Revision as of 02:54, 16 December 2022 edit2600:1008:b102:4fb9:d71:9378:757:48fc (talk) →Not vandalism in the slightest: new sectionTags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:55, 16 December 2022 edit undoDrmies (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators407,304 editsm rv disruptionTag: RollbackNext edit → | ||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
:I'd rather just go back to "2037 Bomber". ] (]) 06:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC) | :I'd rather just go back to "2037 Bomber". ] (]) 06:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC) | ||
:* Yep, agreed. ] (]) 01:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC) | :* Yep, agreed. ] (]) 01:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC) | ||
== Not vandalism in the slightest == | |||
In the sport of ] hits are a stat recorded by every level of competition. ] hits total are factual and not exaggerated by any means. I simply added a stat recorded by the ]. In the future please refrain from making edits as an uninformed bystander. ] (]) 02:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:55, 16 December 2022
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
Before posting, please read and follow the notes below.
|
Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Baseball
In case you weren't aware, there's a discussion going on that you may be interested in. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Fred Zepelin, thanks. I had already seen it, and am keeping track of it. I'll comment later on if warranted. BilCat (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
2037 bomber
I have to strenuously object to calling this a "program." I'm still surprised this is even an article. I almost entirely rewrote this after failing to get support for a merge at AfD. The so-called "2037 bomber" was actually a 1999 Air Force plan to put off development of strategic bombers until 2013. Given the tremendous backlash this paper received from the bomber community, it is unclear whether this policy ever really represented the Air Force's official stance. The USAF reversed course in a follow up report two years later. Furthermore, the 1999 Long Range Bombers white paper explicitly called for a "capability", not a "bomber" per se (e.g. some sort of standoff munition or otherwise some not-yet-conceived conceptual weapon). I'm not entirely satisfied with calling this "2037 bomber controversy" either, so I welcome any suggestions. Schierbecker (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'd rather just go back to "2037 Bomber". BilCat (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, agreed. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)