User talk:Dapi89/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Dapi89, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Just H 21:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:187b.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:187b.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

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! Carom 02:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hans Joachim Marseille

Hi Dapi89, Regarding the Confirmation of kills section, there is little point in just quoting large chunks of text from Kurowski's book. For one thing, it is copyright violation and risks being deleted completely, it is also not a good style. Also, I don't think listing all those kills is necessary, wikipedia is not the place for lists of statistics and indiscriminate information. Finally, we need to remember that this page is not a tribute to Marseille where we have to defend his record and achievments, all we need is good readability and good-quality informaiton; using cited, authoritative sources.Mumby 17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Tally of kills needs to be removed - it's too much.

Disagree:

Its an Historical article and a tribute to achievement. On defending his claims...why not? Others put in sources questioing them why can't, perhaps more reliable sources, be put in defending them?

Referencing is good, and its a legitimate counter argument to his claims being exaggerated. F.K's book being an established and respected source.

I would say that with both it creats a neutral stance, not a tribute to him personally or any other kind of hero-worship. Dapi89 19:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong Disagree. This is absolutely, definitely, not the place for a tribute to achievment. The fact that he has a wikipedia page is recognition enough. The article should not defend his claims, or quesiton them: It should report the fact that his claims are questioned, and it should report the fact that his claims are defended, that is a subtly different thing. It is difficult to say what is a reliable source and what isn't. We have to let people make their own minds up. Also, we need to start using sources other than F.K.s book, an article that depends too much on one source is not a good article.

I strongly agree on making a neutral point of view, that is what wikipedia is all about. Keep up the good work!Mumby 08:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

REPLY.

Just before I start, this is the last time I'll talk on this issue. The reason being I see so many articles discussions drag on forever! The sole reason, as I explained before, of putting in info that defended or at least offered a source protecting his record was because a source was put in questioning his record, it was not so much a 'defense' as a counter balance. Like you say you cannot have an article purely defending or questions someone's record. after your edit there was just the 'questioning' point rather than both. Wikipedia is a tribute to people's achievement. Encyclopaedia's document significant people's contributions/achievements in a particular field because they are deemed important enough for people to know about. Without this achievement, or whatever word you choose to use to describe it, there wouldn't be an article. Which ever way you cut it recognition, and these articles are a form of tribute. I have tried to use as many different varieties of sources as possible. But as you know it is extremely hard to come across information on him (even in German), so forgive the large amount of references to F.K's book.But in my opinion, bearing in mind the scarcity of sources, eight different titles is not bad. Dapi89 18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

You wrote:

22 February 1942- Knight's Cross for reaching 50 kills (presented by Hitler in FHQ in Rastenburg), the 27th German to be awarded this medal. I seriously dispute this claim. To the best of my knowledge by 1942 a few hundred German soldiers have already been awarded the Knight's Cross. MisterBee1966 14:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dapi89,

Hans-Joachim Marseille was awarded the Knight's Cross for his 46th aerial victory. Indeed you are correct to state that by the time he received the award his score stood at 50. This is an error in many books because of the time it took to have the award officially awarded. I gladly forward you all the necessary info pertaining to this fact. By the way I think you did nice job on this article. MisterBee1966 17:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again,

Yes I have Wübbe's book. Is it worth it? Yes it is! The book is written in German. The book is 20% text and 80% pictures and copies of the original documents plus newspaper clippings. I thus rate this book historically more accurate then Kurowski's (I own this book too) since you can verify by looking at the original documents and not having to rely on Kurowski's interpretation. For example: Kurowski claims that Marseille received the German Cross in Gold on December 1st, 1941. That is wrong. The official records clearly state that the award was granted on November 24th. However, the German National Archive can be wrong too. For example I have the official records from the German Archives pertaining to my grandfather. I also have his records too and they don't match up. Nothing substantial but inconsistencies are there. If I have to rank the books pertaining to correctness I would order them. Wübbe 1st, Ring 2nd, Kurowski 3rd and last the Osprey series. What I frequently see is that one author references the other author however not necessarily making it any better. Wübbe presents the documents and pictures and does not add much interpretation of his own. Now back to the Knight's Cross. You have to understand how the Knight's Cross was awarded/approved (I hope I don't come across as arrogant here). A recommendation by the commanding officer is written up (in this case by Neumann) and then sends it to the OKL (Oberkommando der Luftwaffe) for approval. The OKL decides on the written facts in this document and other information pertaining to Marseille. Then the approval goes back down the chain and the award is presented. At the same time the OKL puts out a press release and the newly awarded Knight's Cross to Marseille. Wübbe in his book presents the press releases from Berlin stating that Marseille was awarded the Knight's Cross for 46 aerial victories. That proves that the decision by the OKL was based on 46 kills and not 50.

MisterBee1966 07:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Unfortunately I cannot recommend an English speaking website where you can order the book. Sorry for that. My grandfather joined IR 96 in Schneidemühl in 1938 after completion of the Reichsarbeitsdienst. IR 96 in the subsequent actions was part of ID 32. Before the war began he won a number of shooting awards with the K98. He participated as Schütze in the Polish campaign. At the end of the campaign he was awarded the Iron Cross 2nd class, from what he told me (he took out some bunker positions). ID 32 also participated in the French campaign but this was uneventful for him. ID 32 also participated in the attack on the Soviet Union which ended for him in the Demyansk Pocket. On his road to Demyansk he was awarded the Infantry Assault Badge in Silver and the Iron Cross 1st class (for taking out some tanks). Sometime early in 1942 he was severely hit by machine gun fire and flown out of the pocket. Most of 1942 and 1943 he spent in various hospitals recovering from his wounds. He was then assigned to a training battalion. By early 1944 he was promoted to Unteroffizier and attended officers' school in Potsdam. In May 1944 he was promoted to Leutnant. I have pictures of him wearing the cuffband Feldherrenhalle. On one of his records is a comment of him being assigned to Panzer Grenadier Regiment 25. But I don't think that he ever saw any further combat. He was taken prisoner by the British and released 1946. Disclaimer: The dates are from the top of my head and I may be off a bit but the general story is correct.

MisterBee1966 08:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Netherlands and Holland

Hi,

Sorry to correct you but Holland and the Netherlands are not the same! To the Dutch, Holland is a region in the central-western part of the Netherlands and does not refer to the country as a whole. Non Dutch sometimes confuse this and use the term Holland and Netherlands analogously which is per definition wrong. In the article, Hans-Joachim Marseille you took the position that Leeuwarden is in Holland, which is correct if you mistake Holland and the Netherlands to be the same, however Leeuwarden is in the district of Friesland and not Holland.MisterBee1966 05:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Some Dutch I know refer to it as Holland. 'Holland' is also used by the Dutch language itself, to mean the whole of the modern Netherlands. I got the impression that the edit was inferring that Leeuwarden had no connection to the the Netherlands. Sorry. Dapi89 18:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claims

Hi,

I personally appreciate the work you have contributed. It is this type of openness why I participate on the English Wiki and not the German. I knew what you wrote about Hartmann. However I would not feel it appropriate to put this skepticism in Hartmanns article. I also feel that the doubts about Marseille are wrong. But wrong because they are generic in nature and pertain to any Luftwaffe pilot or any other pilot from any other airforce. Putting these doubts on the Marseille or Hartmann page would discredit them as individuals. That's my personal problem with what is going on. I would feel a lot more comfortable with a generic Wiki article about "over claiming". Here we should list all potential cases of over claiming regardless of affiliation. Because I can point to a number of references where American pilots claimed more aircraft shot down than what was actually lost by the Germans. However I would not feel it correct for instance to put this on Hub Zemkes page. Over claiming happened! Walter Schuck in his book Abschuss gives a number of explanations for this effect. Innocent until proven guilty I believe that every pilot more or less made his claim in the best faith to tell the truth.

Today I wrote to the German National archive in Freiburg requesting access to the Hans-Joachim Marseille file. The cost for this is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 Euros. If you want I will send you a scanned copy.MisterBee1966 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm humbled! Yes please. I definitely feel I should compensate you for this. Perhaps you have a paypal account? I could split it 50/50?Dapi89 23:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I believe you have rewritten the part of the section about the controversy over claims. I have some concern about the statement as it stands today "According to a biographer of Marseille, Walter Wübbe, records verify 109 of Marseille's 158 official victories". To my interpretation that does not reflect the truth since Wübbe only stated that the German Archives still have records(documents about eye witness reports, Marseilles version of the victory, etc. required to convince the German bureaucracy that his claims are valid) for 109 aerial victories. Now I'm not a lawyer but to me that is just one side of the coin and proves only that from the German perspective at least 109 claims are rock solid (unless someone deliberately lied). No statement about the missing 49 can be made since the records are not there anymore. Which does not mean they are more or less controversial than the other 109 kills. By the way the 109 records still available include September 1, 1942. So what does that mean for the 26 kills claimed by JG 27 on September 1? Nothing!MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you have made a slight mistake here, I made the following edit [1]. This was modified to [2] by user:Grant65! Not guilty!Dapi89 (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I have to get somebody else upset. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you be so kind and review the last changes I made to the "controversial" paragraph? I don't want to step on anybodies toes. I received feedback yesterday from the Nation Archives. However I had to answer some questions about why I want access.MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edu Neumann

Question, in the article you generically refer to Eduard Neumann as Marseilles Geschwaderkommodore. I think this partly incorrect since he only became Geschwaderkommodore of JG 27 on June 10, 1942. However you refer to him as Geschwaderkommodore much earlier. Maybe it should read Gruppenkommandeur when appropriate.MisterBee1966 15:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

Hi, yes the paperwork is filed but I have not received any feedback yet. Question regarding Erich Hartmann. You made some changes regarding his first mission against US P-51. In his biography (as I referenced by Toliver and Constable) it stated he claimed 4 Mustangs. The detailed combat description including the return to base where he holds up 4 fingers indicating he got four is in this book. You changed it to two referencing another source (which I haven't seen). On the other hand the appendix of the German version has a list of all his claims, which contradicts the English version I have. The German version dates the first Mustang claims (two claims) on the 21st of May 1944 near Bukarest. The four Mustangs are linked to June 1st, 1944. However the English (p. 162 – 165) book dates this encounter on the 23rd of June. I am a bit unsure what the truth is. Currently, I believe that there was one encounter downing 4 Mustangs, one encounter downing 2 Mustangs plus him being chased out of fuel. Let's discuss how to handle this.MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sister

I am sorry but the only info I have about his sister is in Kurowski's book. I did check Wübbe but couldn't find any further details. However I did come across an interesting statistical fact (Wübbe) which I wasn't aware of. Marseille accounted for 12.5% of all of JG 27 victories in Africa. I believe this pertains to his timeframe in Africa only. Nevertheless this is a considerable portion. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wehrmachtsbericht

Hi could you do me a favour and check my terrible English on the last update I made regarding the Wehrmachtsbericht. I thought it worthy to add but if you find it overkill feel free to delete it.MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the article doesn't mention anything about his bride to be, Hanne-Lies. I don't know much about her, what I believe to know is that she was an actress and that he spent substantial time with her during his vacations. During his last vacation he took her along to Italy. This is also in the Movie "The Star of Afrika". In the movie however she is depicted as a school teacher which I believe is not correct (I am unsure about this).MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
One more comment/question, Marseille had the option to fly to Berlin together with Kesselring. He declined on the grounds that he would be needed and that he much rather spent Christmas in Berlin together with Hanne-Lies. So he could have been home safe when was killed. Was this ever mentioned in the article?MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GAnominee

Hi, nice add to the article. To my opinion the article is nearly complete if not already so. I find that a B-rating does not reflect this correctly. I want to nominate the article for A-class. What do you think? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myth

Hi again, I reread Berger's article on Marseille and for the first time took note of an interesting statement. Berger mentions an unconfirmed story or call it myth, that Marseille, after he received the Swords, was made aware of the Holocaust and that he was so shocked that he went into hiding for five weeks in Italy and refused to return to his unit. Only after the Gestapo uncovered his whereabouts and pressured him into returning did he cave in. Berger mentions that the story is very vague and lacking all evidence. However he also claimed that it was never disproved either. He (Berger) compares the story to the "Mölders-letter" which turned out to be an admitted fraud by the British secret service. Have you ever come across this story too?MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not rule it out entirely. The arguments you present are valid. However he was on vacation or away from North Africa from June 19th until August 6th which is roughly 7 weeks, so in theory this is possible. Now I agree that he probably had little exposure to the SS and Gestapo. But imagine if you were a Wehrmacht soldier and had witnessed crimes against humanity, committed either by the SS and/or the Wehrmacht themselves. This soldier might have had the decency to regard this as an criminal act. Now, this soldier might want to do something about this. Who would he talk to? Talking to Marseille who was as popular in Germany as Paris Hilton is today would be very natural, I think. Marseille could have used his popularity to do something about this. On the other hand it might just be a story.MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ref tags

Hi, I noticed in a few of the articles you have edited that you put the ref tags before the text that you are referencing. They should come afterwards as per the Manual of style, e.g.

<ref>www.alteadler.de - German website, Fighter Pilots Society</ref>Eduard Neumann was born on 5 June 1911 in the city of Molodia, the capital of the province of Bukowina, in the former Austria Hungarian Empire, (Which now lies split between the Ukraine’s Oblast Czernowitz and Romania’s Suceava and Botoşani districts.)

Should be

Eduard Neumann was born on 5 June 1911 in the city of Molodia, the capital of the province of Bukowina, in the former Austria Hungarian Empire, (Which now lies split between the Ukraine’s Oblast Czernowitz and Romania’s Suceava and Botoşani districts.)<ref>www.alteadler.de - German website, Fighter Pilots Society</ref>

(From the Eduard Neumann page). It will take another editor a long time to change these, so your effort would be appreciated. Regards,Mumby 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that Dapi89. Here's a tip for you, if I am ever uncertain about a point of formatting I always go to the wikipedia front page and look at the latest featured article. I figure that something will not become a featured article unless the formatting is spot on (although I'm sure there are exceptions!). The bonus is, of course, that you can look at the code to see how things are achieved. Regards, Mumby 21:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Citing DVD's

Hi, I see no problem with citing a DVD. There is a citation template that you can use here at Template:Cite video. As with a book, fill in whatever fields you can and put it in the ref tags. Regards,Mumby 21:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media and Pictures

Hi,

Basically I don't know myself how the copyright question really works. There are multiple discussion pertaining to this question here. What I basically do is copy the procedures many other editors use here and that is referencing the source and assuming fair use. However, I have never yet scanned a picture myself since most books I own have a legal section about not copying any pictures without the written consent.MisterBee1966 19:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Wrec035.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wrec035.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Britain

See the note I edited on the contention you have made that the actual end of the Battle is in dispute. Did you want a more radical edit? The present changes kept your words but mainly was a "pruning" exercise. Bzuk 22:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Infomation help

Please do not violate me for asking a question that I think you might be able to answer for me. Was India involved in World War 2 and when did it join the war?

lucky333123 21:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for helping me with the question above. If you are wondering why I asked this question this is why. I need to do a project for school and I couldn't find any good infomation on the web so I found your username because I read your talk page.

Sincerely,

lucky333123 02:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)lucky333123


[edit] Battle of Britain end date

Copyedit from my "talk" page: "Hi Bzuk, I contest the changes made to the end date on the BOB article. I know Churchill considers this to be the case, but he was not a military man but a politician. I would say that Saundby's and Taylor's argument for the 31 October would carry more weight than Churchill's. The ending of major daylight raids on the 15th Sept. did not end the Battle, it was to continue through the Blitz. To suggest the Battle ended on 15th Sept is to suggest that the Blitz was not a part of it at all. The Germans had every intention of invading Britain until Directive 21. The Battle of Britain was officially, at least, was still on until this date.Dapi89 14:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)."

Reply: Perhaps you have confused me for another editor, Colonel Warden who is a new contributor. I have made no changes to the date and support the contention that the Battle raged on into autumn 1940 as raids continued, albeit of a lesser magnitude. I will post your query on this editor's website discussion page. Bzuk 15:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC).
Just out of curiosity, I ran a search on our friend to find out why he is so argumentative and found some interesting results. This could be another instance of a troll hanging around and surfacing whenever one of his favourite topics pops up (e.g. Winston Churchill). I could be wrong, but I did not find any substantive contributions from the aforementioned contributer. FWIW Bzuk 18:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] History of the Luftwaffe during World War II

Hi,

Well yes I would be interrested in contributing. My first impression is that I find the article a bit too one dimensional in certain areas. For instance it mensions the lack of a long range bomber as a great failure. This is true however it should also mention or point to why this was so. I'm referring to the conflict of Weaver had with Goering and Goering who was only interested in numbers not quality of airplanes. The article should also address the Goerings inability as leader (also Udet who was incompetent for the job he was put on). It should address Gallands hopeless struggle to address the deficites. The failure to streamline aircraft production and to phase out old obsolete types and focuss on newer technologies (examples: Bf 109 vs Fw 190, 2000hp piston engine and later yet technologies). Goering nurtured this type of leadership. I think this was because this allowed him not to be held accountable for the failures. I have to read up on this first. You mentioned that you're looking for some help regarding the eastern front. Any particular topic you are looking for?

MisterBee1966 20:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Luftwaffe During World War II

I have a huge backlog of things I'm supposed to be doing. Maybe I'll fix your Biblio section sometime in the next two or three weeks... sorry I can't do more... --Ling.Nut 00:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I took a stab at cleaning up some of the references. Good luck with the article! Ling.Nut 02:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Looking good.. you need to add new references to the list in alphabetical order, by author's last name.. so you need to move the two new ones.. Good work! Ling.Nut

[edit] Battle of France

Actually no, the Italians did fight in the Battle of France, the Italian DOW was not the only action they took in that campaign... Though I generally agree with the "German Victory" vs. "Axis Victory" part, but I'm not sure we have a consensus (counting the older discussions).--Caranorn 19:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Luftwaffe During World War II

There's no particular waiting period for renominating an article at WP:GAC. I suggest that you do so, and get a new pair of eyes looking at it! :-) Ling.Nut 01:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dapi89 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walther Wever

Articles for both father and sone already exist. I am more than happy to help, but it does appear that the data you wish to insert alt=ready exists. I have no problem if you tell me that I am wrong, but it is certtain that articles do exist for both Wevers. I am not a deletionist, and am happy to help, and to correct mistakes, if appropriate. But right now I do not see any. Point them out and I will, I promise, correct them.--Anthony.bradbury 23:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Anthony,

Until tonight the only article of the Wever's on wiki was the 'son'. You must have confused this the first time around. The 'father' article does exist now because I put the article back on without waiting for you to restore it. (You can tell this from the article's history) Dapi89 23:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair comment. My apologies for the confusion.--Anthony.bradbury 10:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Second World War europe.PNG

You are talking about this map? Ukrainian SSR Byelorussian SSR existed at the time of the Invasion of Poland and they had some degree of autonomy. Mieciu K 22:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. No im just reffering to the article Invasion of Poland (1939). The map of the USSR really should be identified as one country. It looks a little misleading as Belarus and the Ukraine appear to have borders. I realise they were republics of the Soviet Union, and may have had minimal autonomy, but the they were not individual countries. The map in this article seems to suggest that was the case.Dapi89 12:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Good Day

You are not the first and will not be the last that has opinions about Barbarossa but It has been discussed before

If you click here


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Barbarossa#Tactical_victory

You will see that it has been discussed before you can scroll up and scroll down from that part it starts with section 12 this is section 13 but section 13 is what you have been talking about.


Section 19 is the best written section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Barbarossa#Axis_tactical_victory

[edit] Barbarossa

I note you have added some refs for an alleged Axis "tactical victory" and "strategic defeat". Unfortunately, you gave only the names of the authors and not the title of the book itself. Could you please rectify that omission? Thanks.

One further point. You made a lot of edits to the Barbarossa page without providing edit summaries. This makes it harder for other editors to see what exactly has been done. Would you please provide edit summaries next time? Thanks once again, Gatoclass 01:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi.

I did provide the source: * Taylor, A.J.P. and Mayer, S.L., eds. A History Of World War Two. London: Octopus Books, 1974. ISBN 0-70640-399-1. The reason Colnel D.M Proektor is inluded is because he wrote the Barbarossa sections. Each Campaign in Europe and the Pacific was covered by different authors. The work was edited by Mayer, but mostly by Taylor. Its probably the best book that covers world war two in its entirety (and surprisingly in depth).Dapi89 17:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the edits though. I will write a brief word about what I have done. I think the article requires a considerable 'revamp', and the lack of citations is shocking. That stuff about the Germans being influenced greatly by Napolean is given too much importance - the Germans would not have taken great note of this history (the fact that they made the same mistakes, i.e winter clothing might support this!).Dapi89 17:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't see any place where you had fully cited the book, so I've now done so myself. Thanks for the clarification, Gatoclass 02:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been an editor on Wiki for two years, and I've never come across the citing method you are proposing. If a committed user like me doesn't have a clue what you are doing, how do you expect the casual user to know? Have a little consideration for the reader. Gatoclass 14:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I always have the reader in mind. There is no harm in doing things properly. A quick glance at the help page would 'fill in' new readers with the Havard, footnotes etc. I also had the same attitude as you did when I first saw this.I did not know or use this method. But on wikipedia I have come across many ex-librarians who say this is how things should be done. After a quick chat it became clear i was out of my depth, and they were right. It does look neater. I would also add that there is no real point to listing the books if references are included in the citation template, its just duplicating work. I hope though that in any future discussions we might keep a civil tone, and refrain from insulting one another, afterall I think we are both genuine editors working to produce a better article. Dapi89 14:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't "wash your hands" of the Barbarossa article. I support your edit, given that you have a source for it. My only complaint was in regards to the formatting of the reference, not the reference itself. I have restored your edit.
From what I've seen of the articles dealing with the Russian Campaign, there is a marked pro-Russian bias in many of them, partly because of the number of Slavic authors who like to tout things Russian, and partly because, I think, of recent historical revisionism which likes to assert that Germany never had any chance of winning (a finding that I'm inclined to regard as trendy rather than factual).
We need editors on these articles who can maintain a balanced and neutral POV, and it's not going to help if such editors walk away from them at the first sign of disagreement. So I hope you will reconsider, and continue contributing to the Barbarossa article. Regards, Gatoclass 01:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW I've responded to Mikka's claims on the article talk page. I've read right through the page and there is clearly no consensus supporting his POV, indeed a majority of editors appear to support the position that describing the operation only as an "Axis strategic defeat" is misleading and insufficient. Mikka seems to be pretty much on his own in arguing that it was an unqualified victory on the Soviets' part, so there is no justification at all for his reversions. Regards, Gatoclass 02:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:DSCF0938.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:DSCF0938.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 10:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it does have a tag Ive just put it on. It was my personal 'work'Dapi89 10:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Luftwaffe during World War II

Based on a cursory read of the article, I would say that the following main points should be considered:

  • Length: the amount of detail is sufficient for an encyclopedic article but adding or expanding the article will lead to a call to create separate "sub-articles."
  • Tone: A number of instances of editorializing are noted without adequate citations to corroborate the statement. A general rule for a GA candidate is to have a minimum of one citation per paragraph and more if there are contentious areas to consider. I counted eight "redlinks" which are not usually a problem but indicates that the Wiki links are not always as strong as they could be.
  • Style: A divergence in writing styles is not as noticeable given that there are many authors/editors at work here, but an experienced editor can make a difference in at least establishing a consistent style, for example using an active "voice" throughout. The use of paragraphing is not consistent and the excessive number of "spellos" and "typos" jumped out at me.
  • Notes/References Style guide usage: I am not a fan of the Harvard template used in the article and if I was rewriting it, I would ditch the present templates and "scratch" cite/reference the entire article. The repeat note from a single source is also apparent and should be incorporated in the usual Wiki note wherein the repeated citations are grouped together. Although there is a "Notes" section, this is not found in the style guides that Wikipedia advocates (although anything goes here as long as the main editing is consistent and follows a sensible pattern). There are minor variations noticed in the references that can be cleaned up but that is only a minor issue. The number of references seem somewhat limited in that there should be a wealth of reference material available in both generalized and specialized works. An inconsistency in coverage is also noted in that some of the sections established are overly long while others are much too short.
  • Graphic "look": the use of photographs is effective but a change to the standard "thumb" size may have to be made if ten or more photographs are used. FWIW Bzuk 20:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summaries and Minor Edits

Hi, I've noticed that you don't seem to use edit summaries very much(see here), and that you don't mark your edits as minor very often. In any case please remember to mark edits as minor with the button (see Help:Minor edit), and to always use edit summaries (see WP:ES). SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 20:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC) By the way, I put the default template messages here incase you wanted extra information:

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks!


When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

Reply: I will do my best. Though I have neve misused the minor edit option in the way that is implied.Dapi89 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luftwaffe and the Holocaust

Hi,

First I wanted to say sorry about not participating on your History of the Luftwaffe article. However I did run into something interesting, which I have never thought about. Do you happen to know to what extend the Luftwaffe was involved in the Holocaust? I am asking this because Günther Lützow in his role of Kommodore JG 3 was approached by two SS-Officers and asked him to help "liquidate" Jews. His refusing reaction got him in trouble with the SS. His appointment by Galland to Inspector Jagdflieger was subsequently also motivated to get him out of the focal point of the SS. Also interesting is the fact that the finger four formation was first derived by Lützow too. Moelders made improvements and made consequent use of this formation. But it was Lützow who came up with the fundamentals.MisterBee1966 20:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, may I point you to the following book

  • Kurt Braatz (2005), Gott oder ein Flugzeug - Leben und Sterben des Jagdfliegers Günther Lützow. NeunundzwanzigSechs Verlag. ISBN 3-9807935-6-7

This book is based on Lützows personal diary and letters to his wife. As a matter his wife was a secretary at the OKL and assisted in the evaluation process of the Spanish Civil War (Typing up the notes). That is also where Lützow met her. According to this book Lützow was among the first to fly the Me 109 operationally (together with Trautloft). Both Lützow and Trautloft made major contributions to the more modern fighter tactics. This book also puts Galland into a different perspective. At least to me new was his fiasco in southern Italy. Presumably he did not handle this situation all too well and lost credit with his fighter pilots. This gave Goering some leverage in dismantling him. The references in this book (letters to Lützow wife after the war) let me believe that the story about the SS seems true. However, I would not say that this particular incidence can be taken as evidence that the Luftwaffe was systematically involved in the Holocaust. I would rather say that the SS had a "job to do" and was unable to accomplish this without assistance. The nearest Wehrmacht outfit just happened to be JG 3.MisterBee1966 21:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you asked me what I honestly think. Well the topic itself I find too complex to really cover such a generic topic in one article. More knowledgeable Historians than I have written tons of books about this and here you have one Wiki article trying to cover it all. I sometimes find it difficult to even write something about one single person that I would probably refrain to attempt addressing this issue. Maybe that's also a reason why I didn't participate yet. Nevertheless the article gives a very good account of the "outside view". What I mean here is that it reflects what happened when it happened but it lacks the why it happened. Why is probably also the least objective topic to cover. Also I find the article a bit too fighter centric. As a matter of fact most articles in Wiki tend to focus more on the fighters. I am not sure if this is objectively speaking true. I believe that the US air force had only one Medal of Honor recipient in the fighter force (over Europe). I don't think that the RAF even had a single Victoria Cross recipient (as fighter pilot over Europe). All the highly decorated Luftwaffe pilots (excluding) Rudel were fighter pilots. Can this be attributed to Görings personal history as a fighter pilot?

Conclusion, I don't have a clear perception yet of what this article should and could cover. It is definitely a worthy contribution to Wiki. Keep going and don't get frustrated by people undoing your work.

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Dunkirksoldier058.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dunkirksoldier058.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 02:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet treatment of German POWs

It is not just 'Soviet propaganda' as you so crudely put it. Well respected UK historian Richard Overy gives the number of German POWs that died as 15%, as does Rűdiger Overmans. Sources - Richard Overy The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia (2004), ISBN 0-7139-9309-X. Rűdiger Overmans, Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1

I suggest you not put down everything as 'Soviet propaganda', it is a known fact that most German POWs survived, they were sent to work and were eventually allowed to return to Germany. Do not believe all the western propaganda about 'the big bad Soviets'.--Ilya1166 02:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't crudely put and I wasn't talking about all German prisoners. I was refering to German prisoners taken at Stalingrad only. I did add a citation as well.Dapi89 10:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I got the impression that you were talking about all German POWs, however I still hesitate as the source is from Antony Beevor, a controversial historian who has been critisiced for describing the German people and soldiers as blameless, gives dubious sympathy to Wehrmacht "courage" and taking sideswipes at the Red Army [3]. Indeed if you read The Downfall, 1945, the reader gains the impression that the German were the victims in the war. Add to this Beevors almost school boyish emphasis on Soviet soldiers sexual behaviour, which he appears to think was either unknown (it wasn't!)or hushed up by the allies, hints at the writers political viewpoint rather than an attempt to produce a good argument, and makes for poor history. The overall impression of the book is less an attempt at a study in the Third Reichs final moments, than that of yet another anti Stalin, anti Soviet polemic. There is account after account of Soviets drunkenly raping & looting, yet there is little mention of the hell on earth that was the German invasion of the USSR in which up to 30 million Soviets, largely civillians where killed, villages wiped out, genocide commited. On a side note, I agree that the article chronically needs inline citations.--Ilya1166 10:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree POV either pro-Soviet or Pro-German/Nazi must be stamped out. Its something I find common, if even subtle, among Eastern Front articles, which also seem to share the problem of very few citations.

With regard to the author, yes its seems this is the case, but on a small point I note that criticism comes from Russia!. But the info I quoted him on is shared by many other historians, so I will add more references to this claim. My other concern is that the article is extremley reliant on Beevor, it needs other citations from other sources.

I actually agree with Germans as victims as well as aggressors, but it must be noted that the Soviet Union was also an aggressive and appalling regime - note the invasions of Poland and Finland which lead to the mass murder of civilians in those countries. The retribution of the Red Army was inflicted on Soviet and Eastern Europeans alike as well as German civilians which highlights the Soviets nature. But of course if a historian is going to mention these facts he must counter balance that with the hardships suffered by those under German occupation. In the end he does himself damage, as you have pointed out, in that his work will be dissmissed as bias which in turn ruins the credibility of the accurte information thats included.Dapi89 11:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, criticism about Beevor's claims in The Downfall are criticised by Russia and Russian historians (although I disagree that their accounts of the facts should be categorically dismissed as bias, Russia had a front row seat and possesses the most information and insight in the whole conflict) but who else would you expect claims against them to be criticised by? Beevor was also harshly criticised in the west for the reason I mentioned before, that he portrayed the leadership as harsh and cruel while depicting the German soldiers and people as blameless. I would be cautious about relying on controversial information based on his accounts of the conflict, such as his statement that "Of all of the German POW's taken at Stalingrad, only 5,000 returned to Germany in 1955", I find this hard to believe considering that some 85% of German POWs survived, while Beevor's figure indicates that less than 5% of Stalingrad POWs survived.--Ilya1166 12:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Thats why im going to put in another citation. My point about the Russian criticism was exactly that, we can't be surprised. Lets not forget that the German prisoners taken at Stalingrad represent only a small fraction of prisoners taken by the end of hostilities. So its not that hard to believe that only 5,000 survived - that and the fact that they were prisoners for two and a bit years before the end of the war. On another note Beevor won the Samuel Johnson Prize for this book in 1999 and Wolfson History Prize for the same work. Controversial, its doubtful. Dapi89 12:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 00:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Luftwaffe during World War II

Sorry, but if it cannot be referenced it is just your opinion and must be removed. See WP:V. --John 16:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

John, Its not an opinion. the Luftwaffe did not have a strategic bomber force - it really is fact. It was a tactical weapon. The Battle of Britain article talks abou this and there are others, it really doesnt need a citation.Dapi89 16:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion request

Thank you for listing your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place because they make sure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that (s)he can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "He thinks this source is unreliable", but rather write "Dispute about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four.

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute you want to list is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you. For example, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is a good place to alert others to a particular editor's behaviour. Thank you for going to the dispute resolution process with your dispute.

In this case, I do think a wikiquette alert would be a good place to take this dispute. Also, you might want to consider archiving your talk page as it's getting rather long. --Darkwind (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contact

Hi,

I have created a temporary Email address at forDapi89@hotmail.de Please send me an Email with your contact details. After contact has been established I will stop using this Email address.MisterBee1966 10:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have sent an e-mail to the address, but I have recieved an unable to deliver message.Dapi89 10:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, strange. Please try misterbee66@hotmail.com. That should work. I also tried sending you an email via Wikipedia. Did you receive this mail?MisterBee1966 16:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did. I have now sent one to this addressDapi89 22:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:BF109BLACK6.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:BF109BLACK6.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Eqdoktor 10:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bf-109 Lead Image

In reference to the change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messerschmitt_Bf_109&diff=162230132&oldid=161126121 to the lead image on the Bf-109 article, it would be better for historical context to add a photograph (perhaps in color) that was taken during World War II versus a museum photograph. -TabooTikiGod 15:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But as we dont have one (the one I added before of this particular machine in flight was deleted) in Luftwaffe markings I thought this would be the next best thing. I did correct Bf 109 G to G-2 Trop, though.Dapi89 23:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could you help me out with an image with no source?

Hi, I noticed you're an editor who has uploaded some nice photographs of British naval ships in the 1930s, complete with suitable copyright tags. I've come across an image with no source information and a copyright tag that is likely to be incorrect - Image:HMS Hood and HMS Barham.JPG - which was uploaded by someone who has since left the project. It's currently only being used on the page Battlecruiser (where I suspect - and hope - probably replaceable with a free image). Since the original uploader is no longer about, and I have no idea what the source for the image might be (if it's a private individual or press agency then the photo is almost 100% certain to be a copyvio and needs to be deleted; if it's a UK government source then it may be out of copyright; since you've dealt with UK government photos of that age I'm sure you know the drill better than I do), I thought I'd take a chance by asking you whether you recognise it - it does seem a shame to get rid of a decent quality photo if it is actually out of copyright - or whether you could suggest or obtain a suitable free image replacement for the Battlecruiser page? Do feel free to ignore this request if you have better things to do! Many thanks, Purgatorio 14:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Somebody has pointed out that the source of the image is possibly this website but unfortunately that lists no detail about the creator. It states the copyright status is "public domain" but gives no indication why that is the case (unfortunately a lot of websites seem to use "public domain" to mean "in wide public circulation") - compare this to the website's treatment of other photographs (e.g. [4] [5] [6]) which give stronger indications of the origin/copyright status of the photo concerned. It's quite plausible that the photo really is P.D. but that's just taking some guy's word for it. (In fact I actually suspect he took Wikipedia's word for it being P.D. - the image has been on WP since 26 May, 2005 and is listed on the other site with a date of July 09, 2005!) At any rate, the current copyright tag in Wikipedia "PD Life + 50 years" is clearly rubbish since the creator of the photograph is unidentified, may well be alive (certainly it would be wrong to assume he's been dead for 50 years!) and it's not even clear why Life + 50 should be the copyright term (for most purposes/jurisdictions Life + 70 is the norm and since the image itself is only 70 years old this is unlikely in the extreme). Unless someone can work out what to do with the image to put its copyright status in the clear (I think this involves finding the original source of the photo) then I suspect that the image will end up having to be removed, which in some ways is a shame. Thanks anyway, Purgatorio 18:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like someone used this image to create a painting from it. As info it states this image was made in Malta, 1938, the tug in front is the Roysterer. See here --Denniss 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 13:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He-111P in Norway , and the He-111H-20 in Hendon

Dapi89, 3 months ago I was involved in some research and restoration of Norway 111P, and it is indeed missing a lot of internal components. Picture of me (really bad one) and Heinkle, http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7337/img2298gg9.jpg

As for the Hendon 111, I have a book (Aero Detail #18(?)) that clearly shows in a post WW2 picture it had the turret. This also has images of the Norway 111 and it shows missing internal parts of that one as well.

flightsoffancy, Nov 09, 2007. 4:00pm US Cent (I am learning some of the little details about WIki)

[edit] Battle of Britain GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles and just reviewed Battle of Britain. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues considering sourcing that should be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I am leaving this message on your page since you are a significant contributor to the article (based on using WikiDashboard) and figured you might be interested in helping to improve the article further. The article needs some more inline citations, and if added, I'll pass the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 05:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ROMMEL2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:ROMMEL2.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do 17

Can you take a look in the talk page? I am really worried about some of the statements in the article, as they appear to contradict themselves. I unfortunately posted above your last post though, so you'll have to look for it. Maury (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franz Schiess/Franz Schieß

Hi and happy New Year. Before I create an emotional problem I want to point out that Fellgiebel lists Franz Schiess spelled as Franz Schieß. I will check further sources later.MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, his final rank seems to be Hauptmann Franz Schieß @ das-ritterkreuz.deMisterBee1966 (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
A promotion after death led to a higher pension for potential heirs. This was common practise, a sort of social security system within the Wehrmacht. If this is the case here we should check if Franz Schiess was married and had children.MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Preddy

Hi again, have you read "George Preddy, Top Mustang Ace"? I have the book. Preddy was hit by a quadruple .50 calibre anti aircraft battery. A bullet penetrated the aircraft and wounded him severely. Before he died he managed, or it appeared as if he crash landed his aircraft. By the time help got to his plane he had already died. At least that's how it reads in this book. Maybe that's what ment with "at speed"?? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Helmut Woltersdorf

Is listed in Patzwall, German Cross in Gold on 18 May 1942 as Oberleutnant in 7./NJG 1. That's all I can quickly tell you about him. I rechecked Felliebel on Franz Schiess, he has a footnote stating "KIA on 2.9.1943 south west of Ischia, Italy as Hauptmann".MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

some links I googled MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contact

I just killed my Email records. Could you please send me an Email under the previously established address? How good do you find the Osprey series of books? I often find them too flawed, especially "Bf 109 Aces of the Mediterranean".MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Osprey

About Franz Schiess, he is also listed with the rank of Hauptmann by Toliver/Constable Die deutschen Jagdflieger Asse 1939-1945 ISBN 3-87943-193-0. page 406. With respect to the 12 Bf 109 shot down, I don't recall anything of the top of my head. Can you point me to a certain Geschwader, I could try to look this up for you. About the Osprey books, my most recent purchases were from Gordon Williamson. Knight's Cross with Diamonds Recipients and Knight's Cross, Oak Leaves and Swords Recipients. Unfortunately I find them of similar quality as the Scutts book on Bf 109 Aces. They are a good read but if you compare particular details on individuals, Osprey books often lack the necessary preciseness. Example: Have a look Theodor Tolsdorffs deaths on his page. Williamson contradicts all my other references on cause of death. So when it comes to the general theme of things, I find them a good read. But for referencing them on certain particular details I tend to trust other sources more.MisterBee1966 (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yugoslavian Campaign

okay, is the timeframe to look out for also 1940 to 1941? Prelude to Barbarossa.MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news
Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Battle of Albuera
  2. Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)
  3. Battle of the Gebora
  4. Constantine II of Scotland
  5. Francis Harvey
  6. Vasa (ship)
  7. Wulfhere of Mercia

New A-Class articles:

  1. 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing
  2. Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions
Awards and honors
  • Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles.
  • Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic.
  • For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007

Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:

1. Bedford — 7,600
2. TomStar81 — 5,500
3. Parsival74 — 5,200
4. FayssalF — 3,500
5. Roger Davies — 3,000
6. Ouro — 2600
7. Kateshortforbob — 2250
8. Cromdog — 2,200
9. BrokenSphere — 2000
9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000
9. Maralia — 2,000
12. MBK004 — 1,340
13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250
14. Sniperz11 — 1100
15. Burzmali — 1000
15. Cplakidas — 1000
15. Gimme danger — 1000
15. Raoulduke471000
15. TicketMan — 1000
15. Welsh — 1000
15. Blnguyen — 1000

Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes.

We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.


Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK: John Frost (pilot)

Updated DYK query On 8 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Frost (pilot), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frost

I just noticed you added the "Afrikaner" cat. As you probably know, Afrikaner has a specific meaning. His name suggests to me that he was British South African. Do you have a source? Grant | Talk 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In my experience, even when Afrikaners have surnames like Smith and Budd, they usually have Dutch given names. But Frost may have been. Grant | Talk 15:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hans-Joachim Marseille

Have you seen the review comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Hans-Joachim Marseille. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was reviewed under the GA criteria now! (see Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille). I already addressed the purely technical issues. I think the article can achieve GA easily. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class

Hi, regarding W.Nr. 14256, I am sorry that I cannot fully answer your question to the point. Wübbe mentions that on that fateful flight on 30 September 1942, Marseille took off in a factory new 109 G-2 trop. To me this implies that it was not used before. However people tend to refer to a "new car" as their "new car" even though it already has a couple of miles on the odometer and is a few weeks old. Wübbe makes no clear statement on what W.Nr. was used on his previous missions. Sorry! My other sources are inconclusive as well.

Now that the article passed GA, I have requested an A-Class review as well Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hans-Joachim Marseille. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bf 109 G-2

I have some news for you. I'm currently reading Jochen Prien, Peter Rodeike and Gerhard Stemmer's book "Messerschmitt Bf 109 im Einsatz bei Stab und I./Jaggeschwader 27". On page 176 regarding the combat missions of 26 September 1942 it reads "The first missions with the new Gustavs were flown on 26 September 1942. Remarkably all of Marseille's eight victories of 26 September were achieved while flying the new Bf 109 G-2" A few paragraph later they state that the Gustav flown on 30 September 1942 was on its first mission that day. So I conclude, that he has flown at least two different Bf 109 G-2s. Does this help? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment but I feel that the article is a collaborative effort. I was just the one to submit, sweep up after review and pushed it through. You share the merits!
Regarding the last victory, are you referring to the section in the table? If yes, than do note that I tried to make a statement about the early morning mission only. Marseille flew another sortie in the afternoon. Does this help?MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German National Archives

Today I received a big envelope from the Archives in Freiburg. I have not seen it yet. I keep you posted!

MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The documents are not at all interesting. I received two pages indicating when he received the different grades of the Knight's Cross. Additionally they referred me to another agency were I can get the Commission Report regarding the fatal accident of 30 September. I think I will not follow up on this. The commission report is in Wübbes book. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have sent you an email with the two documents (scan) I received. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hanne-Lies Küpper

Don't be puzzled but I'm going to change the spelling of Hannelies Küppers to "Hanne-Lies Küpper", which is how Wübbe spells the name. In his book are a number press releases, letters of condolence, etc. that consequently spell the name like this as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

I have nominated the article for "featured article classification". Let's see what they say. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has received some feedback now. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hans-Joachim Marseille. I could use some help fixing the grammar and English language aspects. I don't feel comfortable enough to fully address these issues. English is still a foreign language to me. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "RAF"/"British" personnel

In case there is any misunderstanding, Fleet Air Arm and Dominion air force personnel (at least) serving with RAF fighter units during the BoB were not RAF personnel per se.

Non-British personnel in RAF formations during WW2 fell into several categories. They were either:

  • individuals who had joined the RAF (e.g. Adolph Malan)
  • on a temporary transfer from a Dominion air force to the RAF (e.g. Paterson Clarence Hughes...especially the remarks about his uniform!)
  • individual Dominion air force personnel assigned to an RAF squadron (e.g. Clive Caldwell in 1941-42)
  • members of a Dominion Article XV squadron (e.g. No. 400 Squadron RCAF)
  • members of another Dominion air force squadron operating under RAF control (e.g. SAAF squadrons with the Desert Air Force).

Regards, Grant | Talk 03:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do-17

Unfortunately I don't have any paper references for the Hungarian aircraft, although the serial number reference does seem to be a bit more trustworthy than the axishistory website - it at least gives a serial for the aircraft, and references are mentioned on the website (although not on the appropriate page. I do however have references for Croatian use.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Stalingrad

Hi. I appreciate your search for better expression in your edits, but isn't the word 'conquered' somewhat overstating the German occupation which lasted only to the middle of 1943? It seems to me that "advances through Ukraine to the Caucasus" may reflect boththe military aspect of the movement and the reason for it in one sentence. Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 00:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw your revert from 'strategic victory' to a 'decisive' one. Would you care to define 'decisive'? Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 23:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Normandy

Hello. I saw your edit summary on the Battle of Normandy page, and I wanted to state some things. First, there is a Normandy Campaign article that discusses the campaign as a whole; the Battle article is for the initial landings, in which Polish and French troops did not participate. The French 2nd Armored didn't even land in France until 1 August, almost 2 months after the initial landings. Therefore, the French and Polish contributions to the initial invasion was about the same as the Norwegian one. We have two options; to only include those countries that landed on the beaches (US, UK, and Canada), or include the rest of the relatively minor participants as well. Seeing as how it's not a huge laundry list, I don't see that it's a problem to include them all. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. The French were still apart of the ground campaign as were th Poles. The article from my opinion gives the casual reader the impression that Norway's participation extended to the Normandy Campaign itself (the ground combat operations I mean), this is of course false. I notice Norway is listed as a combatant on that page too. Dapi89 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

French Commandos landed during D-Day. Several troops worth under the command of 1st Special Service Brigade and they landed first iirc

btw: (cur) (last) 12:23, 30 January 2008 Dapi89 (Talk | contribs) (72,843 bytes) (the reason I left poland et al. in was because I consider D-Day to be a part of the ground Campaign in Normandy, which they were apart of. Norway was not.) (undo)

Operation Neptune was a whole lot more then troops on the ground. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I know what operation was and was not! My problem with the article is that it doesn't differentiate between the contributions of the powers. Readers will assume that Norway had a substantial hand in the operation and subsequent campaign, which it did not. Dapi89 (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stahlschmidt

I am the IP. You have managed to breach three policies: WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:ABUSE in your recent edits and edit summaries, with comments like "rev. stupid little toad. Poor edits. This is a quote you moron. It doesnt matter." and "rev. twit." Abuse is abuse, regardless of whether it's an IP or a registered user. It is unbecoming of a dedicated contributor such as you.

As for your reversion, and at the risk of being "patronising":

  • the article now includes US spellings (e.g. "caliber" and "kilometer") which I removed/corrected.
  • re. "cannon": IMO it is a matter or historical interest to many readers, that Caldwell's fire was so accurate, from such a phenomenal distance, that Stahlschmidt believed he had been hit by 20 mm cannon fire (such as those carried by late model Hurricanes and Spitfires), rather than much lighter machine guns actually always carried by P-40s.
  • it is perfectly acceptable (sometimes even an ethical obligation) in a serious article, to correct factual errors in direct quotations (through the use of "sic", parentheses, footnotes etc).
  • it is also decidedly non-NPOV to describe the man as being of the "highest caliber", in any respect. Unless it is attributed to a credible a source.
  • Curry was an officer of the RCAF, not the RAF. By way of analogy, if Stahlschmidt had been a Hungarian Air Force officer attached to the Luftwaffe, then that would have been worthy of mention in the articles on JG 27, Marseille and Caldwell.
  • you have removed italics from places where it is required by convention (e.g. non-English words which have not entered common usage in English, like Jagdgeschwader).
  • you have used a hyphen incorrectly in the first sentence; when, if anything, it should be an endash or emdash. Personally, I don't think it's great English style to say "(September 15, 1920 – missing in action September 7, 1942)" either, but others may disagree.
  • I was under the imprseeion that II./JG is the correct abbreviation, not "2./JG"(?)
  • terms like "Tac-R" and "F/L" are unexplained, as well as being gratuitous jargon and "Tac-R" strikes me as being anachronistic.
  • generic geographical terms like "south east" are not capitalised in modern English, except in proper names (e.g. South East England)
  • "squadron" in the general sense is not capitalised; in proper names, like "601 Squadron", it should always be capitalised

I won't go into simple differences of style, because there are many and they are a matter of opinion. But I think you owe me an apology for much of the above, at the very least. Regards, Grant (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you operating as an IP when you have an account? Your user page says you are are not editing on wikipedia for the foreseeable future? Why lie? Why are you hiding behind an IP address? Why is your user name not appearing on my history page, yet it appears at the bottom of your comments? It looks like you typed it in, why? If you had edited properly I would have been curtious. You know the problems wikipedia has with IPs and vandals. I had reverted these edits with the intention of coming back, after a little research, and going through the article again, even at the expense of removing some appropriate edits (which would have been fully restored).

You err in some respects.

  • The "highest cailbre" is noted in a number of sources. However I am told citations in leading paragraphs are "against the rules".
  • The designation of German units can be listed as "II." and "2.". There is no essential policy here - infact both are used by authors in the same book
  • The references made to Curry were not put in by me, and considering I was unaware of who I was dealing with, I decided to revert them (this page has suffered vandalism before believe it or not) until I have found evidence of these claims - I note that that information was not provided from the source given.
  • Your analogy of the Hungarian officer is a little inaccurate. Many Hungarians, Bulgarians, Croats, Romanians and Italians fought in German colours after the capitulation/switching of sides of their respective nations. They were still considered Luftwaffe assets.
  • I had not put in the date in the above described way. I also had not written "Squadron" as is above. These edits were done by another user.

Perhaps you could explain the requested before an apology is issued? Dapi89 (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you made particular errors in the first place, you reverted my correction of them.
I have applied software which prevents me from editing under my main identity for several weeks, to reduce the amount of time I am devoting to Wikipedia. It isn't really working that well... but in any case there is nothing in policy to say that registered users may not edit under an IP. Moreover, the principle is that we treat all editors in the same way, regardless of identity or (non-)registration.
There is no rule against citation in lead pars as far as I know.
I am aware of the foreigners in the Luftwaffe: there are three relevant dimensions of affiliation here. My analogy was of Stahlschmidt being a non-Hungarian (say Swiss or Danish) in the Hungarian Air Force and attached to the Luftwaffe. There are two main reasons for pointing out which air force Curry belonged to: the RCAF made a substantial but often unrecognised contribution to non-Canadian units in North Africa, and; Americans who joined an Allied air force in 1939-41 (while the US was neutral) suffered penalties for doing so, including loss of citizenship in some cases. The inclusion of "{RCAF)" after his name is a simple way of doing this. The fact of Curry being a member of the RCAF is easily verifiable by a web search.
Grant (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not what you said Grant; "if Stahlschmidt had been a Hungarian Air Force officer attached to the Luftwaffe". There is no mention of a third-party anology here, and this is not the same as "My analogy was of Stahlschmidt being a non-Hungarian (say Swiss or Danish) in the Hungarian Air Force and attached to the Luftwaffe".

The mention of penalties incurred by pilots is important however, but like I said, mention of his RCAF would have been restored as and when I found a book source. I do not use web sources unless I have to as they are usually unreliable.

Anyway, I rarely get into disputes with other legitimate editors, although you may be the exception it seems, and in the interest of preventing this from dragging on, sorry for offending you. Whether its appropriate to say so or not, it is a fact that such a response would not have been made had you been identifiable. Feel free to have the last word. Until the next time..... Dapi89 (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I accept that my reasoning for including "RCAF" was somewhat obscure. My last word is "thanks". PS: You may be interested in No. 450 Squadron RAAF, which I have just given a major facelift. Grant (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] user page

Hi. I requested that my user page be deleted to try and force me to quit wiki. It seems to have failed. Could you restore my old page? Dapi89 (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Revolving Bugbear 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


hi Dapi,if i was wrong why you vanish my table? I spent much time to creat that table.If you know his "Mustang Kills" so you can edit his kills.I want to inform you that i collect those information from a website and i wrote the ref. So plz dont do the same in future. Before delete anything plz tell me and then i try to correct my information.Nice to meet you and hope we can discuss bout more tropic in future. - kabir_bd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabir bd (talk • contribs) 03:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

I think you misunderstand my intentions. As you can see from the message on your talk page, copying huge chunks of text from other websites is a copyright violation. Besides, as I said in my previous response above, the Aces of the Luftwaffe page cannot be relied upon because it is inaccurrate. It is well known that 8 of Hartmanns kills were Mustangs, and only 1 appears on their table. A significant ommission like this renders the table dubious, therefore it is not appropriate to have on his page, do see what I mean? Sources, are best when they are from reputable books. Wikipedia demands that sources be reliable, personally I don't use websites unless a have to.

The image: Just do the same as you did before, except remember to select the right one! This time you must credit the source. Click on any image on wikipedia, and you will see how its done. Dapi89 (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hey, why did you tag this and then restore the copyvio material? You properly blanked the page and tagged it, but then you put everything back later the same day. This is listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and it seems to need to be blanked and re-written on a /Temp page.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Useful websites

If you're not already aware, the search page for the London Gazette is at http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/AdvancedSearch.aspx?geotype=London It can be a bit of a pain finding all the records relating to a specific person, becasue there isn't much consistenct in how names were printed. Usually, putting full names in the "Exact" box should get you a few hits, then try forename, middle initials (each followed by a full-stop) surname (or if they are usually known by a name other than their first name, initial(s) name initial(s) surname), then full initials surname. If any of these searches reveals a service number, it's worth searching on that too. Also, for any personnel who was killed serving with UK/Commonwealth forces in either the First or Second World Wars, you should be able to find some detail about them on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission search page, http://www.cwgc.org/debt_of_honour.asp?menuid=14 The dates used for both wars are broader than you might expect, WWI certainly includes troops serving in Russia after the armistice, and some other colonial actions. David Underdown (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] well done and welcome

Updated DYK query On 14 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Edwin Ashley Williams, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- nice article Victuallers (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:KG 4 General Wever Badge.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:KG 4 General Wever Badge.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:KG 3 Blitz.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:KG 3 Blitz.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New 17z 20mm image

Its up, what you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Do17z_20mm.jpg
--Flightsoffancy (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth aces

Hi Dapi. Great minds think alike. As it happens I had been thinking that the Mil Hist Project needs one or more "British Empire & Commonwealth" task forces, because of the unusual overlap and intertwining of national forces.

As far as a "Commonwealth military aviation" task force is concerned, I think it would be a good idea. There is so much to do. The Battle of Britain and the UK-based RAF Commands have all been covered well, but not the Mediterranean, Middle East, Africa, South East Asia, India/Burma ot the Pacific (except for US subjects). British units and identities would also benefit from this; for instance I noticed the other day that there is no article on Billy Drake and very little info about him on the web. User:Ian Rose comes to mind as an Australian who would probably be interested. User:Bzuk, as you probably know is a military aviation specialist and Canadian. I'm sure there are New Zealanders, South Africans, Indians, Zimbabweans and others out there with an interest and contributions to make as well.

Regards, Grant 09:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvios

I left you a note above, but saw you had tagged a lot of articles on the 13th or thereabouts and wanted to see what we could do. All, or at least many, of these guys seem notable. So there should be articles on them, do you agree? So, why don't we create /Temp pages for them all, tag them all as |Attention =yes on the WP:MILHIST banner and maybe post a note on their talk page and try to make these work? Also, I am curious why you are tagging without blanking the pages? I'm trying to help clear up some Wikipedia:Copyright problems so they can be deleted - or not - and this seems like an subject area of particular interest to you. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug.
The creater of these articles is a recent member of wikipedia. Whilst I welcome his similar interest (in Luftwaffe aces) the articles "he is writing" were copies of the articles produced on the website Aces of the Luftwaffe. If you simply type in their names on google, the Aces of the Luftwaffe page comes up. Only a quick look will tell you that they are out and out copies. I have brought this to Kabir's attention, whilst he has modified a few (by simply swapping a few words around) they are still copies. He doesn't seem to use good book sources and it seems wrong that he should take credit for creating them, as someone else has done all the research. The website in question is also dubious with regard to kill tables, one of which I had to delete of the Erich Hartmann table, much to the anger of Kabir - You can see his response on my talk page. It seems typical of someone who does not have much knowledge of the subject, and is just copying and pasting material. Dapi89 (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh.
The reason I deleted and restored that particular ace was because Kabir returned and deleted the copied information. Also Misterbee 1966 has started adding some reference material (but he does not delete copied info). I thought it wrong to blank the page whilst requesting deletion, so the editor could see why I had nominated it so in the first place. Dapi89 (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured most of this out, but thanks for confirming I understood the situation, as I just happened upon these articles. But WP:CV says to either speedy delete for blatant violations or blank the page and replace with the {{copyvio}} tag. The issue as I understand it is that the information is a copyright violation so it should not be showing, period. The creator, or other editors, of the page have 7 days, plus several weeks because WP:CV is so backlogged, to dispute the tag or re-write the article on a /Temp and ask the closing admin to replace the old copyvio page (by deleting the history) with new /Temp file. There are two other alternatives: if the article has an earlier non-vio version, revert it and don't worry about the history, or write to the copyright owner and get permission. There doesn't seem to be an option to tag it but leave the information there (except for the speedy tag). Review the info in the boxes Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Instructions and tell me if you agree.
I'm not trying to be a nit-picker about how you handled it at all, which seemed completely reasonable. But if I were a closing admin, trying to clean out backlogs and probably moving pretty fast, unless I had a particular interest in the article topic, I'd come along, find the article had been tagged for several weeks, see that there was in fact a copyright violation and just delete the whole mess. As someone with a mild interest in these pages, I suggest we properly tag and blank and start /Temps for all of them. But please review the instructions and tell me if you agree with my thinking. Thanks. (Hope you don't mind the unified discussion - these can be a pain to move back and forth but it keeps things together - you can reply however, you like though here, there, or on my page with the whole text).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Doug.
Thanks for your assistance, I'll try and offer prompt responses in future.
I understand what yor telling me, I appreciate this as I'm not a technical expert on Wikipedia. These articles do not have previous versions as they are recently created. As I said, besides copying being a violation of wiki policy, its annoying that editors do not (in this case don't any) research using proper sources as I would call them. Its pretty obvious every single page that Kabir has created is either an exact, or virtual duplicate of the "Aces of the Luftwaffe" page.
I guess I will just have to go through them, check them and add the tag where appropriate. 12:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Dapi89 (talk)
Hey don't get the idea that I thought you were responding slow or doing anything actually wrong here. I'm learning these rules as I go too and just came across this stuff recently. Just wanting to see if you read it the same way as I do. Check out Viktor Bauer, two days ago I blanked the page, created a /Temp and copied over the cats, references and other stuff I didn't think was a copyvio issue. An admin copied it over and now I see MisterBee1966 has been working on it. I haven't looked carefully to see how he's been doing with it but the old clear copyvio page is gone. I think that's the way we're supposed to be handling these all and I'm just suggesting I'd go through them with you, tag team them if you will, we'd probably get them done fairly quick. Also thought you'd know the appropriate people with WP:MILHIST who might have an interest, if that's anyone other than you and MisterBee.  :) Point is, I think the subjects need articles, just non-copyvio ones. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I was also confused by your restoration of some of the material on some of the pages, I thought maybe you'd changed your mind and that made me wonder if I was doing things right by blanking pages. :-)--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
A bot has listed your taggings Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2008_February_13/Articles and that's where I'm tracking progress.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's another one, I think you tagged it: Herbert Bachnick, I blanked the page and started a temp page here: Talk:Herbert Bachnick/Temp.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erich Hartmann

Hi, I saw that you made some changes to his nickname. I am unsure about him being referred to as "The Blond Knight of Germany" by Germans. I left a comment on his talk page. Maybe you can have a look. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4 kills

Are you asking for the date? If yes than to my interpretation of my sources it was June 23, 1944.MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Idle change not appreciated

You changed "ordered....me" back to "ordered....I" which is dreadful English so I looked up the reference at [9] and it has good English in it (me). No idea where you found the bad version - I used the link right out of Wikipedia. The reference in the Wikipedia article is "# ^ - interview by Colin Heaton" Carrionluggage (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It was obtained in a proper book. Not some webiste. Hence I changed it back, these are his exact words. See comment. Dapi89 (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talkspace/Temps vs mainspace/Temps

Hey Dapi, I've restored Talk:Günther Specht/Temp and I'm tagging Günther Specht/Temp for speedy deletion. We can't make subpages in the mainspace. The instructions at WP:CV say to make these clean versions as /Temp pages in the talk space. When an admin finally gets to 13 Feb in the Copyvios, he or she will delete Günther Specht and then move Talk:Günther Specht/Temp over the deleted page. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Bodenplatte and JG 27

I have some questions regarding JG 27 losses in Operation Bodenplatte. I have done some reading on both and have listed all the losses that are mentioned in the JG 27 chronicles which happens to be 15 pilots (see the table in the article). What puzzles me is why the JG 27 article states that JG 27 lost 18 pilots. This doesn't match the chronicles. According to the chronicles a further 3 pilots were lost with unknown fate in so to say "normal" flight operations that day. I cannot directly link them to Bodenplatte. Do you happen to know where the number 18 comes from? And why they were linked to Operation Bodenplatte? Indeed JG 27 lost 18 pilots on 1 January 1945, but only 15 to Operation Bodenplatte. I think someone assumed that every loss that day was also a loss in Operation Bodenplatte. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up this. But you are stating what I found out from the JG 27 chronicles. JG 27 lost 15 pilots not 18, they are all named now in the Operation Bodenplatte article. The JG 27 article here on Wiki claims that 18 pilots were lost. All I am saying is that only 15 were lost plus 3 not directly linked with Bodenplatte. So in principle we are inline and we need to fix the JG 27 article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I had thought after your first reply that you had data showing that 18 was correct. Indeed I took your last (second) reply as confirmation. Sorry about that. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marseille

Actually I wasn't aware that he had broken his arm. I guess it's a thin line what to one side is an aerial victory and what is not. In theory a number of things could have caused that broken arm. I will see what is mentioned in my other sources. Whas this 1940 or 41? I assume it was not 1942. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Stalingrad

Just wanted to tell you that your reverts on this article were not helpful given you did not attempt very much discussion before doing so. You may have in fact dome more harm then good, with good intentions.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I to assume that I was incorrect on most of those points? I was aware that a taskforce was in the process of combing through the eastern front articles in an effort to re-write them, I just felt the older version would give them a better platform to do so, rather than a POV ridden monologue. A collaborative effort would be far more adviseable than some editor who thinks he knows it all Dapi89 (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir was in the process of slimming the article down before adding references. If you felt they POV, you should have added a template or raised it in talk. Being baned does not necessarily mean being wrong. What did you think was POV?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I did actually; see talk page. I fail to see the logic in your other point. Being band almost certainly does mean being wrong. Furthermore the changing of established dates, like the beginning of the battle , was POV. It is pretty simple when to establish when a battle commences; when the fighting begins within the city land/air space. The change ignored the Luftwaffe's appearance of the city on 21 August in which the first air battles commenced. I would also like to point out that the "Most important Battle?" section claimed to refer to the opinions of "many historians", yet only four different sources were provided - this hardly qualifies for most historians does it? I would also contest the inclusion of this anyway as it could be summed up in a few sentences. There are also a few contradictions: is expanding this into a section really "slimming down" the article? Besides this article could do with a little more detail due to its significance, so I hardly think that adding more to the introduction because its "too simplistic" goes hand in hand with eliminating text that is "too detailed". Seems to me like a reversed and confused perception of what an article should be like. If you feel, and other editors, that this was unjustly moved then re-add the information. The revert is not unreversable.Dapi89 (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wehrmachtbericht

Actually, until recently the German Wiki also listed the Wehrmachtbericht as Wehrmachtsbericht. Most sources I have used/own/read are inconsistent with respect to the usage. Until today I was under the impression that the official name was Bericht des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht. The short abbreviated version Wehrmachtsbericht (note the genitive in both the full and abbreviated version) or Wehrmachtbericht were used as equals without prejudice. But I am not 100% sure about this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I bought the book Der deutsche Wehrmachtbericht 1939 - 1945. The book is from 1962 and is based on the documents from the German National Archive. The book is consistent and omits the binding S. So indeed we should call it Wehrmachtbericht. MisterBee1966 (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battleship Bismarck

Hi, I reverted your last change. The question of what exactly happened to the ship is the subject of long debate in the article's Talk, and my usage of "lost" is a compromise that offends neither side and is accepted widely. All the best, bigpad (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bismark Dec'40.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bismark Dec'40.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred Heckmann

I can provide no rational explanation for that at all. My apologies ... --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is much more appropriate...


The Special Barnstar
for your efforts in keeping copyright violations under control, and - more importantly - for not going ballistic over a bizarre mix up please accept this Special barnstar --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I've warned User:Kabir bd for copy-vio. It seems a significant number of the articles they have created are copy-vios. Have you time to comb through the entire list (see their user page) and check, or have you already done this? --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a more thorough look through and blocked Kabir bd for one month. If we can sort out all the articles which are copyvios, we can see which (if any) are rescueable and which should be deleted. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One or Two Missions

I have a question regarding Marseille's 12th and 13th victory. I cannot distinguish from the JG 27 chronicles whether these were achieved in one or two successive missions. The times I took from the chronicles (17:15 and 18:45) suggest that it must have been two separate missions. 1.5 hours between seems unlikely since I don't think his Bf 109 carried an external fuel tank. What do you think? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bismarck

Hi, can you explain to me (in a friendly way) what is happening on the Bismarck talk page. I really don’t see the point. The initiative for Bismarck's sinking goes to the British or does it not? They caught her, attacked her until she was rendered useless/sunk/destroyed or whatever people want to call it. Whether or not the Germans abandoned and scuttled her is irrelevant. Let's transfer this scenario to aerial combat. If a fighter pilot shoots at his enemy until he jumps out you would still credit the attacking pilot with an aerial victory, would you not? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Herbert Wohlfarth

I think you need to look at your article Herbert Wohlfahrt. I believe that you meant Herbert Wohlfarth. I will have to look into the Hartmann question in more detail. Regarding the Bismarck, I understand what your saying but I still think that there is more to the story than the number of projectiles that pierced the hull. Which is as you pointed out very important to state the truth? I'm trying to approach this question (sunk or scuttled) from the human perspective. And I would expect from any commanding officer that he tries to save as many lives as possible once the battle is lost. And I fail to see this in case of the Bismarck. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Luftwaffe Pilot

Hi, I removed the info. on the name of pilot criticised by Hitler as it is of peripheral importance to the article and unneccessary detail. It was a judgement call as to whether the section on the Luftwaffe's role deserved to be included in such detail but I did so as it's useful, but not critical. But not the pilot's name! All the best, bigpad (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[From my talk] Please note that Oberst Martin Harlinghausen was not just a pilot at that time. He was a commander of the Luftwaffe's Atlantic division. I believe someone of that standing should be mentioned, if only briefly. I don't understand why the reverting of such material is damaging to the article. If anything the article misses out a mass of detail and needs to be expanded. It's quite poor as it stands. Dapi89 (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

NO, I don't agree. You're adding info. on what didn't happen, i.e. the Luftwaffe failure to help Bismarck. Much of that section is speculation anyhow and could be slimmed own, which I think someone will pick up on and do. That man was impt to the Luftwaffe but not that important to the Bismarck. The article is large anyhow and a watch needs to be kept on its size. Extraneous info. of limited importance needn't be added. What "mass of detail" (impt detail, that is) is the article missing?

bigpad (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I am not adding information "that did not happen"! The events described in that section, aside from the proposed He 111 attack on the British ships, all happened. It is not a speculative section at all. Furthermore, it is a bit difficult to claim it is speculative when the sinking section in particular, not to mention the assumptions made about Lütjens intentions (that are in other related articles as well). The mass of information on second thoughts is more detail than wikipedia allows. But a glaring error is the failure to mention that Bismarck failed to refuel when she had the chance. Also not mentioned, until I put it in, was the fortunate episode U-556, which had spent its torpedeos - which I have now added. The failure to mention the rescue of 5 suriviors by U-Boat is also significant (if the Brit survivors of Hood are deemed worthy enough to mention then they should too). This notion that Bismarck's boilers were working is semi-false. Salt water was getting into the feeding lines which could have blown up. Then of course was the fracture of the main steam pipes - a case made worse by continuous firing during the night. Also the failure to mention that Lutjens had been reported to by Group West on 25 May RN ship was following him, yet he continued to believe he was so. It also fails to mention that Bismarck could have been brought to battle much sooner, had it not been for Tovey's errors which gave Lutjens a 150 mile advantage. Regards Dapi89 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi, that bit about salt water is pure speculation! There is no evidnece that it happened on the surface and the slowing to 7 knots was simply to keep the ship from being buffeted. This needs revising. And the "little brother" is fact, as per that U-boat's Wiki page. bigpad (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is! Hans Zimmermann, a boiler engineer and survivor, cites this. I believe you will be able to find this on the internet too. Dapi89 (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And your point about Tovey's errors is indeed there: "However, a plotting error made onboard King George V, now in pursuit of the Germans, incorrectly calculated Bismarck’s position and caused the chase to veer too far north. Bismarck was therefore able to make good time on 25/26 May in her unhindered passage towards France and protective air cover and destroyer escort." Regards, bigpad (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, but my point was meant to mean their was absolutely no detail on it at all. Dapi89 (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally for now, that bit in the sinking controversy re the pressure is useful! And apologies re that citation ba*ls-up! bigpad (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hartmann

Sorry to say that all my sources do not state the exact timeframe. My sources are precise for the first 150 claims but then they become very vague. Hartmann himself says that his records were taken from when he went into American captivity. I guess his first log book was at home and is the basis for the first 150 claims. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I did some heavy editing on the Erich Hartmann article. Could you let your expert eye run over the article and tell me what you think? I also have a peer review runing on the article. Thanks in advanceMisterBee1966 (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. you may be right about Kursk and training. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fleet/force

I know where you're coming from but the Germans referred to Lutjens as the "fleet commander". But I won't change it back. Good night! bigpad (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think you should add in Lutjens, as he was not an officer on the Bismarck. I propose to revert but don't want to charge on without saying so. bigpad (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Or maybe leave an extra line's space between his name and the rest. But needs some revision. bigpad (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred Heckmann

I addressed the copy vio of Alfred Heckmann in this edit, please let me know if you see a problem. Jeepday (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knight's Cross

Hi, sorry for not responding sooner. Regarding Schneider I just assumed that the KC was posthumous. Regarding KCs of 11 May 1945, they are based on the Dönitz Erlass. To be honest, I have not fully understood the approval procedure at the end of WW2. With the deteriorating state of Germany a number of commanders have autonomously awarded KCs, which would have been okay if the proper paper work would have been filed. Thus you will find a number of de fact recipients without proper justification. Josef Allerberger is one of those unfortunate. Erich Fellgiebel hast written a book and it is general consensus that those listed in his book are fully accredited KC recipients. There were no officially accepted KCs awarded after 11 May 1945, however claims do exists.MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marseille

Sorry to correct you but Kurowski made a translation error, it's Volksschule not Volkshochschule. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked the dates for his Abitur and I think the article is making a wrong statement. According to Wübbe he received the Abitur in early 1938. Now I re-read Kurowski and on page 12 it states that at age 17.5 he had completed his graduation requirements, which does not mean that he had actually graduated. The final Abitur exams could very well have been later.MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I added you to the list of maintaining editors on Marseille's talk page. Hope you don't mind.MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] H.M.S. Hood

Re: Hood at Mers-el-Kébir, as far as I'm aware Brétagne received 9 × 15-inch hits in eleven minutes. Whether it was Hood, Valiant or Resolution I don't know I'm afraid. Re: your future edits, my only decent sources with regards to Hood are Parkes, British Battleships, Breyer, Battleships and Battlecruisers, 1905-1970 and the Mearns and White book on finding Hood. Do you have Chesnau's monster book on the ship? If so then you're on safe ground. I'll keep an eye on what you include although I'm sure it's all good. I agree wholeheartedly with the article length, it should be longer. If it gets too long then there's always the possibility of creating an article series on the ship, as I intend to do one day for HMS Dreadnought. Regards, --Harlsbottom God's Own Navy 12:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for correcting me. Actually if you will check the Battle of Britain talk page I specifically called to someone to check this book Szopen (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WAIT! This dos not solve the issue: The agreement quoted is in June, while the one quoted by other websites is from AUGUST 1940!!! :

QUOTE from [[10]]: "On June 11, 1940, a preliminary agreement was signed by the Polish and British governments and soon the British authorities finally allowed for creation of two bomber squadrons and a training centre as part of the Royal Air Force."

"Initially the Polish airmen were compelled to wear British uniforms, fly British flags and pass two oaths, one to the Polish government and the other to King George VI of the United Kingdom. However, after the evacuation of the BEF from Dunkirk and the arrival of hundreds of Polish airmen from France, the situation changed. On August 5, 1940, the British government finally accepted the Polish Air Force as a sovereign, allied military formation."

See? You quoted the initial preliminary June 1940 agreement. Please check the book what it has to say about August 1940 agreement.

Szopen (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry the statement in the article is wrong (note that is not refereced). Polish Air Force units were not made soverign until June 1944. The August agreement was to make Polish Air Force units operation, as Polish units belonging to the RAF, because of losses during the Battle of Britain. Dapi89 (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Bradel

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Walter Bradel, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look here! I tried convincing Piotrus but I feel I'm not understood. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bungay on Marseille

Yep, fair enough. Without asking Stephen Bungay himself I think he is more making the point that JG 27 should have been making an all out effort to protect the ground troops, rear echelons and supply routes from the bombers. Have you any information on the number of sorties flown by JG 27 on 1 September?Minorhistorian (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see much use in using Major Tate's undisguised adoration of Marseille as a counter to Bungay: there is no source material cited for his opinions and he presents nothing to back up his claims about the "very basic difference between German and Allied combat philosophy." Where did he get that assumption from? Bungay, cites Eduard Neumann as describing problems within JG 27 because of internal rivalry whereas Tate ignores this, even though a photograph he scanned comes from 'Hans Ring And Christopher Shores' Fighters Over The Desert, which is one of Bungay's citations.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DSCF0866.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Dapi89!
We thank you for uploading Image:DSCF0866.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DSCF0866.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Dapi89!
We thank you for uploading Image:DSCF0866.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Battle of the Atlantic (1939-1945)

(from my talk page) Your offensive addition to this article's summary box has been reported, see here. Dapi89 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then; would you care to read the "Strategic Objectives" section now you've edited it, and tell me what it says now? Xyl 54 (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What it is supposed to say. Dapi89 (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so now you’ve deleted the comment “ …and suck pussy”, which you added after I’d deleted it, but instead of an apology, which might have been appropriate under the circumstances, or maybe "thanks", or even just a "good catch", you’re trying to pass it off as my mistake?
I don’t believe it!
And, who have you “reported this vandalism” to? With whom do I have to clear my name, now you've impugned it?
Xyl 54 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You must be joking. Why would I congratulate someone who defaces wikipedia in any manor. Who mentioned anything about a mistake? I referred only to the edit summary, which was deliberate was it not? Your edit history has already black listed "your name", as you have been blocked before for totally inappropriate behaviour, so don't give me that. Dapi89 (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Dapi, you might want to recheck that diff, you re-inserted vandalism (twice from the looks of it) and Xyl removed it.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't. I did it once and corrected it immediately. Dapi89 (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Step by step. 131.122.41.223 removes profanity [11]. You revert it back in. [12]. Xyl 54 removes profanity. [13]. You revert it back in and call him a moron. [14]. And then you take it back out. [15]. The original vandalism occured here 216.106.33.2 [16] back on April 30th.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
“ deliberately defacing WP”?
Look, you put the obscenity in, I took it out. Moron? Who would that be?
And “blocked before for totally inappropriate behaviour”? when was this? In another life?
Xyl 54 (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Read your own talk page. And NO. I DID NOT "PUT IT IN". It was obvious I was reverting vandalism, if you can't figure that out, you are a moron. Dapi89 (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945). Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Addressing other editors as "morons" is not acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. Repeated offences of this will cause editors to be banned. In particular, before accusing other editors of anything, please check that:

  • they were the vandal.
  • they weren't an editor who'd already correctly fixed the vandalism.
  • You yourself weren't an editor who'd re-introduced it.

Secondly, I don't believe that Xyl 54 has ever been blocked from Wikipedia. They use some of the same IP space that had previously been blocked because of another user. Lifting such a block does not reflect at all negatively on any user so affected.

I suggest strongly that you're more careful in future before throwing accusations around, to check that they're actually deserved. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If that is this case he should remove it from his talk page. What did you expect me to think? I have not got time to go through a users history to check exactly what happened. Dapi89 (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then don't accuse people of things you don't have time to check. Certainly don't do it using those terms. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The information was not available anyway.Dapi89 (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banning my ip adress (69.123.106.132)

I think that you made a mistake in banning my account. I undid some vandalism on The battle of the Alantic page on May 1 and you banned me for vandalism. If you look at this page you will see that I was undoing vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Atlantic_%281939%E2%80%931945%29&diff=209367469&oldid=209367206 . The reason for the mistake might be that you undid vandalism that the guy after me left and then clicked on his name instead of mine. This would make sense being you undid the edit of the guy after me as shown by the history of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Atlantic_%281939%E2%80%931945%29&action=history . I'm sure it was just a misunderstanding that will be easy to fix. Thank you for your time 69.123.106.132 (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)69.123.106.132

Further to this; please do not place the {{Block}} template on other user's pages unless they are actively blocked. Thanks. Kuru talk 21:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)