User talk:Kurt Leyman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take a look at Image:Tirpitz.jpg, Image:Bismarck.jpg and Image:Bastico.jpg, and please provide the license for those pics. Also, if you add a new pic to an article, there's no need to delete the previous ones (just take a note on how the article on German battleship Tirpitz looks now and how it did after your edits. Finally, why did you delete the description for the Image:Schlezwig after skirmish with Hel.jpg and deleted the interwiki link from the respective article?

Please reply on my talk page. Thank you. Halibutt 11:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Loss of HMS Hood

Kurt,

You seem to have very strong views about what caused the loss of HMS Hood. I recently corrected a false rendering of the 2nd Board of Enquiry's conclusion on the loss, replacing it with a verbatim quotation from the transcript at [1]. You then changed it back to a reading just as spurious as the one I changed. Why are you doing this?? If you don't agree with the Board's conclusion - and many people don't - then by all means add a paragraph explaining why it's wrong; but please, please. please do not misrepresent a primary source.

I would be very grateful if you would put a message, either on the Hood talk page or on mine, explaining the reason for your changes.

Regards,

John Moore London, UK John Moore 309 18:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images on Wikipedia

I see you are new here so you might not be familiar with Wikipedia policies. In general, Wikipedia is very strict about images, and allows the inclusion only of those images which have precise license information that releases them into public use.

For example, this page appears to be copyrighted (look at the bottom), so you cannot just use the images without permission.

Personally, I find this policy a bit silly when applied to images over 60 years old, but it is what it is. Balcer 17:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Gneisenau class battlecruiser

I have moved the debate about class to a central page which did not exist when the debate started. Perhapse you would like to comment further. Philip Baird Shearer 09:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW on talk pages you can sign you comments with ~~~~. Wikipedia will automagically put in your user name and a time stamp when you save it. Philip Baird Shearer 09:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] German battlecruiser Scharnhorst

Please can you add a source for the quote you added. Philip Baird Shearer 30 June 2005 10:10 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Denmark Strait

You deleted some small parts of this article as "irrelevant". I don't agree. The reasons for the PoW not being pursued, if true, seem relevant. The other bits about the fate of the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen are more debatable, but a thumbnail of the aftermath puts the rest into perspective, IMHO. Your comments? Folks at 137 18:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tirpitz

Please explain your deletion of info from this article. Do you regard it as untrue or as irrelevant? An answer to my query, above, about your deletions from Battle of the Denmark Strait would be courteous. Folks at 137 23:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your response. I assume we’re talking only about Operation Catechism on 12th November 1944. I’ve been chasing and comparing sources on the net. The following is based upon them. There are some differences (always will be) but what is not disputed is that no RAF bomber was attacked by any Luftwaffe fighter. That sounds correct as the Lancasters were significantly dis-armed (one turret and some armour removed) and, against FW190s, casualties should have been far greater than one, with damage to surviving aircraft. Sources then disagree: some say all aircraft returned safely, some say one was brought down by flak. I would tend to accept the latter as there are also details of a bomber crashing in Sweden. The failure of JG5 at Bardufoss to protect Tirpitz is indisputable: Tirpitz sank. But, why? It appears that the fighter wing had only just been transferred to Bardufoss, as a response to the previous attack on 29th October and crews were still training for their new FW190 aircraft. They were restricted to local defence and emergencies. Again sources differ. Some say that JG5 was not informed in time. Others say that Bardufoss claimed that it was under attack, which would support your source’s claim of a planned diversion. (No sources that I’ve seen say that this was an planned diversion – just misinterpretation.) What then confuses is the statement I’ve seen of Bardufoss' report that there were planes overhead. Another site points to weaknesses in the German air defence system in the area, so this probably contributed. I’ve also seen, but cannot reference, a statement that Luftwaffe commander(s) were court-martialled.
In summary, I still hold to the view that the Luftwaffe failed to protect the Tirpitz – it sank! Given that the sources for no fighter “kills” come from RAF and veteran sources, I would accept them – after all they would know who did and didn’t return. This can only be due to the Luftwaffe not being ready, probably due to their recent arrival in the area and their new aircraft, coupled with the wish to defend their own base (but why not airborne?). One source states that the fighters were scambled, but too late.
Here are the main on-line sources I've used:
Last point: it would have helped if you had left a reason for your deletion at the time. I think that there will be enough common ground to reinstate a version of the deleted text. I’ll continue looking for info. Regards, Folks at 137 11:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tin-Foil Hat Brigade

Saw your comment about conspiracy theories -- lurk around those pages for awhile, you won't believe how many people actually believe that crud. Morton devonshire 10:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italian involvement in Battle of France

Hi, Kurt! You have of course been correct in adding the Italian involvement in the battle; however mentioning the entire theoretical strength of Army Group West is very deceptive as most of these divisions weren't fully mobilised, let alone deployed. Besides Gruppo d'Armate Ovest had only 22 divisions, six of them with a reserve status: so am I correct in assuming you added the entire strategic reserve, the ten divisions of 6th Army? Also the number of 500,000 you gave, matches the theoretical strength of the 22 divisions (including supply and support forces), not the 32; on the other hand less then 100,000 Italian troops were really at the frontline. So we might even enlarge the number of troops to be consistent; or we could be more realistic and give the numbers of 16 divisions and 300,000 troops. What do you think? Greetings, --MWAK 18:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peru v Kriegsmarine

If you look at the article on Peru, the history section states that the Peruvians destroyed a German submarine and a German "battleship": In 1943 the Peruvian navy destroyed a German submarine that had arrived to the port of Callao to get supplies. Peru also sunk another German battleship in 1944. I've found NO evidence for anything like this, even allowing that "battleship" might mean "warship". Have you any evidence? Folks at 137 10:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 21:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet partisans in Finland

It would be great if you can provide a source for this. Without that, it is much more likely that you will be reverted. Some users at that page seem way to willing to erase any mentions of misconduct on the part of Soviet partisants, however they can be stopped with the use of proper, academic references - see Soviet partisans in Poland. I'd strongly recommend that using references is the best way to ensure your information stays in the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Greetings

Oletko suomalainen? Meillä näyttää olevan samoja mielenkiinnon kohteita, ja eräät täällä näyttävät muokkaavan asioita aina Neuvostoliiton hyödyksi. Soviet partisans lisäsin niitä lähteitä, ja nyt se näyttää olevan jo niskan päällä. Laitoin sen hautakiven kuvan Commonsiin ja lisäsin artikkeliin. --Pudeo 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deng

I blocked him for a week. Not only was he stalking you, he committed a 3RR vio on Second Battle of the Atlantic. Your edits on that article are not vandalism. In fact, I think they are just as good as what Deng is reverting to. Now, please don't take this to mean that you can do what you want. I'll be monitoring the situation. But I just wanted to let you know. And thanks for the heads up on it. I usually don't watch user's edits, so I wouldn't have known that he was back to what he was doing with you. So. Be good. Please. For me. :) --Woohookitty(meow) 14:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, please don't "discuss" via edit summaries. That's what talk pages are for. --Woohookitty(meow) 22:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gneisenau

You asked: The only sources that I have seen to say anything about the claim of the ships being built to carry 15 inch guns from the beginning are internet sources. Can you provide books?

The stuff I have at home is lightweight but supports the belief that this class were designed for up-gunning. My copy of the Collins Warships of World War II which is an extract from Jane's says they were quite capable of up-gunning to 15-in mountings. Why the down on web sources? Some are just as reliable as some books. Hard copy doesn't guarantee hard fact. Folks at 137 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I can help here. They do appear to have been designed for upgunning. But I hear you asking why go to all the additional hassle and expense of under-gunning when first built. I don't know the answer to that question, but it seems likely that it was related to treaty committments prior to 1936. Then in 1936 Germany agreed to the Anglo-German Naval Treaty which loosened those committments somewhat, although Germany was still bound by restrictions on tonnage of individual ships, and that limited armament to some degree. It is impractical to mount a 15-inch gun on a lightly built ship of limited tonnage without sacrificing other items, usually armour. The former German Navy intel officer Cajus Becker wrote in The German Navy 1939-45 (ISBN 1 85152 591 2 published 1974 in English by Hamlyn) that the German Navy were planning for a war with Great Britain that was unlikely to begin before 1944 (page 34). He also writes (page 38) that "the latter [Scharnhorst] and [Gneisenau] to be rearmed in 1941-42 with 15-inch guns." That seems to fit well with Germany's repudiation in April 1939 of the 1936 Anglo-German Naval Treaty, giving the German Navy the freedom to advance plans for an upgunning, and probably an increase in tonnage. However, WW2 began earlier than the German Navy's plans envisaged, and the rest is history. George.Hutchinson 13:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Kurt

I am very interested in these ships like you. I was just wondering why you removed the images of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau? Do you think there are to many, or you just didn't like them. I think personally that the more pictures the better. Wallie 22:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

These accusitions are very sceptic. Kurt.

[edit] Advice

Hello Kurt. Just some advice. I think you would be much better off by using talk pages to discuss controversial changes you want to make instead of using edit summaries. Talk pages are to discuss changes such as the ones you made to Battle of Königsberg and Kronstadt. The changes themselves I have no problem with. The problem I have is that it's your usual pattern. You make the change, it's reverted...instead of then opening up a discussion on the talk page, you make the change again. That kind of behavior leads to edit wars. Do others have the same obligation you do? Sure. But what's bothersome with you is that you never do it. Instead you get into revert or edit wars with people with very little discussion about it. It doesn't hurt anything to say "hey, why do you object to this change?" --Woohookitty(meow) 10:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you *please* start using talk pages? --Woohookitty(meow) 06:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rex and the Poles

If he reverts again, just let him. I am up to 2 reverts. I'll change it back later. I do get the feeling that some people think that Poland and Canada were the only participants in WW2. Very strange. Wallie 22:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Stalingrad

Well I took a look. Honestly, my first thought was the troublesome editor you were talking about (whose indefinite block was endorsed by the Arbcom a month ago). But honestly, this Potaaatos doesn't have any of Deng's earmarks. But. I did WL the page. If you see anything more Deng like (bad spelling, reversions using words like "liar", etc), let me know. I know that he's lurking somewhere because Deng doesn't just go away. Wish he would but it doesn't work that way with him. So. Keep me posted. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's Deng. This edit was the dead giveaway for me. I don't get it. "Chummy with Kurt". We've heard that before. I've blocked you several times. In fact, I recommended that you be blocked in the post right above his. I sometimes don't like how you operate. But it doesn't excuse Deng's behavior. It never will. Anyway. He has been blocked. Again. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speaksure

Yeah it's Deng. I brought it up as a possibility to DMorpheus a week or so ago but he wasn't sure. Well. If you look at his talk page, he's sure now. I'll block him. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] corpo aereo italiano

I'm fine with amending the phrase to 'some' historians. Perhaps a reference at that point to the Wiki Battle of Britain page would allow users to see the difference between the British and German historians' views. --Christopher Bryan 11:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 109 Picture

This image was added for the reasons I stated on the discussion board, I suggest you look there. As for the 'is that even real' have you never heard of the 'Black 6' its the most famous 109 survivor. In fact it last flew I believe in 2004.

[2]

Dapi89 00:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neverlose1

I'm not 100% convinced it's Deng. But I'm watching his edits closely. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 03:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Denmark Strait - German casualties

Hello, Kurt.

You ask, in the edit summary of your latest edit to Battle of the Denmark Strait, "didn't the Germans suffer one dead?". The answer is "not during the battle itself". The first German fatality occured later in the same day, during the attack by torpedo bombers from HMS Victorious; the shock of a torpedo hit on Bismarck threw a petty officer against a bulkhead, causing fatal head injuries. This is confirmed in sources such as Kennedy's Pursuit and Mullenheim-Rechsberg's Battleship Bismarck. I have taken the liberty of reversing the change. Please advise me if you have any problem with this (I have added this page to my watchlist). Regards, John Moore 309 14:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nordost

Vaihdoin tuon Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS tuolle nimelle siitä Nordostista, ja nyt vasta huomasin, että se oli ollut melkein samanlaisella nimellä aikaisemmin. Ilmeisesti sinä olit vaihtanut sen. Että olikos tämä nyt huono siirto, vaikka eikös se nimi juuri vaihdettu pois tuosta pohjoisidästä tuohon Suomalainen Waffen-SS-vapaaehtoispataljoona? Kieltämättä tuo uudempi on hieman huono joissain yhteyksissä, kuten "German Finnish Volunteer battalion" jne.. --Pudeo (Talk) 10:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuation war

Hi Kurt, a user (Elrith) is doing some major changes and deletions on Continuation war please review these changes since you are familiar with the subject. Recesende 02:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Citylaugh

I blocked him. Almost certainly Deng. Thanks for the heads up. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slovak invasion of Poland

[3] I would say that the original name, Polish Campaign of Slovak Army, was fitting more. The word "invasion" suggests a large scale operation, not the sub-secondary role played by the Slovak State. It also does not provide context and could be mistaken for any of historical incursions of Poland from Slovakia. It also fits with the commonly used term Polish Campaign and typically used Czech and Slovak terms ("invasion" would sound absurd in these because of possibly shifted semantics of the word in these two languages).

If you get convinced by this you may request the move back on WP:RM (it needs an admin). I won't - I am low on time and try not engage with bureaucracy and single-side actions. Pavel Vozenilek 19:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LWP on eastern front.

First, I'm not pro PRL it was rubbish from the very beginning until it's deserved end. Second how do I mark the LWP that fought along the Red Army on the eastern front in many battles between 1943 and 1945 (including Battle for Berlin)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperTank17 (talk • contribs) 19:48, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omaha Beach

Hi there. I've re-edited the German casualty figure back into the infobox in the Omaha Beach article. Whilst not cited there, the number is cited in the main article ('End of day' section). It does look a bit odd that the number of Germans at Omaha is given as 'Unknown', but as far as I can tell, whilst the units defending the beach were known, they were spread across a sector that only partially included Omaha, so it's not so easy simply to state unit strength as the defensive strength (and of course be able to cite it). Cheers. --FactotEm 15:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second Sino-Japanese War's result

Thanks for your note. Your comments reflect the same thinking I had behind the change; the simple addition of the clause "to the Allies" puts everything in context, bringing everything together, and I believe sums up the result much better. There might be other, better solutions, but it's hard to be much more brief and still get the detail in there.

I agree that Mibovosky's assessment is too simplistic, making it sound like an isolated war between the two parties of Japan and China resulting in Japan's unconditional surrender. The talk page seems to reflect others sharing the same concern. Surely most people these days still have a peripheral knowledge of the second world war, but the summary box taken on its own without the clause could certainly be confusing. I will keep an eye on the article in case Mibovosky or others take issue with it. —LactoseTIT 06:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not arguing with you. This was the edit summary to which I was referring. It's wrong to label edits as vandalism when they clearly are not. Parsecboy 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fiat M11/39stä

Uskoisin (tai ainakin pidän täysin mahdollisena), että viittaus M11/39-miehistöjen innostukseen uudesta panssarivaunustaan on lainattu Nicola Pignaton italiankielisestä kirjasta, joten sen vuoksi kyseisen kohdan poistaminen artikkelista on mielestäni täysin turhaa, ellet varmuudella voi esim. mainitun kirjan perusteella todistaa, että kyse todellakin on pelkästä arvailusta tai mielipiteestä. Läyhä (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Laitoin aiheesta kysymyksen tuon WikiProjekti Sotahistorian (jonka piiriin väittelyn kohteena oleva artikkeli kuuluu) pääkoordinaattorin Kirill Lokshinin keskustelusivulle. Käy katsomassa jos huvittaa, ja lisää tarvittaessa omia kommenttejasi. Joka tapauksessa en enää itse aio puuttua artikkeliin ennen kuin tuolta taholta tulee vastaus siitä, minkälainen sisältö Wikipedian artikkeleissa on suotavaa. Hyvät joulut. Läyhä (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scharnhorst & Gneisenau

I have opened an RfC on whether to refer to these ships as battleships or battlecruisers. Since you have participated in this debate previously, please have a look, read the debate, and make your views known: Talk:Scharnhorst_class_battlecruiser#Request_for_Comment:_Battleships_or_Battlecruisers.3F Regards, The Land (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Crete

You seem to be caught in an revert war with User:R. A. Hicks over the Battle of Crete article. Please try to discuss the issues on talk. I'm close to protecting the article, and it will certainly be on m:The Wrong Version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish reserve strength

Hello!

We seem to have rather differing opinions about the Finnish Defence Forces reserve strength. Could you please provide a source for the number you give, 485,000? From 2008 on, the full mobilized strength of the FDF is 350,000, as evindenced by the Finnish government decisions on the matter and several FDF publications. If you have info to the contrary, please give it. The full reserve strength, on the other hand, is much higher. If you count all the persons who have passed their conscription, and have not fulfilled their 50th or 60th year, you arrive at a number that is somewhere between 830,000 and 950,000. --MPorciusCato (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] East African Campaign (World War II)

I put the casualty figures into the East African Campaign (World War II) article. I am writing to say that I will probably leave them out even though I can provide a source. The numbers I found were for the British and Commonwealth forces only and, on second look, they do look exceedingly low. In addition, it seems that this is a delicate topic for many and there may never be a totally reliable source for acurrate numbers.

In other words, I agree with your removal. Best wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Halbe

User:KapHorn is raising some valid points about the positioning of the Battle of Halbe, and as you had access to the other major source that we used to write the article (Tony Le Tissier, Slaughter at Halbe), perhaps you would like to contribute to the conversation on Talk:Battle of Halbe#Spree Forest and Mark --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constantine XI

Seeing "actions" in Constantine XI article I am writing my comments on users talk pages.

  • Constantine XI is last emperor of Constantinople
  • Maybe I am mistaking but there is only 1 historical source that he has been crowned in Mistra and it is ease to put this source under question.
  • Byzantine/Roman Empire has not died with Constantine XI. Many users are forgeting that Byzantine Empire has existed next 7 or 8 years (Byzantine province Morea).
  • Last direct piece of unbroken line of Roman Empire has died only in 1476 .This fact has been public knowledge for very long time (around 300 years).
  • Similar problems are created by historians in last years of Western Roman Empire but we can't do anything.

During his time Napoleon has been speaking that it is not important what he is doing, because history writes will say what they want and this will become history.

I am not weird historian or something similar because if you look history you need to look state laws and documents without POV thinking. Example for Western Roman Empire. Evidence against Romulus Augustus:

  • Person will become emperor (of west or east) only if after taking power he is accepted by other emperor (west or east). If he is not accepted he is usurper. Because of that rule Romulus Augustus has been failed usurper during Julius Nepos reign.
  • Romulus Augustus has not even been recognized in Dalmatia and northern Gaul which has been last 2 Roman provinces (without Italy).
  • After Odoacer has taken power he has accepted fact that Julius Nepos is Western Roman Emperor and has even issued coins in Nepos' name.

Because of this 3 simple reasons Julius Nepos has been last Western Roman Emperor and Romulus Augustus nothing more but last Roman ruler of Italy.

My point is that about end of Roman Empire we can't trust historians :)--Rjecina (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)