User talk:Luxdepicard

Please stop editing French Navy as you do. You are inserting erroneous information (that Vichy France concluded an armistice with Germany), removing valid information (the battle between Jean Bart and the US fleet), and spinning the article into a tendentious direction -- with sometimes also untrue statements, like replacing Operation Catapult with an alleged influence of De Gaulle's over the French Navy. Rama (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop!
 * you removed a number of internal links. there is no reason to do so.
 * the armistice of 1940 was signed by the Third Republic, not by the Vichy Regime, which was instated later
 * ships of the French Navy were forcibly boarded by British forces in British harbours, De Gaulle had nothing to do with it
 * "which many French people called the "Marine de Vichy", no longer "Marine Nationale"" is irrelevant, not backed by sources, and probably downright wrong.
 * "These actions soured official Anglo-French relations but did not inhibit further defections to the FNFL and, consequently, to the Allies" is completely wrong. Before the scuttling of the fleet in Toulon, Mers-el-Kebir was still very much a sensitive topic, and was an argument against surrendering the fleet to the Allies
 * "French sailors sinking their own ships to save them from falling into German hands" is redundant with " scuttling of the French fleet in Toulon", which is a link to an entire article and thus preferable.
 * You removed the link to Casabianca, as well as the formating: named of ships are in italics. The Glorieux and Marsouin are not very interesting, as they did not take a significant part to subsequent operations as Casabianca did. This is a general article.
 * You removed the battle between Jean Bart and the group of USS Ranger. This is much more significant than the couple of submarines of the previous point, so I really do not understand why you deleted this
 * You answer to messages by editing this page, here, not the article. No, this is not "ADMINISTRATOR ABUSE", it is a fellow editor who is concerned by your lack of experience in markup syntax and typographic conventions, and even more by your creatively selective reading of History. Rama (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You answer to messages by editing this page, here, not the article. No, this is not "ADMINISTRATOR ABUSE", it is a fellow editor who is concerned by your lack of experience in markup syntax and typographic conventions, and even more by your creatively selective reading of History. Rama (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no use in adding these factually incorrect points again - read up a bit on the July 10th vote, for example in The Vichy 80. PpPachy (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep adding this and ignore our comments? It cannot be correct to mention a "Vichy Navy" before the Vichy regime actually existed. PpPachy (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)