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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, offline publication, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry, I guess I have to get somebody else upset. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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).[reply]

Infomation help

Battle of Krapivniki
	Part of 4th of May offensive
Location	20km NE of Krapivniki
Result	Tactical defeat

4th of May offensive
4th of May offensive
Operational scope	exploiting the strategic advance
Objective	Outflank enemy positions and take Krapivniki
Outcome	Battle of Krapivniki

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)

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

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).[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I took a stab at cleaning up some of the references. Good luck with the article! Ling.Nut 02:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dapi89 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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).[reply]

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) [reply]

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:[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

By the way, his final rank seems to be Hauptmann Franz Schieß @ das-ritterkreuz.de MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[7]
[8]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXII (December 2007)

Project news

The Intelligence task force has been created.
The contest department has completed its ninth month of competition. The top scorer this month is Blnguyen, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter, with 8 points, and Redmarkviolinist, with 6 points. Blnguyen also remains the overall leader, with 162 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries.
Help with converting deprecated infoboxes is needed; any assistance is welcome!
{{WPMILHIST}} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages.

Articles of note

New featured articles:

New A-Class articles:

Current proposals and discussions

A discussion about minimizing terminological ambiguity has begun.

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)[reply]

DYK: John Frost (pilot)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

German National Archives

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

Hello Dapi89, 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing![reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

FAC

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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--mrg3105 mrg3105 00:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your revert from 'strategic victory' to a 'decisive' one. Would you care to define 'decisive'? Cheers--mrg3105 mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 23:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

well done and welcome

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alfred Heckmann

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Marseille

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 12:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

“ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

The He-111H-20 internal image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DSCF0938.JPG

Hi Dapi89, Since we both are sticklers for accuracy, the turret was removed after it was captured. In Aero Detail #18, it shows this 111 in RAF colors with the turret in place.

It was the first time I saw your accomplishments page, and it is truly impressive. GREAT JOB! S! --Flightsoffancy (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think I should contact the RAF Museum and tell them they got it wrong. You would think they would know the full story, given they have been responsible for it for the last 63 years!
By the way, incase you were wondering how I managed to get a picture of the fuselage interior, I was down that way last year. I simply asked for permission to go over boundry to take a picture of the other side (as you cannot walk around the entire aircraft). I was expecting a instant "no", but the stewards there said yes, and then asked if I would like them to open the bottom barbette to get some interior shots! So I was actually standing on the floor of the museum standing through the hatch and looking inward.
I was also able to take some photographs of the Ju 88R cockpit as well, although the angle made it difficult (as of course I could not do in) and I was only able to get some good ones of the port side of the cockpit. Dapi89 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are lucky, but I had similar allowances to peep into the Cavanugh's CASA 2.111. I was thinking, maybe during para missions the turret was removed, but it would not be a easy or quick. I just know that this 111 had the turret when captured.
BTW, in the He111 discussion is a note about the crew, and you see the new photo I uploaded? --Flightsoffancy (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, but I think an original He 111 is more exciting no?

Yes. Very nice. I happen to like the earlier variants of the German bombers better, the Ju 88A, Do 17Z and the He 111P models, for some reason. Dapi89 (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about the Museum next to the Gardermoen airport, then yet. This and the Ju-52 and 2x Ju-88's The public entity that operates the museum is self serving and has weird hours, HOWEVER everything in it is owned by the Norwegian armed forces, so they have arguments over petty things. Go figure. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fw 190

Thanks for the heads up on the Fw 190 article. --Evil.Merlin (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hans-Joachim Marseille

Do you know if Marseille had a brother? I ran across a reference that is by Hans-Rudolf Marseille and called Mein Bruder Hans-Joachim (My brother Hans-Joachim). When I google I find him referenced on video footage together with Edu Neumann.MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently not satisfied with the situation that Russel Brown is such a strong advocate of the JG 27 over-claiming theory. I am not at all saying that No. 239 Wing must have lost more than those 5 + 1 aircraft that are documented for 15 September 1942. This single day is often presented in such a way that the reader gets the impression that German pilots over-claimed deliberately. However I am of the opinion that not only No. 239 Wing flew mission on this day but also aircrafts from US 57th Fighter Group. I found the following bit of information here MEDITERRANEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS [MTO, US Army, Middle East Air Force (USAMEAF)]: A lone B-24 drops 1 bomb on a tanker in Suda Bay, Crete. B-24s bomb behind the enemy lines while P-40s, along with the RAF, fly escort and carry out a scramble missions over the area W of El Alamein, Egypt.

Could it be that 57th Fighter Group lost P-40s in aerial combat with JG 27 that day and the losses are not reflected in the statistics of No. 239 Wing? I had brought this up once before see Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille/Archive 2#USAAF. Do you happen to know how to verify this idea? MisterBee1966 (talk)

Great! MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, okay. Thanks for trying.MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across some information that Kurowski is working on a revised and new edition of a Hans-Joachim Marseille biography. From what I hear the work is completed and seems to be a merge of Wübbe's documents and precision to facts and Kurowski's more picturesque depiction of Marseille. For some reason the material is with the publisher but being withheld for unknown reasons, at least unknown to me.

By the way, it seems certain that I. (Jagd)/LG 2 was not stationed at Leewarden at the time Marseille was with LG 2. The article makes reference to an account stated in Kurowski's book page 15. "skipping away over the waves, I made a clean break. No one followed me and I returned to Leeuwarden.". Well it sound very nice but it cannot be factual. Especially since it is linked to his first aerial victory. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New book

Thanks! I ordered one MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Hood - reply

(Original question):

Hello.

I have recently run into a problematic edior on the HMS Hood page (and others), over whether or not the Bismarck sank her. Roger Chesenau and virtually all other Naval Historians have accepted this. Even the Prinz Eugen's war diary said that fire was directed away from Hood by 0600. I wonder if you think "the Bismarck sank Hood" is okay on the article page.

On another note, do you happen to know which "HMS" struck the decisive blow against French battleship Bretagne in July 1940, was it Hood?

Regards. Dapi89 (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dapi89; it's good to hear from you.

I went into the loss of the Hood in some detail while drafting the "Modern Thoeries of the Sinking" section. I would say that the only absolute certainties about the loss of the Hood are

a) She was destroyed by the explosion of her aft 15-inch magazines, and

b) Prinz Eugen has ceased firing on Hood some minutes before this explosion (as you say, the testimony of Prinz Eugen's War Diary is unequivocal on this point).

These facts create a very strong presumption that Hood was sunk by Bismarck, in the way suggested in Bill Juren's 1987 article; however, this is not yet a certainty, since we do not know for certain (and probably never will) what caused the magazine explosion. Amonst other authors, Ted Briggs has suggested that the ammunition fire on the Hood's upper deck could have penetrated to the magazines, while the late Anthony Preston claimed that the after magazines of Hood were "surrounded by additional 4 in anti-aircraft {ammunition) outside the armoured barbettes ". This sounds fanciful to me, but I have no evidence to disprove it. Also, Jurens does not entirely dismiss the possibility that Hood was blown up by her own guns. All these theories are discussed in the article.

Remember that the Wikipedia project is based on the consensus of responsible editors. I don't think there is a consensus that it is proven that the Hood was sunk by Bismarck, although I agree that the best authorities consider this by far the most probable explanation. To my mind, the statement in the final sentence of the introduction, that the Hood was sunk "at the hands of the German battleship Bismarck" would be better expressed by saying that she was sunk "in combat with the German warships Bismarck and Prinz Eugen." Looking at the edit history, I do not believe that Kurt Leyman is asking for more than this, so I would hope that this is a reading that would command a consensus.

I hope you will excuse me if I say that I am disappointed that an editor of your experience should resort to calling another editor "stupid". I know from my own experience that Kurt is not the easiest person in the world to work with, but he is entirely justified in protesting against this.

With regard to your question about the sinking of Bretagne, I'm afraid I cannot help you at the moment. If I find out, I will let you know.

I hope this is helpful. You may reply here if you wish; I have added this page to my watchlist.

Regards, John Moore 309 (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out, that the Bismarck article makes it clear that it was Bismarck that sank the Hood and not Prinz Eugen. I have actually sourced quite a lot of the article, and nobody seems to have contested the information. Given that the article is frequently edited by editors with a main interest in Naval matters, I could say this is consensus. Perhaps I could also say the information is sourced by the best Historian on the Hood, therefore I don't need consensus for it's inclusion?

With regard to Kurt:

The trouble with Kurt Leyman does not extend to the four articles (the others being Gneisenau and Scharnhorst), but other articles as well, so I generally regard his "edits", or should I say "deletions", with contempt. The problem with him is that he will never compromise or even discuss matters. To that end, I don't think the word "stupid" is unjustified. Apparently, an editor who you know and I believe has contacted you about this (I won't of course say here), has made it known to me this editor possesses some suspect political views, which when you look at some of things he puts into wikipedia, seems to be accurate. Perhaps this explains why he edits the way he does. Regards. Dapi89 (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note the Bismarck page has just been changed! Dapi89 (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Thanks for replying so promptly.

I'm sorry to say that I still don't altogether understand your position. If I were to make the change that I suggested in my last post,would you revert it? If so, what reason would you give? I hope that it would be something more substantive than "John Moore 309 is stupid" or "I am suspicious of John Moore 309's political views". I agree that Kurt has an agenda - probably several - and that his net impact on Wikipedia is probably negative, but this does not make him automatically wrong on everything.

I have a fond hope that, one day, some academics with time on their hands and a few quid to spare will build themselves a virtual Hood, clad it in virtual face-hardened armour, fill its magazines with virtual propellant and bombard it with virtual 38-cm APC from various angles to see what happens. If they succeed in getting a 38-cm shell into Hood's 4-inch magazines, inducing it to detonate, producing a cordite fire which engulfs the engine room and vents through the main-deck ventilators, and also breaks through the aft magazine bulkhead to actuate the 15-inch magazine, then I think that we could close the debate. In the meantime, however, I think that Wikipedia editors to acknowledge the existence of a genuine debate with more than one credible proposition to consider.

I hope we can work something out over this. Regards, John Moore 309 (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll be clearer. Those were not the reasons I would use to revert you. Given the nature of past edits and troubles it does make me suspicious of that particular editor. Given that I have not come across you before, I think it would be impossible, and odd, for me to revert your edits on that basis, the editor in question is the exception to most, if not all, rules. But it should not be forgotten that they were not the only reasons as we have already established. Besides, I had not come to those personal "political" conclusions until prompted by anothers comment, after the event.

But let us stick with the most important aspect of this. I will not go all the way through it for the moment, as I think it would be too much, so let us go through it step by step.

Problem No.1: Prinz Eugen. It would seem to me that it 100% certain that Prinz Eugen did not destroy Hood directly. Meaning it did not fire a shell at 06:00-06:01, directed at Hood, that led to its sinking. Can we agree on this? Dapi89 (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that. The only way that the loss of Hood can be attributed to Prinz Eugen is if the fire on the boat deck, caused by an earlier hit which many authorities attribute to Prnz Eugen, somehow spread to the magazines. John Moore 309 (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. But here is the problem with that. Brinkmann and many other observers on PE do say that fire from PE caused the fire on board Hood. However, a significant amount of time elapsed betwen the PE hit and fire, and the fatal explosion. Bismarck's shells struck inbetween those two events. Yet within seconds of the Bismarck hit, Hood blew up within seconds. All that saw it aboard PE, Bismarck and POW confirm that the explosion occurred almost straight after Bismarck's shells hit.

It seems odd to me that the fire raged for so long, and yet no explosion occurred. Within seconds of Bismarck hitting Hood, it blew up. Dapi89 (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the duration of the fire, I am not sure that I see the problem. Since the fire was started on the boat deck, it is natural that it would take some time to penetrate to the magazines. As I am sure you know, the behaviour of burning cordite is exceedingly erratic and treacherous. It is typical for a cordite fire, especially in an enclosed space, to smoulder quietly for several minutes and then suddenly flare up with explosive force. If you have seen the famous images of the loss of HMS Barham in November 1941, you will remember that the ship had been quietly sinking for a considerable time (I don't know exactly how long, but probably 5-10 minutes) after being torpedoed before the 15-inch magazines suddenly esploded. This example of delayed detonation is especially striking since the site of the torpedo hits was obviously under several metres of water at the time of the explosion. Also notable is the case of HMS Lion at Jutland, where the explosion that destroyed Q turret (and would have sunk the ship had the magazines not been flooded) took place 28 minutes after the turret was hit. The upshot of all this is that it is at least possible that a fire was initated in the Hood's 4-inch magazines some time before those magazines exploded, and/or that the boat deck fire took several minutes to penetrate to the magazines.

To my mind the strongest argument against this theory is the difficulty of finding a route by which the fire, howver violent, could have penetrated to the magazines. The second Board of Enquiry reported that "regarding the supply of 4-inch ammunition, (it is) practically certain that all the hatches in the train of supply would definitely be closed. The evidence of the expert witnesses also shows that the results of a fire amongst the 4-inch ready Use ammunition and UP ammunition should not be fatal to the ship". Against this, Ted Briggs reports in Flagship Hood that "Captain Leach and Commander Lawson, of the Prince of Wales, are alleged to have given their views to Captain G.H. Oswald immediately after the battle, when interviewed at Scapa. Both claimed: 'The rocket weapons and the unsafely stowed ammunition were the direct cause of the loss of the ship, probably through the explosion of the ready-use cordite penetrating the flash proofing of X turret.'" This claim may be the origin of Anthony Preston's theory which I referred to above, in which case I would conclude that he (Preston) had misunderstood Leach and Lawson's meaning.

As for the arrival of a salvo from Bismarck atriking a few seconds before the explosion: it would certainly be a coincidence if this impact had no effect on the Hood's loss. Bismarck was discharging 8-gun salvoes at intervals of about a minute, so such a coincidence would be improbable but by no means incredible.

Personally, I think that Ted Briggs' attacks on the findings of the second Board, though earnest and well-informed, are misguided. I have read the transcripts of the enquiry myself, and concluded that the Board was diligent, well-advised by its expert witnesses and came to the conclusions most consistent with the evidence. However, at the risk of repeating myself, this does not prove that they were right - or, indeed, that I am. Regards, John Moore 309 (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Barnham, it seems almost certain that her magazine rooms were ruptured and exposed to the on board fire for that to happen. The duration of the fire on Hood was, from what I have read, less than two minutes. Would this really be enough time for it to reach, penetrate and explode the 4-inch magazines? Was the Hood's armour that poor? It is also recorded that the Hood crew took shelter and waited for the ammuniton to expend itself to avoid further casulaties. Why would they have done this if it was a serious threat to the ship? Just some questions. Dapi89 (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding. I'm sorry to say that I still don't altogether follow your argument. In your previous post you appear to argue that the delay between the outbreak of fire and the magazine explosion (about 4 minutes, according to Antonio Bonomi) was too long for the fire to have been the cause of the explosion. Now you seem to be arguing that the same interval was too short. Which is your actual position? Or have I misunderstood altogether?

I agree that it is striking that no attempt appears to have been made to fight the fire. In fact, Ted Briggs reports that orders not to do so were issued. The fact is that a well-set cordite fire is almost impossible to extinguish; nevertheless, if the fire had been perceived as an immediate threat to the magazines, the crew would have been ordered to fight the fire regardless of cost. I agree that this proves that the ship's executive believed that the precautions taken to prevent the fire from reaching the magazines were adequate. However, I don't think it proves that they were necessarily right.

I am a bit concerned that this discussion is not really going anywhere, and is taking up time that both of us could otherwise be devoting to articles. What do you say to the idea of transferring this dialogue the the article's Talk page, to give others a chance to contribute? Regards, John Moore 309 (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have. I is not a different position, it is the same. In the first I'm pointing out that there was a significant pause before the explosion, and then that it came on top of " the Bismarck hit, therefore the delay was significant. In the second post I still take the same position, but I just ask would the fire have had enough time to penetrate the magazines anyway, which it would have had to have done to destroy the magazines. Of course I am assuming the armour protection around the mags was not defeated immediately and the fire would have had to achieve this. It seems to me that the Bismarck's 5th salvo was the cause either way. The explosion had not taken place before the Bismarcks hit(s). Therefore it was triggered by the shell strike(s) which caused the explosion that led to the sinking. Now the fire may have contributed, or perhaps "taken advantage" of the new breach in Hoods protection, to increase the severity of the explosion. Bismarck, it seems to me, still intiated Hoods destruction.

On top of that the findings of the board indicated that 4-inch ammunition and a resulting fire in the event of its detination would not be sufficient to cause Hoods loss. So the "fire theory", seems an unexpalined theory, with no real evidence. I was always under the impression it was the theorists job to prove their theories (about the fire), and if they could not, the witness statements confirming the loss of the ship followed after Bismarcks shell hits should stand until proven otherwise.

I understand if you would rather not continue, it is getting rather long. I would rather be doing other things, but if you like, now that I don't seem to have the "green light", you should restore the Hoods loss to "unknown", as I think thats the way you were going? Regards. Dapi89 (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I throw in my nickel, here? I've not followed the Hood debate, nor do I claim expertise, but I've seen claims poor ammo handling aboard contributed to her loss. Namely, loose ammo (4" AA?) stowed on deck to facilitate rapid fire (due to a design flaw somewhere prohibiting fast ammo supply otherwise), which caught fire, & because of poor practise, the mag was exposed (when, in design readiness, it never would've been). Which doesn't settle the Q of Bismarck or Prinz.... TREKphiler 20:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories

Do you think it makes sense to explain the German point system that was applied to homologize the Awards? I have often come across people that think Germans counted the number of engines, etc. Might be worth to explain this too. What do you think? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-17 citation tag

I'm not sure that the picture of a B-17 with USAF markings qualifies as proof that it was used on long-range reconnaissance missions; the markings could have been used to prevent it from being attacked by friendly aircraft during flight tests. In the absence of further evidence the tag may not have been so daft. --TraceyR (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Luftwaffe markings! I'm putting in a citation now. Dapi89 (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hannut

Hi. Nice work on the Battle of Hannut. The Netherlands are listed as one of the combatants, but I do not see anything Dutch listed in the entire article. Were they actually in the battle, or is that a mistake? Thanks. Red4tribe (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes they were, but in very small numbers. Dutch ground units were retreating from Maastricht, which as you probably know is on the Belgian-Dutch-German border. They were mostly units in retreat, that found themselves mixing with other Allied units, but the Dutch Air Force did make coordinated efforts with the French and Belgians during the battle. Dapi89 (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, thank you. Nice work agian. Red4tribe (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:DSCF0056.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:DSCF0056.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. Sdrtirs (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not undo those edits unless you add a proper license! --Denniss (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Von von

Thanks for the rv on Battle of Britain. I've seen "von Keselring", but I couldn't have cited a source for anything. For idle curiosity, where'd you find it? (If you can't say offhand, don't bother to look it up.) Cheers. TREKphiler 04:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Albrecht von" Kesselring is wrong. His name was Albert Kesselring. The sources you cite are all tertiary sources and somehow a mistake appears to have crept in. (History doesn't repeat itself, but historians do.) I don't want to spread it here. Why not ask the Generalfeldmarschall himself? or here? Or his biographer?

Albert Kesselring has been a pain to maintain. I welcome any suggestions you might have for expanding the WWII sections. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the book? Or are you using a title as exclusive proof? Dapi89 (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I've read the book. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had to ask, given you didn't, and still have not, provided a reference from it. Dapi89 (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kesselring, Albert, Soldat Bis Zum Letzten Tag, p. 3, (Bonn: 1953) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the tip. Looks like it's more contentious than I thought. I think it was Macksey I saw it in, but I couldn't say where, nor where he got it, which is why I ask. As for reverts, there are all too many ignorant people. I've had multiple reverts of cited material on the Attack on Pearl Harbor page...& that doesn't count vandals! TREKphiler 20:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was Macksey alright. In the 1988 introduction to the English translation of the memoirs. I don't know where he got it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 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) 18:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do 17 Turkish use

I've not seen any RS referring to Turkish use - possibly some escaping Yugoslav aircraft or defecting Croat or Bulgarian aircraft could have reached Turkey. I think this claim has stayed long enough without any sourcing.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Did you remove information about murder of prisoners by Luftwaffe in its experiments ? Yet such trivia as dropping of 100kg bombs remains ? Please restore information about Luftwaffe's atrocities and medical experiments.--Molobo (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained this. I am not against it being on wikipedia, just not in that article, see the talk page. Dapi89 (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I know why do are against information about Luftwaffe experiments and combat operations agains civilians to be in Luftwaffe article ? It seems rather natural that it should be there.--Molobo (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please move this to the talk page. I am really tired of answering the same old questions, wth the same old answers here. Dapi89 (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask

Why do you "seriously doubt" that Luftwaffe performed medical experiments ? I am asking because I would like to know the reason for seriously doubting this information. --Molobo (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained. See talk page. Dapi89 (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you answered several questions but still didn't say why you doubt Luftwaffe conducted medical experiments on prisoners ? What are you reasons for doubting Luftwaffe made that--Molobo (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, again, read the talk page again. Dapi89 (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no explanation on the talk page regarding your statement that you doubt Luftwaffe performed experiments on prisoners as far as I can see. Perhaps you could direct me to it ? Regards. --Molobo (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, look again. Dapi89 (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any explanation from you regarding your statement that you doubt Luftwaffe performed medical experiments of prisoners. A link to your explanation wouldn't be a problem I hope ? Regards --Molobo (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ! see here

Hi, you made a general link to the talk page. I was asking about the link to your statement where you explain why you have "serious doubts" that Luftwaffe performed medical experiments on prisoners. I read all your comments but can't seem to find it. Could you give me a link to what source or information led to your conclusion ? Or just copy it to my page. Thanks. --Molobo (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice the source

The source was not a website.It was a academic book by Szymon Datner "Zbrodnie Wehrmachtu na Jeńcach Wojennych podczas II Wojny Światowej". --Molobo (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need for the article right now. Just like Wehrmacht the Luftwaffe article needs to have a subsection on war crimes. And combat against civilians needs to be mentioned.You didn't present any justified reason to remove certain pieces of Luftwaffe's history from History of Luftwaffe article-Molobo (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo, I have just spent 5 hours doing exactly that. Dapi89 (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalingrad raid

They were several raids in Stalingrad. It could have been a different one. Soviet reports are only base of estimates. Anyway the data from two scholars should be mentioned. If it is the same raid of course. --Molobo (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats a point isn't it. Bergstrom clearly identifies these as total casualties for the morning of the 23rd- evening of the 26 August were 955, 1,181 wounded. We need to find info that identifies casualties for 27-31 August. That would mean the Luftwaffe achieved an additional kill total of 38,000 in a similar amount of time, which would be quite odd, since the number of serviceable machines rapidly declined, not increased, due to losses. Dapi89 (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Or that Soviet report was only about one district, or that it lowered casualties. And so on, I find nothing strange in one air raid killing far more civilians then others.--Molobo (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does if losses cause a significant drop in serviceable bombers. How can one inflict more casualties with fewer bombers? Dapi89 (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked J.A Hayward "Stopped at Stalingrad: Hitler and the Luftwaffe's defeat in the East 1942-1943.". He lists 40,000 but says this is grossly exaggerated. These totals were not only "overcooked" but were a mixture of civilian and military casualties. The Soviets record having lost 955 killed and 1,181 wounded up until 26 August. But he raises the same question about numbers of bombers/bombs dropped that I have. KG 76 had 100 medium bombers, not enough to inflict this kind of damage.Dapi89 (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bf 109 "Kurfürst"

Yes, I see what you mean. Unfortunately Prien and Rodeike don't give specific performance figures which would clear this one up. I'll look for further information, when I get some spare time. Cheers. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

See: [17] FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

July 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Chet B. Long^Talk/_ARK 19:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Chet B. Long^Talk/_ARK 19:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I was reverting cited material. I take it I'm not allowed to do that over and over again in the defence of a page? Just check out the article, for christ sake. Dapi89 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, you are not allowed to violate WP:3RR except for the exact reasons described in that policy. — Sandstein 19:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Perhaps I should be clearer, to avoid you missing the point again. I was reverting vandalism, by an editor who was deleting sourced material, systematically, without justification Dapi89 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Work on your attitude, please. This is not reverting vandalism, and your edit summaries violate WP:CIVIL. If you repeat such conduct, you will face longer blocks. — Sandstein 20:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

What are you talking about? Of course it is. I restored cited material that was put in by another ediotr and removed by another. Can't you see the references being restored? What's wrong with you? Dapi89 (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edit warring is edit warring is edit warring. This is your third unblock request in 24 hours. One more and your talk page will be protected. — Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Just to shove my two'pennorth in there - that was an edit war if ever there was. If it wasn't, just what do you think an "edit war" would have to be? C'mon, as someone who has made lots of useful contributions in the past (and suffers fools about as gladly as I do), please sit this block out (Go sit in the sunshine, make the most of it) and then get onto the talk page and put forward a nice little Hegelian thesis as to what the hell this issue is all about. I know one end of a Merlin II from the other, but I just can't follow this sort of controversy in a heated edit summary or difflist with hair-trigger reactions. Put both sides down together, on the talk page, then let us all see what the issues are and decide what their best representation is. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft of the Battle of Britain

I'm sorry to see that you have also been tangled up in this mess. If da man wants to throw his "muscle" around let him; it's not important enough to lose editing rights over. I too am exasperated but there's not much I or anyone else can do to change that. I'm betting that we will eventually see a banning from these pages.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've given some thought as to what needs to be done to bring this article back to some semblance of order; your thoughts would be appreciated Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. Cheers! Minorhistorian (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kampfgeschwader 77 Geschwaderkommodore

Dapi89

My apoligize for not using the correct channels in editing the Kampfgeschwader 77 page. However you have inaccurate information for Major Arvid Cruger. Cruger was GK starting on 13 March 42 and ending 22 March 42 after being shot down near Malta. My source among others is Crugers Soldbuch. See also the book "Malta: The Spitfire Years". While I had also updated the GK after Cruger having it deleted does not make it worthwhile for me to do it again.I was only trying to represent the information correctly.RegardsSpanferkel 1 December 2008

1. Malta: The Spitfire Year 1942 (Shores, Cull and Malizia), page 140. 2. Die Traeger Des Ritterskreuz Des Eiserne Kreuz 193-45, (Walter Fellgiebel) Page 155. 3. Bomber Units of the Luftwaffe 1933-45 (de Zeng, Stankey) Page 251. In addition the remaining information on the KG 77 Geschwaderkommodore may be found on Michael Holms excellent site. http://www.ww2.dk/air/kampf/kg77.htm Regards JeremySpanferkel

Günther Lütjens

Hi, I noticed that you heavily contributed to the Günther Lütjens article so I'm consulting you on the validity of this information. I also read the German Wiki article and noticed a major omission on the English article, which is missing (if valid). The German article casts doubt on Lütjens leadership capabilities in Operation Rheinübung. According to the German article, Lütjens was hesitant in engaging PoW and Hood. Lindemann is quoted in stating »Ich laß mir doch nicht mein Schiff kaputtschießen – Feuererlaubnis!« "I'm not letting my ship get shot to pieces – open fire!", overruling Lütjens. Also Lütjens is criticized for not fueling up at Grimstadfjord, Norway. What do you think?MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

great, it would be good to know the original Lindemann wording in German, because "I will not let my ship be shot out from under my ass" conveys the message but is not close to what the German wording is on the German Wiki article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fw 190

I had already added this to the Heinz Lange article. I was unsure if I should repeat this again on the Fw 190 article. By the way also Günther Josten flew the D-13 in mock combat.MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done. Please have a look. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Berlin (air)

I reverted your changes to the time line for this battle. I did this because I do not think it is as clear as the former layout. I am sorry I felt I had to do this because you obviously spent a considerable effort making these changes.

I have been working on a similar table for the Bombing of Cologne in World War II and would appreciate some help with it as I have some way to go particularly with the USAAF.

The format for the Cologne table is probably about right because it allows for sorting on airforce and date. Note the hidden comment "<span style="display:none">1942-02-14</span>" that allows for sorting on date.

The Bombing of Bremen in World War II has a similar table but it needs work to include all the raids.

The Bombing of Hamburg in World War II needs work to convert it into a table and to add in the USAAF raids.

Lots of other towns like Essen also need time lines (and probably the Bombing of Berlin in World War II). These are necessary because it helps people see that the big spectacular raids were just part of what had become a dehumanising industrial process.

So much to do and so little time! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Berlin

Please supply the publisher and the ISBN for "Bergstrom, Christer. (2007). Bagration to Berlin - The Final Air Battles in the East: 1944 - 1945," in the reference section, as the page numbers are meaningless without them. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Berlin

Did you even see what I reverted? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did. You removed the note template in the information box. Now we have a missing template note for the footnotes. I can't revert again, as I'm on my third today. Dapi89 (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you completely ignored that I removed the "SPUF" and "VAK" nonsense in the lede. I don't care what citation style is in there, I'm just cleaning vandalism that was left there for two hours while you guys were yapping about footnotes. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your missing the point. Kindly restore it. Dapi89 (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert to a vandalized version. If there's a missing footnote, add it again. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 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) 00:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luftwaffe Order of Battle August 1940

Ahh, I see that some more corrections were in order! Have you got any information as to who commanded Lehrgeschwader 2? I know I have the name somewher, but hard as I search I cannot find it. Anyway, 'tis 2 am and I'm *yawn* off to bed. Cheers, Minorhistorian (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I've just realised that three Bf 110 GruppeKommomandeure lost their lives on 15 August; Rubensdörffer {ErpGr 210), Restemeyer (I./ZG 76) and Dickoré (III./ZG 76). Would it be worth adding that information as a footnote to the Luftwaffe Order of Battle, or is that getting a little too detailed? I'm still trying to locate that information on LG 2, but I'm not confident that I have the information I thought I had; I'm probably thinking of LG 1.Minorhistorian (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Hartmann

I submitted the article for FAC. I could use some help resolving some of the sections that require citations. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Erich Hartmann. Hope you can help out. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Hey, thanks! I just noticed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lehrgeschwader

To my knowledge Lehrgeschwader 1 was originally called Lehrgeschwader Greifswald and later renamed to Lehrgeschwader 1. I have to check up on this though. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, do you plan on telling the reader this? Or are do you think LG Greifswald needs an article of its own. For now I recommend to integrate this part of the history into the current LG 1 article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that LG 1 destroyed two transport ships in Greece. Do you happen to know if one of them was sunk by Joachim Helbig in the port of Piraeus. According to my sources he destroyed one transport ship but no name of the ship is mentioned. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Maybe you could add that to the article with citation? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can review my last edits on the Joachim Helbig article and make the changes you deem necessary. Currently I am a bit frustrated from the feedback the Erich Hartmann article is getting. I think I am cured from submitting further articles for FAC. This process tends to weigh formal and language issues in higher priority than factual (or at least well cited and to the best knowledge of the editors) information in the article. Anyway that drives me nuts. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mölder's letter

Have you ever come across the "Mölder's letter". I have come across this before and I was wondering what you might make of this. According to the letter (which seems to have been faked by the British Intelligence Service) Mölders expressed his strong catholic Christian belief and that Himmler had ordered him shot down. I ask this because the story about Marseille and him hiding in Italy is sometimes mentioned in the same context. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Knight's Cross recipients: Kn-Kz

Hi, you left a footnote without the matching reference in the list. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel comfortable with removing the footnotes on the list once an article about the respective person was created? I fear that adding too much information on these lists might saturate/overload these articles. Just a thought, what do you think?

Operation Husky

Right away I'm not aware of any, but I could be wrong and will try to look this up. There were a number of Italian Black Shirt units, but the only large SS unit in the area was the RFSS which was on Corsica or Sardinia at the time.--Caranorn (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Strategic Offensive Operation

As with almost any large operation in any war, stating clearly the outcome in two words is ambiguous, so I largely stay out of the "victory" debates, particularity since the articles that seek to describe victories and defeats are so poor in quality.

This operation was a strategic one, and in that sense it was intended to achieve more then just military, territorial gains. Although the Front did not achieve as much tactically as was hoped for, in the operational sense it accomplished its goals, and strategically if forced Finland into negotiations. This was a good result for Stalin who was focused on the destruction of Army Group Centre (Operation Bagration), and seemingly had no intention in the eventual occupation of Finland, so strategically the operation was a success as far as the Stavka was concerned in the larger scheme of things. Tactical shortcomings represent the Finish point of view in terms of resistance offered, but Finland was not the initiator of the offensive, so can hardly claim any right to judge the degree of success or failure of the operation.

In reality the info box should have all three levels of evaluating success for the three levels of the scales of conflict (strategic, operational and tactical), although most editors are ignorant of these. For example an engagement can be a tactical failure, but have a significant influence on the operational situation of the front, or a limited operational offensive can have a significant strategic value. I think this would allow for a more objective and balanced informing of the reader. Of course the info box would need these levels added.

Many articles on the Eastern Front are currently written with no contextual perspective, simple as "battle" of this or that, and that is the outcome of the current two-worded statements on "victories" or "defeats"--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I would use three infoboxes
Strategic

Operational

Tactical

Do we have something to loose? I am in perpetual conflicts on the Eastern Front, so one more block is going to be fun. I do like to drag Wikipedia kicking and screaming towards higher quality content.

I wanted to use this scheme myself, but at every turn I get into trouble with article names, so have almost given up on common sense...and use of sources. In any case, you can try.

You don't agree that Stalin didn't want to invade Finland? He could have in 1946, but didn't--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Britain

Just a note to be careful - you've reverted 3 times here and it's an easy rule to violate. Toddst1 (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get the same feeling as I that this is getting stupid?? Don't lose your temper and editing rights because of this "editor".Minorhistorian (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just a friendly warning to keep it civil - even when (especially when!) - others start to drag the tone downwards. this edit and this one constitute personal attacks. I agree with Minorhistorian above - this isn't worth getting blocked over. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Mackie

I didn't even know this page existed. Good one! I have his biography somewhere, so I'll start adding to it - not just now cause I'm already working on other articles, including Desmond J. Scott. Here are a couple of pages on him: http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/article.asp?id=mackie : http://www.hawkertempest.se/mackie.htm RegardsMinorhistorian (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts as to why the "units" section on the info box isn't working? I'll continue to add more when I have more free time. As a New Zealander thanks for putting this page together.Minorhistorian (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried Marseille

Interesting! But nothing substantial new I would say. Some of the stuff was taken from Wiki but the details on his military career seem authentic. All I know about Siegfried Marseille comes from Wübbe and Kurowski. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your talkpage archive

Hello there. I noticed you created an (presumably) archive of your talkpage, at March 2006 - July 2007, which I have now moved to User_talk:Dapi89/March 2006 - July 2007. Regards, Twinzor (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New article in wrong namespace?

I notice you created August 2007 - August 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which looks like a talk page archive. Did you mean to make this an archive of a talk page or a user talk page? If so, you should probably move it to the correct name and request a speedy deletion of the old title. It's no big deal, but it just looks like something that doesn't belong in article namespace. Thanks. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it, but if you want it to be part of an archive, you should get it from a previous revision and put it in the appropriate part of your userspace. Acroterion _(talk) 17:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see Twinzor's put it in a subpage as he notes above. Acroterion _(talk) 17:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the 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 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 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) 22:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fort Eben-Emael

Hi, may I ask you to periodically visit this article and correct my horrible English. I will be completing the chronic of the battle over time but some sentences just don't sound natural to me. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I added some more text. Maybe you could tweak it once more :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question, according to my sources II (Schl.)/LG 2 still operated the Hs 123 and not the Ju 87 as you wrote in the article. Could you please verify this? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think LG 2 was also involved. My source explicitly states attacks made by II (Schl.)/LG 2 operating Hs 123s. So we just have to tweak that sentence a bit. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:DSCF09781.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:DSCF09781.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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 STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Luftwaffe during World War II- Final preparations

I don't understand why you reverted the edits I made to the section prior to the invasion of Poland. Did you read it? There was (and is again) information in that section that is not accurate (even if it sourced). I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia, but not new to this subject matter. Please help me get information to you that explains my edits. See the recent 2nd (most recent) Archive section of discussion on the article. Didn't know the best place to put that discussion. Read my discussion. Thanks Saint77 (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry if this seemed churlish, but the information you provided distorted other cited passages, not just on this section. For instance the citations I put in Here, for example have been tampered with. So they now report to say something which they do not. The problem also occurs here Also the language is not encyclopedic; using exclamation marks in articles is an example of this. This is POV emphasis. You have to remember this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine or book. The style should be neutral and expressionless, for the lack of a better word. See the <.ref><./ref> symbol below the edit box: if you put this in, then cite the author, date and page number of your source in there, then the entire book in the Biblio’ section, then it can stand. Do you see what I mean? Dapi89 (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting use of sources

I see KF is on the prowl again, selectively and creatively using quotes to boost the case for the 109 and the 190 and agin the Spitfire; quoting Clostermann, who, as one pilot, had a limited view of late war combat over Europe is interesting, but hardly comprehensive, especially as Clostermann was a Tempest pilot at the time Similarly he uses a quote from a JG 26 pilot, who had 6 months frontline experience, to bolster what a good-un the 190D-9 was.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame the RAE reports aren't more specific about the details of which aircraft were used in the trials, it would make things so much easier. As for KF - the guy takes himself so seriously don't he? Methinks he is a cross we shall have to bear; as Rlandmann says one of the downfalls of the Wikipedia process is that the fanatical purists have as much right to edit as anyone - as long as they stay within the rules. Perhaps it would be better not to get too worried about the "amendments", before it becomes to much of a time waster and a chore. I got a little frustrated yesterday discovering that I had spent two hours trying to write a reasonable explanation as to why Clostermann as a source of information is unreliable, but Kf did his usual and dodged and weaved around like an ice hocky player. Personally, I won't bother with such a pointless exercise with him in future. As it is I have spent far too much time in Wikipedia, and I will be cutting back a lot, mainly to finish some of those articles I have started BTW, if you want to see what a well run website on the Spitfire looks like, where the fanatics won't get a sniff of editing, check out http://www.spitfiresite.com/ to which I have humbly contributed one or two articles. The site owner and editor, Martin Waligorski, also runs http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/ Cheers.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting material about those flak trains; a New Zealander, Sqn Ldr Umbers who was C/O of 486 Sqn flying Tempests, was killed attacking an apparently harmless barge moored on the bank of a river. Turned out the position was ringed with flak...it was to be his last operation before his tour ended, poor sod. Fingers crossed that KF wll leave this one alone and keep the article reasonably balanced. Cheers.Minorhistorian (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Spitfire/SPIT24.jpg being used as "proof" that K-F has the Spitfire II Pilot's Notes from July 1940. There are clues in some of the phrases and words used that this "document" is completely phony, and bears no relationship to any pilot's notes that I know of. I have printed this page off and will be sending it to a Spitfire expert for his comments. In the meantime, for the sake of peace, I'll let this one go Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rating on History of the Luftwaffe during World War II

Apologies for creating a second post of same article. But My concern is slightly different. Since you actively moderate this article, I am reaching out to you.

Can you please let me know, what is necessary to reach the GA Status or A Status for this article ? I can try and help get there. Thanks perseus71 (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. I will have to agree with you on renaming as well. From what I understand, it would be similar to what Current main Luftwaffe article has. A sub section representing Combat history in WWII. One might even add the other article of Organization of Luftwaffe in WWII as another section.

So How are we to go about getting this done ? As it is, all 3 articles have sufficient referenced information on their own. All we need is to put it together in a coherent fashion.

P.S. I am sorry I was not able to see Archive section. I could only see the Page history.

perseus71 (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC) >Hi.[reply]

>At the moment it would take a considerable effort. I think that reaching GA status would require the article to be split up, with a brief description >under each section then the main article as a sub article. I also think the History of the Luftwaffe of WWII should be something different. Meaning, that >it should perhaps cover the entire histroy of the air force, and this particular article should be renamed the "Combat history of the Luftwaffe During >World War Two". I had checked this out before (check out the first archive section). I think renaming the article is in order. Dapi89 (talk) 18:52, 11 >September 2008 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine

May I ask you to review the article List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine I am working on for the last couple of months now. It still has many red links but the content is double and tripple checked now. Maybe you can tweak a sentence or two if you deem it necessary. I would appreciate this. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supermarine Spitfire operational history

Dapi89, I don't see any problem with Kurfürst's recent edits. I suggest that you cool down a little, and use the talk page to discuss the specifics of the contested material, including directly quoting your sources if necessary. If I'm reading the situation right, Kurfürst isn't so much questioning Caldwell as questioning how he's being used. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, per his complaint about your incivility, I'm blocking you for 24 hours. Please stay cool. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully, I'm issuing a new block - this one for 72 hours for this series of edits. Accusing another editor of lying and their opinions as "rubbish" is not the way to work collaboratively together. PLEASE stay cool! --Rlandmann (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. He gets to make any accusation he likes, and gets away with it, while I am blocked for defending myself. I am not going to bother with wikipedia anymore, it seems you seem to have decided to take sides in the matter. You are not being fair or neutral. So I am retiring. Dapi89 (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate; but questioning how you're using a source is not an "accusation". And while he's certainly been uncivil in the past, that doesn't give you carte blanche to act however you please. You're required to uphold the same standard of behaviour that you'd like to see from Kurfürst. --Rlandmann (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you and I have very differing opinions about what consitutes on accusation. I have to say, yours does not make sense to me. I am not going to hang around and allow one particular individual to accuse me of anything he wishes "carte blanche" style. You know that when something you are doing voluntarily starts to cause you problems, its time to call it a day. Wikipedia has outstayed its welcome as far as I am concerned, so I'm out. I would wish you luck in dealing this "person". Judging by his attitude on the Bf 109 and Spitfire pages he is going to keep you very busy for a long time to come. OAODapi89 (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a day or two out and think about what I have said before you let this whole thing get out of hand - the only person you are penalising is you.Minorhistorian (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 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 fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spitfire discussion page

I'm just hoping that you and the others involved in editing these pages realise that some of those nearly 90 year old veterans still have lasting memories of what happened to them flying Spitfires while they were in their twenties, and that some of them do use the computer regularly. The facts and figures that you spend so much time bickering over happened to real people. I'm asking that you put some thought into that when it comes to editing. TIA.Circlingsky (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been very busy so I haven't had much of a chance to get back to you. Thanks for your reply and I'm beginning to see where you're coming from. Having had a really close look at what has been happening with Spitfire related pages see a pattern where this Kurfurst doesn't seem to find anything good to write about the Spitfire; any little negative he can dig up he adds. On the pages relating to the Me 109 he does the opposite and I notice that he adds a lot of material from a website on the 109 that he runs http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/index.html. I get the feeling that this comes under Wikipedia:Spam or even Wikipedia: Conflict of interest. While I know that a lot of heat and passion can go into discussions about editing (take a look at some of the pages on music!) there comes a point when editors need to realise that people from outside are also reading their contributions and if they see constant unwinnable arguments they will regard the article itself wit suspicion. Personally I know that my great uncle and many of his friends who also flew Spitfire ops would find the inclusion of material by the late Pierre Clostermann as bizarre but I don't want to get into that one!Circlingsky (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Good to see you back. Cheers!Minorhistorian (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am glad to see back too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 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) 22:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hi Dapi89 - I'm also very glad to see you back. I now have an offer from an experienced mediator who I think might be able to help with the various disputes. Would you be open to their participation? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informal mediation

I understand that some assistance would be helpful in resolving disputes and raising article quality in the topic area centered on the Battle of Britain. I've opened a case page for centralized discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-12 Battle of Britain. I've posed a few questions to get the process started. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the H-20's turret, interesting!

Hi Dapi89! Remember that discussion we had on the H-20's missing turret? Well, I stumbled on this!: 78-AF-1033 Heinkel 111.pdf. The document gives a very good history of her after capture, and notes loss of turret due to the BoB movie. It is rather poor show the curators did not ensure the movie makers did not loose anything. *Flightsoffancy (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this plane(a Mitsubishi Ki-46) has been mis-identified

The photo which was taken at the RAF Cotswold Museum is excellent, but I think that it has been mis-identified. It is "tagged" as a Ki-46-II, but it has a unbroken, fully transparent nose, which makes it a later Ki-46-III. The engines also have ejector exhaust stacks, which was typical of late production Ki-46-IIIs.

The Ki-46-III was powered by two Mitsubishi Ha-112-II radials, while the Ki-46-II had two Mitsubishi Ha-102 radials. The Ki-46-II had a more conventional "stepped" windscreen and a "solid" fuselage nose cone. (I imagine that the unbroken nose was adopted to benefit visibility and the plane's drag coefficient, but I think that it looks very "stylish", don't you?)

In any case, it's a classic image of a classic warplane.

If you wish to contact me, my email is templar1949@gmail.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.15.244 (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Thank you! Dapi89 (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:MurrayStrategy3.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Dapi89!
We thank you for uploading Image:MurrayStrategy3.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) 21:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:MurrayStrategy2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Dapi89!
We thank you for uploading Image:MurrayStrategy2.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) 21:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:MurrayStrategy1.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Dapi89!
We thank you for uploading Image:MurrayStrategy1.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) 21:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:MurrayStrategy4.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Dapi89!
We thank you for uploading Image:MurrayStrategy4.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) 22:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DornierC-Legion.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DornierC-Legion.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request help for taking article to A Class

Hi Dapi89,

Overall, I am having trouble in taking the article on Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II) to A class or GA class. I need someone else to review it. This is where my problem is. Out of the Milhist co-coordinators I contacted, none of them claim an expertise and spare time to review this article for GA status. Obviously since I did extensive contribution, I am disqualified. Can you please help ? If you are not able to spare the time, could you at least let me know who could ?

The article had one official Peer Review. There was an unofficial peer review. The comments of first one are incorporated. The second review comments are not yet fully incorporated. Thanks for your help. Perseus71 (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate all the help. Will incorporate your comments. Its really hard due to lack of experts on the topic. I greatly appreciate your contributions. However since the GA guidelines require someone else to review, that hasn't significantly contributed. You are one of the very few experts with qualification to review. Wouldn't want your independence questioned. Hope you don't take it wrong.

Thanks once again. Perseus71 (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed your contributions. Greatly appreciated. I feel that the losses need to be consolidated in Missing and killed in action section. I am converting the link in that section to a table. Could you tell me if all the losses you have added are from Operation Bodenplatte or overall ? Since there are no dates, I am not able to determine. Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: Image:DSCF0917.JPG

Image:DSCF0917.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Junkers Ju 88 RAF Hendon.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Junkers Ju 88 RAF Hendon.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 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) 23:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review now open Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)

Hi!

Would you mind reviewing the article for a GA class review ? I'd really appreciate the time invested. I have already given a head's up to Roger Davies. If it passes then I can work towards A class review. For now I am keen on getting beyond that measly B class from 2 years ago. Thanks. Perseus71 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Could you at least let me know if you are going to be able to do this ? If you have other engagements that draw on your time then I can go request someone else. Please do let me know. Thanks. Perseus71 (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab check-in

Is assistance still needed regarding the Battle of Britain? It appears as though the dispute/case has grown stale. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Crusader

"since you have no interest in abiding by the rules of the citation I have removed it."

I would like to draw your attention to the discussion page of that article and once again the fact that many historians when talking about the desert war use the term "British" as a sort of shorthand for "Allied". The fact your source states that the "British won" does in no way mean that "Allied Victory" is incorrect - your source is supporting the statement that the Allies won!

One would just like to note that your statement "By the way, the other forces were part of the British Empire!" is rather incorrect especially considering the article states Poles took part! and when one reads the definition of what the other states where - dominions, which are considered equal to the UK and well as being somewhat independent; they were not simpley British Empire troops and therefore "British".

Looking at the polices governing the wiki there appears to be nothing stating you cannot reword what an author has stated and you end up having to do so anyway when writing an article as you cannot fully quote everyone and still have some sort of coherent sentance. So again, the author stating that the British won (does he actually state that the South Africans, New Zealanders, Poles etc lost the battle thus only the British contingent won?) can we reworded to Allied victory so it makes sence with the rest of the article (i.e. the article points out that non-British people took part on the Allied side as part of 8th Army) while not misquoting the original source or making something up.

For example if a source stated that the British won during Operation Compass, would you ingnore the fact non-British people took part (French, Indians and Australians) and contributed to the victory and state that it was a purely "British victory"? As another example Operation Epsom has just passed its FAC and there i have used the term "Allied" - as it makes more sence then saying the British won; in this case it was a soley British effort if one takes away Canadian arty and possible air support. The sources make it very clear that it was British troops fighting but no one is bothered by the use of the term "Allied".

I dont know why you are making such a fuss of the change of a single word to better suit an article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish Army was not sovereign force. It was under British military durisdiction. I have had similar problems on the Battle of Britain page, in which people insist on adding Poland to the list of combatants. The Polish nation cannot be credited with involvement, but its pilots can!

I don’t understand you’re rambling about what the source says. The sources says “British victory” – that does not mean the “Allies” won! Your point is extremely confusing.

The Rest of the Commonwealth was part of the British Empire! This precisely why (as on the BoB page) it is labelled as such!!!!!!

I am making a fuss because it is important.Dapi89 (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that anyone from any of those Dominions would beg to differ quite a bit. They declared war seperatly agaisnt the Axis forces as indepentant nations and retained control of there own forces unlike the colonies i.e. India which was dragged into the war by the choices made in London and Imperial forces, such as the Indian divisions and the African troops etc, which were under crown control.

The Poles in regards to the BOB had joined the RAF - i have no problem with that. Polish land forces as far as i understand it did not join the British army; would you also credit the success of Operation Tractable or the fall of Monte Cassio to "British Victories"?

":I don’t understand you’re rambling about what the source says. The sources says “British victory” – that does not mean the “Allies” won! Your point is extremely confusing."

Which bloc was the British Empire on: the Allies or the Axis?

It is simple and stright forward - historians can be lazy and you will find quite a few of them write 'British' in place of 'Allied' when talking about the fighting in the North African desert - If a source stated that the Germans won the battle of Gazala would you stick rigidly to that assessment and ingore the Italians when the historian would obviously also be including them without saying so?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to questions 1 and 2...yes, I would. Contrary to your opinion, I think victories should be credited to nations based on what they achieved and what they committed to the battle.

Again I don't understand - what do you mean Which bloc was the British Empire on: the Allies or the Axis?

I believe it is people that are lazy, and most historians distill all the available information and credit the victor based on contribution to the outcome. The Battle of France, for example, should be a German victory, not "Axis".

The state of the Polish Army: it was equipped, and sustained by the British CW. The British were the overwhelming figure head in these operations. The Polish Navy remained independent, and technically it's Army did as well. But this was not the case in pratice; the same goes for the Polish Army. Dapi89 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe it is people that are lazy, and most historians distill all the available information and credit the victor based on contribution to the outcome. The Battle of France, for example, should be a German victory, not "Axis"."

Historians are people you know. By the same logic you have applied above, i guess the Allied forces didnt win the Battle of Normandy - the Americans did and WW2 was not won by the Allied powers but by the Soviets?

I guess all these historians, and you by your own admissions it would seem, prefer to dishonour those who took part and the fallen from the other nations; how little they contributed should not neglect the fact that they helped.

Let me enlighten you to some additional stats about Crusader: Playfair states that British forces totaled 118,000 men and recieved 17,700 casualties. Now considering that the order of battle shows there being 2 British divisions and 3 British independant brigades (considering a division is somewhere in the region of 10-20k men and made up of up to 3-4 brigades we are looking a total of 60k-ish tops in these formations); do you suppose that these 118,000 men and 17,700 casualties came soley from these 5 units considering the other forces are Polish, South Africans, New Zealanders etc i.e. non-British people.

Could you possibly take the leap of faith and surmise he has shorthanded "Allied forces blah blah etc" or "British led forces etc" to "British"? (unless of course each British formation was made up of 40 thosand men) Could you take the leap of faith and believe that these 118,000 men and 17,700 casualties also came from forces who were not "British".

In regards to you would call Operation Tractable a British victory when hardly any British troops took part in it; i think you covering yourself so not to look two faced when it comes to this issue or are somewhat deluded - i dont believe there is a serious historian out there would back your assessment up; that Tractable was a British operation and victory.

"The state of the Polish Army: it was equipped, and sustained by the British CW."

Later in the war the French were heavily equipped by the Americans, that doesnt make them American. The Finns and Hugarians etc were supplied with German tanks; that doesnt make there armoured forces German etc.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, i think one additional fact needs to be re-pointed out - the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans etc declared war by themselves as independant nations they were not literally dragged into the war by the UK going to war ala WW1.

First of all, stop quoting me before you start a sentence, I know what I said and I don't need you to remind me. Deluded? I seriously doubt that. If you are going to resort to to insults I suggest you mind your abusive tongue and go elsewhere. I had enough of that already over these past months. Clearly you have no idea, or understanding of what I am trying to impress upon you about the nature of this operations. As it happens there are many academic historians, whom I know personally, who regard the Soviet Union as the nation that defeated the Third Reich, and would have done so with or without the help of the Western Allies. Do you think the Soviets were alone? Bulgarian, Romanian, Hungarian and Mongolian divisions saw action on the Soviet side. Do you see those operations/battle listed as Comintern victories? No. I don't need your basic rational re casualties, and I seriously doubt you have the knowledge to enlighten me in any way. Don't you think that your somewhat basic thoughts have not been considered? It appalls me you you can infer me to be ignorant when your figures are dreadfully inaccurate. Do you realise that the other Allied Divisions were nowhere near full strength? Do you have any idea what the ratio of casualties were for the "Allied" nations between September 1940 - November 1942, and how many were British? Re The french: The Free French were incapable of decisive action. This is the crux of my argument. The nations that made the decisive contribution for the action should be credited with the victory, while other minor participants should be credited on the combatants list only. None of the Free Allied forces were able to make any sort offensive action without being receiving overwhelming support, from the British, and then the Americans. Again, I refer to the Battle of France as an example. But given you have decided that your opinion counts for more than two military historians I would say this argument is moot.Dapi89 (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, i see now - you think your infallible. I wasnt insulting you when i said that your point was deluded i was making an observation - go and ask one of the "many historians" that you know and see how many of them support your position that such operations as Tractable was a British victory provided by British forces, like you seem to believe so (or you could just keep wrapping up your own insults in nice words). You might want to also ask them about how long the war would have lasted and how many more members of the Soviet Union would have perished had it not been for the direct and indirect support given by the Western Allies. The overall point being the Soviets did not win the war by themselves - thus crediting the complete victory of the war to them is inaccurate and dishouring all those from other nations who fought etc - a direct parrell with Crusader.

Funny how you think am the ignorant one sprouting make belief figures about when the ones i have quoted for the operation have came from the British military themselves and the governments own official history series - as a matter of fact i have never added anything fictious to this project and i resent the fact that you are implying so! If you had bothered to read my point i was using the actual figure, provided by an historian, and showing how it was basically impossible (using generalised figures for the division size etc) for it to fit in with the purely British force that you are so keen on implying was fighting - thus proving that Playfair was counting all men from each partipainting country in his total as well as in regards to casualties.

As for thinking "my opinion" counts more than two military historians (in fact i havent stated anything to the contory that they did) - i would ask you to open your eyes; the Allied nations comprised of many countires including the UK, the Empire and the Dominions of the CW. Considering the British were not on the Axis side, there is no differance in switching a single word around as it does not in no way change what the historians have stated - in fact only makes what they have said more clear.

The fact that any nation had to be propped up by another doesnt mean squat and that should not take away from the fact they provided men etc. Of course if it did practically every battle, from say late '41, the British and CW forces fought in should be credited to the Americans - considering the number of tommy guns, tanks and aircraft of theres the boys were using (On a slightly off topic note this position would counter your initial position of you and your many "historian friends" stating the the Soviets won - they were rather propped up by the Americans if one remembers correctly).

"The nations that made the decisive contribution for the action should be credited with the victory"

You can dishounor those who fought and the fallen all you like (which i would say, even if there wording is somewhat crude - most historians do not) but as long as i contibute to the wiki i shall not do so and will not condone such behaviour. My own field of expertise, being the desert war and the fighting in NW Europe 44-45, i have never seen any editors take such a position. Historians very well support what am rambling about, for example Normandy, Market-Garden etc being considered "Allied" this, that and the other when clearly in some of these actions there was clearly a numerical advantage over other nations involved i.e. more Americans in Normandy, more British in Market-Garden etc.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not hearing me. I'm not infalable, I used a source. As smeone who is already studying military history I have already conversed with a pool of very reputable academics - the USSR, they say, was the decisive factor in the war. To quote Churchill, "it was the Red Army that tore the heart out of the German armies". There is no contradiction in my position with regard to weapons at all. The Soviet Union was NOT propped up by the W Allies at all. You don't seriously believe the puny amount of lend-lease weapons helped the USSR in any way, do you? Soviet production saved the USSR. The lend lease is always drumed up to be something it was not. And as for the Second part, unlike the CW nations that were given armaments by the British to aid their cause, the British payed for the Americans arms. The UK Government completed payments in 2002. So no, your argument doesn't fit. I am well aware of he contribution of other combatants, and I am not saying they should be ignored. They have a right to be credited as combatants, but not credited with a victory in which they contributed very little to in comparison. I don't accept that I am dishonoring anyone, I had grandparents that saw action in this very battle. Lastly, There is nothing for you to tolerate. Unless you believe you have to tolerate other people whos sources and outlook is not the same as your own. Dapi89 (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will note i never said that the Soviets were no the decisive factor - they however did not win alone, they were supported and you will note I said directly and indirectly: supplies, how little of weapons, material etc and the diversion of important German resources due to the Western Allies. Am sure these "reputable academics" will agree with this position - and am pretty sure they would never agreed to your position that Canadians and Poles are "British". Intresting that while the Aussies, New Zealanders etc were supported by the British with arms and training, when it comes to the British having to heavily buy, via lend-lease and several other arrangements, thats a different story for you. I am well aware that we had to pay it back but what ever way you cut it the Americans were "propping" up the British ability to wage war. You are being pedantic about sticking rigidly to a single word used by the author, if you are a student of history you will have no doubt already learnt how to anyalis what an author is saying and to essentially read between the lines - the author you have quoted has stated an Allied power won - end of, what is the point of reverting edits in the article to stick squarly with his wordings when the two words are essentially interchangable? Regardless of how small or large a contribution was made by whatever forces that should not distract from: A) more than 1 nation fought in this battle and B) the author stated the allies won. The wording used by the author is a common feature seen in writing about this era of the war - further examples being historians calling latter battles "British" victories or defeats etc. This is why i brought up Normandy - American material outnumbered everyone elses as did there personnel, however you will see practically no author state to the contary of something along the lines of Allied victory. You brought up the Battle of France and am glad to see that someone has been wise enough to state that it was an Axis victory; the major events may have happened up north but the Italians took part - likewise if the Battle of France had turned the otherway ala the First Battle of the Marne am betting there would be no serious usage of the term "French victory" in such a litteral sence and if so used - most likely in the sence of "French led", which is how i read what Playfair, your source and others have wrote because its the only thing that makes actual sence and is accurate.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I can read between the lines thank you, I would encourgae you to do the same; by applying sensible logic, particularly to the Battle of France. There are no contradictions. If American forces had participated then they would be credited as such. The British were not given unconditional support - and the same goes for the Battle of France. You will see that there was and is support for the inclusion of "German victory". And there is not a serious academic that would take your point seriously. I'm not repeating myself again, so discourse is over. Dapi89 (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hartmann

How about talking the issue over on the talk page? (see Talk:Erich Hartmann#War crime charges) MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dapi, I think I understand you better now. I left a suggestion on the talk page. Please have a look and let me know if this suits your view on the topic. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Bär

Could you please have a look at the Heinrich Bär article? I messed with the article a bit and I would like a knowledgeable second opinion. I appreciate your comments. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 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) 16:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Library

Thanks! For your information, I started compiling my list of books here User:MisterBee1966/Library. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on articles for Geschwaders

Hi Dapi89,

You had added a list of Casualties for the Jagdgeschwader 1 in Operation Bodenplatte. Now in the GA review, an interesting question came up that applies to all Geschwader articles. Should we have a partial list of MIA or KIAs as is known or only complete list when those become available ? Another question is weather we need to have list of notable deaths or casualties or complete list ?

I believe this would apply to all other articles on geschwaders. The argument is weather a complete list is noteworthy or not. What do you think ? Please let me know. Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kudos. You see in the GA Review, here, the reviewer remarked that unless the list is complete, there's no point. To Quote.

I intend no disrespect to any men that died for their country, but are all of these men really notable? And, if they are judged to be notable, are they more notable than men unlisted in the other "Wartime history" sections that died in other phases of the war?

As a result I first moved the casualties of Operation Bodenplatte to the MIA,KIA section. Then commented out the section altogether.You might want to see the longish thread on the Review page. To my knowledge, with all the highest possible respect, this is the first Luftwaffe article trying for GA status. So whatever decision is applied to this article, is probably going to be looked at as a guideline for other articles. (I was planning on going after JG 27 after this. :D ) Hence trying to make sure it gets fair representation.

As it stands there is a discussion on all notable casualties as well as number of casualties in the article. Let me know what you think.Perseus71 (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hans-Joachim Marseille

If this is what Tate states than I have no problem with citing this information. It will always boil down to the question, what constitutes a "sure kill". The article, very objectively compares his claims against allied losses, so the impact of generalizing overclaiming by this statement is insignificant I would think. I don't think that any other pilot in history has been subjected to the amount of scrutiny as Marseille has; this includes historians of both sides. From everything I have read, heard and seen about Marseille, he was a legend and an idol by his own peers and enemies. I would think that if men like Stahlschmidt, Homuth, you name them, would have thought that Marseille deliberately faked his numbers, they would have rubbed it in his face and he wouldn't have been held in such high esteem. I think that's what makes him a legend and my personal choice as the greatest fighter pilot of World War II. This will not change by this citation.

Merry Christmas! MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this picture. The caption says it is Marseille. However I think this is Ernst-Wilhelm Reinert.MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur in your opinion that that German strategic thinking was limited to say the least. Maybe it is also a consequence of the capabilities the Germans had. You understand this better than I do. The question of strategic bombing is a perfect example. Marseille at his peak was less than 22 years old. I doubt that he had the foresight to judge what would be the best way to win the aerial war. Galland understood this but I doubt that Marseille understood this. I just recently reread Fritz Dettmann's book Mein Freund Marseille. The character he depicts is a rebel, a James Dean, a Tom Cruise in Top Gun. Marseille wanted to be the best fighter pilot, flying the Bf 109 to the envelope of its capabilities. I think he achieved this better than anyone else but not more. The question whether or not to target the fighters or the bombers was not his to answer. I am unsure if the German fighter force was even in a position to successfully attack the bombers over Africa. Numerically the Germans were at a disadvantage. I am not sure what you mean by saying the Germans were self obsessed. If you mean that they all wanted to accumulate many aerial victories I would say you're right. But doesn't that apply for all fighter pilots? MisterBee1966 (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. When you read the intent of RAF pilots in combat their first priority was always each other and their mission mandate. For example, RAF fighter units did not actively seek German fighters to engage when they were on the defensive and outnumbered. The BoB and Battle of Malta are examples; the bombers were priority and kills were shared. In a German unit it would be decided who deserved the kill most. Under these circumstances some RAF aces would have had significantly higher scores. But it didn't matter to them, they were not rewarded heavily. The Germans were and it encouraged them to be selfish.

Marseille, contrary to what Franz Kurowski says, he did not "always bring home is squadron safely", Marseille lost a few squadron mates and wingmen because he did not protect them - Franz Elles was one of them. In an RAF unit mutual protection was always top priority. Moreover they allowed everyone to get involved, and did not let those they deemed the best be the only ones to have the stab at the enemy. This is why Stahlschmidt, Steinhausen and Marseille accounted for 42% of all the kills in North Africa between April 1941 and September 1942. Add the exceptions of Schröer, Schulz and Homuth no other German pilots reached those kind of figures in the campaign. It also hads to be acknowleged that the DAF had a different operational agenda. It was tied to ground forces at low-level (with mostly inexperienced pilots and obsolete aircraft until June 1942) which gave the Germans the tactical advantage. Overall the DAF proved far more effective than the Luftwaffe, and didn't really care about fighter losses. When you compare this situation to the Battle of Britain, very few German pilots were able to achieve these kinds of scores, because the advantages were not there. Dapi89 (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have a point here. I'm not sure if the picture you draw is as black and white as you make it sound, but yes, I would agree. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt about that. I have read comments by Rall that he considered the RAF pilots as the best around. But don't forget that the attrition rate on the German side was not really healthy. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dornier Do 17

I noticed you wanting to take the article to GA status. You may run into problems with respect to the copy right status of some of the images. I fixed the link to the Wiki commons section. You will find a number of nice images there that could replace some of the ones in the article. I already took the liberty and replaced one with the identical version from commons. If you don't mind I will participate in the review of the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:DO171940054.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:DO171940054.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) 05:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bismarck

Hi there, I think it would be a good idea to change the order of the three small pics at the Denmark Strait battle, to preserve the time sequence. The one you added could swap with Bis. firing at PoW, and that would be the right order. Not a major point but maybe worth doing. Happy Christmas, bigpad (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:He111041.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:He111041.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) 05:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurfürst

I think you will find that if you are more emollient in your dealings with Kurfürst it will be easier for onlookers to see where the right of any dispute lies. Looking at his contributions I suspect that he combines youth with fierce national pride, not a combination which sits easily with Wikipedia policy, and one which often requires intervention. You will find it easier to get that intervention if your side of any interactions is above reproach. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belated greetings

Gidday! I haven't had much time to do much around here - that and my computer packed up with an 'orrible smell. It has now been replaced; Windows Vista (*Cough!! Haaackk!! $&%*)##@!! what a lousy operating system!!!) has been extracted from the new computer's inner workings and replaced by XP and Linux Mandriva. Anyway I hope you had a great Christmas and that 2009 is good for you. Cheers! Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belated Very Merry Happy New Year!

I don't know how I missed !Belated Happy New Year !

Perseus71 (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dornier Do 17

It looks like there's something funny going on with the page or the server- it gave me an edit conflict with myself!Nigel Ish (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:Battle of Drøbak Sound

Hi there. Happy New Year. This battle was a disaster for the Germans, as their plan had been to knock out the Norwegian government on 9 April. They failed in this and Norwegian resistance continued for two more months, not one. Also, this task force never captured Oslo, that was done by German airborne forces. That's why the battle is listed the way it is listed. This is an extremely common mistake people make, to assume that "Norway was occupied by the Germans on 9 April 1940", which of course is nonsense, there was still a 2-month Norwegian Campaign to be fought before the Norwegian mainland (excluding distant Norwegian islands in the Arctic) capitulated and the Norwegian Royal Family and government evacuated to the UK. Manxruler (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the Royals escaped due to this battle, but also the entire Norwegian cabinet, the Norwegian Parliament and the national gold reserves. Hence, "decisive". Manxruler (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:He1112KG26.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:He1112KG26.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Rosenbaum

Are you referring to the error in the info box? If yes, than I fixed this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do 17 & He 111

First quick scan:

no Wiki linking of dates anymore.
timeframes such as 1941-42 must use the – resulting in 1941–42
Every first occurance of an abreviated term such as RAF, KG 76 must be converted to Royal Air Force (RAF), Kampfgeschwader 76 (KG 76)
I would like to see more emphasis on production. Maybe you have information about factory output per year, conditions such as forced labor, etc.
there is a mix of units. Sometimes the article uses the metric units first and the imperial units in brackets and then again vice versa.
Personal opinion: Too much emphasis on combat performance. The article is about the plane not individual missions or campaigns. Use this information only to illustrate that the plane was well suited/not suited at all.
I find the picture of the He 111 in Africa misplaced in the subsection about the Battle of Britain. Can this be moved?

MisterBee1966 (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am not saying that combat performance is irrelevant. It just should be in the right proportion, I think. I feel (again this is my personal preference) that if I would want to look up an airplane on Wiki I would be interested in performance, design, comparison to compatible types of the era, production, influential factors and people, customers, and costs. I think this information should stick out and should not be hidden behind its combat performance. Have a look at the F-4 Phantom II article. I think this article does a good job on balance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ju 87

Sure I will have a look later. Gee, you make it sound like that my opinion is the law. It is just my opinion and no more and no less and not black and white. It is up to you what you make of it. So please don't get upset when I think an article may be leaning a bit into one direction. I am not citicising you. If you think that I have a point than go with it and make the the changes you deem necessary, if not, ignore it. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question/remark regarding the expanded Production subsection: You wrote "By the 1 September 1939, 360 Ju 87As and Bs had been built by the Junkers factories at Dessau and Bremen" - I know of Junkers factories in the Dessau area but not in Bremen, should be Weserflug there. "The Weser plant at Dessau experienced production shortfalls" - Now it's the other way round - I never heard of a Weserflug factory at Dessau - should be only Junkers there. Weserflug was in Bremen, later also in Berlin Tempelhof airport. Please verify with your sources.--Denniss (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice article, a few comments

no Wiki linking of dates anymore.
Every first occurrence of an abbreviated term such as RAF, USAAF, StG, etc. must be converted to Royal Air Force (RAF) …
Diving procedure should not be a subsection of Ju 87 Variants
I always thought that the principle idea of dive bombing was derived from the Curtis Hawk that Udet tested. This might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article
It's Berlin-Tempelhof not Berlin-Templehof
I believe linking of headers like “Invasion of Poland” should be avoided. Better to use the template:main instead
I find the subsection about the Eastern front quite large. Can it be broken up into further subsections?
I'm not sure if this is a valid questions to ask. Do you know anything about the total number of combat missions flown by the Ju 87? It may be indicative of the combat performance. Just a thought I had. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heinkel Knight Cross recipients

Not directly! The archives list a Knight's Cross recipient in conjunction to rank, function and unit the award was earned in. From this information one could derive those pilots and airmen that flew the Heinkel, Junkers or any other type. But I don't have a direct mapping to aircraft type. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 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) 02:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sources

Thanks for the link. My problem is that currently I am on the road a lot of times. I could buy the books but I'll be forced to leave them home which won't help. This is why I am relying online sources more. Hope that clarifies a bit. Perseus71 (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you manage this?

Over the last couple of weeks I have been consistantly seeing a Peugeot 407 with the mumberplate "DAP189" - when did you move to this side of the world? :) Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Nowotny

I am not attracting much attention on my review request. May I ask you to have a look at the article? Thanks. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

honors

		The WikiChevrons
		To honor your effort on all the hard work that went into the Ju 87 article MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Priller

Are you sure about your last changes to the article? Berger states that Priller and his wingman flew the only two missions against the Normandie beach head on 6 June 1944. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Goring-hermann.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Goring-hermann.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 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) 03:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

aviation expert?

the battle of kursk has absurd figures of aircraft downed for both sides. is it possible that u cite bergstrom or somethingelse ? i changed the figures with german write offs but this was changed again. i ask u cause it seems that u are speacialist on aviation

hi dapi, i can read! english "very" good . i noticed already why they wrote 3000 aircraft downed . but to cite an overclaimed source in WIKIPEDIA is in my opinion totally absurd . Russian claims of this time are LIES and PROPAGANDA and 60 years after this they have a board : WIKIPEDIA . this is absurd for me .... when u want to show how overclaiming works then an article about this would be a good idea.

The reader checks the infobox , cause it should be a fast overview , and sees the numbers and he will think this is correct. accidentally everyone who wants this absurd numbers comes from "sovietarea" . interesting ... .

not everyone will play the game : "lets check if this numbers are serious or overclaimed" , they want to see numbers ...

can i go to prokhorovka articel and can write there 600 Tigers destroyed and 400 Phanters , cause soviet claimed this for nearly 50 years ?

when i want to show examples for overclaiming the red army is a good place for research but i think there is no place in infoboxes for propaganda... . with respect thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by HROThomas (talk • contribs) 17:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i will stop editing english articles, most people only want to show their side in a good light. its the same with articles about western front. on western front english guys cite books written by soldiers!! from 47!!! . the write on the normandy page that 1 million germans fought in this area this is absurd everyone with knowledge knows this.

if russian sources are normaly wrong then they should not be cited .... they should not even been mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HROThomas (talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes the english wiki is the wiki with 3000 german aircraft downed at kursk and the english wiki is the wiki where 1 million germans fought at the normandy. the english wiki is the wiki with propaganda figures "to show overclaiming" . German wiki articles about second world war are most based on sources of german history research ministery. Look the article of the batte of the bulge , the infobox is total bullshit ... . Look battle of seelow heights this are the soviet propaganda figures of casualties . everyone knows but some russian will always change it. i can show dozen of examples ... .

only 1200 aircraft soviet aircraft destroyed on soviet kursk ^^ . thats history...

on english wiki the 60 years old russian propaganda becomes fact against... —Preceding unsigned comment added by HROThomas (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help Identify Image

Hi Dapi,

Can you identify

emblem for me ? Its obviously a bomber Geschwader on Eastern front in 1941. I pretty much know all the Jagdgeschwader emblems but not bombers. See if you could at least make a guess. Or else I go back to my favorite haunts of the Internet for help.

Cheers

Perseus

I knew you'd get it right. I knew I was going to the right Person! Thanks a lot ! Perseus71 (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blitz Week

Hi Dapi,

I am back with another question. I came across a concept/term called "Blitz Week". To my surprise it was not coined by Luftwaffe but by bombers of USAAF. Since many of the Jadgwaffe of western front had to participate, would it make sense to write a separate article on this topic or make section in the individual JG's article ? What do you think ? Does it have enough importance to merit its own article ? From what I understand so far, its primary aim was to whittle down Day fighters. Let me know. I am of Course posing the same question to Misterbee. Perseus71 (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not Mean Big Week. The Period I am referring to is 26 to 30 July 1943. It was cited as Blitz week in two independent Primary Sources. So that's not it. Also Blitz Week was a Exclusive USAAF Operation from what I have read so far. Come to think of it, I was thinking, may be we should make it part of Defense of the Reich ? What do you think ?

P.S. Thanks for the kudos. I am not as towering giant as Number one recipient. Compared to him I am just a fly on the wall. I do however appreciate the honor. Perseus71 (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the two are one and the same ? (I am assuming they are not.) So if its not worth an article, I was thinking may be we can put it in the Defense of the Reich. I am working on Jagdgeschwader 11. I have got most of the material in. Along with, I currently have the Blitz Week details combined under 1943-44 section. I am thinking of carving a section for it. So if you have sources that could put more light on JG 11's victories or losses during that week, I'd appreciate it. Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Perseus71 (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again!

I finally figured out where this Blitz Week Came from. Its Operation Gomorrah! I have corrected the section title in JG 11 accordingly. Thought you might want to know..Perseus71 (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moral support needed

If you have some time please have a look here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Brommann. I/we could use your support on the issue whether the Knight's Cross is a notable award. I would appreciate your thought on this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a strong Keep. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You sure have style :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination for Junkers Ju 87

Hello. I've reviewed the article Junkers Ju 87 for its nomination for Good Article status. I have major concerns about the referencing along with some other lesser concerns over prose-related issues, so I am placing the article on hold for seven days. My complete review may be found here. If you have any questions about the review or individual issues I have raised, please note them on the review page (which is on my watchlist) and I will answer them there. When you have addressed the issues I have mentioned, I will be happy to re-evaluate the nomination. Thanks, and good editing. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your MILHIST Awards nom

I have removed your nomination of MisterBee1966 for the A-Class medal because he does not qualify for the award at present. To be awarded this particular award, one must have three successful MILHIST A-Class articles promoted during or after August 2008. Perhaps you wanted to nom him for the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves? -MBK₀₀₄ 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you need to first be sure that he meets the requirements set forth here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards#WikiChevrons_with_Oak_Leaves. Then, add your nomination under the most recent (which was for Raul654) here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards#Nominations_for_the_Oak_Leaves. It is also a good idea to word them similar to previous nominations, since that is how we (the coordinators) create the verbiage for the citation if the commendation is awarded to the nominee. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ju 87

Congratulations! Great job. Very difficult and lengthy article to get to GA. Are you going for A-class? MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well FA will be difficult. I always took an article to A-class prior to attempting FA-class. Check the review page of the article. I include the FA tool suite which indicates some dead end external links. You may want to check that. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! I will have a look soon and check if I can help out. Unfortunately I'm lousy at checking the prose. The auditors will scrutinize the language quit heavily moving forward. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left some food for thought on the review page MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure go ahead! MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you working of this page Wikipedia:Peer review/Junkers Ju 87/archive1 or the original peer review page? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on the GA for Junkers Ju 87 --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of the Reich

I added some pictures to the article which I thought illustrate the topic. Hope you can use them MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had not seen/herd this before. Very interesting. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very difficult question! You are probably right to limit the detail factor as much as possible. Exceptions should be specific instances that stick out either way. Depending on importance a breakout of specific battles maybe worthwhile like referencing the Bombing of Dresden in World War II or Bombing of Cologne in World War II, which I believe is already linked in the article. Maybe more articles like these are needed!? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Oak Leaves

Thanks for submitting me. I hadn't noticed until they were awrded to me today. Thanks again MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Lüth

If you find the time could you have a glance at the article. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to have Dönitz book "Ten Years and Twenty Days"? According to my source Dönitz made a reference about Wolfgang Lüth. I am wondering if this adds value to the article? MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German Wiki

Well, I don't know the details for them removing the KG 55 article and to be honest I don't care. I periodically visit the German Wiki to see if new references or unknown aspects show up. The most interesting and quit amusing one is on the talk page of Erich Hartmann but nicely illustrates what my problem with the German Wiki is. The left wing fraction (or call them anti militarist) have successfully managed to remove the word Fliegerass – flying ace from the article. This triggered a somewhat heated debate and some editors took the position that it would be better to either translate the English Wiki article or link it altogether. It is so annoying, as long as you depict a German WW2 soldier as a war criminal it is okay as soon as you merit his military achievements it gets censored. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European Articles

You could be right I have not heard that before --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question could be asked at MILHIST they must have come across this before --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20 July

I gave up! It is factual and citable that a democratic post WW2 German court ruled the unfair trials conducted by Freisler unjust and thus made it murder. It is absurd to compare the judicial system of the US to Freislers courtroom of 1944, even here Amnesty International my have a different opinion, but that is beside the point. I rather chew on my toe nails than waste my time in trying to convince them. But thanks for your kind words MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marseille

date fixed! Thanks for the heads up MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 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) 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler & Hitler Youth photo

In this edit you "corrected" the date on the image in the Adolf Hitler article from 20 March to 20 April. However, I'm pretty sure the correct date for the image is in fact 20 March, although it is often misstated as 20 April. This is the image in question:

Image:19450420_Hitler_65bd_awards_HJ_Iron_Cross.jpg

Unfortunately your user page doesn't specify whether you understand German, but here is an article about this picture being misdated.

I've changed it back to 20 March now. --Yogi de (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA status?

Read your note. What does GA mean? I did see an error: Crew: 5 (pilot, navigator/bombardier, nose gunner, ventral gunner, dorsal gunner). "navigator/bombardier, nose gunner," is all the same person. 4 was normal, a 5th would be, ... well, I am not sure what he would do. Beam guns on latter versions, or observer, 2ed navigator?
IN popular culture, a note saying it is a popular aircraft modeled in many games would be useful.
Cheers! --Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find many books have errors, even the best ones have them. Google Article, eh? Special recognition? --Flightsoffancy (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Been busy with things, not able to check over He111, will do when I can --Flightsoffancy (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elections

Thank You for getting involved in the Coordinator Elections for the Military History WikiProject, it is so refreshing to see that the WikiProject's Members really care about its future, Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 20:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is quite weird, but it is Legal to vote for more person. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 14:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer (Operational History of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945))

Hi, you reverted an edit that corrected the number of aerial kills Schnaufer was credited with. The article originally stated 102 vicories, while all sources I have list him with 121, the number that was put in by the previous editor. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last Stand: Battle of Britain

Hi Dapi, Wanted to have another party give thoughts about this. Talk:Last_stand#Battle_of_Britain_proposed_addition Thanks --Flightsoffancy (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

	I seem to have drawn a crowd of support!
	I'm honored to have been elected as a coordinator of the WikiProject Military history and most sincerely thank you for your vote of support. I will endeavor to fulfill the obligations in a manner worthy of your trust. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
	A World War I U-boat draws a crowd after grounding on the Falmouth coast in 1921.

Battle honour

Hello, Dapi. Can you please read up about Battle honour, before you start editing the names and number of them with a given unit? (e.g No. 600 Squadron RAF) Thanks in advance, Dirk P Broer (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 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) 02:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Roger Davies ^talk 14:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

total aircraft losses

hi do u have figures, how much german aircraft were destroyed in the east and how much destroyed by the western allies ? best regards --HROThomas (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Mölders

I have started overhauling the article. If you find time I would appreciate your help on some of my writing. Some sentences still sound weird. Basically only the intro and early years are done. Right now I'm working on the Spanish Civil War. So if you have time focus on the first 30% of the article only. Everything else will be rewritten soon MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this?

Have a look at this article Ace Of Aces. Looks like most aces are American. I never realised this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice: SPI request

Your name was mentioned in this SPI request. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 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) 22:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Staffelführer versus Staffelkapitän

Do you happen to know the difference between a Staffelführer and Staffelkapitän? Is it one and the same position or is the first just an informal or temporary leader of a Staffel while the later is the formal position? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terror bombing

Hi Dapi, you need to help me understand the dispute on the terror bombing article talk page. I always was under the impression that to some degree the German bombing attacks on England were justified (and may have been motivated) by the collateral damage caused by the British attacks on German military and industrial targets. I fully understand that this is not the whole story, but rather an attempt by the German leadership to justify the attacks on England. If indeed this view is not completely absurd, why would it be wrong to correctly mention this in the article, putting this into the right context? I am simply asking this to understand the situation better and to obtain a more objective view on the topic. I want to be sure that my view is not clouded by a biased German background. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Terror bombing. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello, Dapi89. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#Disruptive_editing.2C_personal_attacks. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dapi, I suggest that you cool down and go on to editing other, less controversial articles; as it is I believe that "Terror Bombing" as a stand alone article has been poorly thought out, it is highly subjective and is just begging to be under constant revision by editors who have different points of view. To mind it should be a candidate for deletion; it simply ain't worth losing hair over! Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: He 111U

It's page 33 - and it is already there... More detail about this type's record run & subsequent crash (plus ref) is in the List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft, pre-1950. Best regards! Mark Sublette (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Way aye

You are a busy fellow. Anyway, thanks for the google books link - I suppose I should buy G&D, but WW2 boats aren't really my thing. Onward and upward (or down and out) Greglocock (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 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) 22:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Khazanov

Sorry, I don't have any references MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know about it since it may interest you

[[18]]--Jacurek (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supermarine Spitfire operational history

For your information, I have raised this comment on Talk:Supermarine Spitfire operational history at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_Legal_threat_on_Talk:Supermarine_Spitfire_operational_history as a possible WP:Legal issue.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Ill try and find some time this week to read over the article and i will get back to you on the article talk page.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Sedanplan1940.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Sedanplan1940.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 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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

AN3

Move this to the end where it belongs, please [19] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^talk/_contribs 21:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

July 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Tan | 39 16:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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. Step hen 11:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^talk 10:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- 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 Wikipedia is steadily (in general) declining in quality. Can you understand my frustration? Dapi89 (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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^talk 16:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've unblocked your account so you should be good to go (notice also posted at ANI here). If I can help out in the future, you're welcome at my talk-page. EyeSerene^talk 18:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be working. I just tried leaving a message on your talk page. Dapi89 (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My talk-page was just vandalised and I rolled it back - it's possible you got caught in the edit-conflict. The other possibility is that the software is still autoblocking you. Do you get any message? EyeSerene^talk 19:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there may have been an active autoblock in place; if there was, there shouldn't be now. My apologies for the additional hassle. EyeSerene^talk 19:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Aye, no Forlorn hopes here ;) I'm glad it's all sorted, and thank you for your kind words. You know where my talk-page is if you need anything. EyeSerene^talk 20:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I had seen Minorhistorian's comments on the ANI thread. He's another excellent editor, along with Bzuk, so with the three of you working on those articles it should be enough to maintain NPOV. I've watchlisted them anyway, and will try to call by from time to time. If you do run into problems, you may find it's more productive to drop a note at the mihist talk page (I'm one of the coordinators over there). You're perhaps more likely to get an informed response on content issues than at a general forum like ANI, and there are quite a few admins and many superb editors among the membership (including two who are on the current arbitration committee) so we're usually able to handle things in-house. The main thing is that you don't feel you're alone and unsupported in dealing with tendentious editing, so there's no need for you to get dragged into a conflict that makes you look like the bad guy too. Hope this helps, and all the best, EyeSerene^talk 09:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Sedanplan1940.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Sedanplan1940.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 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

No problem. At the moment your map still doesn't seem to be showing? As to information from Kew a fully loaded two terabyte hard drive would about cover it! Of course, it goes without saying that your own work takes absolute priority. If you have time, and only if, have a read of http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ and http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html - there are some interesting documents cited...in the meantime enjoy your research and don't get blocked again. Cheers! Minorhistorian (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The papers you've mentioned would be great, and many thanks. Again, I insist that your work takes absolute priority; don't divert yourself on account of Wikpedia. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Battle of Belgium GA

Sorry - read it and forgot to respond :P I'll take a look in the near future. EyeSerene^talk 21:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo and thanks

Thanks for your help; as it is I'm back to full time studies at varsity for the winter semester down here so I'll be spending less time on Wiki until November, at least. I'm going to be tied up with getting all the bumph sorted out for the next couple of days, so I'll put some thought into your offer. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 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) 21:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Belgium

I've had a look through the article - excellent work! There are a few points that will probably be picked up at at GA, but I don't think it's far off. I'd imagine it will be put on hold with a list of fixes and tweaks for you to complete. The main issues I'd bring up if I were reviewing it are:

Lead: this needs expanding to fully summarise the entire article per WP:LEAD. Three to four paragraphs should be about right, given the length of the article; the first paragraph a general overview, and the rest going into more detail. Citations in the lead is a point of debate - personally I don't see the need as they should be repeated in the article body where the real meat is, but that's a personal preference ;)
Manual of Style nitpicks:
- section headings should avoid "The"
- various typos in the text (might be worth copy/pasting into a wordprocessing package and running a spellchecker over it). One that particularly caught my eye was in the "Soldiers, The Belgian Army, brutally assailed..." quote ("ip" > "up"?), which obviously needs to be checked against the source
- For citations that aren't Harvard-style, there are templates at WP:CITET that can be used to format them. Web cites must have, at a minimum, the publisher (ie website owner) and access dates. Using the templates is optional at GA, but worth doing if you're planning on taking the article further.
- Might be worth formatting the citations section into multiple columns? See {{reflist}} for the markup (eg {{Reflist|2}} will give two columns).
Prose: this is generally good, and I think should go through GA with only minor tweaks suggested, although at some point a full copyedit would be useful if you plan to go further.
Images: these look fine - captions and licenses seem good
Referencing: very thorough, although you could be asked for specific citations for some of the facts and figures (I'm sure these are covered by the subsequent cite, but some reviewers like to see the cites next to the figures or at the end of the sentence containing them).
Neutrality: no worries here, the account is factual and balanced
Stability: again, looks good (no ongoing edit-wars etc)
Coverage: the only slight niggle I have is the section heading mentioning Dunkirk, which gives the impression the article will be wandering away from the Battle of Belgium to discuss the British evacuation from France (although in fact it doesn't). It might be worth taking it out of the section heading?

This is only a brief overview, but I hope it helps. All the best, and if you want to take it further I look forward to seeing the article as milhist A-Class review and maybe WP:FAC eventually. Brilliant work! EyeSerene^talk 17:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heinkel He 111

The article is generally well done and should qualify as a FA, but some minor areas to address. Reviewers will look to see all "redlinks" are taken care off, that writing is clear and understandable, that all major aspects are wikilinked, that the article has adequate and consistent referencing and that it is essentially "stable". Given all that, I have just "swept" the reference sources to consolidate and rationalize all the resources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Siege of Malta (World War II) has been reverted, as it appears to introduce incorrect information. Please do not intentionally add incorrect information to articles. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for testing. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]