Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:32, 3 July 2009

Dapi89 is very busy in real life and may not respond quickly

Archives

/Archive 1

Thanks for reminding me

My talk page was just crying out for some archiving; seeing you tidy up yours convinced me to get around to it. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Corrections to Battle of Belgium

You're welcome. So far, it looks like a good article. There is likely to be some more cleanup needed, and I will give it another shot after the revision history shows that you appear to be done for the day.

Which did you mean? — "the RAF was not operating from bases in southern England, which made communication more difficult" or "the RAF was not operating from bases in southern England, which made communication more difficult"

I think the article should be moved back to "Battle of Belgium", without the year, unless you know of another major battle of that name. What would the majority of WP readers expect to see when they type in "Battle of Belgium"? Ninety-nine percent or better would mean WWII, I think. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Belgium

I really like the article, technically very sound and well cited. Personally I would have mentioned that breaching the Allied defences in the Ardennes was the central idea behind the Manstein Plan in the lead. Regarding casualties, I own just one book that deals with the element of Eben Emael only. I have a trip scheduled to Eben Emael in the second half of this year. I will see what further info I can find. For now I could look up what the Wehrmachtbericht has to say on losses. Sometimes it reveals some interesting aspects. What I find useful I will put on you talk page. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have some information for you regarding the German losses in the timeframe 10 May to 1 June 1940. The consolidated report of the OKW (Wehrmachtbericht) from 10 May to 4 June reports:

• Killed in action: 10,232 officers and soldiers
• Missing in action: 8,463
• Wounded in action: 42,523
• Losses of the German Luftwaffe from 10 May to 3 June: 432 aircraft
• Losses of the Kriegsmarine: none

Note: these are the losses in the west and includes losses in the Netherlands, Belgium and France. If you want this in the article I gladly add the citations. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the info to the article. Reword as you deem necessary MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross

Could you have a look at List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross. The reviewers feel that my prose is not good enough for A-Class. Well, to be honest, it doesn't get any better so I need your help. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The recipients on this list have one common denominator. They all served in the armed forces of their country, not the German armed forces. Imagine an American GI winning the Victoria Cross or a British sailor winning the Congressional Medal of Honor. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Simple language, hey I'm German, we have Göthe and Brecht. We write sentences that are a mile long and by the time you get to the end you forgot how it started. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Be careful

T'would be better to be more careful about what you say on various discussion pages; what ever you do, don't let others goad you into breaking the rules on civility, as i've said before it's not worth losing editing privilages over. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries; if anything I find the response rather funny and and pathetic - reminds me of Basil Fawlty. Minorhistorian (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Sedan

Question: Why does it say "Battle of France" in the Infobox? Just copy and paste error? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, that's not much info that we have here. I'll see what I can do. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I created a stub! The Lexikon der Wehrmacht has an article on him listing him as a Knight's Cross recipient, which he wasn't. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Arras (1914)

Can you tell me why you think this was a decisive French victory? The text sounds more like the other way around. I should learn to read MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Sedanplan1940.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Sedanplan1940.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Rettetast (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Battle again!

Hi Dapi, thanks for the note and your reminder that my writing assignment is over (at least for now) with my new book out from the publishers (in pre-pub) form but nevertheless exciting to have in my hands. I have made some comments on the Battle of Bitain talk page to continue the discourse about what really transpired? was it a victory? was it decisive? and so on...FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

As you may have guessed from my vocation, my new book is about flying and aviators, bearing the decidedly overblown title: True-Life Adventures of Canada's Bush Pilots (publisher's pick on the title, mine was "Into the Unknown" which was a bit too esoteric for their tastes and it was already used by a Reader' Digest title). It is written in a gushing, pop-history style for the average reader and not a true academic work, but it was fun nonetheless. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

Aircraft of the Battle of Britain

While I appreciate that you may find it hard to assume good faith with certain editors, edits like this hardly help to keep things calm.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I too know how frustrating this is; just keep calm and move on to other articles which don't involve this editor. I just keep thinking of Basil F. Don't worry too much about the B of B, other editors seem to be keeping a lid on that. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ju 87

Sorry but I had to revert, there were too much text changes left out just because you dislike the engine figures. Many, including Griel, had the engines wrong (not only in the Ju87, also in Bf 110 using DB 605B in the G-variant and many still state they used the 605A). The Jumo 210B/D/G were geared for relatively fast aircraft, namely fighters. Slow aircraft used the C/E variant as the prop became very inefficient while spinning fast but not achieving lots of thrust, thus the other versions were born with other gearing (spinning the prop slower on the same engine refs). BTW both Ju87 B-2 manual and Ju 87 D/G data cards mention 480L main inner-wing tanks and the D/G have an additional 300L in outer-wing tanks. --Denniss (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

AN3

Move this to the end where it belongs, please William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't add new subsections to AN3 reports, as you did in this edit. Just continue adding indented comments. Really, though, you should not be making many long comments at all; AN3 is a place for uninvolved editors to evaluate the situation, not for you and the other editor to continue your argument. Finally, when you make AN3 reports, do so using the Click here to add a new report link at the top of the page and filling in the report using the instructions there; that link adds preloaded text to format the report correctly, and many admins will ignore malformed reports like the one you posted. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Had I have known that Kurfurst had seen fit to use my friendly advice to you to cool down as some sort of evidence that I support him I would have protested most strongly. Just for interest take a look through this Discussion forum on 100 Octane should you have the time/inclination. Something looks familiar. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Dapi89 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm being bloacked for "vandalism" - linked to abuse of editing privilages - I'd like a direct reference to this vandalism. As you can see from my talk page I am not a vandal, but someone who has put a lot into wikipedia.

Decline reason:

You and the other editor were blocked for ongoing disruptive editing, not vandalism. Stephen 11:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note that the blocking reason was "disruptive editing", and in no edit did I accuse you of vandalism. You seem unable to adjust to an academic, collaborative atmosphere. That said, an admin will be along to review the block shortly. Tan | 39 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see - that template links to vandalism. My apologies; that is an oft-used template and I have removed the link. You have committed no vandalism that I see. Tan | 39 16:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've refactored your unblock request because it wasn't showing up properly. Now Tan has confirmed that you were blocked for disruption rather than vandalism, would you care to modify your unblock request to address this? EyeSerene 10:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Is there any point? I along with quite a few others have done a lot to defend wikipedia's NPOV intergrity from User:Kurfurst's Germanophile editing agenda, and beyond that (I think) have put a great amount of effort into the articles I edit. After the last time I considered not bothering with this place again, I guess I'll have to consider it more thoroughly this time. Sufficed to say, I'm one of many genuine editors that get penalized. Consequently some leave, and the only ones left are the determined agenda driven individuals who are then given a free hand in writing articles as they see fit and Misplaced Pages is steadily (in general) declining in quality. Can you understand my frustration? Dapi89 (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way and I do understand your frustration. You clearly weren't the only one to have problems with Kurfurst, and I have no hesitation in acknowledging you as a genuine editor and valuable contributor to Misplaced Pages. However, you let yourself get sucked into a needless and increasingly personal conflict - for the best of reasons, maybe, but still ultimately disruptive. Once admins get involved our policies tend to be applied without favour to all involved parties, and I hope you can see that you haven't handled yourself as well as you could have done. Ideally, instead of getting into it with Kurfurst, you would have followed our dispute resolution suggestions; then you could have maintained the moral high ground and avoided this situation.

Kurfurst will be on a very short leash when their block expires, and I hope you can put this behind you and move on. We all get over-engaged sometimes, and recognising when to disengage isn't always easy when it's something one's passionate about, but it's a key attribute to editing in this strange environment. If you are able to acknowledge your role in your blocking (which after all was for your actions, not Kurfurst's) and undertake not to play any part in escalating such conflicts in the future, I think we'd be willing to seriously reconsider your block. EyeSerene 16:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That goes without saying. Using dispute resolution seems to be the best policy. So agreed. All I want to do is be left to edit in peace. I have had no other blocking-related issue other than with Kurfurst (this is the fourth time). But at the moment, on the articles I have created and expanded from stubs (namely the Battle of Belgium and the Defense of the Reich pages) I seem to be followed around and provoked. Naturally, such a repsonse as was given was not appropriate - but understandable - then again I would say that. Dispute resolution seems to be the best way of getting help to prevent trouble being casued and I am glad that the past disruption has not gone unnoticed by someone who appears to be completely disengaged from the topic and that swift action in future is promised. Getting back to the point (and this part is free of excuses): I am grown up enough to know that throwing my weight around in the heat of the moment is bound to have negative repercussions, and even if I am in the right, such action will not prevent a block which then only increases the frustration! So yes, I can gree to that. Dapi89 (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Typo?

In De Havilland Mosquito#RAF bomber operations, you mentioned "D.A.G George Perry". Is there a period missing (D.A.G. George Perry) or an extra "G" (D.A. George Perry)? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Sedanplan1940.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Sedanplan1940.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added some copyright templates which should cover this requirement; the templates can be found if you wish to change the copyright tags I have used. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for helping. It may be strangely fortunate but I'll be very busy this week. On Monday I shall be visiting Kew. I might have the time and opportunity to secure some interesting information for you if you care to make a wishlist (re Aircraft of the BoB). Dapi89 (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)