User talk:AchimKoerver

Assistance
Achim, I can see that there is an entrenched conflict developing here. I believe I can assist you in resolving this entire thing to the mutual benefit of all parties, before it develops into a larger fire. That is, I think I can provide a way by which you will be satisfied at your full citations being preserved, and yet, the other editors will also be satisfied that they may manipulate their text as they will as well. Would you be willing to discuss my idea? Thank you for your time.Wjhonson (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am in the midst of going through your edits now and reviewing the situation. Thank you for your willingness to participate in this dialogue.Wjhonson (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

hello, thanks for your service !! please take a look at SM U-92 - Couldnt this be technical basis for a compromise ? I add the sources as jpegs if I feel uneasy with the changings; everybody is free to add his comments in section "Unauthorized Transcription" I would really appreciate if trekphiler and others would contribute in verifying / creating new articles about merchant / navy vessels involved in the WWI submarine warfare. In this way we could really create something GREAT for wiki users ! --Hans Joachim Koerver 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gone through about half of your contributions. Here is what I think so far.  When you state that you are "reverting to original text" I believe what you mean, is that you misquoted the underlying document originally and are now trying to fix it by quoting it exactly.  If we want exact quotes, then I agree with you, that those should not be changed, however if we want to paraphrase the document, than I think we can use a smoother presentation, instead of a set of choppy sentences.  I'm wondering if your full quotations would not live better on our sister project WikiSource and then could be cited to the articles here?  Just a thought as a possible way forward for you two to work together.  I'll cc him this thought as well, he may be unaware of WikiSource.Wjhonson (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * >> "you misquoted the underlying document originally and are now trying to fix it by quoting it exactly" - Yes, thats correct, --Hans Joachim Koerver 09:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I like what you have done with the presentation method on SM U-92 as an example, showing the actual page images, and then the transcription, to make it clear that what follows is a verbatim transcription of the image, so anyone can verify that for themselves. Looks like a possible way forward, and clarifies what you're doing.  Then any other comment can go into a new section, below that, citing sources which discuss these documents or other related documents from a secondary source perspective.  What do you think?Wjhonson (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree completely, --Hans Joachim Koerver 09:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Compare this to this. The second preserves the information, footnoted to the original source for every fact (except "the Sound", which the original source doesn't explain, & should be left out as a result, IMO), & has a more encyclopedic, lest "listish" quailty. IMO, it's a much better article.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  04:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * SM U-79 by wjhonson is fine. That’s ok for me.
 * SM U-51: there is the next user there doing compilation work. So I will do in whjonson style and add here the original sources too.
 * SM U-65: please feel free to work in your compilation chapter, trekphiler. I will only add the original sources behind that.
 * --Hans Joachim Koerver 14:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * SM U-72 and SM U-73 were also changed into the whjonson style.--Hans Joachim Koerver 16:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well look at this one I just mocked up here. It allows Achim to have the verbatim exact transcription, and Trekphiler to have the flowing prose version as well.  The entire transcription could I suppose be put into a footnote, but that would be a very large footnote.  I suppose typically things like this are put into appendixes, but I've never seen that used here.Wjhonson (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For me it is ok so. --Hans Joachim Koerver 09:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hans for the updates.Wjhonson (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've no real problem with leaving the transcription in, as noted, as a way forward. If we're agreed to leave the transcription, is repop the docs also needed? It's been usual only to include what's been generated by the subject, FWI've seen. This would be my preference.
 * Achim, you're not the only one feeling a need to be right. ;D (I'm very guilty of that at times. ;p) Which is why I've been trying to give benefit of doubt. I hope we aren't getting alienated over this.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  13:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (P.S. Copied from WJ's talk.)
 * hi trekphiler, nice to see you. Yes, idea with tables is great. I also tried out SM U-92 and SM U-51 with grey background colour in a table cell. What do you think about U 51: there is only one image, so "Multiple image" returns error, but als the"image" dosnt help, I cannot reduce the pixel size: Hm, now I started to read the manuals, but sth it doesnt work as you think. --Hans Joachim Koerver 16:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Very attractive. Have a look at the tweaked pipe on Rm40. If you're OK with it now, let's do 'em all that way. If you want to shrink the images, I can try that. 18:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tried a pic resize here. OK? I'm not seeing it much smaller.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Publishing
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A8 UDI  23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted because the article says 'do not change ..' and you deleted it. A8  UDI  23:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * hi, I was the creator of this article, got into a discussion with trekphiler about it, wjhonson proposed us a compromise, which we both accepted, and now I tried to change this page to that. maybe you post this thing to wjhonson ? Then he can revert it to any version he thinks would be ok ? Thanks for your quick intervention, you never sleep at wiki ? :-)
 * "the article says 'do not change ..' " : where can I see this ? I am quite new to Wiki, could you please explain to me ? Thanks, --Hans Joachim Koerver 10:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding SM U-14. SM U-18 and SM U-22

 * Except this isn't what was agreed to. Not by me, anyhow. And I prefer this, 'cause I find the "transcript" format on the U-14 page very distracting.   TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * sorry trekphiler, was mass updating. What do you think of change I did here: SM U-92. This would have several advanteges: looks better, would accelerate enourmously time needed to create an article, offers a good template for c-contributors in "Operations". U-6 to U-25 was a try. Will treat U-14, U-18, U-22 manually, to not delete others contribution. work in progress ... --Hans Joachim Koerver 11:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So, repaired. Please have a look at SM U-14. SM U-18 and SM U-22 were set by admins to your last version. Your last version contains only a deleteion of a half sentence regarding Lusitania of my version before. So if you could reset these two to my last version of yesterday: a) nothing would be lost for the users (the deletion will not get lost), and b) U-6 to U-25 would be in an homogeneous style. I think this would be easier for users, to find themselves in this pages. --Hans Joachim Koerver 13:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * and check SM U-51, the overlapping now corrected. You added a lot of good technical info to this boat, exciting ! --Hans Joachim Koerver 13:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear, it's not the use of the image that troubles me, its the font; I find it distracting. The bigger image is EZr to read, but doesn't help the distraction issue. That's why I preferred the small pic. And I thought the gray BG was a nice touch, BTW. If you wouldn't object to a smaller pic, & resto the transcribed text (with corrections to meet WP's MOS; i.e, much like I changed it), are we good?
 * The spec box was no big; knowing what class she is, I've got a source that's got the spex. (Getting the wikisyntax to behave was enough to make me scream, tho. ;p As usual... ;D )
 * "you never sleep at wiki ?" Yeah, that could be the WP motto. ;D Don't forget, you've got people all over the world. I'm guessing you're in Germany (if so, where, exactly?); that puts us about 8h (I think) apart. Also, a suggestion: fill your userpage. Not a big deal, but it lets you have some personality; a redlink may strike some people as...well, insulting is too strong, but some don't like it. (I don't care, but FYI.) Let me suggest: have a look at the userboxes I stole ;p from everybody, pick a few you like (or go look at the useboxes link), & put up a few. (Personally, I'd say the locator & time link, for a start, so editors coming to your page have some notion where you are & if you're likely to be online/not.) Hope this was some help.
 * Oh, one other thing. I see you're still sometimes omitting your signature ~ . It takes a bit of getting used to, but when you do, it saves a lot of typing, & automatically includes the link to your talk. Also, if you want to personalize your signature, look at "preferences" after you login. (I've changed mine three times, now... ;) ).  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:25 & 23:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, am in Germany, TZ CET, GMT-1. Start slowly to grap wiki. After 20 years of permanent IT revolution not TOO shocking, its nice, but very, very rich functionality. I just stopped learning HTML some years before, and now this -:)) --Hans Joachim Koerver 23:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Then guten tag. I'm just learning the wikisyntax, myself; some of it is pretty finicky, IMO, tho I like a lot of it, & you're absolutely right about functionality. (I'm getting so I want to write offline docs in wiki. ;p)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * hi, very nice your idea to integrate the "Notes: " into the table syntax. I will take this over for all my future edits. Thanks, Trekphiler.

Recent edit conflicts
Achim part of the reason I believe that some people are not understanding what you're doing, can be seen here at your change on SM U-18 history. If you look at that change you'll see that you also removed the entire first paragraph. I'm not sure if you intended to do that or not, but to other editors that looks like you're vandalizing by blanking out a part of the article.Wjhonson (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, true, it looks on the first view like a deletion. I explained it to the users reverting U-22 and U-18, and the one from U-22 accepted this explanation. Yes, a little confusing. I hope, once I am through with setting all articles to the same design (done for U-6 to U-51) this will become more clear. License question solved also, so no more (Newbie) problems. Thanks, --Hans Joachim Koerver 10:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

File:SM U-25 001 Cruises.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:SM U-25 001 Cruises.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * hi, I uploaded it, and can see it clear at SM U-25. It is a image with grey background and text in black, normal and ok for me. --Hans Joachim Koerver 13:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These pages are not owned by you and are presumably subject to someones copyright. By rights I should delete them all because none of them are properly attributed and their source and copyright is unclear. You do not own the rights of a image by copying it and text can be copyrighted so by copying it you are potentially infringing their copyright. I'm sorry but these images cannot remain unless you can show that they are not subject to copyright. Please can you help with this because otherwise I will have to delete all the similar images you uploaded. Spartaz Humbug! 14:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * hi Spartaz. I was granted by the British National Archives to publish this sources in a book. This I did; so as book publisher/author I have the copyright to publish them here. --Hans Joachim Koerver 22:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, then you need to release the copyright of the excerpts your are scanning on a free license to comply with our terms of use of unfree material. Can I ask you to read our copyright rules  and then our page on donating copyrighted material  and if you have any questions about how to ifx the licensing on the image please ask me. Spartaz Humbug! 05:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * hi, I uploaded again 25 already existing images, with a changed info. I think this will be not what you wanted from me ??? I discovered then the "License3 option; but too late. --Hans Joachim Koerver 10:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * hi, I uploaded image "SM U-52 001 Cruises.jpg", with free Common license. Is it ok like this ? What I understand: Nobody can use it elsewhere or change it, without my permission ?--Hans Joachim Koerver 10:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe any British government documents first published over 50 years ago are now public domain. These are British Government documents. If they were released to the public at least 50 years ago I believe they are now out of copyright. In any case, copyright only applies to an exact reproduction : nobody can copyright the actual facts that the documents present. There is nothing to stop the User transcribing them into some other layout himself and hence avoiding any copyright issues. Rod. In reality, there is no way the British government is going to waste its time trying to enforce copyright on these documents. Rcbutcher (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove the link to the deletion discussion from the image description page. It will be automatically removed when the closing administrator makes a decision about this set of images. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, excuse me. Its a shame, that there is no kind of authorization concept at Wiki. This would avoid, that users do, what they technically can do, but they should not do, because somewhere (unknown to them) there is a rule definned, which forbides it. Me I work since 20 years with commercial software, so there is always a hierarchical authorization concept. Not only, because it is more profitable; but simply because it is more effiecient for all, on the long. Yes, I know, anarchy, not hierarchy is your idea here :-))

Sorry, Eskog: I saw that you still propose this file for deletion, even after I had added correctly a license. Dont we have other things to do at Wiki ? Why isnt there a "discussion" users delete each others texts ? Please tell me exactly the reason, why you think that this file is worth deletion ? Another (hidden) rule I do not know ? Do you think this is very helpfull for newbies like me, to try to delete after mysterious, secret rules their contributions ? As I see from your talk page, you are a self-determined specialsist in delteing other peoples images. Very Great contribution to the community. Leave me alone please, Eskog. Its a shame, that we cannot give each others value notes from -10 to +10, to valorize the "help" we receive from others. --Hans Joachim Koerver 13:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to follow the link (from my initial message to you) to join in the discussion and explain why you disagree with my rationale for deletion. However, as I stated above, you should not remove the discussion link from the image page until the discussion is adjudicated and closed by an administrator. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

U-Boat records from Room 40
Hi, are these photocopies of the actual National Archives documents, or your own transcriptions ? I.e. your own typing ? Reason I ask is that I copied the U-19 document to Commons, assuming that it was a photocopy of the original Room 40 document, under Crown Copyright expired. If I'm wrong, and in fact it's your own transcription, I apoligise and will have to alter the copyright on Commons. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * hi, these are manual transcripts of the original documents, published in my book (Room 40, German Naval Warfare, Vol II). I got the Copyright to publish the texts from the British NA, and the Copyright holder of the transcripted texts shown here as an image is me.

Look at SM U_92, there you can see an example of both, original document, and transcription. Yes, please alter everything to Commons, I think this is the most simple and fair clear solution. Everybody can use, but has to ask me. Thanks for your care. It regards SM U-6 to SM U-51: how to do mass changings of license for this photos ? Best regards, --Hans Joachim Koerver 10:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've updated http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SM_U-19_001_Cruises.jpg to show you as the author of the transcription with copyright . I have also noted National Archives, Kew, UK: HW 7/3 as original source & British Government as author of original document. To me this makes it clear who created the original document and who created this transcription image. Maybe we should add a reference to your book in the source as well - may lead to sales. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I changed all my files according to your very good template. --Hans Joachim Koerver 13:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:SM U-22 002 Cruises.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:SM U-22 002 Cruises.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I changed them all. --Hans Joachim Koerver 13:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, someone proposes, to delete ALL my image contributions (which have now the correct license info). Please have a look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_11#File:SM_U-25_001_Cruises.jpg User:AchimKoerver. --Hans Joachim Koerver 12:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Please give the community time to discuss before making more changes
Hi. I think you might be better off letting a few weeks go by before adding more articles. There are a number of reasons.

1) I had the same reaction that TREKphiler did, above. I found the pictures more intrusive than helpful.

2) The image is blurred. Images in Wikipedia should be razor-sharp. (Many photos and scans in Wiki are contributed by professions, and images that don't meet those standards are regularly removed).

3) I don't see that showing an image of typesetting in an old book has historical value. (If it was some original that might be different. E.g., )

4) You have an extensive reference list, as here.. But there's no indication what they have to do with the article text, which itself is so brief surely a single reference would suffice. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm.

5) Comments in references such as "Vols. 4+5, dealing with 1917+18, are very hard to find" are inappropriate to Wikipedia.

6) I'm not sure you've addressed the copyright issues for the images? This image, for example mentions the source as National Archives at Kew. But some photos of Kew documents have explicit copyright notices on them. (E.g., this one, which I realize you weren't quoting ) If Kew does NOT have a copyright notice on an image, it probably IS copyrighted, even so. (The Berne Convention does not require explicit copyright notices.)

A copyright violation is probably involved if this happened: a) The source is in the public domain, b) The National Archives made a scan or photo, c) you scanned their scan/photo. The problem is that they may be the owners of the intermediate photo. If that is the case, then placing your scan in Wikipedia is a copyright infringement.

Given these issues, which do not appear to be addressed in the above discussion, I suggest you might want to wait adding any further articles. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

--


 * My answer:

1) Photo quality: The letter size of the images is as big as the text letter size. They are very cearly readable. If some black letters with grey background is nicer or less nicer than other black letters on grey background - thats very personal taste, I think.

2) Photo quality: Same. For me they are good readable.


 * No, respectfully, they aren't close to professional standards. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Look again pls at SM U-92, lets take only this page for the rest of our discussion as a simple example. Now both versions (grey text, grey image with text) are there. Clearly, I would prefer the grey text, razor-sharp, with its nice links ad footnotes. But as I know, that people will not refrain from CHANGING the text, I can only protect the text, the transcript of the original sources, by the image form. So me as article creator had to choose between protecting sources and better style. I choosed protection of sources. Maybe the image could be mocked up in quality a little bit, pls give me a link to the mentioned "defined standards". But for the moment - both texts are good readable, dont you think so ?AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 21:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

3) "image of typesetting in an old book" : this image is NOT from an old book (NA, 1918), but from a NEW one (my book, transcription of old book in Winword style, edited 2009). I use image of the NEW book here, to prevent users from writing in it, what happened in the begining, when I used text only. All already explained a lot of times. Please ask wjhonson, he understood this.


 * You may be trying to establish legitimacy by copying text from another work. It's the legitimacy of the work that is important, not that you can prove you are quoting it correctly by supplying a picture. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "It's the legitimacy of the work that is important" - the work (the image) comes from my book, ISBN 978-3-902433-77-0. Isnt this legitim enough ? I think I do not completely understand, what you want to say here exactly. Pls explain in a simple example. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 21:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

4) "extensive reference list": I mention 7 books in the references. Everybody who is interested in German submarines of WWI can find here general literature explaining backgrounds. This is common style in Encyclopedias - the author of articles recommends readers other literature. Is it better to have "too many" (7) references, or to have none ? First time, that I hear this is a Wiki-crime. What exactly is "too many": 5, 2, 14 per article ? Isnt this a very personal judgement ? Linkfarm - The Whole Internet, including Wiki, is a linkfarm. Also, subjective.


 * See below. You aren't committing any crime at all. This has to do with the specific, peculiar way that Wikipedia requests information to be presented. The article isn't a "one man show", it's a platform for community contribution. So you need to be sensitive to how the community of editors will interact with your contribution. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "The article isn't a "one man show", it's a platform for community contribution." Exactly this is my idea, proposed by the wise solution of Wjhonson, when acting as an intermediary between me and trekphiler: I create an article with this basic info, which should not be changed by any user, therefore the grey background. Than anybody can add under "Operations" any kind of additional info. Did you remark, that me at U-92 not only changed text to a better readable format (Steam ships, Kiel base etc.), but that I added some more facts (the different captains, one relieved after 3 unsuccessfull cruises etc). Creating an article in a rudimentary form (but already much more than a stub, I think) with an image takes me some 2-3 minutes now, mocking up "Operations" some hours for each sub. Clearly, this I could never do alone for now 80 articles created and another 25, where I added this image info. trekphiler is mocking up several other subs, a wonderful help, and, as I hope only the beginning of an editing PROJECT. Thats my idea: its more a dynamic contributing PROCESS, than a finalized article. Therefore I also think, that the transcripted source (my image) should not be changeable, so that future users can always verify or even counterspeech against these facts, if they have other sources. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 21:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

5) "Comments in references". You are right, a typical newbie error of mine.

6) "copyright issues for the images". Again: me I am copyright holder of these images, they are excerpts / hardcopies from MY book. I have the right to publish them. Exactly this form of licensing was recommended me by user:rcbutcher, and I found it a very good template, and so I put it to all my uploaded. So its my full personal decision to do like this. If you have another, more clear idea what to do, tell me, I will change it.

"wait adding any further articles": 100% d'accord. For this you can be absolutely sure. talk Hans Joachim Koerver 14:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please take a look at SM U-92, its clearer here what is "old" book and "new" book. Hans Joachim Koerver 14:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Hans, I do see now the direction the discussion group is taking.Piano non troppo (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And one more thought: I am Newbie here since some weeks, I was helped by several users and admins. I followed their advice. Now other users and other admins come and say: Thats no good, stop contributing. Please: is it anarchy/liberty, or censorate here ? Everybody may delete everybodys contributions, but if If you add "too many" refrences to your articles, than you are no good. If you want people to be formally more strict - please, define and enforce rules from the beginning. Create user authorizations etc. to prevent this. But dont you think that it is very annoying for Newbies to learn and work hard, only to be beeing rebuffed each week by somebody else ? Hans Joachim Koerver 15:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it can be confusing and annoying for new people. That was my newbie experience, too. This is a great problem that Wikipedia has. It's fairly easy to learn Wikipedia when one happens to make a series of small, good faith changes, trades quips with other editors, etc. Very upsetting when creating new articles -- following legitimate standards from other places -- and getting flak.


 * It's not clear to new editors that Wikipedia has a priority of ... call them loosely ... rules. Some are just opinions. Others are strict (the "core values"). Still others have have a unique feature: They violate the law. Wikipedia has many detractors. Violating the law is a situation where Wikipedia cannot make any compromise. It's pragmatic, you might say. Wikipedia would be destroyed in the courts if it was found breaking the law in a systematic way.


 * "Wikipedia has many detractors." Yes, I imagine. And if ME would be a software mogul with douzends of billion dollars available, than I woul hire some fifth column agents to register here and disturb any Newbie until desparation, until they retire :-)) Only a joke, no new conspiration theory ;-)) (btw: one sees not many smileys here at wiki, thats alwas so in fanatic grim Knight-of-The-Gral communities, its WAR abouth subjective "truth"). I cannot understand, that you at Wiki dont want to defend against this, for example by the possibility to rate other users "help" by a scala from 0-5 points (like amazon books). In this way the regular crowd of querulants, who only act destructive, would be quickly identifiable. A minimum authorization concept is sth, I expect from "serious" software. Its really efficient, lowers frustraton, makes things quite clear. I doubt if you will be able to survive without restrictions in the future. Now everybody can do technically a lot of things, until sb other detects some time after, that this is against some good hidden rules. Even between admins there seem to be many different opinions regarding rules. Its a little bit like "You can do what you want here, until my mood changes, and I decide that it is not ok". A very wrong pseudo-anti-autoritharian education method, I think. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 21:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that, there is only one major problem with AchimKoerver's edits: They appear to violate international copyright by including copies of copyright-protected material. All the rest ... to a degree it's a matter of opinion. But the copyright is not of that type. It must be established that Wikipedia has a legal right to use the photos, or they must be excluded. The burden of proof is on the person who added the photos.


 * "AchimKoerver's edits: They appear to violate international copyright by including copies of copyright-protected material." I retired all images from original NA documents, if you mean this ? Left - the images from my book, ISBN 978-3-902433-77-0 (the grey images with black letters in it). I am the copyright owner of the book and so of these images, produced by myself. Where is the copyright violation here ? Please explain in an simple example. I really cannot understand your constraints. Maybe all is an misunderstanding - I changed yesterday all license infos of all my 110 uploaded images. Please check, tell me what I should do here. I am constructive. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 21:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally, you know ... Happy Holidays? I'm a historian, a submarine fan. I have dozens of books about submarines. I understand that AchimKoerver is just trying to fill out the historical record. But he's not approaching it properly. Properly, according to the Wiki-way, is to give an uncontroversial overview. Perhaps to quote relevant passages from the references. Not to create a new graphics format, but to pull all the important factual information about a sub from the references -- and write it in text into the article -- so even casual readers can quickly understand the subject's importance. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wonderfull ! A Historian, who listens to others arguments, even if he doesnt share them, but then adds his own ideas to it. Ah, a really DISCUSSION ! Question: Did you know these sources from Room 40 ? Do you think they are a valuable contribution (in whatever techncal form) for Wiki articles ? The only other source about German submarine warfare in WWI is "Spindler, Handelskrieg". But it is really hard to get, I can tell you, and then you would have to translate these texts into English, before you could contribute them here as citations. Also they are a little bit pôlitically overcorrect, manipulated to the German point of view. Thats why they let generations pass, before they finally dared to publish them. No 100% reliable, I think. The good old British Admiralty is nearly always(99%, my guess, if its not LUSITANIA etc) reliable in facts, from my experience. Cool Britannia. My general idea was, to enlighten a)the role of Room 40 Intelligence in Submarine war of WWI, and b)to show the details of this war per boat by an absolutely reliable source. Do you think, anybody could write a serious article about WWII submarine war without pointing to Bletchley Park and ULTRA ? Room 40 was the direct institutional predecessor of Bletchley Park, most of the WWI guys from Room 40 worked in Bletchley Park in WWII in important roles. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 21:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So lets wait the outcome of the deletion discussion for these images. Should they be deleted, than all my newly created articles would become ugly stumps. I will not a third time overwork completely all 105 articles. This kept me occupied the last 6 weeks completely. Its simply too much, now again. Compromises yes, but if my project idea described above and agreed with Wjhonson (talk) (grey text at this time, no images, one must fairly say) is absolutely not according to Wiki standards, than I will stop the project. Its your Wiki. A shame maybe, I would have some other 250 articles ready. In this case I would think it only fair by you, to delete completely every article I have created. Some of them I will leave to good old trekphiler, who invested also so much energy in this project. The others, where I only added info, - I can set them back than to the version before I started here. Lets hope for the best. Many thanks, for the time you invested to enligten me, best regards, AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 21:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A few months ago, a new editor started making exceptional dinosaur articles, giving scientific references, and photos that beautifully illustrated major points. The articles were as good, or better than anything in print. Unfortunately, when he heard that the photos were copyrighted and couldn't be included, he just left Wikipedia. Extremely unfortunate, actually, because he was a lucid writer and expert in his field.


 * If there's a Wiki article on every tramp steamer that sailed the Pacific in WWII, seeing no action, there certainly should be for each WWI U-boat.


 * The Kew repository is an excellent source. The sensitive issue here (and the only unavoidable one) is copyright infringement. That means both pictures and text. We like to think of our public institutions as wanting to share with the public, but I have personal correspondence with a lawyer of a well-known museum that stating they are furious with Wikipedia violating their rights, and are working to have 1,000s of Wikipedia images removed from articles. (They do not agree the photos of their works are "fair use".)


 * Copyright issues are sensitive, and especially so in Wikipedia. The questions which need to be answered are whether you made copies of the Kew material online, and if so, whether Kew has released them for public use. Note that it is NOT good enough to get a letter from someone at Kew; to be usable the Kew material must have one of a few legal states.
 * "The questions which need to be answered are whether you made copies of the Kew material online".No, there are no photos of Kew material here (anymore. I retired all links from my articles to them (5 images). See below, I asked them to be deleted.) AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 10:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be that the material is perfectly usable, but the discussion on this page so far by various editors doesn't quite directly address the issues. It's possible there's no problem, I can't quite tell, which is why I suggested waiting. Hopefully, the people in this discussion have all the information to reach a positive conclusion. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Documents created by the British Government are under "Crown Copyright". For typewritten documents like these created before 1989 it lasts 50 years from creation, whether published or not. Hence these documents at Kew have been in Public Domain since 1969, no matter what "copyright" claim they put on their website. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * " directly address the issues." Yes, whats left now regarding copyrights ? I published here parts from my book. I have the copyright on my book. We forget now, where the content of my books comes from, if I manually transcripted the bible, or docs from British archives, or if I totally invented everything, to blame myself. It is a book with an ISBN number, its published, some people already have bought it. If someone would accuses me of faking history, or violating copyrights, or spreading blasphemie with this book, than this would be my personal problem, not yours at Wiki. I have the complete and legal copyrights on this book, so if I publish parts of it here, where is the problem ? Maybe, to make things clearer, I changed the info for file File:SM_U-25_001_Cruises.jpg to: |Description    = German submarine cruises in WWI.

|Source        = Hans Joachim Koerver: Room 40, German Naval History 1914-1918, Vol II, Steinbach, AU, 2009. ISBN 978-3-902433-77-0. |Date          = 2009 |Author        = Hans Joachim Koerver en:User:AchimKoerver |Permission    = {self|cc-by-sa-3.0|author=Hans Joachim Koerver User:AchimKoerver}

If this all shouldnt be crystal clear, than please explain me, or propose sth which is in your sense. Best regards, AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 10:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed ALL my 125 uploaded images from my book to this copyright-text. Could you please tell me, if it is correct now, only regarding copyright ? --Hans Joachim Koerver 19:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:SM_U51_001_Cruises_of_SM_U-51_in_WWI_.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:SM_U51_001_Cruises_of_SM_U-51_in_WWI_.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please delete immediately this file File:SM_U51_001_Cruises_of_SM_U-51_in_WWI_.jpg, and additionaly File:SM_U65_001_Cruises_of_SM_U-65_in_WWI_.jpg, File:SM_U65_002_Cruises_of_SM_U-65_in_WWI_.jpg, File:SM_U92_001_Cruises_of_SM_U-92_in_WWI_.jpg, File:SM_U92_002_Cruises_of_SM_U-92_in_WWI_.jpg, File:Spindler Handelskrieg V5 p227.jpg

which have the same problems. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 10:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Spindler Handelskrieg V5 p227.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Spindler Handelskrieg V5 p227.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Salavat (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please delete. --Hans Joachim Koerver 16:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Hans, you said "this image is NOT from an old book (NA, 1918), but from a NEW one (my book, transcription of old book in Winword style, edited 2009)"

Are you saying that you transcribed the 1918 source into Winword? And have it in Winword format? Then why don't you just cut-and-paste the transcription into the article?? That way it could be searched.

Or are you saying that somebody ELSE transcribed it?

Piano non troppo (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Are you saying that you transcribed the 1918 source into Winword?". Yes.--Hans Joachim Koerver 09:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "And have it in Winword format?" Yes. --Hans Joachim Koerver 09:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Then why don't you just cut-and-paste the transcription into the article??" I already explained it a thousand times. Look SM U-92, my absolutely last action here.--Hans Joachim Koerver 09:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia (bis)
Hello AchimKoerver. Can I say welcome to Wikipedia again? I came across discussion concerning some files taken from your books that you had very generously uploaded here. Thank you very much for this. You have seen by now that some people would like to delete the files. This is not a criticism of your work! We delete files every day for all sorts of reasons. Some reasons are perhaps obvious - they are duplicates, they are not free, they had a bad license - but some are not. The reasons here fall into the not obvious category. Since your books contain this information and anyone who is interested in checking things can either (a) read your books or (b) go to the Public Record Office and read the originals, we do not need to have a copy of the records.

Our policy on referencing - starts here - does not require (and discourages) us from having the original source documents here. This is for practical reasons. Even if we discount all of the material in copyright where the authors have not, as you did, generously given us a copy of the text, there would be a huge number of documents which we could retain copies of. This would be very difficult to manage. Unlike digital library projects, for example dMGH, our materials can all be edited or new versions uploaded. You mentioned the vanishing commissar problem, or 1984's rewriting of the past, but in fact this would be a more serious issue if we held the source materials. Things can be deleted here leaving almost no visible record.

For these reasons, we believe that it is better to send our readers elsewhere for the source materials. This is a policy we have had for a long time, and I do not believe that we would change it any time soon.

I suppose you will have guessed that this is leading up to me saying that we will delete the files you uploaded. And this is true. We really don't have any choice. If we make an exception here, it becomes harder to tell the next person "no". And harder again each time we make another more exception.

I hope this explanation makes sense. I also hope that you understand that there is no criticism of you and no disrespect for your work intended here. If you have any questions regarding Wikipedia, please do let me know. I should be able to help with any problems you may have concerning the hows and whys of things.

Again, welcome and thank you very much for your help here. I wish you a Merry Christmas when it comes and all the best for 2010. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * hi. Ok, at least you take the time to explain. This is already a minimum in constructivism, after so much time invested here in this discussion.. All others only explained me, that it is unwanted or forbidden, but not why.  Its your Wiki. But me I will not do a third complete overwork of my 80 created articles again. So if you delete the images, than please delete completely (erase) every article I created here, to not leave mutilated stubs. Then I would set back all articles, where I have contributed only, to their state before my intervention. Merry Christmas also, and thanks for your time. --Hans Joachim Koerver 09:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:SM_U-117_001_Cruises.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:SM_U-117_001_Cruises.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiki: unfriendly, unhelpful, illogic, inconsequent, inefficient.
Finally I found a technical solution for the long discussed citation-style-problems : the quote box. I changed SM U-92: Had I known this feature some weeks before, than all my 110 articles would be in this style now. 80 new articles created by me have been rated as start class or stub for “Military history WikiProject”, “WikiProject Ship”, and “WikiProject Germany”. But I will not spend a 3rd time overworking them all. See, what you make of it. Its enough. Ca suffit. Es reicht. I stop contributing.

Unfriendly and unhelpful: The far greatest part of the users I learnt to know here were purely negative and destructive. They spent hours in repeating time after time their arguments, without listening to mine, or even if they discuss, they do not give a single positive aspect. Some were absolutely impolite, and deleted text from my articles. I asked several times for help or a proposal, but I never got an answer, a short “Look here”, or “Check that article”. Why do these users spent so many time in negativism, why do they not change to positivism, and help save everybody’s time? Me personally I have the impression, that there is a very unconstructive and negative spirit at Wiki. I don’t want to share my ideas and visions with people like that.

Illogic and inconsequent: "Yes, son, you can do what you want here. Its freedom of expression, its real liberty here, you understand?". Yes, as long as you don’t hurt unwritten “rules” of others. You think then, that they only want to press their idea of “truth” on you. If you ask: “Yes, please, show me a link to this new rule, so that I can learn it”, they give no answer. You get the impression, that its more “feeling”, “sympathy”, “good mood” of these others. Its like parents who allow their kids to do everything they want. Its anti-authoritarian education, you know ? But quickly they make a first exception, for which they do not give an explanation: every Friday their rooms must be cleaned up. And some time later they change without explanation: now it has to be every Tuesday evening and Monday morning. And some time later … So, what do you think about this method of education? That is not an education - that is simply nonsense.

Inefficient: Its clear, that all this cacophonic stuff here is not a way to work efficiently. Too much time is spent with bickering and getting angry. Its like a kindergarden with angry childs, when the educator is absent. Sorry, I have better things to do in my adult life.

Only as a joke :-)) - If someone would like to destroy Wiki, he then would only need to hire some 5th column agents, who will register at Wiki, work under often changing names in flexible packs, and will nerve specially Newbies by deleting in their articles without giving a reason and involving them into endless fruitless “discussions”. Until they give up, like me.

One idea, for example: Let simply all users rate each others “help” with 0-5 points. Then sb with 12 ratings and 3 points in total and a contribution of 17 “ands” and “or” added and 23 deletions in others articles, but without a single article of himself, would become more friendly and constructive maybe, if he should have to consider to be locked here. Or better, he leaves. I cannot be the first one, who proposes simple things like this. Their must be a reason why things like user-rating doesn’t exist here. Maybe the believe in badly educated children ? --Hans Joachim Koerver 10:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You could have easily avoided many problems by looking at the style of an existing U-Boat article, say German submarine U-505, and copying that format. Instead, you chose to create your own, then argue with experienced editors who pointed out your work was not according to Wikipedia guidelines and standards.


 * Creating many articles that are mostly cut-and-paste copies of one another is hardly helpful. Adding captions to an article photo that has almost nothing to do with the contents, as here is worse than nothing, it's confusing and irrelevant.


 * Repeatedly adding references, without page numbers, without quotes, that are to your own works is more than just self-serving, it's WP:COI.


 * I will mention that my criticism of the photo quality -- I discovered -- is some artifact I had not seen before with my Internet browser. The photos display reasonably in Internet Explorer.


 * However my other points stand, in particular that copyright violation is involved. If I finally have this correct, your photos and text were both from a book you wrote, that was published. Copying the entire substance of a subject is a copyright violation — even when you own the copyright it cannot be used in Wikipedia (without changing the original material's copyright status).


 * In sum, your Wiki work was shoddy, illegal, and self-serving. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Discretion This article was not pointed to you. But from your answer I understand, that it should have been. Sorry. --Hans Joachim Koerver 14:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Respect "argue with experienced editors who pointed out your work was not according to Wikipedia guidelines and standards." Yes, they spend HOURS, these very experienced helpers, to repeat endlessly that I was doing something unwanted. But NOBODY had the simple idea to say: "Hey, take a look at xxx (U-505 for example), take this as a template". Or simply send me a link to these standards and guidelines. Would have costed 2 minutes. Instead: only making down of Newbies. Like organised. My excuse to have "argued" with Jedis. (I exclude wjhonson from all this in this section, he was the best and the only fully constructive wiki member). --Hans Joachim Koerver 16:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Very much thanks for your U-505 link NOW. --Hans Joachim Koerver 14:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Help! Also I have asked 2 or 3 times you and this admin how to technically protect stuff other than with images: no answer. --Hans Joachim Koerver 14:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Illegal alien: "In sum, your Wiki work was shoddy, illegal, and self-serving." Who has eyes to see: "80 new articles created by me have been rated as start class or stub for “Military history WikiProject”, “WikiProject Ship”, and “WikiProject Germany”". --Hans Joachim Koerver 14:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wiki Self-Violation: you start telling strange thingsnow: that I violate the copyright of an object, which I created and where I own the copyright. The absurdity of this argument is shown in itself. Thought-control at Wiki: Peace is War, War is Peace. Copyright is Copyright violation. I do NOT want any more communication with you, please. --Hans Joachim Koerver 14:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wiki user rating: for the time you invested: 1 point. Helpfulness: 0 point. Makes 1 out of 5 points in total. --Hans Joachim Koerver 14:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Contre-bass, I have to correct: 0 points in total - I see you started already this morning to mutilate pages of mine SM U-109. Pack "Coyote", or pack "Burned Soil", I assume ? --Hans Joachim Koerver 22:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Peace on Earth: So we both see the stupidity of the Wiki anarchism: we start beeing angry about each other. But without any reason. I always respected you. But I will simply retire here, following the simple advice of a classical chinese strategist. I dont want to be made a vulcano of negative energy only because of the idiotic rules here. Its like a Roman Arena, where you enclose slaves to fight against each other to enjoy the public. Too much negative energy at Wiki. Evil system. I simple will escape this. Let me go in peace and forget about me, please. --Hans Joachim Koerver 14:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)--Hans Joachim Koerver 14:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

SM U 36
Guten Tag, Herr Koerver!

Vielen Dank für Ihre Hilfe mit meinem SM U-36 Artikel! Ich muss Ihnen sagen, dass Ihr "Original Documents from Room 40"-Bild auf dem Artikel gelöscht ist. Warum ist das passiert? Ist es möglich, es zurück zu bringen? Gruß, Lothar_von_Richthofen (talk) 15:00, 21 Dezember 2009 (UTC)

Hallo, ich hatte einige "ideologische" Auseinandersetzungen (s.o.) hier. Man hat meine jpgs geloescht. Ich werde es als Text-Zitat in quote-box wiederherstellen, fuer SM U-36 in Form SM U-92. Danke fuer Ihre positives feedback zu diesem Add-on. Gruesse, AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 18:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Unterseebootenjagd
Looking at this, I do think it needs page numbers, & if you've got your book handy, do add them. I also think you might do better to stay off the sub pages with your own work as a source; it's considered conflict of interest. (If it can buy you a block, I don't know, but not a good idea anyhow, IMO.) If you can post a link to the original Room 40 docs, or footnote with a direct link to publicly-accessible copies (which I recall there was, at one point), you can rewrite per U-108 with the website as your source & avoid further complaints & the hazard of COI.

Let me say, if I haven't already, I'm hoping we can navigate the shoals & keep your sources, your talents, & your efforts at WP, even through the evident chaos. WP's not an orderly place all the time (as I'm sure you've noticed!), but it does have its conventions. Best advice I can offer is, take a look at other similar pages before you start something new. (Or do what I did: copy an example into your own sandbox & just change the names!) It'll be fewer headaches. Here's hoping you've not given up on WP, & don't.

That said, thanks for the greetings, & best of the holiday season to you, too, & the new year. Cheers. TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  08:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC) (post scriptum Pardon my terrible faux German construction... ;D )


 * PPS. This is what you can do with a sandbox page (& feel free to copy that; it's got all the right fn tricks, after you fix my formatting gaffes. ;p) And FYI, I footnote everything, because I've found there are some boobs who will tag anything that isn't footnoted.... The consolidated format of footnotes in the sandbox page avoid long strings of the same source you get otherwise.


 * One last thing. Since you're still forgetting (still a bit new?), adding ~ (your signature) makes replying a lot easier.... Call it one of the issues of "wikiquette" (WP etiquette) you'll need to get used to.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  08:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

- hi Trekphiler. I cannot say that I like your latest version of the U-92 article - its now a pure "compilation" of my book (Room 40 docs) and the "Handelskrieg" facts. Ok, I understand, thats what you want at Wiki. But:
 * >signature: I simply used the button "Signature and timestamp". If that should not be enough, than why it is there ? Sorry, another thing here, where it is not enough to work intuitivly like everywhere else in the IT-world (since 20+ years now for me), but where you need to know some more hidden knowledge and secret insider rules ??? Why dont you simply change this button, so that it produces what is seen as required by everyone ???? All this user-unfriendliness, in-efficiency and in-transparency in the most stupid things already costs (too much) additional nerves at WP, and strenghtens the impression of an in-consequent in-professionality here!
 * >Conflict of interest: So it would have been better to use for example "NotHansJoachimKoerver" as my username, to do as if I would not be the author/editor of this book, to avoid this suspicion ? I begin to understand now, why the majority of the users here have so cryptic and anonymous usernames - better to swindle a little bit from the beginning (and maybe later also?), than possibly to get a problem because of ones own naivity and believe in the good of human beings :-)) You understand now, what I wanted to say above: that the stupid Wiki rules enforce people here to get deformed ????? And you, Trekphiler - you are so frequently citing "Handelskrieg" - can you swear an oath, that you are not a descendent of Admiral Spindler, the editor of this book, or that you do not have shares of Mittler und Sohn Verlag, Berlin, who published "Handelskrieg", or of ThyssenKrupp, the construction company nearly 100 years ago now ?? You see, how easy it is to use this argument - or already to spread suspicions - against anything and anyone you wanted? Then a Catholic wouldnt be allowed to write an article about the Pope in Rome, a British about Irish history, an US-American about British History second half of 18th century etc etc etc. Thought-Control by suspicion. Like this you can try to dis-qualify everybody and everything. So lets forget about this very quickly, its middle-agean inquisition. 
 * > footnotes: I find them absolutely chaotic and un-scientific. They are in a non-sequential desorder, some same footnotes appear multiple times for different meanings etc. A user cannot verify here, what footnote stands exactly for what fact! I would have prefered here ONE single footnote: "This artice is a compilation in the responsabilty of the author aaa, based on xxx, p. nnn., and yyy, p. nnn." But as there is no alone responsible "author" of an article in the usual sense at WP like in the "traditional encyclopaedias" and no "traditional redactional team", this stays like it is now - it is a WP structural problem, its is a cacophonie!
 * > clear structure: I find the structure of my latest version of this article much clearer for the reader than your plain narrative style.
 * > missing details. I assume, that around 20-30% of the details present in my last version of the article have been dissapered in your version. Why - what is the gain for the reader ?
 * But absolutely the main point why I dont agree with your compilation: facts. Only ONE example - "... she had sunk 22,000 tons of shipping ..." Sorry, the original text from Room 40 is " ... claimed 22,000 tons ..." Claimed, because it was U-92 who send this numbers by W/T to the German Admiralty. It was the Captain's ESTIMATION (for whatever reason) of the REAL numbers, telegraphed to his seniors before he could reach his base. This W/T was decyphered by Room 40. Exactly this I mentioned in my last version. And additonally: I mentioned the REAL sunked tons by listing the ships: some 15.000 tons, only 60% of the Captains estimation. A lot of the Room 40 and Handelskrieg is about the different numbers claimed by German (18 Mio tons) and Allied sides (12 Mio tons). It is really a difference to say "U-92 claimed 22.000" (original Room 40 citate), or to say "U-92 claimed 22.000, but sunk in fact only 15.000" (me, compiling Room 40 + Handelskrieg in my latest version), or to say "she had sunk 22.000", like you in your latest version. Thats the danger in compilations: time pressure, no detailled knowledge of the sources, haste, generalisation. I can understand this kind of errors, but I will not accept them. Its only about some numbers in submarine warfare, nearly 100 years ago, 18 Mio or 12 Mio tons sunk. Changes nothing in WWI history and result. But there are, for example only, other indifferences in 20th century history numbers, which could even nowadays bring persons in prison by only "claiming" wrong numbers.

So please, Trekphiler. I really beg you ("Ich bitte dich herzlich") to revert your changings and to re-activate my last version. Even if the author of an article here has (only) the same rights than any other contributor/compilator - I have invested some 10 hours times in mocking up this article, and I would find it absolutely unfair, to find this overwritten with sth so unsatisfactory to me like explained above. If sb else should want to buy my Room 40 book (clear conflict of interest here !:-) and try to get all 5 Vols. of "Handelskrieg" and learn a little bit German, so please : 350 subs, 2-5 hours work to create a compilation for each in average, maybe. Nice project for a passionate pensionist with a lot of time. --Hans Joachim Koerver 22:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Your contributed article, SM U-7


Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, SM U-7. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - SM U-7 (Germany). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at SM U-7 (Germany) - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. FJS15 (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)