User talk:Damwiki1

Welcome message and minor comment
Hi. Since nobody has written yet in your talk page I suppose you are new here. Be welcomed. If you have any doubts you can ask me or any other editor. Just one minor comment to your additions to the investigation of AD article. The references you provide are good and you have added the pubmed identification. However as I am not capable of going directly to the abstract I suppose you have added them by hand. Try Diberri's tool:. You just have to add the pubmed number, mark and it gives you the full citation.Then copy and paste it in the article. It eases a lot referencing but it also has the advantage of giving the same format for all refs. Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fill vertically (this one is optional, but it eases further modifications)
 * Add ref tag
 * Add URL (if available)

Hi. I have kicked around wiki a bit, but I decided to create an account. I tried the template tool and it corrupted all the footnotes, so I'll experiment a bit and then fix the references, as per your suggestion.

Damwiki1 (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the footnotes.

Damwiki1 (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

King George V class battleship (1939)
Also please read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DISPUTE, and in particular WP:PSTS. It seems from a posting on User talk:Kurfürst by user:Toddy1 may help to resolve this issue. Why don't you read that posting and then post constructive reply to his/her talk page, and then engage in a further conversation on the talk page. The usual way to resolve conflicts like this is are described in WP:NPOV. --PBS (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I placed the proposed edit into the talk page of this article for discussion. User talk:Kurfürst did not discuss the proposed edit, but simply reverted it when I made the edit many days later. He is now attempting to do the same on the Battle_of_the_Denmark_Strait article over the same issue. if you could review this, I would appreciate it, as I do not wish to engage in any kind of edit war.

Damwiki1 (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

27 June 2009. Please be careful - you have now done three reverts on this page.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am getting quite frustrated by this and it seems that we are getting drawn into an edit war. Damwiki1 (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is why I placed the notice on Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of info on fuel issues that you've added to the article. Probably more detailed than is honestly needed. Could you summarize it instead?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC) You're probably correct. I'll take another look at it when I complete the references, and maybe move some of the info into the footnotes.Damwiki1 (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Denmark strait edits
You also appear to have removed a substantial part of the text, which was also referenced.

You are incorrect on this. You must review the page history to see the whole article, the edit amounted to several words. Damwiki1 (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I appreciate the trouble you are having on this page, you ain't alone. Please have a look at this (the book Kurfurst is using):

It will help you figure out if what he claims to be in this book is actually there. I have found out that this may not be the case (check the Tirpitz article). Good hunting! Dapi89 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Damwiki1 (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Rangefinder images
Image has been renamed. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. DS (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Comparison between HMS King George V and USS North Carolina
An article that you have been involved in editing, Comparison between HMS King George V and USS North Carolina, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm making an educated guess here, but judging from your comments at the afd page I think you are very new to the deletion process. Before you make any further edits to the afd page I would encourage you to read this page, it may help you better defend the article from those requesting its deletion. If nothing else, it will explain the process in it entirety to you and offer you some options for proceeding. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
A discussion involving your editing is proceeding at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Allow me to apologize to you in person for this; as it was not my intention to leave parties in the dark. I've been away from the wiki for more or less two months time, and I am afraid I've gotten rusty on a few things. For failing to notify you of the ANI thread I opened I owe you an apology. To be open and honest, I so rarely have occasion to visit pages like ANI that I am not always up on how such matters are to be presented; in hindsight, I should have asked someone better suited to the procedures to check my work first and then post at ANI if they found justifiable cause to do so. In this case that cause was lacking, but it does not excuse my error.
 * On the matter of your message in the deletion notice, you are correct in your assumption that I have not read the book. I do not own a copy of the book, nor do I possess the means to obtain the book, but I trust in your judgment that the book is a reliable source. In any event, I have no argument against the book, merely the article written about the book, and I am open to any suggestion you or the others have to rebuild the page or merge the content. My concern with the page is that I have seen what such pages and section can do, and I worry that if not addressed the page may become a problem for us later. While I admit that this is essentially a preemptive strike it does not change the fact that as an inclusionist I am sorry to see content end up at afd. It does us no good to delete meaningful information, hence my openness to other suggestions for the article.
 * Lastly, I have inferred from the posting on the ANI page that you did in fact find the academy deletion page to be of use. As you are among the first users to have read the page I wonder if you would mind providing feedback on what you liked and did not like about the page so we can improve it for other readers. The more feedback we get the better, and it would help us gauge the usefulness of the content in its current form. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You can read Friedman here: and the relevant pages should be viewable, on pages 277-279. Friedman took his material from public domain sources and we reused that material for the comparison. Friedman found it useful in his chapter and I found it useful for the comparison to explore design differences in response to the WNT and the RN design philosophy. I don't really know what to say, since this article was generating zero controversy and it was sourced and analysed by Friedman, and now you've exploded this figurative hand grenade in my lap, forcing me to spend hours of my time trying to defend it. You should also consider that as a senior editor you need to exercise a bit more caution, as military historical articles, by necessity almost always include some comparative data, and it is quite apparent that most of the responses are defending your actions rather than having been genuinely concerned about the KGV comparison article, and most of them would never have been concerned otherwise. I think you should place a explanatory note in the AFD discussion indicating that you made a mistake and try to defer the process until we can take another look at it. I took a very brief look at the yamato versus Iowa debate, but I haven't the time the run through the entire material.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think you are going to win this one. It does not make any sense to me. This is why I label myself en-0. Some of the people on wikipedia seem to have a completely different understanding of the English language than I do. If you want to talk more, enable the email feature.

Please can you put the table on Wikisource.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes and its galling to know that the article is being judged by people who've never even read the source material! I'm not sure if I will have time to work with wikisource, at least for a few days.I enabled email.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikicookie
I think the image you uploaded to King George V class battleship (1939) improved the article. I'm giving you this WikiCookie Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate the gesture!

Wow! Thanks and I hope you have a happy holiday season.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Manfred Von?
See here. Bzuk (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy
Nice! So they have WiFi in Cuba?Damwiki1 (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Tirpitz
could you come and comment about official characteristic about tirpitz.parcsecboy impute his only oppinion and dont let any people to change nothing,even if he comed last month and changed everything without starting a new discossion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 17:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Lyme disease
The sentence I removed is a quite classic case of original synthesis. "However, blah blah", the sentence is clearly intended to oppose the position of the IDSA, AAN, CDC, and NIH. But that was clearly not the intention of the authors of the cited studies. Antibiotic safety is not an absolute matter; it's a cost benefit analysis, and the NIH and others are quite clearly saying in their citations that the potential benefit is not worth the potential cost. If you want to suggest that the NIH, CDC, AAN, and IDSA are wrong in their opinion, you'll have to find a source that actually suggests that, rather than finding a tangetially relevant paper and making the leap from A+B to C. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're wrong. This section of the article deals with "Controversy and politics" and part of the controversy is the implied suggestion that long term treatment with antibiotics is unsafe, when clearly there are differing opinions within the medical community about this, especially in regards to to oral antibiotics. Doxycycline cannot be "safe" for long term treatment of acne, and "unsafe" for long term treatment of LD; this is part of the "controversy" regarding LD. I am going to undo your changes. Damwiki1 (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

King George V class battleship
Hi, was just dropping you a line to ask if you wanna work together on getting the King George V class article up to GA standard or beyond. Thurgate (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd be happy to work with you on that. I hope you've read through the talk page, to see the difficulty I've had in bringing it along this far.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok sounds like a plan. I am working on the article in my second sandbox which you can access here and to get it finished we need to sort out the service history section as that is a mess in its current form as well as maybe doing a refit section or scrapping that all together, also need to do some editing down of the amour sections and the armaments which I have made a start at doing in my sandbox. Thurgate (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try and spend some time on it early next week.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Crete
Thanks for your support on the Battle of Crete talk page. Plug a hole or refute an argument - it makes no difference to this guy. There is a cross-referencing to do, but the sources are all there so it should be manageable. I'll keep plugging on... :) Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

KGV clas GAN
You may not have noticed, but I've started the review of this article. It's incomplete, but I'll work more on it if you respond to my first round of comments. If there is no response in 7 days, I'll fail it for lack of response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for interest...
Just in case you're slightly interested a certain Kurfurst has twice been caught being a sockpuppet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kurf%C3%BCrst The hypocrisy and stupidity of this guy is breathtaking. ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆ MTalk''   03:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete citation

 * Hi there, I would like to bring your attention to this input of yours. Could you provide me with the year it was published and the ISBN as well? Thanks~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I added all that information to the bibliography section of the same article.Damwiki1 (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, I'll take it from there. Cheers and best~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Flight deck
Beware of 3RR on Flight deck. I've warned the other user, and reported him to an admin, as he requested. :) - BilCat (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Flight deck. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. The Bushranger One ping only 05:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Wiki-Impartial (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Indefatigable
It appears to me that your sources are correct and that Rohwer is wrong about aerial fighting with JG 5 as I cannot confirm any contact on the dates of Goodwood in Girbig's history of JG 5. Interestingly nobody reliable specifies why the 11 aircraft were lost so we'll not attribute it to flak, although I agree that was the most likely cause. Given that the article is about the ship and not the battle, overall sortie count and losses are irrelevant and will be deleted while Indefatigable's 2 or 3 losses will be added back in once I finish going through all the sources that you added. Unfortunately I don't have Sturtivant's history of the FAA to hand and, unless I can read the relevant pages on Google books, I'll rely on Garzke & Dulin instead.

There are issues with some of the sources that you added and I've deleted them accordingly. Why would the first edition of Brown be used instead of the 40-years more recent 2nd edition? What makes Asmussen and Mason reliable sources as per WP:RS? Their information may be correct, but if it can't be verified as per WP:V what use is it? While I have no opinion on the quality of Asmussen's work, I've already caught out Mason on numerous errors. When adding cites, etc., to a GA or better quality article please adhere to the existing format; your failure to follow MOS on endashes between number ranges, etc. had to be cleaned up, which I don't much appreciate. Adding a date for Sturtivant's history of the FAA was a good idea to precisely identify which of his books was being referenced, but you should have added a date for all of the existing references to his book on FAA squadrons to remove any possible ambiguity as to which one was meant. What you may not have realized is that I write virtually all of my GA-level article with the goal of eventually sending them to FAC so they must follow WP:MOS in its strictest senses, so I take any alterations amiss that do not follow the MOS to the same extent as they cause me extra work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not every source is completely accurate; it is sometimes necessary to check a variety sources. For a single detail, such as Mason's info on total sorties, which seems reasonable, then I think we can use Mason for that single fact. Mason's info is drawn from a variety of sources including actual Admiralty war diaries, for example: ADMIRALTY WAR DIARIES of WORLD WAR 2 HOME FLEET - July to August 1944. JD Brown, 1968, Carrier Operations in World War II: The Royal Navy, is not the same book as Brown 2009 as the latter discusses RN and USN operations and the pagination is different from Brown 1968. I am sorry about the reference format but I was in the process of cleaning it all up when I was interrupted. I think we can agree that Mason and Asmussen can be added as external links.Damwiki1 (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with Mason and Asmussen as external links. The problem with the former is that he's wrong just often enough that I can't trust his work, even when he's probably right. And, frankly, citing a source as vague as Admiralty war diaries, is pretty useless unless he gives something a little more precise like a National Archives file number or something similar. I've seen that 247 sortie figure in another source, so Mason's not wrong. But I'll not cite it to Mason, but rather to the more reliable source, which is probably Rohwer, IIRC. In general, I won't use any web-based sources unless they fully meet RS and V as they have to be "highly-reliable" to pass FAC. Which is really annoying when I know of sites with info that I trust, sourced to reliable books, but lack page numbers like [www.navweaps.com]. In this case I don't think that the overall sortie figure is very important in relation to Indefatigable's part in the attacks; unlike the missing sortie total for her aircraft alone, which I'd add in a heartbeat. Or if this were the article on the attacks themselves.
 * I had a photocopy of Brown's first edition, but I dumped it when the 2nd edition was published because the new book incorporates his original companion book on USN ops in the Pacific as well and has been thoroughly revised with new info. So yes, the pagination is entirely different because the new edition is much better illustrated and in a much larger format.
 * Sorry for dumping on you about the MOS issues, but that's one of my pet peeves and I'm planning on sending it to A-class review in a week or two, once my current ACRs finally get some reviewers.
 * I know all about contradictory or incomplete sources. My note about the loss that Thomas cites in the article is a perfect example as I can't resolve the contradiction with any published source that I'm aware of.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

HMS Illustrious
Thanks for catching my mistake on the Illustrious article. I rearranged things a little, but left your text alone and cleaned up the formatting mistakes. The article in A-class review right now so they mattered.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing it up. I found it tricky to format the references.Damwiki1 (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a copy of Sayer?
I saw your edit on GL. Do you have a copy of this? I can't find one this side of the pond. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have a copy. I was intending on reviewing and/or editing the GL article sometime soon, but I thought I would add Sayer to the bibliography pending me finding the time for edits. Is there any specific info you need?Damwiki1 (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Right now I'm working on a GL Mk.3//AA No. 3 article, so if you have anything in there on that it would be very useful! I'm having a very hard time getting any documentation on the tech side, although the history side was OK.Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll take a look and let you know what's there.Damwiki1 (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a fair amount there. you can view pages 56-76 here: Damwiki1 (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Weather gage/gauge in "Battle of the Denmark Strait"
I believe that "weather gage" is definitely acceptable in British English. Note this site listing uses of "weather gage" in which half of the authors quoted are British. Also, this Google Ngram clearly indicates that "weather gage" is the term classically considered to be correct. --Jtle515 (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the entry in Cambridge Dictionary of Britsh English it should be spelled "gauge" rather than the US spelling variant "gage".Damwiki1 (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the OED has something to say on that. It says that "the spelling gauge prevails in this country [Britain], except in sense 5." Sense 5, as you can see, is "weather-gage." --Jtle515 (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again "weather gage" is archaic in British English and this is the reason it was originally written as "weather gauge" in the article in question. The modern spelling is here: weather gauge. The article is written in modern British English.
 * Do you have a source for "weather gage" being archaic? --Jtle515 (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Nautical, archaic The position of a sailing ship to windward ( the weather gage) or leeward ( the lee gage) of another: the French fleet was heavily outnumbered but had the weather gage" from: Oxford Dictionary

Battle of Britain dispute
As you will see on the talk page, I am involved in a dispute over what to say in the 'Consequences' section of the Battle of Britain page. I have written something based very closely on what a number of reliable sources say on the subject. These are not sources specially picked by me to make some kind of point but all the sources that I could find on the subject in local libraries etc. I have not been able to find any sources which challenge or criticise what these sources say.

For some reason a number of editors, who appear to have very strongly held personal opinions on the subject, object to what I want to say. To my mind this matter is at the heart of what WP is. Is it a medium for people to express their own opinions on a subject or do we stick to what reliable sources say?

Your opinion would be welcome. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Crete
Greetings Damwiki, like your bibliographical additions. Are you familiar with ? It's not perfect but a good place to look for full titles, series titles, ISBNs or OCLCs. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yes, I do use Worldcat, especially to locate library books. Thanks.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-colon for headers
Please don't use a semi-colon to make headers as you did in the HMS Kingston article as they can't be handled by screen readers used by the visually impaired. The ordinary header-creating equals signs can be handled by them and are strongly preferred. Glad to see you using some of the RN official accounts as they're sometimes better than more recent sources and often have more detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can you fix the Kingston article? I find it tricky to edit the headers without breaking things.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure; watch and learn, young padawan.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I reciprocate the sentiment!

Convoy PQ 18
I hope we can come to an agreement correlating different reports of subject action. My source is a 1969 English translation of Bekker's 1964 compilation of German (and some English) documents entitled ANGRIFFSHÖHE 4000. The account of convoy PQ 18 appears to focus on reports by Major Werner Klümper, who commanded I/KG 26 during this action and then commanded KG 26 from February 1943 through November 1944. Bekker's account seems to most accurately portray I/KG 26 participation. Although I do not have access to the more recent publications by Thiele and the Special Interest Group Luftwaffe in Norway, the information you have attributed to these sources seems heavily based on Allied claims. I question if a more recent date of publication is evidence of greater accuracy in this situation. Earlier information may be more accurate if it represents earlier recollections of individuals who may have passed away by the time later documents were published. Unless we can confirm the British observations have already been compared to Klümper's recollections, I suggest we try to match conflicting British observations to III/KG 26 He 111s, KG 30 Ju 88s, KüFlGr He 115s, or possibly KüFlGr reconnaissance flying boats. Here is a summary of Klümper's chronology:

Afternoon of 13 September - 24 He 111s of I/KG 26 take off from Bardufoss. After flying northwest for two hours and failing to find the convoy, I/KG 26 turns east and spots the convoy. The plan is for I/KG 26 to attack in two waves of 14 planes each with a third wave to be formed by III/KG 26. (Bekker inserts British accounts of the attack.) I/KG 26 He 111s returned to base without loss, but every one had been damaged, and six were no longer serviceable.

14 September - KG 26 is ordered to concentrate every available plane exclusively against Avenger. I/KG 26's 22 surviving HE 111s fly in a single defensive formation, but are organized into two attack squadrons of eleven He 111s each intending to separate to attack opposite sides of the carrier. Klümper mis-identified a merchant ship as the carrier and ordered separation into attacking formation. When the defending fighters were spotted, the He 111s vacillated between their linear attack formations and tighter defensive formations. Confusion was increased when Klümper cancelled the attack order to designate the real carrier as the target. All formation disintegrated as the He 111s attempted to reach the newly designated target by flying through the convoy. Only two He 111s launched torpedoes at Avenger. Both missed. Five I/KG 26 He 111s were shot down. Nine of those returning to base were no longer serviceable. Eight remain operational.

Numerical discrepancies: The 13 September attack plan appears to count full staffing of three squadrons of 14 planes each, corresponding to the figure of 42 He 111s others report as the strength of KG 26. Klümper's reported numbers appear to apply only to I/KG 26:
 * only 24 of his 28 aircraft participated in the 13 September attack. (four presumably remained at Banak with temporary defects)
 * none were shot down on 13 September, but six are inoperable. (the 22 He 111s of the 14 September attack are the 18 survivors plus the 4 previously defective)
 * five more are shot down on 14 September, and another nine are inoperable. (eight I/KG 26 He 111s remain operational)

Bekker numbers the 13 September attacking force at 40 torpedo planes, which may be Roskill's estimate, which by difference would estimate III/KG 26 strength at 16 planes. Bekker then estimates 30 of the torpedo planes of the combined force attacked simultaneously. (If III/KG 26 strength was 14 rather than 16, the actual number of attacking He 111s on 13 September may have been 38 or less - depending on how many of the III/KG 26 planes flew that day.)

I have moved the British claims of aircraft destroyed in the 13 September attack under the description of the III/KG 26 participation.

Your edit of the 14 September attack seems to have an unrealistically high number of He 111s in the III/KG 26 participation at noon and has inappropriately placed the description of later attack by I/KG 26. Would you like to take a shot at correcting that? Thewellman (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's move this discussion to the PQ-18 talk page.Damwiki1 (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Dermatomyositis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Ditto!Damwiki1 (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Caen
Greetings Dam, Pls take a look at the article before anyone reverts today's partial rewrite. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keith, hi. It looks good so far.Damwiki1 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's all open for discussion since I'm looking for material on Caen not D Day but I added some paragraphs because of their importance to the Aftermath section. We'll see how long it lasts. I copied the article into a sandbox just in case.Keith-264 (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Caen RfC
Editorial POV-pushing, despite attempts by to persuade an editor to acknowledge the difference between an article conforming to the title and a Montgomery-bashing exercise.

Courtesy notification. Keith-264 (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the ongoing debate on how best to develop the Battle for Caen article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk: Battle for Caen".The discussion is about the topic Battle for Caen. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the ongoing debate on how best to develop the Battle for Caen article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Battle for Caen". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI: I have pulled your previous statement from the archive, and taken the liberty to already post it on the DRN in order to save you some time. If you wish to change or update it, please do so. In addition, per discussion with a DRN moderator, you may want to put the page on your watchlist in order to keep notified when a response is posted.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks and best wishes to you for the same!Damwiki1 (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Court martial Bismarck Operation
Good Morning Damwiki1, I'm trying to update both Adm. Wake-Walker and Captain Leach pages, where a misleading footnote (Note 1) is currently present.

L.Kennedy raised doubts about Tovey's memory (based on Paffard input) in "Pursuit", after having received from S.Roskill the post-war letters where Adm.Tovey explained the Court Martial "regrettable aftermath" (as per his definition in cited source).

Roskill (the former official historian of the Royal Navy) published the story only after Tovey's death (and after Kennedy) because he was bound by Tovey's request to him not to publish the story (private letters available at Churchill Archives), but finally he did it in 2 books ("Churchill and the Admirals" pag 125 + 313, footnote 38, and "Naval Policies vol.2" pag.464). He confirmed the reliability of Admiral Tovey in a letter to Kennedy (Churchill Archives too) in which he suggested not to trust Paffard.

The current footnote is very misleading because it gives priority to Kennedy version versus Roskill one. Roskill is both the person who was first aware of the story (from Tovey's letters) and a reputed historian whose judgement was followed by all subsequent naval historians (Correlli-Barnett, Rhys Jones, Brodhurst among the others).

Please let me know how to update the pages in order to fix this.

Thanks in advance Kind Regards --Navhistory (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've replied to you in the talk page of the John Leach article, which is where this discussion should continue as we are discussing proposed edits to that article. I think that for convenience sake we can leave the Wake-Walker article as is until we finish the discussion regarding Leach. I may not be able to reply at length again until Monday.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Help me!
Article on Reticle needs protection from vandalism.

Damwiki1 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Done. For future reference, the best venue for such requests is WP:Requests for page protection; most helpers who answer the help me requests are not admins and wouldn't be able to protect the page. Huon (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Damwiki1 (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Trials conditions
We had this discussion about summarizing speed trial results years ago. We're an encyclopedia and need to reduce this kind of data to the most important bits, namely speed and horsepower, just like Conway's, Whitley or Lenton do. March is exceptionally thorough and we don't need to follow in his footsteps.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Including speed and horsepower without displacement is meaningless, since displacement is a critical part of the trial and allows for comparison with other vessels, while RPM gives data about propeller design. Precise summaries of data is what encyclopedias are meant for.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Encyclopedias don't get down into that level of detail; only very specialized books do. Most sources, at best, only use speed and horsepower and I think that that's the most appropriate level of detail for our online enyclopedia.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I took the time to put the data in. There have been no complaints about it except from you. If I feel it is important, then respect my rights as an editor and just leave it alone. I don't know why you feel wikipedia should be dumbed down, but in technical articles, which includes warships, precise engineering data, when available, should be included, especially when it amounts to only a few extra characters. Almost all reputable sources (Friedman, G&D, Raven and Roberts, March) will include speed, SHP, RPM and displacement in their trials data and rightly so, so why not wikipedia? I can understand if we were talking about the captain's hat size, but we're not, and precise engineering data, in summary format, should be included, when known. What you are doing is censuring the data and in doing so making it incomprehensible. Most warships ran trials at light and deep load, and these differing displacements would give really different results, so omitting displacement renders the data useless. If you feel that it doesn't fit the flow of the text then put it in a footnote.For the life of me, I don't know why this is an issue for you.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Friedman's 6 books on British ships do not have any trials data that I could find and I think that the other books that mention tend to be outliers in their level of detail. At any rate is there any real reason to measure knots in thousandths? Can we agree to round things to the nearest tenth?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For example, Friedman's British Carrier Aviation, page 125 gives Ark Royal's trials data: "On Trials in May 1938 HMS Ark made 31.733 knots at 103,055shp at 22,381 tons (compared to a design figure of 30.75 at 22,000 on 102,000shp) and a month later she made 31.214 knots at deep load (27,525 tons) on 103,012shp compared to a design figure of 30.0 knots on 102,000shp at 27,720." Friedman gives similar data on USN Carriers. I don't mind rounding data, but if the citation states it to that level of detail, then I just include it.Damwiki1 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Cite format
Thanks for adding the stuff from Jones to the Illustrious article. However, please learn to format the bibliographic reference(s) correctly since it is an FA. Never put any title in all caps and please include the full subtitle or volume title. I had to chase down the ISBN at Worldcat to see what the real title was and how it was formatted. Please use the correctly formatted reference as a guide in the future.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)