User talk:Folks at 137

This user may have left Wikipedia. Folks at 137 has not edited Wikipedia since 20 November 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hi, Folks at 137, and welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• To post an image try Wikipedia:Image tutorial, but remember to look out for copyright violations
• Stay away from common mistakes
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or on my user talk page
• Explore, be bold, and, most importantly, have fun!
• Oh, and don't forget to tell something about yourself on your user page!

Good luck! Renata3 21:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Drive to the Siegfried Line and discuss you ideas there before changing Rhineland Campaign from a redirect --Philip Baird Shearer 14:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to a page are not lost just hidden. One can always retrieve a version throught the history tab. Then edit the old version, cut and past it to another place, or save it on-top of the current version. If someone then does that to your retrieved version and resaves the last version it is called a reverse. If you then do the same back it is called "an edit war" and becomes a waste of time for everyone who joins in. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response on the discussion page. I'll be the first to admit it's very difficult to write anything neutral about Monty. But the challenge shouldn't stop us. I appreciate the dialogue. DMorpheus 20:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

"Recent historians also point out that Allied armies were drawn from populations that were less militaristic than the Germans and this difference repeatedly showed up in German skill and determination in critical situations."

This is a pretty broad statement that is bound to generate discussion, but its not really necessary to the article anyway, IMO.

"Montgomery bitterly resented this change, even though it had been agreed before the D-Day invasion, and it probably influenced his subsequent behaviour and decisions"

While I think it’s true that he resented the change (who wouldn’t? He was human) the second part of the sentence is speculation. I suggest putting a period after the word 'invasion'.

"Allied victory - if recovery from an avoidable defeat can be so described - at the Battle of the Bulge"

This is definitely POV and an inaccurate swipe at the US Army. Again though, even if you disagree, it's not necessary to the article.

"Monty supported his American formations; the Army commanders Hodges and Simpson were glad for this. The battlefront was reorganised, reinforced and supplied. The three generals then waited for the Germans to exhaust themselves - an approach shared by Patton who believed that the more the Germans advanced, the more they would eventually lose. This waiting for the right moment did not appeal to Bradley or Hodges, however"

Bradley and Patton manifestly did NOT share the same approach as Montgomery. Patton agreed that the Germans should be allowed to advance – he famously argued that they should be allowed to go all the way to Paris – but did *not* agree that the Allies should wait to counterattack. He gave warning orders to his staff as early as Dec 17 to prepare a counterattack into the flank of the german penetration. That is why he was able to attack with three divisions on Dec 19 and relieve Bastogne on Dec 25. He didn't wait for the Germans to exhaust themselves at all. Bradlye fully and strongly supported this approach, if for no other reason than to redeem himself to Eisenhower.

Montgomery *was* supportive of the US commanders and his order to evacuate St Vith was correct. It probably saved elements of two US Divisions. But his approach of waiting until the German advance slowed was very different from the approach taken by 12th US Army group. It was the press conference that really generated the anger, much more than anything he actually did operationally.

Just noticed the reference to the clearing of the Scheldt estuary and the effects this had. I am not sure if you mean to say that the failure to clear the Scheldt prevented the use of Antwerp (which it did) or Rotterdam (not sure how it could have, since Rotterdam is well north-east of the Scheldt). DMorpheus 20:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, we have a habit of lying to tourists :)

Theres not a chance a police officer could get past booking one pub for late night opening before the other 6 would be warned and would be closed within minutes; additionally they'd have trouble getting onto the island without the ferry company telling all the pubs; and the Irish Times suffers the terrible "Arranmore Merge" problem where what happens on Arranmore and Inishmore turns into one island,. The football team was started after the car ferry service started, and every opposition team (+ half of the home team) come in by ferry for every home match - and considering the way the approach to the island by sea is, you'd notice you were being brought around the long way very, very quickly if you were being brought in by normal boat.

You should note that the reference to the police was removed by my brother, not me - two different accounts in the history there.

As goes "British Isles", nearly everyone from the island living on the island of Ireland is back there every second weekend anyway, so its hard for any form of seperate diaspora to be built up. Its also a term I've found to be mainly used in a derogatory sense (along with "Éire" or "erse" when refering to the country or the language), so its almost instinctive to try and find an alternative if one is suitable.

However, you've now given me a reason to write something on Beaver Island (Lake Michigan), where about half the residents claim some links to Arranmore, as well as the communities in south Scotland - for instance Lockerbie has a sizable ex-Arranmore population, two of which died on-ground in the bombings. --Kiand 16:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It goes from lying to craic after the tourist has bought the storyteller about two pints while listening enthralled, before then its just pure lies ;) --Kiand 20:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the page for foxwoods casino the main picture should be changed to this.. - http://www.thebbmc.com/images/foxwoods.jpg - or something nicer!

You may use my format for the side bar and that is a good idea to change ship name to Italics, will be changed when i have changed all side bar formats in the dido and bellona classes.

Thanks --MiniEntente 15:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my changes were more in the personal preference department than a matter of correctness, although I think "southeast" is preferred around here. Feel free to revert if you prefer the original spellings. No worries --Cam 17:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the battleship Tirpitz article, you claimed that Tirpitz did not have air cover because of poor coordination between Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe.

Tirpitz was covered by fighter unit led by fighter ace Heinrich Ehrler. When the attack started the leading bomber formation headed toward German base nearby, fooling Ehrler into believing that the British were going to bomb the base and not Tirpitz. When it became clear that it was diversion it was too late, Tirpitz had been sunk. The German fighters attacked the British bombers and shot few down before they had to return to base.

That is what the book Kampf und Untergang Der Kriegsmarine says.

http://www.sammlerpoint.de/geschichte/g2163.jpg

Kurt.

Late reply to your message at Talk:German cruiser Admiral Hipper. According to the Wikipedia naming conventions:

Don't make up a ship prefix for a navy that didn't use one. Thus:

• German battleship Bismarck (not "DKM Bismarck") κаллэмакс 08:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(in reply to User_talk:Kallemax#Kriegsmarine_ship_prefix)
Hey, no offence intended, I just copy-pasted the text from here. κаллэмакс 09:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NI, I haven't heard of anything like this. It is possible that Peruvians would have destroyed an U-boat, but warship....Only German warships that could reach Peru without being resupplied were Panzerschiffe's, and none was sunk in Peruvian waters.

I don't have any information. If I come across anything I'll let you know. But you have tickled my curiosity so if you find anything I'd appreciate it if you would let me know. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute your statement that "NFLD forces (59 Heavy Regiment & 166 Field Artillery Regiment) were part of the British Army, not Canada's army". However, please see http://worldatwar.net/timeline/newfoundland/19-49.html where, for June 14 1940, it states: "Canadian request to station ground troops at Newfoundland Airport, Gander and the seaplane base at Botwood granted. Subsequent agreements provide for, recruitment of Newfoundlanders into the Canadian services, Canadian command of the Newfoundland Militia and formation of a joint coastal defense battery." I think that the 57th, 59th and 166th (Newfoundland) Artillery Regiments were formed in the UK from Newfoundland volunteers already in British regiments (eg, 71 (West Riding) Field Regt). This might have accounted for a different status to the Newfoundland Militia and other units raised at home. Folks at 137 21:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we are arguing about different things. The Defense of Newfoundland and the Home guard of the Newfoundland Militia were under Canadain command, but overseas units fighting in the war were under the command of the British Army. There were native Newfoundlanders who signed up in St. John's for the 57th, and 59th regiments. Perhaps the WWII page should indicate both commands. 66.57.87.50 22:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are differences between the 1946 Official listed casualties and the current Commonwealth War Graves Commission Report- Do you have any idea why the current numbers are higher than the 1946 balances? Also do you know of a source for data on the UK Colonies casualties?--Woogie10w 15:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folks at 137! I saw you reverted my last edits of Battle of France. May I inquire as to the reason why? Greetings, --MWAK 14:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it all :o). Thank you for your effort — especially in guarding against vandalism!--MWAK 16:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 20:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You gave me a warning. Not sure what happened. I thought I was editing a page - then it went blank, perhaps because I'd left it active for too long(?). If you check my own history and the history of the page in question (which I've done much work on), I hope you'll accept that I did a "whoopsie", at worst, not deliberate vandalism. If so, I'd appreciate an "innocent" verdict - good name, and all that. Folks at 137 20:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit that the bot reverted you on is [1] not sure why it happened but the page was uploaded blank to Wikipedia, the bot caught it as blanking and reverted to the last editor not the last edit. I can't really change edit summaries, but thats what happened -- Tawker 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you do know that Tawkerbot2 is a bot, right? -- Tawker 07:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially what happens with a revert (admin / bot (which is a computer program in short) / or otherwise) is the person reverts to the last editor, not the editor who "vandalised" (although in your case it appeared to be not intentional, a technical glitch caused it to blank the page. I understand you have concerns about the auto bot revert (within 10 seconds I believe it's working at) - you are the second user to suggest it, the thought has crossed my mind but part of the intent of the bot is to discourage vandals by showing them that if they vandalize it will be reverted rapidly every time, if I introduced a delay it might lose some of the deterrent (and the deterrent seems to be working, vandalism has been down often.) Even if the bot didn't auto revert, chances are someone monitoring the anti vandal programs would have noticed the blanking (although it was accidental) and assumed it was vandalism and did the exact same the bot did, chances are it would have been reverted to the last edit before you anyways. -- Tawker 20:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date linking is for user preferences rather than collating significant dates. If I type "9 July" and don't link it with the double square brackets then it reads as "9 July". If I link it then it will read either "9 July" or "July 9" depending on "my preferences" (next to my watchlist) thus providing those either side of the Atlantic with a format they are familiar with.GraemeLeggett 08:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am wondering whether there is a set standard for linking naval articles (should HMS/USS/service numbers be included). More specifically, I am wondering if there is a prefered form to use for Soviet naval articles. Thanks in advance. Crocodilicus 04:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit today. DMorpheus 20:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wide info box just doesn't work. Perhaps several down the article but not a single "fat" table. GraemeLeggett 10:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re your message, yep that was my only objection, sorry about that, don't know why it didn't work for me yesterday, tried a few times over the day before I removed it, but only got the page can not be found error message each time, works for me now though, I've reverted it back in now.Number36 22:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably leave it off; it's not particularly useful in this case. (Strictly speaking, the box guidelines specify that the countries involved should be given, in which case it would be an even less meaningful Germany v. Germany setup.) Kirill Lokshin 19:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was a bit bored today at work, so I created a Userbox for Hertfordshire based Wikipedians (and I'm still bored so I am messaging the 'Wikipedians in Hertfordshire' group about it). If you want to use it, it is {{user Hertfordshire}}. Legis 12:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments; I am far from an expert on Bradley but I hope you find this helpful.

1. Since his most senior post was Chairman of the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff - equivalent to British CIGS I believe? Or is that just the Army?), and he was the first officer to hold this position, I think this should be mentioned in the intro.

2. He was assigned to the II Corps in North Africa before Patton arrived and before Fredendall was relieved, so strictly speaking he was not sent to Africa to serve under Patton. A minor wording change would take care of this.

3. II Corps was the major US formation under 7th Army in Sicily. Maybe a link to 7th Army would be approporiate, as well as a brief mention of the 'road' controversy that first pitted Montgomery against Patton and Bradley.

4. I believe he was known as the "G.I. General" not the "Soldiers' General". Ernie Pyle came up with that.

5. Isn't the Chambois pocket much better-known as the Falaise pocket? Bradley's decisions there are among his more controversial so that might bear some mention.

6. The original planning for Overlord had the US 12th Army Group going south of the ardennes. It was a later decision, pushed by Montgomery and endorsed by Ike, that led the US First Army north of and through the Ardennes, thus helping set the stage for the battle of the bulge.

7. Should be a link to US First Army as well as mention that it was the lead US formation in Normandy and one of the largest (if not the largest) US field armies ever.

8. Some mention of Bradley's colorful remarks about the Revolt of the Admirals might be in order, or perhaps a link to that article. Same with his comments re: Truman's firing of Macaurther, which he strongly endorsed.

9. I've never heard the racism charge at the end. Since this is quite an accusation it should be backed with some sources.

10. Maybe some mention of the OOB of the 12th Army group at various points? DMorpheus 15:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tirana view.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice you've contributed in the past to Names of European cities in different languages and its successor pages. There are proposals to delete these articles and the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Asian cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of African cities in different languages might interest you. AjaxSmack 18:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Folks!

Good news: Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) has recently created the Maritime warfare task force as part of the Military History project. Bad news: so far, it has only three members (the worst news is that one of them is me).

I think this would be a good forum for discussing of maritime warfare/naval history, exchanging ideas and establishing best practice at a more general level than the Ships project. If you are interested, can I suggest you pay a visit and, if you like what you see, sign up?

Regards, John Moore 309 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I have put the following reply on my talk page; I have copied it here in case you have not put that page on your watchlist.

"You do yourself an injustice, Folks. We are all amateurs (so far as I know), and what I have seen of your work is well up to standard. Your recent edit to the Hipper-class, for example, was a significant improvement to the balance of the article. As for "grunt" work, there will be enough of that to see out the millenium. I would like to see this task force succeed, and this will be more likely if you are on board. Regards, John Moore 309 15:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry about adding that tag, the tag I wanted to add was a "fix the page format" one to make the page a little bit more compact, but I couldn't remember it, I've now fixed it. --James Bond 23:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be strange if a Commonwealth fleet based in Sydney did not include RAN ships, no? :-) The list of ships in the article is far from exhaustive and the RAN effort included destroyers and smaller vessels. Grant65 | Talk 17:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to have a comprehensive list of ships, but this has proved difficult, at least from the sources at my fingertips. However, I hope this puts your mind at rest:

The RAN was initially represented by the destroyers HMA Ships QUICKMATCH and QUIBERON as well as a number of corvettes. Later the destroyers HMA Ships NAPIER, NORMAN, NIZAM and NEPAL joined. All of these vessels had previously served in the Indian Ocean with the British Eastern Fleet. The destroyers had taken part in attacks on Japanese oil installations in Sumatra and the N Class vessels had supported the Army [sic; should be Allied armies] in Burma. The corvette HMAS LAUNCESTON had sunk the submarine RO 110 off Vizagapatam. The destroyers saw service in support of the Okinawa operations in April while the corvettes formed two minesweeping flotillas.[2]

In other words, there were no Australian ships of cruiser class or above in the BPF. See also: Supplement to the London Gazette of Tuesday, the 1st of June, 1948 "The Contribution of the British Pacific Fleet to the Assault on Okinawa, 1945." (Published June 2, 1948.) Cheers Grant65 | Talk 04:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, it looks fine on my monitor... Esaborio 18:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use the Explorer. And yes, there is a slight difference between the two flags. You can see for yourself at [3]. Esaborio 08:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, quite messy. (And I'm really not the right person to comment here, neither having read Beevor nor posessing any real knowledge of the period.)

I would suggest, however, that more precise citation may help resolve the issue. If you can footnote the contentious points with page numbers from the sources, the discussion turns to the interpretation of specific points, which tends to be more limited than general fights over concepts. Kirill Lokshin 18:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at de:AG Weser, 11th sentence:

Nach dem Weltkrieg wurde die sogenannte Werften-Konzentration durchgeführt, die die AG Weser unter anderem mit acht anderen Werften zur Deutschen Schiffs- und Maschinenbau Aktiengesellschaft (DeSchiMAG) zusammenfasste.

German capitalizes nouns, but not other words (even in titles), therefore abbreveations follow this style. Other examples are GmbH and BAföG. Deutsche Schiff- und Maschinenbau AG becomes DeSchiMAG in this way.

--° 11:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a decision between the correct form and the most used form. I favor the correct form.

-- ° 08:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there only was a Web-site by DeSchiMAG themselves. I am pretty sure the would had opted for DeSchiMAG or else for DESCHIMAG. Even deschimag would be an option (if the had some hip PR guys). Only "Deschimag" (even so many times used by others) is very unlikely. But it can be found in Wikipedia: "Deschimag" exists as redirect. The question is: Add another redirect for DESCHIMAG, or not? I'm not sure about that.

-- ° 09:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it was always meant to include all of them. I can't recall why that particular wording was used, but it's been there since the beginning; in any case, I've changed it to the standard form now. Kirill Lokshin 20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly, I think you're being overly fussy here ;-) So long as the edits themselves are good, and the multiple commits are not truly excessive (think hundreds at a time), I don't really see any real reason to take any action regarding them. It's probably just a function of his being a newer editor; I suspect he'll outgrow the habit in time. Kirill Lokshin 22:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as an issue is not solved we keep discussing. Wandalstouring 01:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Folks! I am often banned here as I have to use a public server here in Saudi. It is so good to be unbanned for a while (and for some reason). I appreciate all your efforts with 'my' operation names. Sure, put the Kimono thing back in if you like. Paul, in Saudi 14:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Folks, do not sell yourself short. I consider us both not to be Geeks, but Uber-Geeks. Nice work on resetting those names into lower-case. I ran out of time. Paul, in Saudi 03:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again but could you go to this page and tell me if you think it is 'not notable?' Seems like standard (if obscure) military history to me. I value your opinion. Paul, in Saudi 16:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now see the problem. I have no idea either how to do this. So I guess returning to the "indent" might be the best option for now. Considering how the image is used on over 3000 pages I don't feel like actually modifying it (even though it will always be on a white background) and certainly not like creating a "boredered" duplicate and linking that in (looks like a job for a lifetime). I will revert my edit to the Normandy page till I or someone else can think of a better solution.--Caranorn 11:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I may spend the rest of my days trying to heal this sick, twisted article. I invite you to join me in my quest. POV Problems? A Few. Since you are a Smart Guy can you tell me how to enter one of those nifty <<Citation Needed>> tags? Paul, in Saudi 08:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Paul, in Saudi 11:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is beyond hope. Well-meaning people who have no clue have taken it under the wing. It is very alarming indeed. How can I submit this thing to be rated? I am sure it would a very low score. Paul, in Saudi 16:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a tad confused - I think you'll find that I corrected the incorrect spelling. That is, I changed material to materiel and not the reverse. Am I wrong? --Ggbroad 17:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is a separate Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), that other one is somewhat misleading so I've adjusted it accordingly. I too used to italicise all ship titles on WP, but got told off by someone else, even though most of the big names (e.g Whitely, Lenton, Conways) italicise class titles or put them in quotation marks, it seems this is not what WP policy is. Didn't mean to come across all school-teacherish on you! :) Emoscopes ^Talk 15:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, it is particularly silly when you are talking about ship classes by letter-names only, without some sort of style on the letter it reads pretty badly. But getting stuff changed in the Mos? Not worth the effort, really... Emoscopes ^Talk 17:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sure no problem. I wasn't aware of it, but i will change it. LOM

Hey, thanks for the heads up about gallery compatibility, I had no idea that it wasn't 100% supported. I'll go ahead and revert to the version with the images down the right hand side. Emoscopes ^Talk 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; the article looks good so far, and I look forward to reading the complete item (my interest is more in Capital Ships in terms of wiki contributions). I do not think that anyone would now mark it for deletion, but if in future you have to leave an article at an early stage where deletion is a risk, then if you insert at the top the template {{underconstruction}} then it will, or should, be left alone.--Anthony.bradbury 12:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would stipulate, the Japanese, with their almost complete lack (until late) of anti-submarine tasking, and to a lesser extent the Italian. I wish you the best of luck. If I can be of any factual help let me know; I have here a seriously extensive printed database.--Anthony.bradbury 17:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm puzzled that you cancelled my edits changing Bruges to Brugge (pronounced Brooker). For the last 5 years I've lived in Flanders on and off, and it's a simple fact that I've never heard it called Bruges, neither will you see Bruges on a road sign anywhere within Belgium. It is also a fact that referring to Flanders (ie Flemish-speaking) towns by their French names is very irritating to local sensibilities. Calling Brugge "Bruges" makes as much sense as calling London "Londres"! downes51

Meh. It's not a very good B-Class, admittedly; but I would say that it still qualifies, based mostly on the amount of material present. (I'm not an expert on this particular topic by any means, though, so I don't really know how accurate it is. If you want, you can list the article at WP:MHA#Requests for assessment for another opinion.) Kirill Lokshin 23:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ref your request for published sources substantiating claims for upgunning with 15-inch guns. See The German Navy 1939-45 pages 32-38, author: Cajus Becker a former German Navy intel officer. Published 1974, ISBN 1 85152 591 2. Also see my note at [4] George.Hutchinson 13:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reacted exactly like you when I saw the Möwe class referred to as "destroyers". They should be called torpedoboats, that's what they've been called in all litterature I've read which has mentioned them. These ships were definitely not "Zerstörers". Manxruler 11:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to be of assistance. I did a little look around the internet on German language sites, including German Wikipedia, and the Möwe class is always reffered to as "torpedobooten". Keep up the good work! Manxruler 19:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Sorry, this is old news, but I just noticed this edit: [5]. The USN flag template already adds a white border to flags to highlight them against a dark background, so there's no need to put border| in front. Just wanted to save you some effort in case you're using the template in articles. TomTheHand 20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folks. You're doing some great work, especially on the List of World War II ships, but what was that stuff with Togo (HNoMS Otra) and Kamerun (HNoMS Rauma (1940-1963))? 1094 tons? 3415 tons? That's wild flaws, man, when you consider they were actually 355 ton ships. Who gave you that faulty info? If you need info on Norwegian ships then just ask me, I've got books on most of them. Keep up the good work! Manxruler 19:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's cool, man. I'm gonna write an HNoMS Otta article pretty soon, it will clarify things. By the way, I appreciate you added the various town-class Norwegian destroyers to the list, I was going to do it myself, but haven't had the time. Just generally, be careful with web sites, they're surprisingly often wrong. I mostly use English and Norwegian books on English and Norwegian subjects, I find that even books are often very inaccurate when they are written by authors who did not use original sources. For example, English litterature on Scandinavian subjects (barred thoes written by Scandinavian authors) is most of the time inaccurate and some of the time nonsense. You did stellar work on the List of World War II ships, would you like to help me out with the List of World War II ships of less than 1000 tons some day? Manxruler 21:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the lists are starting to become somewhat cumbersome. Alphabetically is probably the way to go. Also the issue of "real" belligerents should be adressed. I kinda raised an eyebrow when I saw the various Danish ships on the list, their navy did not fight in WWII, unless you count scuttling the whole fleet after three years of cooperating with the occupiers as fighting. Did the South American navies do much combat? Maybe against uboats... We'll have see if we can come up with something later on. All the best. Manxruler 14:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes. A lot of the detail you asked for I added to The Emergency. The IRA luftwaffe claim is cods, removed it. Will dig around the wiki and see if something already exists on k-lines and if so add a sentence (tried to slim down the entry by placing the extra details in refs.) Fluffy999 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Folks, Hope you are well. Sorry to hear about the controversy on the Codeword Page. My thoughts:

• I am inclined to be inclusive rather than exclusive. If some operations are not exactly military in nature, I would suppose a name-change to the page is the easy solution.
• The reason to be inclusive is that this listing is a sort of "Vertical (or is it call Horizontal?) History" showing things that were happening at about the same time and place, that is to show a relationship that a more strictly thematic listing might not highlight. "Oh look, the SS was doing this while the Allies did that." "The CIA was doing this while the Indians were doing that."
• Certainly it is important to leave some stuff out. We have both stood foursquare against including the names of 'things.' (U-Boat, Checkpoint Charlie)
• Does this help in any way?

Paul, in Saudi 16:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that 9 FAA personnel were summarily executed and two were Kiwis: http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Navy-a5.html Regards, Grant | Talk 07:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention to argue about it, it was more like a question to you. But you're absolutely right. I forgot they use the word 'motorway' in the UK while they use 'highway' in the US. I Actually like the British English better and as I am not a native English speaker, I can't do anything but agree with you. I didn't know either that in the UK 'highway' is used for all public roads. So lets make it 'road' again:) Greetings! Wikifalcon

Unfortunately the image you looked at is the one I'd already changed. Most WWII articles seem to be using the 1957 ensign instead of the 1921 one.--Caranorn 17:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep the problem is mostly with anyone clicking on the flag to see a larger version and then finding themselves in front of the wrong one... I'd never noticed either, though I probably wouldn't have known the difference either.--Caranorn 21:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I'd like to, I can't block anyone: I'm not an admin. For someone vandalising after a final warning, you can report them at the please-block-this-**** page here. For anon IPs, particularly if they're from schools, only use this for ongoing vandalism. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 21:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folks at 137. There is absolutely no problem with your edits; after all, I'am not a native English speaker, so it's quite possible I can miss some punctuations, edit a text with typos or with grammar mistakes. Thank you and best regards.

DagosNavy 16:15, 31 March 2007

Concerning your: (Undid revision 118934656 by Mohonu (talk) reverted as last edit removed most of article)

I didn't remove the article, I only transferred it to Addu Atoll, which is the Atolls true name. The introduction of code-letter names has been a source of much puzzlement and misunderstandings, especially among foreigners. Many people have come to think that the code-letter of the administrative atoll is its new name and that it has replaced its geographical name. Under such circumstances it is hard to know which is the correct name to use.

As a reference I always quote relevant Maldivian sources, like M. Luthfee and Hasan Maniku, which are local historians and geographers with clear ideas about names in the Maldives. Mohonu 06:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Folks. No, I'm not offended by your revert, not at all, in fact, I'm sorry for not replying any sooner, it's slipped my mind I guess.

According to German wikipedia [6] Leberecht Maas was either bombed or mined, while Max Schultz was mined.

However, according to this German encyclopedia [7] Leberecht Maas was bombed and Max Schultz definitively mined and this German encyclopedia [8] both were bombed. All in all I'm left quite unsure of what the official opinion really is. Manxruler 23:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folks! I think your recent change to the Supercharge heading is wrong. As I understand it the original left hook through the gap by NZ Corps was part of the original Pu