:

making the barrels of a multiple-gun AA mount converge at a given distance would requiry rather complicated and precisely moveable installations for each gun - in addition to the ones needed for laying the whole mount. For all that complication, it would not add very much to the lethality of the weapon, but make hitting rapidly moving targets more difficult. Also, the .50 M2 Brownings with their moving barrels had a rather high dispersion, which would negate to some degree the possible benefit of concentration their fire.

As to the sawing off of wings: that may happend when lucky hits magange to break a wing spar, especially on lighly built aircraft like e.g. the Japanese Mitsubishi Zeros. But it would be much harder to achieve this effect with the small, non-explosive .50 projectiles, compared to the explosive shells of heavier AA-guns, like the German quadruple 20 mm Flak 38.

I suggest we remove this eddit, unless it can be properly referenced.

Textor 17:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference
a forum is not a proper refernce SubaruSVX (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

120 mm M1 Gun
Wikipedia entry for 120 mm M1 gun states " No 120 was ever fired at an enemy aircraft." Obviously it wasn't much use. Added this info.

Definitions - article title
Despite earlier discussion this article is wrongly named. AAW is not the same as AD.

AAP-6 (NATO Glossary) sets the following definitions:

air defence AD All measures designed to nullify or reduce the effectiveness of hostile air action.

anti-air warfare AAW Measures taken to defend a maritime force against attacks by airborne weapons launched from aircraft, ships, submarines and land-based sites.

Also note: active air defence Active measures taken against attacking enemy forces to destroy or nullify any form of air or missile threat or to reduce the effectiveness of any such attack.

passive air defence Passive measures taken for the physical defence and protection of personnel, essential installations and equipment in order to minimize the effectiveness of air and/or missile attack.

defensive counter-air operation Active and passive defensive measures designed to detect, identify, intercept, and destroy or make ineffective forces attempting to attack or to penetrate friendly airspace. offensive counter-air operation OCA An operation mounted to destroy, disrupt or limit enemy air power as close to its source as possible. Nfe (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_mm_M1_gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.250.33 (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

SPAAG Being Replaced
The sentence stating that most SPAAGS have been replaced by MANPADS is obviously inconsistent with the page on SPAAGs where at least a dozen modern SPAAGS from various countries in deployment are listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.246.242 (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Range-finding by searchlight?
Descriptions of Second World War anti-aircraft defences often refer to bombers being "coned" by multiple searchlights. Was this ever used for measuring altitude? If you had an aircraft coned by three (or even two) searchlights at surveyed locations connected by telephone, simultaneously measuring the angle of the lights from vertical would enable you to do a trigonometric calculation of the altitude of the aircraft. That would be be of great assistance in accurately setting time fuses. Did anyone ever try it? Peter Bell (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Altitude estimation was a primary function of searchlights; but measurement, computation, and communication difficulties limited practical accuracy within available engagement time. Aside from problems with communication protocol for identifying and keeping more than one searchlight on the same aircraft, computational methods devised for ship targeting with contemporary convergent optical rangefinders were complicated by adding a third angle.Thewellman (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Civilian options?
I checked out this article to get a primer on what licenses civilians would need for surface to air missiles such as the stinger and other possible civilian options. Obviously I will be able to find the information elsewhere but it would have been helpful to myself if this information was included.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.88.143 (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

optronics
The section mentioning radar being superseded by optronics doesn't make sense because optronics is defined on the physics page as stuff on the electromagnetic spectrum, like radar.

"organic weapons"
In the line "Self-defence by ground forces using their organic weapons" - What is meant by that? Spitting? Zerg devourers? I just don't get what "organic weapons" means if you take this term seriously. If it is a specific technical term, it needs an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.204.46.40 (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

52pianos (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Means weapons normally part of ground forces. For infantry, it would be pistols, rifles, and perhaps a squad automatic weapon, or something like that. It excludes artillery, dedicated AA weapons, and the like.
 * * Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 22:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

AAA in Korean War
The section title POSTWAR infers all actions following WWII were incidental or unremarkable. This section needs to be enlarged to include AAA in the Korean War. Almost from the opening days, the 26th AAA was used much more for infantry support than for antiaircraft, with AAA units becoming known as "The Automatic Infantry" in the desperate delaying actions along the Kum River, at Taejon and throughout the defense of the Naktong Perimeter. Many men were highly decorated for their actions in Korea, including the Distinguished Service Cross to Harold Haugland, Montana, (15th AAA) during actions at the Chosin Reservoir.

I think not. The article is about AA warfare not AA units or using AA weapons for non-AA tasks. Nfe (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Article doesn't really explain its subject
This article seems to assume an understanding of the principles of AA (or FLAK). I wasn't able to find anywhere that really explains how it works or how high the shells can be launched, etc. In particular, I looked up "Flak" and was redirected here to get all kinds of more general information (barrage balloons, whatever) that seems quite irrelevant to flak. Beowulf (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Does ack-ack derive from the German for eight-eight?
This article currently states that the term "ack-ack" derives from the spelling alphabet used by the British Army for voice transmission of "AA". According to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ack-ack the derivation is "British army World War I phonetic alphabet for AA, abbreviation of anti-aircraft". However according to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ack-ack the derivation was from the British signalmen's former telephone pronunciation of AA, abbreviation of antiaircraft, first Known Use: 1926. World War 1 obviously predates 1926, so we have a mismatch here. At http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ack-ack it places the origin of its use to describe anti-aircraft guns in 1935 only. At http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ack-ack they attribute the first use to 1939.

My understanding is that the derivation was from the German "acht acht", meaning 88, as in the 88mm AA cannon. The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88mm quotes a source which says the Germans introduced a high-velocity anti-aircraft cannon based on the 88mm in 1917 already. Its thus quite possible that the Germans called it the acht acht gun during WW1, and that the British and others adopted that usage during WW1 for AAA generally. Its a bit of a serious stretch that the British used "ack" to describe the letter A, when the Germans coincidently used the 88mm gun for AA defense and the German word for 88 is acht acht. Wdford (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

 * The Oxford English Dictionary gives the first use by the British Army of "Ak" for "a" in 1898, "Ack" appears later in a 1904 regulations document. The OED also gives as an example of use a quote from the Daily Mirror in August 1916:  The ‘Ack-Ack’ gun..is just an anti-aircraft gun, ‘Ack’ being the name for ‘A’.  That the English language having Germanic roots had a similar sound - though different meaning - to a German word is quite plausible.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Phonetic alphabet. Why would British soldiers even know the Germans used acht acht? How would they know? Voice comms used line, wireless was limited to CW, ie transmit letters in Morse code - AA which would be read out as Ack Ack. And there were very few AA guns in any case. Merriam-Webster is underinformed.Nfe (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 * The 'ack' was simply the WW I British Army's signals equivalent of the current 'Alpha' in the phonetic alphabet. See here: NATO_phonetic_alphabet - although it was also used in early WW II.

 * ... it's also why at the time the morning was sometimes referred to as 'ack-emma' - AM. Afternoon was 'pip-emma' - PM, and is referred-to in an Agatha Christie novel as the respective names of two twins, Pip and Emma, a joke as they were born in the afternoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.139 (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Antwerp X
Since there was some brief controversy about this, thought we should have a section to discuss the anti V-1 defenses of London and Antwerp. I see this as primarily a place in the article to mention the invention of automatic tracking radar (e.g. SCR-584), radio proximity fuze, and the electronic gun director. I notice there is no Wikipedia article about the M-9 director, and it probably deserves one. If nothing else, there is the story that it was invented in the dream of a Bell Labs scientist. DonPMitchell (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

For more detail, the Antwerp defenses consisted primarily of 208 90-mm guns and 137 British QF 3.7 guns. A number of smaller (40 mm) guns were not found to be effective against the V-1. The 90 mm gun batteries were the interesting because they exemplified the most advanced technology at that time: automatic radar target tracking, electronic gun directors, and radar proximity fuzes. The intent is to discuss those important inventions, not to be "US-centric".

I'm researching the British QF 3.7 guns. It appears they did not use these new technologies. The last version used the so-called "predictor no. 11", which I think is what some articles call the automatic fuse setter MFS no. 11? It appears the British systems used altitude-based fuzes which were automatically set by the gun director, and the targets were tracked manually by telescopes. I'm going to keep digging to see if more advanced technology appeared later in the war. DonPMitchell (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * i am using http://www.vectorsite.net/ttwiz.html Irondome (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would go further. I would advocate a seperate article Missile defences and countermeasures in World war 2. The subject is amazingly rich and has potential for a good new addition to the WP military technologies collection of essays. We could even add Fritz X and other 1st generation air-to surface missile threats and electronic countermeasures employed. See my talkpage (very last thread down) for some rough comments I made on this last night Irondome (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My initial thoughts last night, C & P'ed for convienience.

the whole section may have to be lengthened. There is lots of dubious fat stuff in that article. we could make room for a critical section dealing with the first anti-missile defences. PF technology, late war radars and even that there was a variant of a Vickers Wellington (which was arguably the first multi-engined AWACS) to pick up VI cruise missiles coming over the North sea launched via bomber. Fighters would be vectored if feasable. But they gave warning shortly sfter launch. Also that British defence radar networks were capable of detecting V2 re-entries and roughly vectoring their impact area, but there was no time to issue alerts due to the 30 second to 1 minute maximum radar telemetry they could only get. It is a hugely rich field. I would say expand and prune other stuff with consensus. Irondome (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Irondome (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

 * An article about anti-missile defense is a good idea. The Antwerp-X project straddles the two subjects, since anti-aircraft technology was used, but for rocket missiles, new technology had to be developed.  A good source of information about the V-1 defenses can be found here: [www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/733387.pdf].

 * With regard to radar, there is a fascinating discussion in Theodor von Karman's post-war reports ("Where We Stand"). He describes how far behind the Germans were with radar, and how they learned lot from studying crashed British and American planes.  The SCR-584 has a huge impact, because the US shared it during the war.  They gave units to the Soviet Union, who copied them and used the (called "Binokl") for decades.  One of Rosenberg's spies gave the Soviets the Lewis Scanner, which they used extensively in their anti-aircraft radars like Fan Song. DonPMitchell (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

 * And here is another article on British Radar in WWII: [www.konyvtar.zmne.hu/docs/Volume7/Issue1/pdf/14guly.pdf]
 * I would be very happy to work with you on a new article. I think it is viable. The SCR-584 was the best gunlaying system in WW2. Its direct control of the weapon's elevation was a revolution. The British Army had a distinctive independent designation for them, indicating considerable usage. I would say it was a draw. You get the proximity fuse, we got the 584 :) Seiously the 1940 and subsequent technology transfers were critical in victory. The mooted article is full of uncovered ground, as I have mentioned upthread. Really informative stuff presented attractively, if we can get it right would be a big asset to the whole 1st gen missile and PGM threat and early countermeasures subject, and a first on WP. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I know something about the Soviet AA missile technology, but my own research has focused more on their ICBM and space rockets. I know that the Russians invested a big effort in trying to finish the German Wasserfall concept. Isaev developed rocket engines that were superior to the German ones, used in their AA missiles and the infamous SCUD.

 * With regard to AA artillery, I'm not sure when the SCR-584 was adapted to work with British guns. Maybe that was a post-war development.  At Antwerp, it appears that the there were 13 batteries of 90 mm guns controlled by SCR-584 and M-9 directors, which were deployed out along incoming attack azimuths.  About half that many British guns were deployed in a more widespread pattern, using searchlights and optical tracking.  There are detailed maps of the gun placements in the dtic.mil article I linked above. DonPMitchell (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits reverted from an anonymous address. I wish he would identify himself and explain what his problem was. The section he edited is referenced by two detailed articles and well supported. DonPMitchell (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Allies developed 3 separate microwave gunlaying radar systems in parallel, with all 3 systems starting development at roughly the same time, with the following, rather unofficial designations: The USA's GL III(A) (SCR 584), the UK's GL III(B) and Canada's GLIII(C). GLIII(C) was the first into production and it suffered from not the having the same development time as the latter two systems, but was put into production anyways as it was already "good enough". It did not use RPC of the gun, using a "follow the pointer" system instead. GLIII(B) followed. Both systems were quite comparable in accuracy to SCR 584 except for very short range, high speed, low altitude targets where SCR 584 had the edge. SCR 584 was used to RPC British Army 3.7in guns in conjunction with the Bell Labs No. 10 predictor,and the Brits gave the following rounds per AA (probably V-1) kill: 100-150 rounds with VT ammo (fuzes produced in the USA under lend-lease contracts), 600-800 rounds with the type 208 time fuze. (data from British War office book, Army Radar, 1950.Damwiki1 (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

British English editnotice request
Please create an edit notice for this article, placing in it the template. Thank you! KDS 4444 Talk  06:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

 * ✅ --j⚛e deckertalk 01:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

In the "General description" section, it says

 * weapons free: a weapon control order imposing a status whereby weapons systems may be fired at any target not positively recognised as friendly.
 * weapons hold: a weapon control order imposing a status whereby weapons systems may only be fired in self-defence or in response to a formal order.
 * weapons tight: a weapon control order imposing a status whereby weapons systems may be fired only at targets recognised as hostile.

I have to assume these are listed in alphabetical order, but it seems to me they'd be better listed in order of control, viz:

 * weapons free: a weapon control order imposing a status whereby weapons systems may be fired at any target not positively recognised as friendly.
 * weapons tight: a weapon control order imposing a status whereby weapons systems may be fired only at targets recognised as hostile.
 * weapons hold: a weapon control order imposing a status whereby weapons systems may only be fired in self-defence or in response to a formal order.

I'm going to make the change, but wanted to explain my rationale, in the unlikely event that anyone cares.

* Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Anti-aircraft warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111104184517/http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/Anti-StealthTechnology.pdf to http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/Anti-StealthTechnology.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Defence/aircraft-carrier-invulnerability.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-aircraft warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006071649/http://www.thefirstworldwar.net/licnosti/ucesnici-ratova/ljutovac-radoje/ to http://www.thefirstworldwar.net/licnosti/ucesnici-ratova/ljutovac-radoje/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060723191844/http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Asia-Sams-Pt2.pdf to http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Asia-Sams-Pt2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-aircraft warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514025728/http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flak to http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flak

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Naval Anti-Aircraft
The US Navy put some thought into this as well? Well, that will cover glossing over to a major extent. I'd direct your attention to Norman Friedman's book on the subject. The singular most advanced systems deployed during WW2 was by the US Navy. The reason was that they were well aware of just how inadequate their AA system was when they deployed drones they could test the systems out on and shoot down the drones. The US was shipping AA gear to the RN because it was so much in advance of what they had. Overall all naval AA is treated very lightly if at all.Tirronan (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The advantage of the (tachymetric) US Mk 37 Director vs the(non-tachymetric) British HACS may be overstated by Friedman, as there have been suggestions his figures for Mk 37 directed 5" AA kills are based on uncorrected USN claims, rather than the corrected IJN loss figures, which have long been available in books by other researchers. His treatment of barrage fire by the two navies is also wildly inconsistent, first disparaging the systematic and ABU-controlled RN usage, despite its proven effectiveness in the Med, then saying the USN did not use it, immediately after giving examples where they did. Equally HACS evolved towards a pseudo-tachymetric system with the addition of the Gyro Rate Unit from fairly early in the war. The RN itself apparently concluded Mk 37 was superior, having realised adopting a non-tachymetric system was a mistake, but received very few Mk 37s, with only the early trials system on HMS Delhi seeing action (the other 42 systems eventually allocated went into HMS Vanguard, the Ark Royal class carriers and some of the Battle class destroyers, all of which are effectively postwar). Even Friedman states that the RN was the best-prepared navy wrt naval air defence going into WWII. WRT inadequacies in USN AA defence discovered firing at drones, Friedman also points out that this was identified very shortly pre-war, ie the Mk 37 predates it.

82.11.66.40 (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * HACS had serious problems as the RN noted and it was improved. You leave out the fact that the RN hated the MK 37 so much that they got the 42 units and ordered more. The RN Admiral in charge of Task Group 37 noted the better equipment as well. That said, the RN had far better AA than anyone else but the USN. It never stopped improving and the two countries were constantly sharing data and equipment. Virtually, anything that the US had was shared with the UK and this was reciprocated. As for World War 2, in naval AA had the best but the RN was catching up and quickly. They were not competitors they were allies in every sense of the word. Nor was the USN happy with its AA. The kamikaze situation had turned a horrible air war into a complete nightmare. There was and still is a lot of room for improvement. BTW both countries share many of the same contractors in the day and age. BAE to name one. This isn't a competition and it never was.Tirronan (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, I've been creating major updates to this article. I promise you that I am the last person on the planet to consider myself infallible. Please note any errors or feel free to correct them. When it comes to thick skin, I have no equal.Tirronan (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Second World War and the mysterious 55mm Flak
In this part is written: "After the Dambusters raid in 1943 an entirely new system was developed that was required to knock down any low-flying aircraft with a single hit. The first attempt to produce such a system used a 50 mm gun, but this proved inaccurate and a new 55 mm gun replaced it." - could You please state what 55m Flak that would be? Looking at the 50mm Flak 41 it does not seem that this development was continued into a 55mm but an 88mm Flak. If one looks at the 50 mm Flak it looks very similar to a 88mm (eighty-eight) Flak 41, which is btw not comparable to the 88mm Flak 36/37. Also I have no knowledge of such a 55mm FLAK! 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

First successful engagement of a military aircraft by anti-aircraft fire - Incorrect
The article currently states:

On 30 September 1915, troops of the Serbian Army observed three enemy aircraft approaching Kragujevac. Soldiers shot at them with shotguns and machine-guns but failed to prevent them from dropping 45 bombs over the city, hitting military installations, the railway station and many other, mostly civilian, targets in the city. During the bombing raid, private Radoje Ljutovac fired his cannon at the enemy aircraft and successfully shot one down. It crashed in the city and both pilots died from their injuries. The cannon Ljutovac used was not designed as an anti-aircraft gun; it was a slightly modified Turkish cannon captured during the First Balkan War in 1912. This was the first occasion in military history that a military aircraft was shot down with ground-to-air fire.[21][22][23'

T'''his is actually incorrect, on the 23rd of September 1914 2nd Anti Aircraft Pom Pom Section RGA commanded by Lieutenant O. Hogg fired 75 rounds and shot down a German aircraft flying over the British Expeditionary Force near the River Aisne. (History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery: Anti-aircraft artillery, 1914-55, Sir Martin Farndale, Basil Perronet Hughes, 1996, Page 5) This pre-dates the cited example in the article by over a year.'''

I suggest that the article is corrected in line with the above.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Bepo 094.jpg

Finnish air defense for Helsinki durnig WWII
The article does not mention the way Helsinki was defended agains soviet bombers. The aa-guns fired continous screening fire around Helsinki Center spo that bomber could not fly through. They did not try to shoot down individual planes but just continously to deny the airspace over Helsinki center. Linkato1 (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Move to "Air defense"?
Many of todays air defense actions involve missiles, which are not aircraft. Should the article be moved to "air defense" to reflect this? -- K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

New redirect from UAV countermeasure
I just created a redirect from UAV countermeasure to the pertinent section on this page. I personally think that would be a workable name for a main article on the topic. I can't see drone warfare expanding at this pace, and not soon needing a main page devoted to UAV countermeasures. UAV countermeasure could also cover netting and camouflage, in addition to fancy gadgets like the Lithuanian EDM4S. — MaxEnt 22:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Anti-aircraft warfare


text:
User:Hexii

I'm not very actively involved in Wikipedia editing, but I try to correct any mistakes I find.

I program as hobby. I'm a major contributer to Iter Vehemens ad Necem.

title: User:Hexii


text:
Yucef Merhi

Yucef Merhi (born February 8, 1977) is a Venezuelan artist, poet and computer programmer based in New York.

Early life
Yucef Merhi was born in Caracas, Venezuela. He studied at Universidad Central de Venezuela, New School University, and holds a Master's in Interactive Telecommunications from New York University.

Art career
Merhi has produced a variety of works that engage electronic circuits, computers, video game systems, touch screens, and other devices in the presentation of his written words. One example is Poetic Clock, a machine that converts time into poetry, generating 86,400 different poems daily. The resulting artworks expand the limitations of language and the traditional context of poetry. His 2012 commissioned work for the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Quetzalcoatl 2.0.1.2., was a web-based work that "aims to reveal the voice of Quetzalcoatl in the technological reality of 2012 A.D."

Permanent collections

 * Orange County Museum of Art California
 * National Art Gallery, Caracas
 * Library of Congress, Washington
 * Mednarodni Grafični Likovni Center MGLC, Ljubljana
 * Museo Alejandro Otero, Caracas
 * Museo de Arte Contemporáneo de Caracas
 * Museo de Arte Valencia Valencia

Awards

 * New York Foundation for the Arts in Digital/Electronic Arts

title: Yucef Merhi


text:
Talk:Snake Island (Ukraine)

Geography
Fixed some geographic mistakes. People, I don't have maps etc. but I've seen TV pictures from the isle many times. It is not "5 square kilometers" ANYWAY (otherwise Romanians wouldn't call it a cliff). Thus, there are no place for "1000 fishermen" (also, there was no pier there as of 2003). I estimate it's under 500 meters long (any side). That is why I call it "the isle" in the text. AlexPU 17:08, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

History
I found ancient history remarks little doubtfull, but didn't change significantly since I'm no expert. AlexPU 17:08, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I found these references:

 * "The White Isle also a place where some were sent after death?was supposed to be a wooded island at the mouths of the river Ister (Danube)."

 * "The legends seem to carry a grain of truth as the ruins of the famous temple dedicated to Achilles were found by captain Kritziky in 1823. Square in shape, with the side of 29.87 meters, the building is great. The temple dedicated to Achilles was erected east of the sanctuary. The architecture of the construction and of the other ruins found on the island is specific to the epoch called Cyclopean, resembling the masonry found in Thessaly and Thrace."

Bogdan | Talk 20:22, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Possession
Deopinionated items concerning the territorial dispute, but didn't delete anything. Ukrainian government's POV is not presented. Hope to add it ASAP. AlexPU 17:08, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * OK. I couldn't find their POV.

 * People, I shaped the factual details in an NPOV way. I remember that bank opening newscast - it definitely had nothing to do with "proving" (let's not arrogate journalists' comments to the heroes of their story). Also reshuffled the categories. And more: do we need the following passage:

 * The nearest city on the coast is Sulina, Romania.?

 * I mean if this is a conventional geographical info on islands than it's OK. If not - I'm going to remove it as irrelevant and clearly designed to promote Romanian POV). Keen to maintain editing peace, AlexPU

The 1997 treaty confirmed the borders of 1947, but did not say that the island belongs to Ukraine. Romania agreed that for now the island is under Ukrainian administration (which is not the same thing) and that it will not pursue any unilateral means to gain control of the island and will do so only through diplomatic chanels. Constantzeanu 02:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, after getting more info, I have drawn the following conclusion : Romania did say that the island is under Ukranian administration and that it will not try to get it from Ukraine unilatrally. However, Romania also claims that the island is a cliff, meaning that it does not have an island status as described by international law. This means that it is as if it did not even exist there. It is like a rock in the sea. The Romanians have concentrated on proving that Serpents Is. is not a an island (as defined by int. law) and if it can do so then it can gain enough territorial waters that it can make the island part of Romania anyways. In any case here is a source which states that Ukraine was not supposed to inhabit the island (according to the 1997 treaty): Constantzeanu 03:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The text of 1997 Romania-Ukraine treaty is available (in Romanian and English) in the package submitted by Romania to ICJ . It's also available (in Ukrainian) from the Ukrainian parliament website . Constantzeanu, could you point out where in the treaty Ukraine agreed that the island should be "inhabited". Uapatriot 21:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Wow, I never knew the treaty can be declared null after 10 years. In any case, I think that we are missing some annexes here or something. Because somehwere here they are supposed to talk about negotiations over territorial waters for 2 years but I don't see that anywhere. Constantzeanu 23:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The island is located 35 km from the Ukrainian coast. Sulina is 45 km away. Reference: "Parliament courier" (in Ukrainian). Also, the island, the Black sea coast, and the Romania-Ukraine boarder are all visible on Google Map.

My error, in attempting to clarify language in the article, has been anonymously pointed out at my Talk Page: "You mentioned in the article that Romania is questioning Snake Island status in the International Court of Justice, but this information is not correct. According to the standing Romania-Ukraine treaties, Snake island is a part of Ukraine. Official Romania has only asked the court for Maritime Delimitation around Snake island [1], not questioning the belongings of the island. It's true that some parties in Romania do question the belongings of Snake island, but it should not be mixed with the official view of Romania." --Wetman 20:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In 1997 Ukrainian-Romanian treaty the word "inhabited" cannot be found even using internal search. So the sentence claiming that Ukraine breaks such a condition of this treaty should be deleted. --Shao 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The court at Haga decided that the island is Romanian land--188.27.127.101 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Page title
As it seems Snake Island (Black Sea) may also refer to a Bulgarian islet (currently at St. Thomas Island) that is also in the Black Sea, so the name is quite ambigious. The Bulgarian islet is actually more often referred to as Snake Island than St. Thomas Island. Any suggestions as to how to solve the problem? Does putting a disambiguation note on top of this article seem enough? Todor Bozh inov   → 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Snakes
What snakes are there on this island? Dysmorodrepanis 23:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently there aren't any more snakes on the island/cliff --Ayceman (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so what snakes were there? Are there museum specimens? I ask because it's a rather unusual place to find snakes, biogeographically. Not impossible - in fact, one would even expect them. But one would also expect that only particular species would have managed to cross over from the mainland, and that they had differentiated from their ancestors. So it is to be expected that the snake fauna of this island was peculiar in some way or another.
 * Since the name seems to date back to Ottoman times, I presume the Kyiv Academy of Sciences may not be of much help here. But possibly, some scientist down there has published something in Soviet times; if so, we'd have a reliable source (taxonomy would probably need to be updated, as always with older literature). I'll have a look on the Web occasionally. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Serpent Island in myths
Check this link http://www.pelasgians.bigpondhosting.com/website1/01_00.htm, is the english translation with maps, images and all, of "Dacia Preistorica by Nicolae Densusianu. Bigshotnews 14:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs)

Interesting
According to the British wartime press the Germans had planned in 1918 to "construct" a "new Helgoland" on Snake Island. It could have been just wartime propaganda on either side though. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Amusing wikiality
The Romanian Wikipedia Feature Article says "population 0". The Ukrainian one (also a Featured Article) says "100". Tijfo098 (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguities
Whether or not (as controverted above in “Possession”) the island is to be, or is declared to be, “inhabited,” this article is equivocal about its population, saying in its introductory summary that fewer than thirty lived there a decade ago and then, in the section “Population and infrastructure,” that about 100 do just in Bile. Territorial dispute may play in, as Tijfo098 suggests above (“Amusing wikiality”), but the estimates are confusing. If the population of thirty is outdated, it warrants removal.

Further, is the Ostriv Zmiinyi marine research station re-established each year, or do Odessa university students simply do research there yearly? In the latter case, the syntax in the section “Population and infrastructure” ought to be altered to read, “an initiative ... established the Ostriv Zmiinyi marine research station, at which, every year, scientists and students from the university conduct research….”

Edit requested on 15 March 2017
Snake Island does NOT belong to Ukraine, also Snake Island Lighthouse country information is wrong. Administration: Romania. This island is NOT part of Ukraine and never was. Thank you, please edit for proper information.
 * As far as I can tell the territorial status of the island is still under dispute. I am not going to change the wording of the article with respect to national sovereignty before you establish a consensus here on the talk page, which is required for such a contentious topic. Altamel (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Snake Island (Black Sea). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205045804/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/132/14985.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/132/14985.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040822040518/http://www.tomrad.ro/iserpi/ENGLISH.HTM to http://www.tomrad.ro/iserpi/ENGLISH.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718152407/http://www.pelasgians.bigpondhosting.com/website1/04_01.htm to http://www.pelasgians.bigpondhosting.com/website1/04_01.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070504145206/http://host2.cotidianul.ro/index.php?id=1249&art=1097 to http://host2.cotidianul.ro/index.php?id=1249&art=1097
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051125161848/http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/281/26037/ to http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/281/26037/
 * Added tag to http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/635/55906/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021
Change Administration to Romania as this island dispute has been brought up at ICJ and HAGA and the result is that it is of Romanias. False semi-protecting made by other user. Hydrootro (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC) Hydrootro (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection request
The article is periodically vandalized by Romanians who change the island's affiliation from Ukraine to Romania. At the Romanian Wikipedia it is semi-protected starting today. The island has been Ukrainian territory since 1991 and previously belonged to the USSR since 1948.--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022
Change "Is an island belonging to Ukraine" to "is an island belonging to Russia" Knowledgeman3 (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Temporary military occupation does not make this island Russian territory. De jure it is still a Ukrainian island. Arado Ar 196 (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Guards killed hoax
I can't find any source that is still saying this. Keith McClary (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

 * And I don't see why this article needs to mention the question at all. There's an article about the battle or whatever the event should be called, and that article can take care of questions about who if anyone was killed, cursed, captured or whatever. If someone wants to dispute such questions, and apparently they do, that's where they should do it. This is a geographical article about a small island of some strategic value and small population, and can merely say Russian forces captured it. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering the impact/wide usage of the terms transmitted by the Ukrainian soldiers based in Snake Island, it would be very bizarre to not include at least a passing mention of what happened there instead of just saying "oh yeah btw, it was captured by Russia in February, 2022" Genabab (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Possible source for Ukrainian flag raising
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/07/ukrainian-navy-special-forces-spearhead-daring-snake-island-mission/

©Geni (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Snake Island (Ukraine)


text:
Bill Doran (second baseman)

William Donald Doran (born May 28, 1958) is a former second baseman in Major League Baseball who played from 1982 to 1993 with the Houston Astros, Cincinnati Reds and Milwaukee Brewers. He was the bench coach for the Kansas City Royals from 2005 to 2007 and posted a 4-6 record as the Royals' interim manager to close the 2006 season. Doran rejoined the Reds on November 2, 2007, as the minor league infielding/baserunning coordinator. After previously serving as the minor league field coordinator, Doran moved into the role of special assistant to the general manager, player performance role for the Reds for the 2019 season.

Early life
Doran attended Mount Healthy High School and played baseball at the Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. At Mt. Healthy, he starred in baseball, basketball, and football, leading the Owls to several league championships as an All-League quarterback. In 1977, he played collegiate summer baseball with the Falmouth Commodores of the Cape Cod Baseball League.

Baseball career
Selected by the Houston Astros in the sixth round of the 1979 amateur draft, Doran broke into the majors as a September call-up in the 1982 season. That year, he would play in 26 games while batting .278 on 27 hits. For the 1983 season, he would be the starting second baseman for the Astros, which started with Opening Day. He would play in 154 games and having a batting line of a .271 batting average to go with a .371 on-base percentage (OBP). In the fourth game of the year, he recorded his first career home run off John Candelaria of the Pittsburgh Pirates on April 10. Doran led the team in walks with 86 (with eleven being intentional, also a team high), which worked in contrast to his 67 strikeouts; dubiously, he would steal twelve bases but also be caught stealing twelve times. It was the first of eight times that he would have more walks than strikeouts in a season; he finished fifth in the Rookie of the Year Award, which went to Darryl Strawberry. He would decrease in productivity slightly in 1984, playing in 147 games while batting .271. He walked 66 times and struck out 69 times while having 143 hits and 41 runs batted in (RBI). Dubiously, while he was second in a general amount of offensive categories to José Cruz, he led the Astros in times caught stealing (12). For the following season, he batted .287 while playing 148 games, for which he would have 71 walks to go with 69 strikeouts. He led the Astros in runs, hits, walks, stolen bases and also times caught stealing. He received votes for the Most Valuable Player award.

The Astros, having experienced a downturn since the back-to-back playoff berths in 1980 and 1981, bounced back in 1986, and Doran was there to contribute. He played in 145 games while batting .276, stealing 42 bases alongside 81 walks to 57 strikeouts. He would lead the team in runs, stolen bases, and perhaps most dubiously in times caught stealing (19, which led the league). Doran finished eleventh in the voting for NL Most Valuable Player that year In the 1986 National League Championship Series, he would have a cold bat for most of the series, having six hits on 29 plate appearances. Doran hit a home run off Ron Darling in the second inning to give the Astros a 4-0 lead. However, the team could not hold it together for the last four innings and lost 6-5. In Game 5, with the series tied at two, he would hit a groundout with two runners on and one out in the fifth inning that scored the first run of the game, although the Mets would win it in the ninth on a walk-off hit in the 12th inning. In the pivotal Game 6, often thought of as one of the best postseason games played of the season, Doran would have a small part in the overall result. Doran had a single and was then forced out at second base in the first inning that would later see four straight Astros get on base and result in a 3-0 initial lead. The Mets would tie the game and the teams dueled it out until the 16th inning. Doran, with a runner on first and one out while trailing 7-4, hit a single to try and continue a potential rally. He would score the 6th run of the game for the Astros on a Glenn Davis single, but the next batter in Kevin Bass was struck out by Jesse Orosco to end the game and series.

Before the 1987 season, Doran lost an arbitration case with the Astros, as he had sought a raise of $275,000 from his previous salary (which was $550,000), with the result being that he was paid only $625,000. He had his best year that season, as he led the NL in games played (162), batted .283, hit a career high 16 home runs, had a career high .992 fielding percentage, and scored a career high 79 runs. Doran however would recoil in the following year. He batted .248 while playing in 132 games while having 65 walks to 60 strikeouts. After the season, Doran underwent rotator cuff surgery.

He had much of the same success with the following year, as he batted .219 but managed to play in 142 games while having 22 stolen bases and 59 walks to 63 strikeouts. He recorded his 1,000th hit on June 16, doing so on a home run off Ed Whitson against the San Diego Padres. For the 1990 season, it was to be his last with the Astros. On August 30, he was traded for Terry McGriff, Keith Kaiser, and Butch Henry to the Cincinnati Reds, his hometown team. He had turned down a trade to the New York Mets the day before. Although the Reds won the World Series that year, Doran had back surgery the day the team clinched the division pennant and he missed the rest of the season. "I didn't feel like I belonged. I was just a rented player", Doran said. In a combined season of 126 games, he batted .300 while having 23 stolen bases with 79 walks to 58 strikeouts. He would sign with the Reds for the next two seasons. He played 111 games the following year, batting .280 while having 46 walks to 39 strikeouts. His 1992 season was his last as a mostly-every week player, since he appeared in 132 games while batting .235, while Bip Roberts emerged as a standout player to use on second base more so than Doran. He had 64 walks to 40 strikeouts. A purchase from Milwaukee in January 1993 did not lend itself to increased time, as he would play just 28 games for the Brewers while dealing with injuries. He batted .217 while having just one stolen base.

Doran had a career .266 batting average, but had four seasons when he placed in the top 10 in the National League in bases on balls. Doran never made an All-Star team, but was extraordinarily popular at The Astrodome and admired for his hustle and ferocity, reminiscent of Cincinnati native Pete Rose. He was widely considered the best Astros second baseman in team history until the emergence of Craig Biggio, who eclipsed Doran in offensive statistics but never approached Doran's defensive capacity. He is among the career leaders in many offensive categories for the Astros. He is top 10 in at bats (8th), runs (8th), hits (8th), singles (8th), triples (10th), total bases (9th), and bases on balls (6th). He is one of thirteen Astros to have collected 1,000 hits.

Doran became a minor league instructor for the Reds in 1995. In 1999 and 2000, Doran served as the organization's minor league field coordinator, director of player development and assistant to the general manager. He became a major league coach for the Reds in November 2000. After a 96-loss season in 2001, the Reds did not renew the contracts of Doran or third base coach Ron Oester. Doran joined the Kansas City Royals coaching staff in 2005 and became their bench coach the following year. He is currently a special assistant to the Reds.

On January 21, 2023, the Astros announced that Doran was to be inducted into the Houston Astros Hall of Fame as part of the class of 2023 with former broadcaster Bill Brown. An induction ceremony was held at Minute Maid Park prior to the start a contest versus the Los Angeles Angels on August 12, 2023.

Personal life
Doran resides in Cincinnati. He has three children, Dana, Amy and Ryan. His son Ryan, who is named after Doran's teammate Nolan Ryan, was a player in the Reds' minor-league system, and is pursuing an acting and writing career. His sister Denise was a Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader.

title: Bill Doran (second baseman)


text:
Sulpice

The name Sulpice may refer to

 * Sulpicius Severus, the 4th-century biographer
 * Saint Sulpitius the Pious, a 7th-century saint
 * Saint-Sulpice, many different locations in France

Surname:
 * Jean Albert Sulpice (born 1913- ?), French curler

title: Sulpice


text:
User talk:Fgrosshans

I'm a researcher in quantum information.

title: User talk:Fgrosshans


text:
Jacques Audiberti

 Jacques Séraphin Marie Audiberti (March 25, 1899 – July 10, 1965) was a French playwright, poet and novelist and exponent of the Theatre of the Absurd.

Audiberti was born in Antibes, France, the son of Louis Audiberti, a master mason, and his wife, Victorine. He began his writing career as a journalist, moving to Paris in 1925 to write for Le Journal and Le Petit Parisien. Later, he wrote more than 20 plays on the theme of conflicting good and evil.

He married Élisabeth-Cécile-Amélie Savane in 1926. They had two daughters, Jacqueline (born 1926) and Marie-Louise (born 1928). He died in Paris in 1965, aged 66, and is interred in the Cimetière de Pantin, Pantin, Ile-de-France Region, France

Plays

 * Le mal court (1947)
 * L'effet Glapion (1959)
 * Les Patients (1961)
 * La Fourmi dans le corps (1962)
 * Quoat-Quoat
 * L'Ampélour
 * Les femmes du bœuf

Poetry

 * Des Tonnes de semence (1941)
 * Toujours (1944)
 * Rempart (1953)

Novels

 * Le Maître de Milan (1950)
 * Marie Dubois (1952)
 * Les jardins et les fleuves (1954)
 * ''Infanticide préconisé (1958)

Other

 * La Poupée, a film scenario adapted from an earlier novel
 * Dimanche m'attend, a diary published in (1965)

title: Jacques Audiberti


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Category:Sub-stubs

This page was created unnecessarily, as Category:Substub is already in place. Please quickly delete it. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞ Storm]] 17:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for this. See Categories for deletion.  blankfaze |  (беседа!)  21:09, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * True or false: this is the wrong position for this; it should be a speedy-delete. 66.245.104.133 17:23, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * False. That's the role that CfD currently serves.  For similar reasons images needing deletion go to IfD, not here.  By the way: why do you seem to always phrase your questions as "true or false?"  In life, I find that sometimes the answer is "neither."  --Ardonik 06:23, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)


text:
Melville Island

Melville Island may refer to:
 * Melville Island (Australia), in the Northern Territory
 * Melville Island (Northwest Territories and Nunavut), in northern Canada
 * Melville Island (Nova Scotia), a small island in Halifax Harbour, Nova Scotia, Canada
 * Melville Island, a small island in the Discovery Islands near Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada
 * Melville Island, a small island near Dundas Island near Prince Rupert, British Columbia, Canada

title: Melville Island