This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SuperDeng (talk | contribs) at 03:18, 27 April 2006 (A request for comment has been made against you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

Battle of the Ardennes: Casualties

0955 Hours, 2 April 2006

So you don't think we should use the US Army's casualty figures for the Battle of the Bulge?

Why?

Please return to the page and restore US Army's casualty figures.

Philippsbourg

Loss of HMS Hood

Kurt,

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

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

Regards,

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

Images on Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

Talk:Gneisenau class battlecruiser

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

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

Removal of information

Why are you removing the off-road speed from the infobox tables of German World War II vehicles? --Carnildo 03:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

German battlecruiser Scharnhorst

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

Image:Schleswig-Holstein..jpg

Stalingrad Soviet casualties

You seem to keep changing the Soviet losses into the millions. There is, however, a sentence in the present text that says that "Soviet military losses were more than 750,000 (some statistics cite up to one million or more)". Shouldn't that be enough? Kazak 01:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

T-34

Dear Kurt, you keep removing my statement that the decision to introduce a new generation of new tanks influenced the quantity of German tank production in a significant way. You also argued on the Talk page of T-34 that allied bombing was more important. And then you removed that argumentation. I can understand that: after all the very real fact that bombing slowed tank production doesn't mean producing new tank types didn't also :o). But do you have another point to make instead? Most writers think that the change to the Tiger, Panther and Tiger II must have had an influence, both because of the inevitable costs of reorganisation and because of the fact that the per unit costs increased considerably. Of course, as regards the influence on the German fighting power, this was compensated (in part or fully — there is obviously no consensus on this) by the increased fighting abilities of the new tanks. But if the T-34 had not existed, the increase in efficiency would have been very marginal as most of these abilities would have been redundant: you don't need a Panther to destroy a BT-7!

Greetings

--MWAK 12:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The same content has been removed again. Since the T-34's importance lies partly in the response if forced on the Germans, I would say the content should be restored or, at minimum, discussed on the talk page before removal. DMorpheus 17:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Denmark Strait

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

Tirpitz

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

Hi! Thanks for your response. I assume we’re talking only about Operation Catechism on 12th November 1944. I’ve been chasing and comparing sources on the net. The following is based upon them. There are some differences (always will be) but what is not disputed is that no RAF bomber was attacked by any Luftwaffe fighter. That sounds correct as the Lancasters were significantly dis-armed (one turret and some armour removed) and, against FW190s, casualties should have been far greater than one, with damage to surviving aircraft. Sources then disagree: some say all aircraft returned safely, some say one was brought down by flak. I would tend to accept the latter as there are also details of a bomber crashing in Sweden. The failure of JG5 at Bardufoss to protect Tirpitz is indisputable: Tirpitz sank. But, why? It appears that the fighter wing had only just been transferred to Bardufoss, as a response to the previous attack on 29th October and crews were still training for their new FW190 aircraft. They were restricted to local defence and emergencies. Again sources differ. Some say that JG5 was not informed in time. Others say that Bardufoss claimed that it was under attack, which would support your source’s claim of a planned diversion. (No sources that I’ve seen say that this was an planned diversion – just misinterpretation.) What then confuses is the statement I’ve seen of Bardufoss' report that there were planes overhead. Another site points to weaknesses in the German air defence system in the area, so this probably contributed. I’ve also seen, but cannot reference, a statement that Luftwaffe commander(s) were court-martialled.

In summary, I still hold to the view that the Luftwaffe failed to protect the Tirpitz – it sank! Given that the sources for no fighter “kills” come from RAF and veteran sources, I would accept them – after all they would know who did and didn’t return. This can only be due to the Luftwaffe not being ready, probably due to their recent arrival in the area and their new aircraft, coupled with the wish to defend their own base (but why not airborne?). One source states that the fighters were scambled, but too late.

Here are the main on-line sources I've used:

• http://groups.msn.com/BritishNavy/sinkingofthetirpitz.msnw
• http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/history/tiropercatechism.html
• http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/tirpitz.html
• http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/tirpitz.html
• http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/overlander/attack.htm

Last point: it would have helped if you had left a reason for your deletion at the time. I think that there will be enough common ground to reinstate a version of the deleted text. I’ll continue looking for info. Regards, Folks at 137 11:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Tin-Foil Hat Brigade

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

Italian involvement in Battle of France

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

Peru v Kriegsmarine

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

German World War II destroyers

Hi Kurt! Just a few (!) queries on your changes to this article. I'm considering all your changes as one block.

• 1) What was your problem with this from the intro? This article aims to give a "thumbnail" of the various classes that were built and planned, and also of the individual ships. It was intended to make clear that detailed operational histories won't be included.
• 2) In the section on "Zerstörer 1934", the phrase "They were not good ships." was changed to "They were not very good ships." In normal speech, there is little or no difference in meaning. (English is an odd language!) What did you mean to say?
• 3) In "Zerstörer 1936A "Narvik"", you removed In practice, this calibre of armament proved to be unecessarily heavy and ineffective. and class was unsatisfactory and this worsened when the heavier twin gun mountings were installed. Why remove? Both statements are supported at
• 4) In "Zerstörer 1936B", you removed When the instability caused by the 15cm twin turret became apparant... Why? Again the statement is supported (see above).
• 5) Be careful of tagging substantive changes as "minor" even if they are small. Some "rogue" editors attempt to hide changes in this way. Personally I only do so when fixing spelling, punctuation or grammar and not affecting the meaning.

Look forward to your reply. Folks at 137 13:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Three Reverts in Operation Barbarossa on March 29 2006

You have reverted the Operation Barbarossa page three times today. Please note there is an ongoing discussion of the very point you are reverting on the discussion page. Please join in the discussion, since we have no really good solution to the problem yet. Reverting against consensus will not help us solve the problem. Thanks. DMorpheus 17:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block on Operation Barbarossa

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with you

Almost all your edits you have ever done in wiki allways get reverted, has it never crossed your mind that you are wrong?

Stop changeing things

Stop rounding numbers Stop deleting important parts and It is clear that what you see as the "truth" everyone else sees as wrong

And stop on the winter war you deleted the most important part that if it hade continued a few more days Finland would have been destroyed.

It is clear that everything you touch turns into poison so stop changeing things!

(Deng 04:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

Reverting is not minor

Please stop marking your reversions at Heinkel He 111 as minor edits. Please review the minor edit policy. --Xanzzibar 10:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to repeat, again, that reversions and changes - particularly when they're part of an edit war like at Heinkel He 111 - are not minor edits. Please stop marking them as such. --Xanzzibar 15:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Heinkel He 111

Please bear in mind that these stats come from an early version of the He 111, probably a P-version. They had the less powerful DB 601A (more correct would be a subversion like 601B or 601C) and were not able to carry that many bombs of the later versions with Jumo 211 engine. If you want the 3-ton version please use the stats from this specific later version and be sure all other specifications match.--Denniss 12:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 3 hours

For personal attacks and edit warring with User:SuperDeng. He has been blocked for a week for his attacks on you and others. He has been blocked a few times in the past, which is why he's gotten a longer block. Please don't take this to mean that attacking others is ok. Thanks. --Woohookitty 10:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop posting on my page

It is you who never gives any sources when you change numbers. In wiki if a number has been sourced then you must give another source before you change it The kursk numbers have been sourced with atleast 5 diffrent books all edits made by you are always without sources. If you change a sourced number without useing a source then that is vandalism and that is exactly what you are doing, so stop posting on my page, every page that you alter numbers have been sourced. Read here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability and you will see what rules apply

The policy

Do you see what it says? (Deng 09:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

Sicily

May I ask why you made the changes to outcome of the battle, major participants, and ranks of commanders?Bridesmill 22:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

SuperDeng

Unfortunately, I've done all that I can with him. The last time I blocked him, I got a bunch of supporters of his in my ear. --Woohookitty 14:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

page name

please discontinue with changing the name to the article Littorio class battleship. See it's talk page.--TheFEARgod 14:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Your english is poor

Stop criticising my english when it is clear that you are the one makeing the major mistakes. Your personal attacks are so ridiculous when one reads what you have written. And any fool with half a brain can see that you are makeing major errors in any article where you do not just delete everything you see. Let us look at your sentance from here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=First_Battle_of_Sirte&action=history

"Whetever Italians took casualties during the battle or is not certain"

The word "whetever" dosent exsist

It should be THE Italians

The word "or" should not be there

And how are you going to respond to me pointing out your mistakes, let me guess with more vandalism and personal attacks ;)

THE WORD "WHETEREVER" DOSENT EXSIST

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

http://dictionary.reference.com/

Look in the dictionary the word dosent exsist.

AND YOUR GRAMMAR IS ALL WRONG

AND DONT POST YOUR JUNK ON MY PAGE, this is the second time I have asked you not to post on my page (Deng 20:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC))

Most you edits have gotten reverted by others. Out of all your edits you have ever done 98% have goten reverted by others 1% reverted by me and 1% are not vandalism. Stop changeing numbers and removeing key paragraphs and people will stop reverting your edits. It is as simple as that. And dont post your junk on my page. (Deng 15:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC))

You are the only child here and this is proven by that you say others make misstakes when in fact it is you who makes grammatical misstakes all the time. Ofcurse you have problems reading what others say when it is you who dosent master english. For example in this sentance "Italy's joining to Allies is mentioned in the text" it should be WITH THE and not TO, this proves yet again that you are the only child here because you go around makeing misstakes like the misspelling of the word "whether" which you cant spell your version is "WHETEREVER". And your constant acts of vandalism which was proven by me many times. Let us not forget the article about the German battleship Schleswig-Holstein when your own and only sources proved that you were a vandal or have you forgoten that your own source proved that you were wrong like you always are? The only source you ever gave proved that your crew number was wrong or have you forgotten that fact.

You always forget that almost all of your edits get reverted by others and When I prove that you are wrong then ofcurse you call my a child because what is left for the vandal to do except call other people names?

I have said it before and will say it again STOP VANDALIZING EVERY PAGE YOU SEE. You remove sourced facts change numbers without sources and the only time you have ever given a source it proved you wrong. Stop your constat acts of vandalism in every article and no one will revert what you do. It is not the place of others to prove you wrong it is your place to prove them wrong to state sources real sources and not just pull numbers out of your ass and say that all books are wrong. Stop your constant acts of vandalism. And dont infect my page with your vandalism this is the third time I have asked you to stop vandalizing my page. (Deng 20:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

Battle of Königsberg editing

Hello,

It would seem you keep on editing Battle of Königsberg and removing mention of "Nazi Germany". I strongly recommend you read the article's talk page where this point is explained before performing any other attempt of removing it. Thanks for attention. -- Grafikm_fr 18:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A request for comment has been made against you =

A request for comment has been made against you (Deng 03:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC))