User talk:Trekphiler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Contents

[edit] Aha, art

Aha, you actually meant "art". My apologies. Go ahead, man, you certainly seem to know about it (I don't). Just a brief note: You might consider starting to contribute to Aviation in World War I (creating a new section). That page (as it seems to me) would certainly gain from more contributions in general. If you continue there, instead of making a new article, the chances that people help out/contribute is bigger. Place a note on its talk page too. Then, maybe later, when there is an abundance of info, a new subarticle can be created. I generally think that a longer article (up to a certain point) are better than many small ones. But, then again, I am a mergist. Just some thoughts, though. Good luck! My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 19:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi again...

On the WWI talk page (section "Coverage") you said "I see no mention of the crucial influence of the U-boat campaign & how near it brought Britain to defeat. Nor do I see (as usual) any mention of the Japanese contributions to convoy escort in the Med. Nor any reference to commerce raiding, which was also important to RN defense of trade."

You might want to contribute to the sub-page Naval warfare of World War I. It is far from extensive, and could be lacking in these respects.

PS. Just a hint: If you plan on continually contributing to wikipedia, you might consider placing just a little text on your userpage. This would make your name in talk pages turn from "red" to "blue", which by others probably would be considered more suitable (currently, if people want to contact you, they are immediately transferred to the creation/editing of your userpage). If you want ideas or help, I will gladly help out. Just give me a message on my talk page. My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 13:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] A userpage shell

I have created a shell for your userpage. Some brief notes:

  • Generally: click "edit" on your userpage to see what I have done
  • Personal details: This is totally up to you and your concerns about your own privacy. You may naturally remain anonymous.
  • Languages: I have added the so-called Babel template (in your case: {{babel-2|en|tlh-0}}). Learn more about it here: Wikipedia:Babel.
  • Images: Images (for all wikipedias) are stored in the so-called Wikimedia commons (I have added some useful links to this on your userpage). Click "edit" on your userpage and you can see the code which rendered the ballon image.
  • Sandbox: I prefer personal sandboxes, so I have created a subpage below your userpage (User:Trekphiler/Sandbox). In this way, no others will mess with your sandbox. Here you can play with anything (guess that is why it is called a sandbox :)) I've also added a link to your own sandbox on your userpage.
  • User talk pages: I've noticed on my talk page that you probably manually add messages. The easiest (and best) method is just:
  1. Click the "+" button next to "edit this page"
  2. Enter a headline in the little edit-box, write the message, and click "save page".
In this way, all messages will be formatted in the same way, making them easier to find & view.

Well, I think that's all. I hope it has been useful. Don't be afraid reading wikipedia help pages - they are well-written and not exhausting.

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 18:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sig and Babel

Hi, sorry for not responding earlier, I was having a "weekend away". The flag I was using was initially the larger image that appears on the UK articles in Wikipe4dia, until someone advised I used this current one because it takes up less space. I cannot advise where to find a maple leaf equivalent.

Also I see someone else has posted the link for babel above. -- Francs2000 22:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Projects

If anybody's watching {I'm getting paranoid... ;)}, I've done a Howell torpedo page that could use some help. I've proposed a nose art page. I'm also in the middle of an edit of the flying aces WW2 list (which is way bigger than I expected...) I've seen an article online of the US aces, but my copy doesn't have the original source attached anymore (somehow...). If anybody's seen it (also ref on flying aces talk page), do include it. Trekphiler 15:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yamschikova

Half the articles cite 17 victories, the other half 3. I don't know which is correct. Yamschikova is not well known for her WW2 activities (which to me suggests that 3 is the correct number of victories... it's not likely that the highest-scoring ace would be so low-profile). She is more famous for her post-war career as a test-pilot and the first woman in the world to fly jets.

Two articles (in Russian):

HTH. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knight Rider and George Barris

According to George Barris's own website, Barris only made the convertible version of KITT. Michael Scheffe designed and built the original KITT (which Universal made a few of them) and one was redressed for KARR. This was already mentioned on KITT's page in the Trivia section BTW. Cyberia23 22:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. Oh, and Barris also made the super-pursuit KITT too. (I forgot about that one). Cyberia23 17:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Panama Canal peer review

Thanks for your contributions to Panama Canal; I thought you would be interested to know that it is up for a peer review. Comments welcome. — Johantheghost 15:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I've responded in Talk:Panama Canal. — Johantheghost 16:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beatles

You're welcome, comrade. Happy Holidays :) --Cjmarsicano 16:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes!

Hey bro,

Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes - that'll have all the info you need :)

Have a great holiday,
CJ Marsicano 03:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Always remember to stop and eat the flowers! Good luck with your layout! ♥ GeekGirlSarah ♥ 16:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neckarsulm Radwerke

Daimler's first true car had its chassis supplied by Christian Schmidt of Neckarsulm Radwerke. Trekphiler 15:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats interesting, more from internet:

NSU automotive manufacture starting from 1905, before motorcycles, bicycles, 1873 as factory for cord machines of Christian Schmidt and Heinrich Scholl based, most important motorcycle factory of the world in the Vorkriegszeit

So... are you meaning the first motorcycle (1885) or the modified stagecoach (1886) ???--Zzzzzzus 12:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)zzzzzzus This Schmidt is from AUDI isnt he?--Zzzzzzus 13:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)zzzzzzus

[edit] List of military figures

Maybe you should rename it to List of military figures by nickname to identify its true contents. --ArmadilloFromHell 06:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Simulations

Thanks for the input - somehow I've missed that particular Dupuy book. I'll have to look out for it!:Just noticed I've got it on the shelf! :-p EyeSerene 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Re Field exercises: they are included as one extreme of the simulation spectrum (with computerised at the other). I'm working on a diagram that will go into that section to hopefully make the entire spectrum clearer. I take your point, though, that they can be carried out as part of the experimental validation process for an existing model... maybe I should stick that in somewhere! They are also wargames of course, but I'm deliberately trying to avoid using that term.
  • Re your edits: I have altered tham slightly to conform with the article's style. You might want to check that I haven't altered the facts as well ;-)
  • Re Len Deighton: not sure about the validity of the source - is the book fictional? Also not sure what you mean by 'unanticipated capacity'; capacity for what?
  • Re Lanchester: I agree this does need more development (particularly with respect to OA/OR). I haven't done it yet 'cos I didn't want to just end up reproducing the Wiki Lanchester article but it's in the pipeline!

Thanks again EyeSerene 12:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Military Simulations

Cheers for the continued interest - progress is slow at the moment (busy period at work!). I've added a diagram (& amended the text a bit) that should make my case for including exercises as a form of simulation clearer (I hope!). I'm fairly happy with the first 3 sections, but the 'Simulation & reality' is not really working hence my trying to divide it up a bit (it was turning into a list of criticisms). It's still not great though (not counting continuity/citation errors that have crept in by rearranging paragraphs). Maybe it would be a good idea to hive off some of the material into a 'Training' article - what I'm trying to avoid though is (a) taking too much out so the article becomes too abstract, and (b) making it too long. It has already grown past what I thought it would when I started it (but it's my first, so I guess that's a lesson learned!) Re more examples: any ideas? I've found it hard to find examples that are non-US/NATO/cold war as so much is either still classified or limited to academic papers. I know the Russians, Germans & others use modelling extensively but unfortunately I'm no linguist ;-) EyeSerene 18:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: the 'drills were bloodless battles; battles were bloody drills' quote is normally accredited to Josephus (& sometimes Patton, though he just pinched it!) EyeSerene 19:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A bit hectic at work at the mo, so I've not revisited the article for a while! Thanks again for the input - it all helps. I studied modelling and simulation as part of my degree at a military university... but unfortunately nearly 20 years ago so much of what I know is a bit dated! It also doesn't help that so much of the published stuff was written during the cold war for what I suppose are fairly obvious reasons. I'd have to agree though that Dupuy is a very important source, although I don't think everyone would: he's upset a few establishment figures in his time. I'll make the time to have a final stab at getting the article into a reasonably finished condition and then post it up - out of my hands then ;-) EyeSerene 14:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: RCN convoys

Hi Trekphiler,

Thanks for your encouragement and info. I've put in a request for Milner's book at our local library. It must be a fairly recent publication as I've not seen it with his other books at my branch. I requested a peer review and Kirill has responded with a helpful critique. He has asked for more inline footnotes, but as I explained to him, in many cases, paragraphs that do not have specific citations were paraphrased from several sources writing on the same subject, while those with citations were single source rewrites. As it's presented now the page has 5400 words and 22 footnotes. Have you any thoughts on this? Thanks. Alberg22 14:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Up to spec

Hey. Thanks for changing the characteristics in the U-1A article. I will go through some of my U-boat books and see if I can find any info on the boat's max depth. The number currently in the article is from the website uboat.net. -- Underneath-it-All 01:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brescia GP and Formula One

Hi. You're technically correct that Brescia is the second exception to Monza's hosting the Italian GP. I wonder if we've got the wording wrong in the article around that piece, though. The article is on Formula One, and of course F1 wasn't devised until 1946, so Brescia can't be an exception in the sense of this article. Any thoughts on how we should re-word? 4u1e 14:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your re-word (on my talk page) looks good, but I think Wikipedia's having one of its periodic glitches, in that the version I'm seeing in the article is not the same one I see when I try and edit. I will amend to your latest proposal later if this has not already in fact happened. 4u1e (confused!)
Done now - I hate it when what you see in the article isn't what's on the edit page. Cheers. 4u1e

[edit] Pearl Harbor

I can't guess how this sentence is supposed to go:

  • The ut, because of decryption and typing delays, Embassy personnel failed to deliver the message at the specified time.

I'm sure there should be extra letters in "ut", but I don't know which ones. Your edits look good otherwise. It never hurts to cite your sources. -Will Beback 09:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JN-25

I suspect we are seeing a clash of meanings here. In crypto, break has several meanings, all related to varous grades of breaking into confidentiality of messages. It has a very much more constricted meaning in popular usage re crypto. The popular mind seems to have an image of a piece of glass (darkly perhaps), which resists entirely until it shatters, theruupon it doesn't resist at all. Bad mental image.

In fact, with such systems as JN-25, it was necessary to perform a two-part dance in the breaking. First, one built up the additive tables (a kind of jigsaw thing at heart, really), and then attempted to discover the meaning of code words or phrases. The identification of the Midway as meant by a particular code word (the broken distaillation plant ruse) is an example of the latter. Stinnet and quite a few others seem to think that learing a few of the additives (from several thousands) consitutes a break (ie, intelligibility of message). To think so is to stretch meanings beyond all sense.

Stinnit (and perhaps others) also thinks that understanding how to break a cyrpto system is equivalent to doing so. Since OP-20-G had prepared an instruction manual for breaking JN-25, they (or someone) must have done so. Hence he has much suspicion about the missing messages and the motives of those who hid/destroyed them. He is wrong, in fact. For instance, it is clearly understood by all in the crypto biz that there is amethod which will in fact break any symmetric cypher, such as the most recent US standard, AES. And they are correct; a brute force attack will in fact ALWAYS break any message rpotected by such a cypher. The only, monor, drawback is that no such attack can actually be carreid out for any such cypher with sufficiently long randomly chosen keys. And the same was true earlier. And for both JN-25 and Enigma. Purple was solved much more thoroughly in that the Japanese didn't choose their keys very randomly, and once a copy of it was built by SIS, just about all the traffic could be converted to plaintext. So your edits on this point are confusing at minimum, and wrong if read in some ways. In any case, a reader may take from this that there was information available to <someone> that was hidden, withheld, or something, by someone, thus inviting speciulation as to why.

Hope this helps? ww 10:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I can live with your suggested compromise, I think. I'll try to remember to get to it. I'm not sure I follow your impression about the 10% max break of any JN-25 edition prior to 12.7.41. IRC, it was additive identifications, allowing cleartext reading of the code, but not of any underlying meaning. Thus if I can manage to strip the additives from "24979h238476082660098", I might get "apple pie tommorow", but will have no idea what's actually being discuseed. The actual plaintext is, of course, "feed your head" as part of a discussion of song lyrics. ww 01:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Trekp, I've not read the Costello book, but he's a prolific author in the someone kenw beforehand camp, and in this instance his claim that no traffic analysis was done on copied signals from the Japanese doesn't pass the hilarity test. And doesn't fit with assorted commetns like that of Layton to Kimmel about the missing carriers a copuple of days before the 7th. Thi sis the one asking about Diamond Head.
As for signals intelligence info here on WP, you might start with traffic analysis and follow some links from there. ww 10:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 19:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nose art

I'd be happy to participate. I have to admit uploading images in a serious shortcoming of mine but I'm trying to learn. The subject is one I have an interest in, if you'll reference the group histories I've written. I'll keep checking the discussion and project pages to see what goes.--Buckboard 06:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Trek--read your start notes, and looks good, but I want to give it the thought it obviously deserves. Looks like it might be a pretty vast topic, just based on what little I've personally seen. (I also perused your userboxes just now and see a large number of mutual interests--not bad for a left-wing Canadian and a right-wing Buckeye. Is the Taj Mahal you referenced the blues artist? a fav of mine, esp. Senor Blues) --Buckboard 10:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Tukhachevsky

Tukhachevsky I came across a reference to him, & (honestly) had never heard of him. How big was his influence on Zhukov? How much was he influenced by Fuller, Hobart, & Guderian? What would you say was the best source (in English) on his theory? Has he ever been translated? Thanks! Trekphiler17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The biography of that bloody demon prooves that nothing can stand against a state propaganda machine vielding unlimited budgets.

Most of his military science is about how to set up bolshevik tyrany in the conquerred lands, how to liquidate unwanted classes etc. His "selected" works are available (free) online. http://militera.lib.ru/science/tuhachevsky/index.html

He was much elder that Guderian. Of course, during the USSR/Germany military cooperation, (Pre 1933) period, there was intensive exchange of ideas between these brothers. Much is written about that.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/e/User_talk%7ETrekphiler_2f4e.html"