User talk:EnigmaMcmxc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Milton Shulman

Hi, yes the Goring comment was clearly an error on my behalf sorry about that. I have Defeat In the West sitting on my shelf which has a list of what appears to be all senior German officers he interviewed (yes Goring isnt there ;)) Would you recommend adding some more in or leaving the article as it is?

Out of intrest since you stated you have read his memoirs, am only a Second World War geek so the rest of his life doesnt really intrest me to be honest but does he give you the impression by any chance that he never full got over the war and resented the Germans to an extent? I only ask, after reading the latest version of Defeat in the West, around 2003 iirc he basically makes this claim and it rather intrigued me. Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 21:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


Dear Enigma

I cannot find your regular User talk:page, so in answer to your queries above:

1 No. We do not need to add the names of the other German officers interviewed. Those who need that information should acquire a copy of Defeat in the West. The memoirs focus only on Von Rustedt and Meyer.

2 Noone involved in the Second World War was unaffected by it, but reading his memoirs there is no suggestion that he resented the Germans (qua Germans). He makes the point about how ordinary these officers were, and he also notes that they were better looked after by the Brits than the Yanks, the latter putting them in minuscule cells.

3 If you are so interested in the war you should read his memoirs, with marvellous material on induction, training, commissioning, overseas postings, life in London in the Blitz and black-out, amazing work done by MI 14(b) and the horrors of Dieppe and other engagements affecting Canadian troops., This constitutes at least a third of the book and is brillantly written.

Best wishes, John Thaxter 22:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Villers-Bocage edits

You might want to slow down a bit and bring some of your proposed changes to the talk page. Some of the context you are removing from the article is important and worth discussing before changing. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The items i have removed are wrong. Perch was not an operation to take Villers-Bocage it was an operation to envelop Caen. Casulties have been updated and provided with referances so they are much more accurate. The battle lasted most of the day yet the article is only really covering Wittmanns attack. It seems to be more about the myth then the realitly at the momment.

In my opinion, currently the afternoon section needs heavy updates as well as the effects section which seems rather wrong in some places (especially on talk of all these extra reinforcements who were on hand ... that appears to be compeltly untrue with what i have read on the subject, also considering the division was made up of 2 brigades and they both took part)

Although am happy to discuss our next course of action for the article.

You're removed significant context about the battle. The importance of it isn't how many tanks were destroyed, it is the lost opportunity to turn the German's flank and take Caen very early in the Normandy campaign. By making such wholesale changes without discussion, but with somewhat negative comments, you are making it harder for people to work cooperatively on the article. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, the battle was 20 minutes in the morning and a 6 hour punch up in the afternoon.

The article in all fairness should discuss all aspects of the battle, which is where it is lacking. As stated especially in the afternoon section. The information for the morning was, from everything ive read, rather wrong in places etc

It was a decent start but flawed, correcting the flaws without discussion is not being negative.

Co-operation to finish it off is not any harder now then it was several hours ago.

My opinion would be to rewrite the introduction and to expand the afternoon section as the next move.

Vandalism?
If you want to accuse me of vandalism please report it appropriately. Otherwise please refrain from such attacks. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


When you keep adding inappropriate tags to an article I think you should know yourself that it is. You state that removal of these tags needs to be discussed, well correct me if am wrong but we already have. The peer review of the article stated the grammar needs to be improved and tags have been put in place making you addition unneeded. Again the peer review stated that the article was very well cited, considering that more citations and sources have been used then ever before when considering the state of the article at the beginning of the year again that makes the other tag you keep adding in completly inappropriate. You take what I have typed in the edit summary what ever way you want but you know I was right in what I said.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Either you are serious in your belief that I vandalized wikipedia or you are not. If you're not, I'd deeply appreciate it if you'd refrain from making personal attacks as you did today in your edit comment. If you are serious, please report me so it can be on the record that I have not done so. In my opinion what we have here is an edit conflict, not vandalism. It is also my opinion that the peer review never even touched on most of the problems with the article. But that's a side issue. Don't go tossing around terms like 'vandal' lightly please. Thanks. DMorpheus (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you call placing inappropriate tags on the top of a page without real reason and doing so even after the reasons they were placed there was resolved?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I call it. You called it vandalism. I'd appreciate it if you'd either report me or withdraw the attack. Thanks. DMorpheus (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Can you please define the difference between tactics, doctrine, and battle procedure? Thanks, DMorpheus (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I based the edit off the remarks made by Dorsh, according to him the latter is more approbriate for Anglo-Canadian use then the other two. I did mention why i changed it in the edit summary--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you withdraw the use of the term 'vandalism' ? DMorpheus (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A bit of a late reply, but no I stand by what I said at the time.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Placeholder for Villers-Bocage on my talk page

I'd appreciate it if you'd leave my talk page alone, OK ? I have a placeholder and, when I get time, I will be working on the article. I would just appreciate you not leaving anything on my talk page regarding this. If you have some other issue feel free, but not V-B. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your the one who talked about co-operation, however you have a placeholder on your talk page desingated as the only valid version and at the same time was attempting to block every attempt to improve this article. The placeholder has already discussed is covered with errors all over the place. Am sure you can admit that the article as it stands now is in allot better condition and is more accurate then before. If you want to work on an article i would sugges the one which is currently life and not this 2 month old error filled piece of work. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit: since you also have a thing for deleting referances to errors which have been highlighted, here is the short list of errors which was palced on your talk page about the palceholder which you deleted:

"I find it funny, that after so many edits made to the article which is now more improved in accuracy and coverage of the battle that you claim the "valid version" of the article to be one which contains so many errors in it.

Errors being:

  1. This "valid version" cuts out all references to Operation Perch
  2. Commanders which are shown are a mix and match of different ranks and do not show the men actually in charge in most cases
  3. false information on the number of British tanks involved
  4. false information on the number of British tanks lost
  5. flase information on the actual regiments which took part in the fight
  6. false information in regards who ordered the 7th armoured division to take Villers-Bocage
  7. background gives no information as to why the 7th armoured division was ordered to take the town
  8. many references to the town being a city
  9. lax spelling of Villers-Bocage littering the article
  10. false impression in the intro and background section of what happened i.e. "racing to take the high ground" and "Wittmann charging and halting the entire division"
  11. article giving the impression that the losses which the British suffered were higher then they were
  12. two paragraphs to deal with the fighting which took place during the afternoon for six hours however it barely mentions it
  13. propaganda section essentially going along with the actual propaganda and giving a false impression of Wittmanns score
  14. anti British bias throughout the article
  15. errors in the effects section
  16. poor headings
  17. no citations or footnotes anywhere in the article to prove anything which has been stated
  18. tiny reference list which does not show the wealth of knowledge out there about the battle.

I could go on naming the faults with what you perceive to be the "valid version" of this article. I know you don’t want to, but you have to recognise at some point in time that the article in its current state is allot better then it was on many levels as well as being allot more error free.

As it stands, this is no "valid" version of the article and you know that. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)"

Am not one for wanting to rub things in peoples faces, but i tried to cooperate with you to make this article even better but you were the one who blocked this. Reverting edits, removing content, ignoring questions posed to you etc

You want to improve the Villers-Bocage article you do it to the one which is currently on the wiki, without removing putting a wonderful 1 sided anti british slant on it all and acting like Operation Perch never took place. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent quote

Pissed myself laughing when I read Lord Cranley's quote in the V-B article, bloody good show, sir. Feel free to uncensor it if you have the uncensored version, or does the source have the swear words omitted too? Geoff B (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

unfortually, the source has it censored. Laughed my head off when i read it too!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brevity - Tobruk

I believe it's in the official histories, volume II, pg. 116. Oberiko (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks allot, can't believe i missed something like that!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Verrieres Ridge

That's what I've been meaning to do. It's on my 'to do' list


Ah cool, hadnt seen it there :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I spent the last several hours reformatting the refs. Could you do a quick check of the page to make sure I got the formatting right?

Thanks, Cam (Chat) 04:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing , ill have a nosey later when am home :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Cam (Chat) 18:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
Thanks for your help in reformatting the refs for Verriéres Ridge. It is greatly appreciated! Cam (Chat) 23:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks allot! :D

Hey, Enigma. Huge favour I'd like to ask of you: I'm about to take Verrières for the big ACN (A-Class-Nomination). The problem is that there are quite a few refs that have yet to be fully consolidated. would you be able to take a quick peek at it over the next few days, and just do some ref-consolidation for me? Thanks for your help. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, ill take a look over the article soon :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Just looked it over then, i dont think there is anything i can do, it looks good to me.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Brevity

Excellent work on the order of battle. Are you planning to create a new "Operation Brevity order of battle" article and copy the data across? When one has so much detail this is the normal procedure. You could use Operation Battleaxe order of battle as a template. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 17:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea i think i will, cheers :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


By the way. PAK are anti-tank guns (see Anti-tank warfare, 5 cm PaK 38 and 5 cm PaK 38. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 18:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It was the abbreivation on this one which threw me: 4.7 cm Pak Sfl

I dont recall seeing it anywhere and have no idea what it means :S--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see what you mean. There doesn't seem to be anything between the 42mm PAK41 and the 50mm PAK38! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 18:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

After allot of nosing around i came across this: [1]

Appears to be a Czech AT gun which was mounted on the Panzer I to give you the Panzerjäger I "(Sf) stands for "Selbstfahrlafette" (German for "Self-propelled carriage")." I would guess Sfl is it, just adding the l in for lafette.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a look in the Axis History Factbook you'll see listed the captured anti-tank guns the Germans used in WWII. Included are the following 47mm guns:
4.7 cm PAK 36 (t) (ex-czech M-36, very appreciated by German troops)
4.7 cm PAK 177 (i) (ex-italian M-35 Böhler)
4.7 cm PAK 179 (j) (ex jugoslavian M-36 Skoda)
4.7 cm PAK 181 (f) (ex french M-37,a very effective AT gun, also known as SA 37 APX)
4.7 cm PAK 183(f) (ex french M-39, development of the M-37)
4.7 cm PAK 185 (b) (ex-belgian Con de 47 antichars SA-FRC)
4.7 cm PAK 188 (h) (ex dutch Kanon van 47)
4.7 cm PAK 196 (r) (ex-russian 47 mm PTP Böhler)
the designation of the gun is not exactly the same as your ref but the (t) and bore of the czech gun fits. So I guess that's it! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 18:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 6th Airborne Timeline

I believe it enhances the article giving chronological details of what happened at what time during that day but plese feel free to remove it if you disagree JS1 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Army allegiance

I think you should know but the British army has no allegiance to the "allies". There allegiance belongs to the sovereign, not parilment and there poltical alliances.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    • I believe its sworn to the Sovereign and those officers empowered by her , thats how the 1st Minister with her blessing sends troops to war (What would happen is she did not give her blessing would be interesting) , thats how British oficers were under command of American Generals in WW II (Ike) and in the Gulf War (Stormin Norman) , but your point is well taken JS1 (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
ive wondered that myself - what would happen. :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:57, 21 April 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) 00:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding United Kingdom to Divisional articles

"(United Kingdom)" is only necessary when there is a possibility of ambiguity eg 1st Infantry Division where the divisional title is sufficiently unique eg with "Lancashire" in its title then the UK addition is superfluous. I have reverted some moves and tagged another as a requested move. Please think about the moves you have made (or are considering) and revert those that do not need the United Kingdom addition GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

After reading several comments a while ago about how it was wanted for all divisions - it seemed a decent move to make while extremly bored in work with nothing to do. One should also note, most of the title changes was to add in there full divisional title.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image of panzers in Op Brevity article

In response to your edit summary, the image is of Pz II's and Pz III's (certainly the two foreground tanks are, III on the left, II on the right). BTW, the images you are uploading are great additions to the narrative, but I suspect you're going to have problems concerning copyright and licensing with them. --FactotEm (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the info, am usually good an ID'ing tanks but well i couldnt decide weather it was a MK III or IV. Lol i should have just counted the road wheels, dont know why i didnt :S thanks again --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

Hey, thanks for the barnstar. You must feel like I'm waiting to pounce on every edit of yours by now. If that starts getting to you just drop me a line on my talk page. I won't remove the article from my watchlist, but I will back off and give you some space to work at your own pace until you think it's ready for some more semi-random re-arranging of words to convey essentially the same meanings. --FactotEm (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In particular, I think your edit quoting Rommel's diary on German interpretations of A 2RTR's recce needed a significant CE, but if it was a CE too far for your tastes, you can obviously revert and I'll discuss before trying again. Cheers. --FactotEm (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind dude, am glad of all the help - keep plugging away man! :)
There are a few little bits and bobs i want to add it, but other then that i think its done. Give it a few days and ill make the request to get it reassessed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Footnote Formatting Request

Hey, Enigma, I'm in the process of GA-Reviewing 13th Airborne Division, and I've established that many of the footnotes need to be combined (as per MoS). If you've got any spare wikitime, would it be possible for you to take a quick peek at it? Thanks for the help. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

On that note, I've started a small project aimed at improving coverage of Normandy Campaign-related battles (in case you want to be of assistance). In addition, I've got some ref-combining that needs doing on Operation Tractable, (which, if you worked at all on the earlier versions, or saw the earlier versions, you would no longer recognize). Thanks for your help. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Halfaya pass.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Halfaya pass.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) 10:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Added image to article, i forgot to add it when i uploaded it.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 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) 00:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Varsity

Hey, I'm trying to get Operation Varsity to A-Class and I need casualties for the German forces. You used Ellis to cite captured casualties, but did he mention dead/wounded? Skinny87 (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Am afriad he doesnt, i double checked when i inputted those figures - its just the captured. Sorry.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh well, thanks anyway. Skinny87 (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)