Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:19, 2 March 2006

Welcome to the Shanes Talk Page. You can use the box above, or manually enter new messages at the end of this page

• Please sign your post by typing: ~~~~
• Sometimes I answer on your talk page, sometimes I answer here.

• Messages from before June 30, 2005, are archived here.
• Messages from July 1 to December 31, 2005, are here

Quick draw...

You beat me by one second. Damn! See you around :) —thames 03:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Nogomatch, which you just reverted

Does anybody know why that page gets link spammed all the freakin' time? I've been thinking for about a week about semi-protecting, because all anonymous contributions seem to be spam or 68.39.174.238 (a.k.a. the Comcast guy who refuses to get an account) reverting it. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:48, Jan. 4, 2006

No, I have no idea why that obscure page gets spammed. I just noticed it by coincidence. Shanes 07:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please dont leave open

Please close the article. (Louis Braille) I don't think you realise the sort of traffic we're talking about here. Just a few mins could seriously damage the Wiki's reputation. Theone3 11:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I do realise it. But thanks for your opinion. Shanes 11:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a waste of your time and many other peoples time to leave the page unprotected. Furthermore, it creates an ugly impression for new visitors when they arrive in great numbers as they are via the prominent Google link today. Protect the page or sprotect it at least. Hu 12:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've commented on this on talk. But if one more request a protect, I'll give in and sprpotect it again. Shanes 12:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you revert?

How do you revert edits? Am I capable of doing it?

You go via the History or the Diff links to the most recent good version. Then click on that version to get to an article page which will have "older revision" and "newer revision" in small print below the title. Then click Edit the Page. You will see a red flag indicating you are about to edit an old version. Type a little summary in the Edit summary box like which version you are reverting to or which vandal you are reverting or do as I do and have text cued up to substitute the user IP address for X into the following text into the Edit summary: "Revert ] (]) vandal". Then press save page. Hu 12:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Theone3 14:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

sProtection for Braille

I think it's been proven that it's needed. There's just too much traffic! I need sleep, but I'm to worried about this article being vandalised! x_x --Theone3 14:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The message you sent me to IP ending in 178.

Wow! thank you I was freaking out, I was trying to remove my edit but didn't know how, this is the first time click on something in wikipedia.

Sorry if I caused any trouble.

=) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.245.178 (talk • contribs)

Stalin article

In Aug 1968 I was a young man. At that time I was in a Czech pub in New York called the Praha. The Czech-Americans were crying when they heard that Soviet tanks were killing innocent civilians in the streets of their homeland. I will never forget that hot August night.--Berndd11222 02:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Vand

Hi, thnx for the revert on my user page :) Joe I 00:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

How....

Im looking for general opions on Adolf Hitler and other world leaders of the 20s, 30s etc, such as Stalin, but have no ideaa how to go about asking on talk pages, etc. What do I do? xx--X xxlife is beautifulxx x 21:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) England

I know this is directed at Shanes, but I'd like to ask the following... What kind of opinions are you looking for, specifically, and why? Just curious... -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 21:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism- A reccomendation

Shanes: In my opinion all changes to articles should be reviewed and posted by administrators like yourself. The revert that you had to do recently on Stalin is a perfect example of the problem I am seeing on Misplaced Pages. A bunch of ballbusters could create a tag team that could keep you busy all day doing reverts.--Berndd11222 15:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

We are busy all day doing reverts ;-). But that's just the price we have to pay for being an open encyclopedia. It would be more work to review every edit people do beforehand. Though some pages often are protected from edits by new users (like George W. Bush, the most vandalized article on wikipedia), in general it's better to just accept some vandalism here and there, revert them when they hapen (admins can revert with just a single click), and enjoy the advantage of having lots of new users joining the project because the threshold is low since it's easy to get starting with people seeing the edit go live when they make it. I made my first edit on wikipedia some years ago before I signed up a username, just some spelling fix, but if it had been much more complicated than it was, I'm not sure I would have ever made that first edit. So, there are both good and bad sides by being this open. And I belive the good outweighs the bad. See Misplaced Pages:Replies to common objections for more on this and other stuff. Shanes 16:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What did I do?

I didn't do anything wrong to Misplaced Pages. I added to a few articles and put useful information. I haven't even edited anything today. 24.239.106.17 16:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw the contributions page, and I only edited the Battle of Fulford. I am on a different computer and I think someone else was on my IP. I just signed in. Rshu 16:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that hapens alot with shared IP's. A few hours ago there some kids were making childish edits from that IP. Sorry if you felt my message was directed at you and that I was insulting you or anything. It wasn't, and I didn't mean to. Keep up the good work! Shanes 16:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it happened to me once before on the same IP. I thought that the anti-vandal squad was just plain crazy. :-) Rshu 18:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Game theory

Thank you for catching that! :-) You're entirely correct - the block was out of line. I misinterpreted the edit history in game theory, thinking that it was actually the IP adding the edit instead of removing it. To add to this confusion, an eariler IP removed something, and afterwards another established editor interpreted that as "vandalism". Good to know there are other Wikipedians keeping an eye on these things. Very much appreciatedl - hence the WikiThanks. See you around! --HappyCamper 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

{{sp-sprotected}}

Hi there. In the TfD for this, you said we should keep it because we need a small template for long-term protection. But, as I said in the debate, we already have {{sprotected-small}}, which doesn't have the misleadingly titled name of the nominated template. Indeed, the notion of a semi-permanent semi-protect should not be enshrined in a template as there is no basis in policy for it. For George W. Bush we should simply use the correctly named and worded {{sprotected-small}}, don't you agree? -Splash 15:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late respond, been sick. Yeah, I'm fine with {{sprotected-small}} and wouldn't have voted to keep {{sp-sprotected}} if it had existed back then. I agree with everything you say. Shanes 07:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute WW2 casualties

Hi:
Somebody posted a sign saying WW2 Casualties are disputed. He says "German Casualties are way too high" If he can't explain why he is disputing the posted number and back it up with a source the sign needs to come down ASAP--Berndd11222 20:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you in that. But see respond on your talk for more, disputes on that page are to be expected. Shanes 07:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Kozhikode page

Howdy, I noticed some usual page moves by User:Praveenpoil (specifically moving Kozhikode to a page Kozhikode (Designed by praveen Kumar R.P Poilkave Beach)). Someone has subsequently recreated the Kozhikode article, and I'm not sure how to move the page back without history. The user has been adding his resume to a variety of talk pages as well, which makes me suspect he is not malicious but rather new to WP. Many thanks if your could help out with this. (I spotted you were online doing recent changes). --Hansnesse 19:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I have moved the article with its history back now. Shanes 19:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

An apology to you.

Dear Shanes,

I was the unsmart person who did the "f u all noobs". I am terribly sorry and promise on my oath that i will be more mature. Sorry and your a good contribuiter to Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Sincerily, Gators222

An apology to you P.S.

Please acnowlage my sorry by leaving it on my talk or page. i really need to hear it from you as well as the others who banned me so i will fell better. --Gator 02:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Gators222

Thank you

Thank you for replying my message. I, at first, thought only i would see it as my notes and that i was just jokin around with my self. Now i understand. Thank you for your time and you have some impressive barn stars --Gator Fan 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Gators222--Gator Fan 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The labia pictures on Dixie

I would never ever have said that the human body is disgusting, but it can be shocking to appear out of context. Thank you for continuing to revert the article. Truth and justice will win out. It really is offensive and frightening... --EuropracBHIT 01:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC).

luke ramsden

while i understand why you did that, i purposely put the article the main wiki site as i it actually about some work i have had published and felt i should promote. Bohemian tosspot 13:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User talk:129.97.236.157

Just a suggestion: perhaps you'd like to start with test1 or test2 before you jump to BV. Even if the person is a blatant vandal, you've got to at least warn them nicely before you threaten blocking. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 00:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This was no ordinary vandal, and he surely wasn't testing. I'm usually among the most patient rc-patrollers when it comes to warning vandals, but this person was making threats that most people would say warranted an immediate block. And the bv warning isn't that unpolite. But thanks for your oppinion. Shanes 00:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Embassy or consulate

It appears that the main Danish Embassy and 1 Ambassador are based in Damascus with offices in Beirut, Lebanon and Amman, Jordan. Does this make their offices consulates? Because Lebanon and Jordan are independent countries, I think the Danish offices must be considered embassies. I could be wrong though....--68.217.92.143 21:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just going by what all the news-agencies in Norway (press/TV), and a few I checked in Denmark was reporting. Reading the link you gave me makes me unsure, though. They do seem to call it an embassy there, but on the other hand the ambassadors address mentioned on that site is Damaskus, Syria. http://www.ambassade.dk/dklebanbeie.php3 which makes the Beirut office look like more of a consulate since an embassy should be where the ambassadors office is. But I may be on thin ice here, I'm no expert in these subtle differences. Shanes 21:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you based on to call the official representation of Denmark in Lebanon a consulate. Both are sovereign countries, and the building is in the capital of Lebanon. The Danish embassy's address belongs to a Christian neighborhood in Beiruit, as the BBC described. DHN 08:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Smaller countries like Denmark don't have embassies in every nation of the world, but they often have smaller consulates spread around with a General consul in office headed by a "real" ambassador in an embassy in a neighbouring country, in this case Syria. But, I'm not sure what the case is here and how wrong it is, if at all, to call the Beirut office an embassy. I hope someone can find out. Shanes 08:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hi there. I just have a quick question that needs answering. Is there any tag I can use that would make this image keepable? User:Denniss has tagged a tonne of images related to the Canadian Forces for deletion, and I was wondering if any of them were salvagable. Thanks, Ouuplas 05:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know. U.S.-military images are everywhere, and I believe they are all in public domain by some law about governmental work being there. But I can't see any tag for canadian military photos, and I'm not at at all an expert on this. There's Category:Image copyright tags, and maybe something there can be used. But in the end it all depends on the actual copyright and conditions for redistribution as given by the Canadian Forces (or whoever took the photo). Maybe ask on Misplaced Pages talk:Image copyright tags where I'd guess people more knowledgable than me on stuff like this hang out. Sorry that I can't be of more help here. Shanes 06:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help! Ouuplas 20:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Shanes, I'd like to apologise for the following edit, and the parallel edits on the talk page. I was out of line, and feel bad about it. I'd like to apologise for not assuming good faith to you :( I wasn't very nice to you in that comment, and I'm sorry that you bore the brunt of my bad temper! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

:-) Yeah, I think I'm having a crappy day - too busy. Got pretty spikey. Haven't had a chance to look at the article - do you think it is FAC worthy? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know about that. Maybe later. I suspect broad interest sports articles being harder to get to FA status since so many people are editing and having strong opinions on what to include which makes things messy and decissions on what to include time-consuming. I'd guess it's easyer when one or two good editors are practically taking a quasi-ownership over an article and sees it through the prosess, which is easyer for more obscure and not so much current topics. Maybe when things have calmed down. But for a newly written article, it's quite good already IMO. Shanes 08:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell me something?

Do I have a box that says something about Florida? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gators222 (talk • contribs)

I don't know. Try look at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes and the pages linked to there. Shanes 03:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

H5N1 on main page, in the news

It links to H5N1. It does not link to Global spread of H5N1 whose "February" subsection contains:

February 7 2006

• OIE/FAO Reference Laboratory for avian influenza and Newcastle disease in Padova, Italy, confirmed highly pathogenic avian influenza virus subtype H5N1 in Nigerian isolates from samples taken January 16.

February 8 2006

• The Nigeria situation is announced to the world. Nigeria is the first African country to have an H5N1 outbreak confirmed. It affected a commercial chicken farm (owned by Nigeria's sports minister, Saidu Samaila Sambawa) in which ostriches and geese were also kept, in Jaji village in Igabi administrative division (local government area or LGA) in Kaduna State in Nigeria. The control measures said to be used include killing poultry, quarantining poultry, poultry movement control, and disinfection; however there are complaints that these measures are in fact not being carried out. 40,000 out of 46,000 caged chickens died of H5N1 despite being treated by their owner with broadspectrum antibiotics. The remaining 6,000 have been killed to try to control spread of the disease. OIE press release OIE initial report OIE followup report #1

February 9 2006

• Four new farms in Nigeria are confirmed to have H5N1 outbreaks: two in Kano State, one in Plateau State and a second farm in Kaduna State.
• The United States, OIE and WHO are sending experts, supplies and money to Nigeria to help with this H5N1 crisis.
• H5N1 flu in Africa is expected to spread and create a very severe situation.
• Farmers in northern Nigeria are rushing to sell dead chickens at cut-price rates before government bans are put into place. Promiced measures to contain the disease are still not in place.
• European countries are facing an increased probability that spring bird migrations from Africa will bring H5N1.
• Countries in Africa near to Nigeria are responding with "dread" and import restrictions.

Just thought you should know. WAS 4.250 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, and I considered linking it to that article, but I found the H5N1 to be better on giving background information on the bird flu virus, something I imagine many people will find interesting and educational to read. The Global spread of H5N1 reads more like a diary. But that's just me and I see value in including that one, too. Maybe there's a way to include both links by refrasing the ITN sentence? Perhaps include the word "spreads" somewhere and link it to the global spread article? Any sugestion? Shanes 22:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes, H5N1 is the better article. (before you linked it anyway)
2. I prefer the unwashed masses to scrawl their crayons on Global spread of H5N1. It reads more like a diary for a reason.
3. I believe I'm being more humorous than bitter, but then I lie to myself a lot, so what do I know?
4. Suggestion: "The first African case of the deadly bird flu is reported in Nigeria in the continuing global spread of H5N1. WAS 4.250 01:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverts on Islam

Shane,

Why do you keep refreshing the Islam article? You cannot claim any religion is the largest or smallest.. It is simply un-factutal.. Heresay as they call it.. I vote to remove this line in addition to saying it is the fastest growing.. This is also not factual... I would say the fastest growing would be atheism or the like...

Please explain your actions so that i can understand your argument.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.63.203 (talk • contribs)

Answered on anons talk. Shanes 03:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

137.92.44.214

This anon has repeatedly added unsources accusations into John Howard and has clearly violated 3RR and should be blocked. Xtra 04:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've blocked the IP for 24 hrs now. Shanes 04:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My user page

Thanks for that! Raven4x4x 06:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Losses

Soviet military losses were 8,668,000 Prof Richard Overy went into the archives after the fall of the soviet union and researched alot about ww2.

Why did you change back the nummber to 10.6 million and then point out that in the discussion it says 8.6 now that makes no sense to me.

The name of the column clearly says military deaths and the military deaths are 8,668,000 not 10.6 million.

Deng 10-02-06 08.20 CET

I reverted your change because I believe the numbers you (pr Prof Richard Overy) aren't including all the casualties accounted for and commented on in the footnote to the Soviet losses. It's a matter of what to count and what not. And explaining it.

This is a very comlicated topic. We have to keep the numbers straight and make sure we don't count any casualties twice or neglect counting some. This would make the total wrong. There are lots of things complicating matters: There are issues with what should be considered Soviet losses (the borders and consequently the population and what are/were considered Soviet people and forces has changed), and there's the issue with losses in the purges, missing/killed POW's, killed partisans (are they military death, or not), etc.

We simply have to carefully explain in footnotes what we include in the numbers we list. The numbers as they were with footnotes as made by User:Berndd11222 (who has done a tremendous job in creating this page) are consistant and extremely well documented. He really knows his stuff. Believe me. That is not to say that they might contain errors (these numbers are after all estimates), but if we make changes we also need to change the notes explaining what are included as well as carefully cite the source. As it is now, you just changed the number while keeping the note explaining what they included the same, and that has to be wrong.

If you read the note linked to above, maybe you could comment on how they differ from the one you have in what they include? Do the Overy-numbers include missing/killed POW's, for instance? What about the 500.000 partisan losses as documented in G.I. Kirosheev Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Are they explecitly included in Prof Overys numbers? And so on. Thanks! Shanes 08:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Uhm everything is right except the nummber look military loses are 8,668,000 these are people who joined the red army red air force red navy and all the special forces like nkvd and smersh and what not if a partisan was a member of the army/navy/airforce/special forces before he became a partisan and died whilst a partisan then yes he is there but if he was a partisan without ever joining the army navy air force or special forces then no he isnt there. Also 8.7 died yes but out of those 4 million were in captivity so in the notes on the page there has been a mix up. First 8,668,00 died period. So many MILITARY DEATHS were there during the war not 10.6 anything else but that nummber is not military deaths. It is very simple I dont understand why you dont understand. If you use the word military deaths in the column the the proper nummber is 8,668,000 and nothing else. Now what part do you have a problem with?

Also this article Red Army has an eastern front part which clearly gives nummbers. And they give a nice source. Now with all of this info why do you still believe that 10.6 military deaths happened.

(Deng 12:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

Why no Reply?

(Deng 12:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

I changed it as agreed upon but the footnotes if you look at them they dont really say that the change is wrong or that the change is right they are kinda neutral and correct so that is another reason why i cant see why this wasent done before. But maybe you read the footnotes diffrently and if so please tell me.

(Deng 09:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC))

65.191.64.103

Shanes, I am not disputing your call, but I'd like to understand the process I should follow to deal with this vandal. I reported 65.191.64.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as soon as I saw his latest edit, about 12 hours after it happened. He had made the exact same edit (using 198.143.230.26 which is a sockpuppet) only 15 hours prior to the second one. He has been making the same edit (entering a fictitious/unknown name under "notable people") for weeks. Please let me know what can be done to deal with this person if a vandal block is not appropriate. Thanks, sys < in 11:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. sys < in

Thanks again! sys < in 10:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Blatant 3RR vio

Please see the Jesus page and block User:Robsteadman for completely destroying the 3RR rule with now more than 7 or 8 reverts. Thanks.Gator (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I see he is blocked now which probably means that you found WP:AN3 and which I hope means that I don't have to look into it any further myself. Shanes 03:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A WW2 page mysteriously gone?

Hi Shanes! You are a sysop right? Don't know your powers, but this WW2 page seems to have disappeared mysteriously:

• List of people associated with World War II

There's no redirection and no mention of it on the talk page:

• Talk:List of people associated with World War II

I have tried to find the assumed new replacement article, but can't find any. Now there are ugly red links in Template:World War II and elsewhere. :( If you solve the mystery, please tell me on my talk page. Like to know what happened.

Cheers and regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 16:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the info, Shanes! Can't say I have an opinion on the voting yet, since I don't remember the contents of the article. But the reasons for deletion seemed reasonable. However, I would very much appreciate if you could restore a version of it, as you proposed. Whenever you have time, you could restore it in my sandbox (User:Dna-webmaster/Sandbox), please but it at the bottom, or if you restore it elsewhere, please tell me where. Thanks a lot again! Regards, --Dna-Dennis 11:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! Unbelievable speed! --Dna-Dennis 11:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

How...

How do I make user boxes. You have some and I thought you might be able to help me please. If you could just tell me what to type, ill tell you that it will be for me to make a user box for florida gators and pantera.--Gators222 00:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Gators222

Silat USA

are you removing 'Silat USA' from this page? if so why?

This listing is completely correct. It was listed here long before WaliSongos was listed. This is silly. I tried compromising but then you delete the listing.

I like Walisongos. I have no problems with WaliSongos. so what is the problem?

how can we resolve this?

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.30.97 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what delete you are refering to. Is it on the Silat page? I have not deleted any such thing from that page myself (my only delete there was some obvious test-edit). But if you are in disagreement with other editors over what the page should contain, I sugest you take it up on talk:Silat and explain it there and in the Edit summary when you make additions. Shanes 05:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank You...

I am gonna put on some stuff, if you could, look at my talk page in a sec.--Gators222 00:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Gators222

Greek-American page

I think he is a great DJ and a good example to Greeks everywhere. Down here in North Carolina they think Greeks should only work in kitchens. I have called him on the air to tell him about wikipeida and he says he is flattered that I think enought of him to include him. Sorry for any hard feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfrikaUSA (talk • contribs)

99942 Apophis

The problem with the physical values you gave is that they are unknown to within factors of several to tens. Based on the optical data and the marginal radar astrometry, we can say that Apophis is between 150 m and 400 m in size. This means that the volume is unknown to an order of magnitude, and thus that the mass is unknown to a factor of 20 or so (we cannot constrain the density because there is no composition data). Gravity and escape velocity are uncertain by large factors as well.

The only physical data we have on the object are that the period is long (likely several days) and that it may be fairly elongated (in August the radar return was almost twice as high as we expected, suggesting a higher cross-sectional area). Average surface temperature is a function of the elongation and the unknown surface, so we can't say too much about that either.

I am a graduate student at Caltech, working with the Asteroid Radar Group at JPL. I assisted with the August 2005 radar run on Apophis, but am not the best person to ask about it. Jon Giorgini of the JPL Solar System Dynamics group and Lance Benner of the Radar Group are. Sometime in the next few months there will be a paper on the dynamics of Apophis' orbit and in May there will be one more radar astrometry run. This will probably be the last until the better oppurtunities in the 2010's.

Michaelbusch 17:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Asteroid Physical Data

The NEO page takes an average value based on all of the data for an object. In the case of Apophis, we did not resolve it with the radar, so we do not know the size. The change in radar return does not imply a significantly larger diameter, merely that the asteroid is elongated and the diameter estimates from photometry are averages over the surface.

If there is interest in the basics of estimating physical properties, I can post an article. I will query the astronomy project.

Michaelbusch 01:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

ww2 aircraft losses paragraph

You have just reverted a paragraph from the ww2 casualties page, the reason you gave was unsourced claims:

First modification was about Luftwaffe losses: I said the losses given in the paragraph are not correct they simply represent the German production during the war, source "The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Third Reich" by Richard Overy

German aircraft production statistics

1939 8.295 1940 10.247 1941 11.776 1942 15.409 1943 24.807 1944 39.807 1945 7.540

total: aprox 117.000 aircraft

What that paragraph is claiming if left in the current form, is that Luftwaffe lost all its production during the war, which is a baseless claim and a distorsion of historical reality.

According to W. Murray, between May 1940 and June 1944 Luftwaffe lost 40099 aircraft on all fronts, to all causes. This number includes 11235 bombers and 13732 fighters (again lost on all fronts, to all causes).

These numbers come from a chart that gives the losses per 6 months intervals found in "The Luftwaffe, 1933-45: Strategy for Defeat" by Williamson Murray, page 304

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1574881256/qid=1140357991/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-5400071-2179313?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

It is highly unlikely that in the remaining months of war Luftwaffe lost more than 15.000 aircraft, considering that from fall of 1944 Luftwaffe hardly flew anymore, due to lack of fuel. The total losses are probably around 55.000 aircraft, the total of 116.000 aircraft given now is absurd.

Second modification was about USAAF, USN and Marines losses:

USAAF lost 65164 planes during the war (with the breakdown given), source "The Army Air Force Statistical Digest", the official USAAF statistical records made public after the war, check this link for a page from the volume, regarding exactly the losses:

http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t099.pdf

USN and Marines combined lost 8592 airplanes in combat operations. This number does NOT include the airplanes lost in continental US and during shipping to combat theatres. Source for the number is again oficial statistics: "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics World War II" published in 1946, you can read the pdf here:

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

What is the best course of action to see these modifications on the page? As is it is right now the paragraph is way far from the true losses numbers.

Thank you.

ww2 aircraft losses paragraph (cont'd)

I found Luftwaffe's losses numbers:

Between May 1940 and June 1944 Luftwaffe lost 40099 aircraft on all fronts, to all causes. This number includes 11235 bombers and 13732 fighters (again lost on all fronts, to all causes).

These numbers come from a chart that gives the losses per 6 months intervals found in "The Luftwaffe, 1933-45: Strategy for Defeat" by Williamson Murray, page 304

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1574881256/qid=1140357991/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-5400071-2179313?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

It is highly unlikely that in the remaining months of war Luftwaffe lost more than 15.000 aircraft. The total losses are probably around 55.000 aircraft, the total of 116.000 aircraft given now is absurd.

ww2 aircraft losses paragraph (cont'd)

I found Luftwaffe's losses numbers:

Between May 1940 and June 1944 Luftwaffe lost 40099 aircraft on all fronts, to all causes. This number includes 11235 bombers and 13732 fighters (again lost on all fronts, to all causes).

These numbers come from a chart that gives the losses per 6 months intervals found in "The Luftwaffe, 1933-45: Strategy for Defeat" by Williamson Murray, page 304

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1574881256/qid=1140357991/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-5400071-2179313?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

It is highly unlikely that in the remaining months of war Luftwaffe lost more than 15.000 aircraft. The total losses are probably around 55.000 aircraft, the total of 116.000 aircraft given now is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagisterLudi (talk • contribs)

Give us a breakdown of that Nr you copied

Say, what is the breakdown of the number 8.6 million that you copied? How many KIA, dead of accident & disease and MIA? Also how many POWs died in German custody? I bet you can't provide a decent answer.Berndd--64.48.59.25 10:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

time for a pot of black coffee and some fresh air

G. I. Kirosheev Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Greenhill 1997 ISBN 1-85367-280-7 lists

the following official losses ( the data quoted by Overy) Killed in Action and dead of wounds 6,330,000; non combat deaths 556,000. Those are confirmed losses reported to the high command by the fronts. Estimated MIA were 500,000 and estimated POW dead 1.3 million. The grand total was 8.6 million. What a coincidence that this is exactly the same as Axis losses of 8.6 million as reported in Kirosheev. The USSR losses were equal to the Axis on the Eastern front, right or wrong? Pow loses were 1.3 million, right or wrong? Check your numbers before you make a change. Real losses of Pows were about 2.8 million and MIA were 500,000. Add that to 6.9 million confirmed dead and you are at 10.2 million. That does not include losses of Partisans and Milita of 400,000 ( they must be included as military not civilian losses). Berndd--68.236.161.237 13:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

Thanks for your rapid reverting of the main page article today. I was about to do it myself. I've always felt main page articles should be protected because it's like bugs being drawn toward lights. Rlevse 11:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

We try to keep todays FA open for various reasons. Raul has listed most of them here. Shanes 11:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've read that. I buy it only to a point. Main page articles should be protected. Good users like you and I shouldn't have to track down these scum, wasting our time. The day has just started and I've already spent an hour tracking and reporting vandals of my article. One of them put a human penis image on the page. Is that what you want people, especially new users, to see? Rlevse 12:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. But we also don't want them to see protected pages they can't edit. So instead of protecting we try to be good at reverting bad edits whenever they occur. Shanes 13:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Greece

Sorry about that...the edit conflict didn't show up for me so my reverts were a bit off. pschemp | talk 18:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Är du norsk?

Jag är svensk :D

Visste inte du var från Norge, va trevligt ;)

Du jag kan lite info om Norge ----> Världens 3 största Olje exportör

(Deng 01:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Jack Thompson

No offense intended, but the previous statement, while it could have used some minor rewording, was largely accurate. Jack Thompson has never debated with those who disagreed with his views, but verbally attacked those who disagreed with him. And any time a gamer attempts contact, all he responds with really is a collection of bible quotes and insults. I mean, have you ever read his corrsepondence?--Vercalos 08:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The edit I reverted reads as if Jack Thompson is the only one being rude when comunicating. I'll be honest, I'd never even heard about the guy before he started to turn up on my watch list as a frequently vandalised article a few months ago, but I've learned one thing since then, Jack Thompson is not the only one to turn to name calling in this debate. Also: simply labeling something as rude is POV in it self. Just state what someone is saying, and let it be up to the reader wether it's rude or not. That's the wikipedia way. And the statement "No attempt at discorse is ever possible." is also POV and an unsourced claim. Who says that it is impossible? I believe my revert was highly apropriate. Shanes 08:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking it should be re-worded for POV, but kept as it was. Read some of the correspondence he has had with gamers. He has yet to be polite to one, even those who are entirely civil to him.--Vercalos 16:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what reworded for POV but kept as it was means here. The edit I reverted did the opposite IMO. It reworded what was already there to be POV. Let me ask you one thing. Do you think that Thompson and his supporters will agree in that "He has yet to be polite to one, even those who are entirely civil to him"? The answer to that question goes to the heart of whether we can state it or not. If you agree in that Thompson himself don't see his statements as impolite, for us calling them impolite will then be POV, and we can't state it. We'll be taking a side in the debate if we do. And wikipedia shouldn't do that. Shanes 00:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Haydn

Hi Shanes! I had to revert Haydn to a previous version because your good edits were mixed up with those of two vandals (User:Halorocks19 as well as an IP) -- can you please make them again? Thanks much! Antandrus (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

IBM tutorials

Can I please put back the IBM tutorials individualy? We are trying to determine the traffic and interest of each one, to help us determine future commitment by IBM for this type of content.