User talk:Denniss


 * Discussion page archive
 * Archive 1, Archive 2

Jason Drucker
Jason Drucker was born September 20,2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.222.204 (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you know this then you may point to a non-gossip verifyable source confirming this. --Denniss (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Scott Weinger
Hi Dennisss! It's E247G (talk). Here's the source to Scott Weigner's birthday (it's non gossip, don't worry) - https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0918334/
 * Imdb is considered uneliable for bio data as it's similar to a wiki. --11:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey buddy, changed that one to rotten tomatoes because I've seen it used for other bio data. Also go ahead and just remove IMDB from any person's bio data that you see of.  Candace Cameron also has unreliable sources in her bio data so change that too :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by E247G (talk • contribs) 09:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
Hi Denniss, hope you're well. Thank you for your thoughts. I'm not sure I agree with your thoughts. That kind of commentary is not material to an introductory paragraph of a wikipedia article. What's to say we shouldn't have commentary on what other contemporary politicians think of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact as well? Why are we limiting ourselves to just those two if we're going to have that kind of commentary in an intro paragraph? I think those thoughts are interesting and relevant, but they belong in a separate section of the article, which your certainly welcome to make. Orange.County.Steve (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Bismarck
Before you revert again, please go to the article's Talk page. Solicitr (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I revert that comment to you. Discussed to death there. --17:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Kursk
Can I read the References sources you're talking about? Furthermore the casualties and losses section of this web page clearly indicated that there were 111132 German casualties during the Soviet counter-offensive. Also, please read this section. Your casualties toll is incoherent with the casualties and losses section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlainDuponDetDupont (talk • contribs) 08:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

GDDR SDRAM
Hi, any reason why the lead section in bold should not match the article title? Feudonym (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that should be GDDR4 SDRAM Feudonym (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at the reference from JEDEC which specifies it as SGRAM. --Denniss (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

MILO PARKER
Hi Denniss,

Regarding the update on Milo Parker, I was trying to add his birthday from Famous Birthday's, as that's a verified site for birthdays, and it said it was a spam website, I'm new to Wiki so i don't know how to bypass it so it can be added?
 * We need verifyable and reliable sources for Bio data (especially if minors/youths are involved), that gossip site is neither. --Denniss (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Understood, thanks.

Nicholas Hamilton
The linked tweet from his official twitter in the wiki article contains the following: "Today is the first day of #PrideMonth. I speak on behalf of the whole LGBTQ+ community when I say we stand with our black brothers and sisters. Just because it is the start of our month DOES NOT mean the time for justice has ended #BLM #JusticeForGeorge"

Clearly, claiming to speak on behalf of the LGBTQ+ community, saying that the LGBTQ+ community stands with "our black brothers and sisters" and including himself in "our" when he calls Pride Month "our month" is a statement that he is a member of the LGBTQ+ community. There is no way to interpret that tweet in a different way. A reference to his own self-identification belongs in his wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:121F:87E4:610F:230:6F8D:673F (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Bernie Fineman
Was indeed sourced, read the article and the references. Revert your reversion.

OP Barbarossa
Hi Denniss

Regarding the edit I did on Operation Barbarossa, what was the reason you undid the edit? (which was the symbols to show the fate of the commanders that died during the war) I'm curious and I would like to know why, so I could learn from my mistakes. SkitMaster34 (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant information for this broad article. this kind of info may be OK for smaller scale battles but on this broad article it leads to an information overflow. --Denniss (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hetzer/Maresal
Hallo, Denniss.

Wie du bemerkt hast, habe ich in den letzten Tagen angefangen, Informationen zu Panzer-Artikeln hinzuzufügen, die mit Rumänien zu tun haben. So wie du aber auch bemerkt hast, mach ich das nie, ohne vertrauenswürdige Quellen hinzuzufügen. Ich finde also, es wäre besser wenn du Diskussions-Artikel starten würdest, anstatt einfach Edits zu löschen, die von Quellen unterstützt sind.

Bei der Hetzer/Maresal Sache ist es ja ungenau, ob die beiden verwandt sind oder nicht, es wird aber debattiert. Das heißt ja, dass es falsch wäre, diese mögliche Verwandtschaft einfach weg zu löschen.

Übrigens, ich plane in den nächsten Tagen einen Artikel zum "Cega" Panzer zu schreiben. Das war angeblich ein rumänisches Panzer-Projekt aus dem Kalten Krieg, das mit dem Leopard 1 verwandt war. Ich will also im Artikel des Leopard 1 den Cega im "See also" Abschnitt einfügen. Ich mach also keinen langen Aufschrieb über ihn, da er ja für den Leopard 1-Artikel nicht relevant genug ist, sondern füge ihn nur bei "See also" hinzu. Hoffentlich hast du nichts dagegen (ich sehe nicht, was einer dagegen hätte, solang es eine Verbindung zwischen den beiden Panzern gibt). Lupishor (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Repeated reversion of edits
Please discontinue this harassment. It serves no purpose.Brucelucier (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC).
 * You have absolutely no idea of what you are writing about in this article and you introduced factual errors without need. that borders vandalism. --Denniss (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Raffey Cassidy
Hi If you want to take the content those references refer to, then please do so, but don't put those junk references back in. Raw search urls are never allowed to be used on Wikipedia at any time. They are junk.  scope_creep Talk  22:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you believe those refs are bad (have no opinion on this) and choose to remove them then you are responsible to fix the fallout caused by the removal. --Denniss (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

VDM propeller
Hi Dennis, in this edit, a user linked to VDM, which is a DAB page. However, there doesn't seem to be an obvious target article on the DAB page. Do you know if VDM is the name of a company, or is it a German abbreviation for something else, like a type of propeller? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Prop and prop hub manufacturer Vereinigte Deutsche Metallwerke --Denniss (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. BilCat (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Sophia Lillis
Hi, I saw you reverted my edit on Sophia Lillis. Can you kindly show me where IMDb is excluded as a reliable BLP source? I tried searching myself but could not find any - only that biographical articles which rely primarily or entirely on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), then a template can be added so that references can be improved. Nowhere could I find that even a single statement which has been sourced from IMDb should be removed entirely, but I'm happy to be corrected.

May I also state, although I'm aware that it's not a good argument for doing so, that many articles, maybe even the majority, on actors, actresses, or people in film industry, especially Filmographies, have been sourced entirely from IMDb. There is even an External Link to IMDb at the bottom of every actor, actress and director's Wikipedia article, including Sophia Lillis. If it is unreliable then should they be removed also?

I also notice you mention "gossip sites" in the same reasoning for removing my edit - I'm not sure how mentioning this is relevant? Are you trying to imply that IMDb is equal in reliability to gossip sites? That seems disingenuous.

Thanks. Feudonym (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Does Rotten Tomatoes count as a reliable source? If so, please be aware that this information has also most likely been sourced from IMDb, when you look at the birth place also.

If it helps, her birthday must be between 25 November and 25 February, going by these two interviews and the ages mentioned in each (18 and 19 respectively). Feudonym (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * imdb and possible RT are user-based content so not consiered reliable (like any other Wiki or wiki-like site). Please open a discussion at the article talk page stating the interview links, those may be usable but don't know how to best add them. See also WP:BLPRS--Denniss (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Lisa Su was born in a Taiwanese Hokkien speaking family
Please check this video: Thank you.--Bunhoa (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 「台南女兒」不得了！全球科技女強人蘇姿豐是南市卓越市民

"E-mail this user"
Does anyone to e-mail this user for English Wikipedia? --Frontman830 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * why should I answer this nonsense you sent me? --Denniss (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant your "e-mail this user" is located on German Wikipedia and on Meta Wikimedia, but some other projects on Wikimedia wikis, doesn't have one either. --Frontman830 (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:COMPUNITS
Hi, please stop re-adding IEC units, from WP:COMPUNITS:

The IEC prefixes kibi- (symbol Ki), mebi- (Mi), gibi- (Gi), etc., are generally not to be used except:
 * when the majority of cited sources on the article topic use IEC prefixes;
 * in a direct quote using the IEC prefixes;
 * when explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes; or
 * in articles in which both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary, or in which converting all quantities to one or the other type would be misleading or lose necessary precision, or declaring the actual meaning of a unit on each use would be impractical.

If you'd like to change the manual of style, you can start a discussion at WT:MOSNUM. Very few sources use the IEC prefixes (KiB, MiB, GiB, etc) with the vast majority using the classic metric units (KB, MB, GB, etc). Our articles reflect what our sources say, not original research. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I read a lot of Blah Blah in your post above. The articles I reverted your man-on-a-mission changes should be very specific in the units they use as RAM is and has always been using multiples of 8 for sizes, not like data storages with their odd usage. --Denniss (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Panther models
Hi. You reverted an edit I made explaining why the Panther started with Ausf D. I've been searching for a definitive answer for a few years. George Forty's book was the first to provide one. I'd previously asked David Willey. He was unable to provide a definitive answer, only Jentz's speculation in Germany's Panther Tank.

I don't have access to Panzer Tracts 5-1, they are very expensive in the US. If you found a definitive answer, would you please edit it in? Thank you. Schwern (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

See https://history.stackexchange.com/a/47911/4615 for David Willey's comments and Jentz reference. Schwern (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No real explanation is given why they skipped A-C for D, then switched back to A. They state in 3/42 a new policy was established to add manufacturer letter for the first Ausführung of a new Panzer. They have no idea why they used D instead of M for MAN. Explanation given for A/D confusion: first drawings for A made by MAN in 7/43 were made off early D drawings (mid 1942) still showing some features that only existed in prototypes, not even D-only features were deleted just new features of A were added. Some authors may have drawn the wrong conclusion off this, especially if they didn't notice or ignored the 7/43 date of the A drawings. --Denniss (talk)


 * If I'm understanding, your objection is because Panzer Tracts notes that the Ausführung system was supposed to have changed in March 1942 to match the manufacturer. Clearly this was not followed for Panther, not terribly surprising. Curator Willey cautioned that understanding Nazi German designations depends on the project and moment in time. George Forty's details do not contradict Panzer Tracts, and he's a solid source. I would like to restore the note, unless I've missed something. Schwern (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * What you added to the article is plain wrong. This is not backed up by the data and documents cited by Jentz/Doyle.--Denniss (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybach HL120 TRM 112
Hi, we last met at Talk:Sd.Kfz. 8. I was wondering what the '112' in the engine model number meant, in order to to improve the List of WWII Maybach engines. I came across a German web forum post about just this question, by someone with the same name as you. If it was you, did you find anything, or what do you think it might stand for? I have no idea. If not, sorry for bothering you. >MinorProphet (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No real idea. I see it listed by some sites as engine for Pz IV J with 272 PS instead of 265 but that sounds strange. The 112 makes no real sense there. Just looked at the engine list you linked, according to Panzer Tracts 3-2 all Panzer III F-N had the 120 TRM. Maybe the strange 112 was originally V12 that was somehow/erroneous transformed/transcribed into 112. --Denniss (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Interesting thoughts, thanks. Please excuse me while I use your talk page to work a few things out for myself. Very few vehicles appear to have used this supposed engine. The Wirbelwind & Ostwind were apparently installed with the HL120 TRM 112: (Spielberger 1993, Panzer IV & its variants, p. 159) but the Nashorn & Hummel, and Panzer III/IV variants were fitted with a 'straight' HL120 TRM. (Spielberger 1993, Panzer IV, p. 160)
 * Jentz and Doyle, (perhaps more authoritative than Spielberger since they only used primary sources) also state an HL120 TR112 for the Wirbelwind only (Panzer Tracts 12 - Flakpanzer & Flak Selbstfahrlafetten p. 12-37). Only around 100 Wirbelwinds (certainly under 150) were ever produced. I find it difficult to imagine 100 or so specific '112' engines being made in the middle of a production run, especially made for a stop-gap measure as this one. I really can't imagine what might have been so special about these hundred or so motors.
 * According to Panzer Tracts 12 p. 12-42, the Ostwind's chassis was that of the Panzer IV Model Ausf. J. The introduction (p. 12-1) says that very few Ostwinds were produced (in fact under 10). On p. 12-42 they refer to Panzer Tracts 4, i.e. Panzerkampwagen IV, which gives a Maybach HL120 TRM for the Ausf. J stats on p. 4-58, and which is re-stated in the Ostwind statistics on p. 12-46. Fred Koch in Waffen-Arsenal 182, Motoren und Getriebe Deutscher Panzer 1935-1945 (2000) doesn't mention the 112 in his list on p. 47. So, it appears that this TRM112 variant is claimed (both by Jentz & Doyle, and partially by Spielberger) only to have been installed in the Wirbelwind. No other Maybach engine I have come across has this type of numbering scheme. Since Jentz & Doyle claim to have used only primary sources in German, I would certainly tend to agree with your idea that it's some of error or mistake in transcription. I don't think are any other reliable sources who go into this much detail. Probably only the source docs (or an engine number stamped on the crankcase) would reveal the truth. :>MinorProphet (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wirbelwind was made from refurbished Panzer IV chassis so it used a standard 120 TRM. In Panzertracts 12-1 they fixed the error they made in the older PT 12.--Denniss (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what do you you mean by "the older PT 12"? Are you perhaps referring to a later edition? My copy is dated 1998. Apart from that, would you say that the 'HL120 TRM 112' might appear to be a figment of someone's fevered imagination? :>MinorProphet (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * PT 12 is the older 1998 release with all SP Flak variants of the Wehrmacht of which PT12-1 (2010) is an update focusing on the Flakpanzer IV. I consider the "-112" a typo or transcription error that has been copied over and over.--Denniss (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that makes much more sense, thanks very much for your most helpful replies. Would you happen to have the exact page(s) in the 2010 edition which back up your statements so I can attempt to put the matter to rest on the page I linked to? Very best wishes, :>MinorProphet (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wirbelwind datasheet is on page 33, Ostwind on page 41. Both are listed with HL 120 TRM engine (Möbelwagen/Kugelblitz too) --Denniss (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your assistance, I've updated the list to include the results of this interesting discussion. MinorProphet (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC) ✅

World War I, Japan, and the Holocaust-related content
Have you expand or review any these topics about World War I, Japan during World War II, and the Holocaust, because if you might be interested in these projects, see WikiProject Military history.

These topics can be also covered if necessary. --Frontman830 (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Taylor Larum
Hello, I am trying to create a page for the actress known as Taylor Larum. Currently her IMDB page is not working so there is nothing on her page to use as sources but I will use credible sources for her. I want to know the reason for the deletion.
 * Internet search comes up with absolutely nothing so you either added a fake article or you have been set up by a hoax. --Denniss (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Battleship Bismarck
Bismarck was sunk, why is it getting changed to scuttled
 * have you ever tried to read the article you are fiddling with? Bismarck was shot to pieces but the full victory was denied by scuttling the ship. --Denniss (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

"The ship was settling by the stern due to uncontrolled flooding and had taken on a 20 degree list to port by 10:00." "During this period, Rodney launched a pair of torpedoes at Bismarck, claiming one hit. The two battleships quickly reduced their German opponent to a shambles, aflame from stem to stern, though the Germans refused to surrender. The ship was settling by the stern due to uncontrolled flooding and had taken on a 20 degree list to port by 10:00. By that time, the two British battleships had fired some 700 large-caliber shells at Bismarck.[23] All told, King George V, Rodney, Dorsetshire and Norfolk collectively fired some 2,800 shells, scoring around 400 hits." Seems pretty clear to me.

JelloApocalypse
Hi, why did you revert these edits (not by me)? &#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  19:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - «Restored revision 1042762440 by Denniss»
 * - «Restored revision 1042596200 by Qwerfjkl»

Focke-Wulf Ta 152
Hiya Deniss, nice to meet ya!

I was wondering what you meant by "improper spacing" when you reverted my 31 stylistic, grammatical, wikification, and aircraft name spacing consistency edits in the Focke-Wulf Ta 152 article?

If you meant the naming convention behind placing the version letter alongside the plane model (without a space between the two, e.g. Ta 152H or Fw 190D-9), is there a reason you reverted the 19 unrelated modifications I made as well... yet not any the edits of those who wrote the plane models & versions in the exact same manner the other 27 times in the same article, including the seven in Malcolm Lowe's primary source citation? Are there reasons to leave the space in some occurrences and not others that I may be unaware of? Is there an authoritative source stating that the hundreds of non-spaced occurrences in articles such as the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 and Messerschmitt Bf 109 are incorrect? Should those be changed as well?

If you're aiming for consistency, I understand. I was as well. But you left nine written one way, 27 the other. Just wanted to make sure - thanks!

--Benjamin22b (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi again Deniss!
 * It's been five months now - have you figured out what to do yet?
 * Thanks! Benjamin22b (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Jaeden Martell
Although I've rangeblocked the IP you reported for vandalism at WP:AIV for 72 hours, I felt the issue at Jaeden Martell was more with edit warring. I agree with you that they were repeatedly introducing a poorer image to the article than was already there. I would not normally block a user who'd had only one warning, even if it was a level 4 one, so please, in future, try to explain to the user what they're doing wrong, rather than assuming they're just being a vandal. And give them at least a couple of warnings or an attempt at engagement before then reporting them, please. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hungarian tanks
Before undoing/reverting again, I'm sincerely asking you to go to the talk page of the vehicle in question. I'd appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaSCB (talk • contribs) 08:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Targeted harassment
@Dennis - cease and desist "following" my page and undoing my edits, when I have stated specific reasons therefor. This constitutes some sort of cyberstalking, and is improper. If you have a legitimate disagreement, feel free to state so, but stop vandalizing articles I am attempting to update, expand, and evolve. ~blaugraf

You undid a correction and made a page misleading once more
Why did you undo revision 1052244992? As the article is now it is incredibly misleading, and that sought to make it less so. The article as-is acts as if TSMC's "14nm" and Intel's "14nm" are comparable by that number, which they are not, as that revision you undid specified. This is discrepancy has been well documented by now and making this information less available does not benefit anyone. DavidofIT (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Bf 109F-5/6
You recently reverted an edit where I provided a source stating that the Bf 109F-5 and F-6 were indeed built. You stated that the source I provided was a "far outdated book", and that there is no evidence in official records for new production. I wish to point out that the source currently provided for the summary of Bf 109F variants makes no mention of the F-5/6. In fact, it makes no mention of any F-series variants other than the F-4. Furthermore, official production records from Nazi Germany are incomplete due to various reasons, so the fact that a variant does not appear in known official records is not good reason to believe it was not built. And finally, are there any reliable sources which explicitly state that the F-5/6 were not built?

The book I used has two images of the F-6 variant, with one being an F-6/Trop, both with the camera ports visible. While these might have been conversions, it would still mean that at least the F-6 did exist for certain, even if they were not newly built airframes. - ZLEA  T \ C 18:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

List of RLM aircraft designations
Feel free to trout me, I thought I was editing my sandbox. - ZLEA  T \ C 01:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Mason Gamble
Keep an eye regarding uncited material of names, birth dates and others to regard it's privacy. --49.150.100.127 (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Maxwell Jenkins BLP violation?
Hi. I'm still learning the various rules and policies regarding Wikipedia editing. Recently you reverted a couple of edits in Jenkin's page adding his nationality and birth place, and in the most recent one you noted "BLP violation". I'm wondering what exactly was violated? Is it because there were no sources? Thanks.

Thariqziyad (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * you need to source your additions to a reputable site (not gossip or random internet sites). WP:BLP is a Wiki policy. --Denniss (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI
Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents --49.150.100.127 (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

German Reich
It says it was the official name of Nazi Germany until 1943, I just assumed it would be better to have that there instead. Gorrrillla5 12:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:All User-created public domain files has been nominated for discussion
Category:All User-created public domain files has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Mason Ramsey revert
Hello. My contributions to the page are perfectly fine and backed up by sources. Ramsey himself recently said he is 15; the Music Mayhem citation I provided backs this up by saying his age, hence the change to the birth year by age template. I also added a chart position, which is sourced as well. I didn't add his birthplace. If you just wanted to remove that, you didn't have to undo my edits by reverting back to a previous revision. It would be as simple as editing the page, removing it and saying "unsourced" like I had earlier. Please be more careful to not undo valid contributions in future. Thanks.  Ss  112   06:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The current source does not specify his birthdate, if you change this we need a new verifyable source. --Denniss (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I know it doesn't specify his birth date. The article doesn't specify his birth date either. The article already used Template:Birth based on age as of date before I edited it, which as you might know gives a year of birth based on an age reported in a source. The date in that template is what date the source published its information, so I changed it to read January 29, 2022, because that's what date Music Mayhem reported he is 15 (and from what I have seen, Ramsey himself has said this on his TikTok this year). It's not a birth date.  Ss  112   15:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

battle in berlin
how come my edit has been deleted when it is correct and i have restored it after someone had deleted it with no reason? the 1st Polish army participated in battle of Berlin so why are you deleting them from history? Jakub2k03 (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

We should add more military generals
Hello Denniss, I have a suggestion on something to add to the Russo-Ukrainian war. I believe we should add more generals than just Vladimir Putin for the Russians, such as military General Oleg Salyukov and Lieutenant General Aleksandr Matovnikov. Even perhaps we should add countries that are supplying Ukraine, and as the war goes on, we can change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraut Romanov (talk • contribs) 15:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Denniss, I have a suggestion on something to add to the Russo-Ukrainian war. I believe we should add more generals than just Vladimir Putin for the Russians, such as military General Oleg Salyukov and Lieutenant General Aleksandr Matovnikov. Even perhaps we should add countries that are supplying Ukraine, and as the war goes on, we can change it? @Kraut Romanov Kraut Romanov (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Mea Culpa
I must admit maybe I was wrong for the He111. I usually follow the description given nearby the airplane, that just talk about a He 111-H. But The Sinsheim Musem is a general museum, not specialized in airplanes. I will be more careful for my next add-ons. Congratulations for your oversight. Einen schönen Abend und danke, von Frankreich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducatipierre (talk • contribs) 16:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Greek Arado Ar 196
Your thoughtless reversions are unnecessary. I have archival documents stating that an Arado 196 was utilised by the RHAF after being captured. These documents require a commercial license to show publicly but I will if you keep on censoring facts. The book I reference clearly states 'After suffering a ruptured fuel line, a German Arado Ar 196 was forced to land at Peraia, Thessaloniki where it was captured by the Royal Hellenic Navy. It was evaluated, repainted in Hellenic colours and hurriedly pressed into service as a reconnaissance and ersatz Air Defence Fighter.

After the fall of Greece in late April 1941 the type was one of a few RHAF aircraft that escaped to the Middle East. When the Air Force was reformed under the Greek Air Force Ministry in Cairo, the Arado was to perform further reconnaissance duties under the command of the RAF.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:36B8:3D01:E9B5:7BFE:3FCE:FEA1 (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How come they capture something that wasn't even in the area? Greeks captured some italian floatplanes, possibly some older german floatplanes (if at all) but no Ar 196. --Denniss (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We know for a fact that Ar 196s were operating in the area as one lost in the Aegean Sea is a popular diving spot. National Air and Space Museum 'The type flew in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans and the Mediterranean, Baltic, Aegean, Black, and North Seas.' so we know for a fact it was flown in the the Mediterranean. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF2V2vUZakw this video proves that Ar 196s were operated in Greece, and I am on a waiting list to receive archival evidence. 2A00:23C7:36B8:3D01:B06B:BB1D:59AF:5F52 (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ar 196 were in that area but not by spring 1941, they were transferred once the dust had settled in the area, after Crete was under Axis control. Those known wrecks were lost in 42 and later. --Denniss (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your targeted following of my edits and undoing them is something akin to cyberstalking, I can see that you've been accused of this already and I suggest you stop. 'Arado Ar 196 units in combat' refers to AufklGr 126, flying He 60s and Arado Ar 196s which were formed in April and active in The Aegean during Spring 1941. There's even more evidence of D1+FH, after sustaining damage in a battle with 630 Sqn Beaufighters, crash landing near Delos and being transferred to Skaramangas, Athens for repairs where it was captured by Greeks after the liberation in October 1944. Averytyler (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So now it's 1944 and later? You first wave of edit wars claimed it was 1941. The Aufklärungsgruppe 126 (See) appeared in that area in mid may 1941. --Denniss (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, the 1944 Arado was another captured example. AufklGr 126 did not move to Skaramangas until May, but that is only in reference to their base. AufklGr 126 was formed in early April and was flying missions before being stationed in Greece. During April they conducted missions from the West coast of Albania. 2A00:23C7:36B8:3D01:B06B:BB1D:59AF:5F52 (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, they were in Germany until early May. They are nowhere listed as taking part in the Greece operation. --Denniss (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have found numerous sources stating AufklGr 126 was stationed at Sarandë, Albania with He 60s and Arado Ar 196s before being moved to Skaramagas in May 1941. 2A00:23C7:36B8:3D01:A03E:B577:B85:C850 (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Source? --Denniss (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.asisbiz.com/Luftwaffe/aufkl126.html
 * This website is referenced by all other websites talking about Aufklärungsgruppe 126 Averytyler (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Must be a bad joke, asisbiz is mostly a scam of ww2.dk (this site has data based on original documents) with additions from unknown sources. --Denniss (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm done with this, you simply believe whatever you want to believe and will do whatever it takes to not change your mind. I will get my archival evidence and disprove your efforts. RunOn3310 (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How many socks do you need to push foward your agenda? That site is far far away from any reputable source. --Denniss (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Socks?... I have no agenda unlike you. If this site is so unrepeatable then why do half the websites on this topic reference it? RunOn3310 (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

PaK
The German name for anti-tank weapons is listed as PaK on every German page I've seen... and in most texts I've read, including German Wikipedia pages. All the best --Zumalabe (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Original documents speak otherwise. Capital K was only used for KwK. --Denniss (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I haven't read the original documents.--Zumalabe (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:AM4 chipsets
Why did you revert my addition to the AM4 chipsets stating they are all the same when they are not? My edit comment and addition lists that X570 is different. You could say the same for TDP which is the same on everything but the X570. 2605:A601:A7AB:3900:9462:B6E7:277:ABB6 (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed a lot of irrelevant stuff. TDP and type(architecture) is still present. --Denniss (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think a doubling of chipset uplink throughput (which is unique to the X570) is irrelevant. 2605:A601:A7AB:3900:9462:B6E7:277:ABB6 (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also I don't think removing factual information from Wikipedia because it is subjectively "irreverent" is the right thing to do. But I'm not a regular contributor so I'll leave that decision up to you. 2605:A601:A7AB:3900:9462:B6E7:277:ABB6 (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

... I do not want to start a arguement about a 10 year debate.
But The Jagdpanzer Was Indeed a tank. and my tanks introduced thing isnt just for tanks. its for anything with a gun. not classified has a truck.. IFV or anything like that. and has tracks. Simohayhafan (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A tank is well defined as tracked armored fighting vehicle with a 360-degree movable turret. Everything else is something else = not a tank.--Denniss (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You should actually think about getting this renamed, using 'Armoured fighting vehicle' instead of tank would be the way to go and be included into Category:Armoured fighting vehicles via subcat. --Denniss (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * i havent spent 17 yaers on here like you so why do you expect me to know how to rename anythng. Simohayhafan (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * years* Simohayhafan (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

STOP DELETING IT
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT ALL SPGS ARE TANKS AND MY CATEGORY IS FOR SPGS SPAS SPAAAGS AND TANKS Simohayhafan (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. You have been reverted by multiple people so I suggest to stop it and think over. See my response above. --Denniss (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Gorch Fock (1933)
Hi Denniss, shouldn't it be "three-masted"? That seems to be the term used at Barque. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring
Your recent editing history at [[Socket AM5]] shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Your continual demolition of productive edits that include well sourced information are not constructive. The sources are there if you cared to look at them. If you have a particular problem, put it on the talk page.

Template:AM5 chipsets table being "too detailed"
As far as I know, the level of detail is mostly in line with other tables on pages like List of Nvidia graphics processing units and List of Intel chipsets. Yes the formatting can be improved, but I don't think it's fair to just lazily click on undo for 7 edits that add quite a bit of content that is otherwise lacking (including citations) from the template.  Davidbuddy9 💬 06:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Operation Barbarossa mistake for Soviet total casualty number
Hi, today I edited the number entry for total casualties of the Soviet Union during Operation Barbarossa from 4,973,820 to 4,473,820. I did this because I have the Krivosheev book (that was cited by the Wikipedia article) literally right in front of me and whoever wrote the article inputted a typo (mistook a 4 for a 9). Yet, you erroneously removed my change for seemingly no reason at all. At least check the book yourself before you commit yourself to wrong information... It makes for a pretty substantial difference in casualty figures.

2607:FEA8:1300:5690:A432:60FD:1726:48B9 (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I see now that it was not a typo, but that someone inputted an extra 500,000 reservists who do not appear in the Krivosheev citation. Regardless, my point still stands since the extra 500,000 men are not cited and therefore cannot be put into the total casualty amount. That would be disingenuous scholarship at best.
 * 2607:FEA8:1300:5690:A432:60FD:1726:48B9 (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Tiger I article reverts
Hi, I've added the 'used by' section to the Tiger I's infobox and you keep reverting my edit, first saying "improper template layout changes" which I don't think is right as all I did was fill out the 'used by' section, exactly how it is filled out on all other articles. Then the second time you said "your edit has the whole infobox template order disturbed, actuallly verify your changes with "show changes"" but I did use the show changes button, and even after making the edit I checked to make sure the infobox looked fine, which it did. I have no idea what the problem is and why you keep reverting my changes. Please explain. Victory799 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Nebelwerfer
Aren't you German? Shouldn't you know that werfer means thrower? Besides your reasoning on your revert is beyond anything I have seen on Wikipedia; you say I can't just split the source word but what you're reverting it to is also splitting the word except in your version the second word is incorrect.... Care to elaborate? DynCoder (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In german language Granatwerfer is mortar in english. The german chemical corps (Nebeltruppen) started with mortars before switching to rocket artillery. That 'Nebel' part of their name is smoke and it was chosen to hide the real intention of these units to fire chemical ammo like Mustart gas and similar types. That's the background of this word. --Denniss (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Go to the ref and check yourself if you don't believe
https://web.archive.org/web/20150413170658/http://english.battlefield.ru/8th-mechanized-corps1941.html

Try to find either "200", "800", or even "Brody" anywhere. As I most clearly said, verification failed. 5.173.49.183 (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Link is wrong - lands on T-40 page + site is known as heavily biased so its an unreliable source. Also it has been proven wrong numerous times. --Denniss (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I checked out and found merely (and I checked because the claims cited by this ref were so weird), you now it was always unreliable to begin with, and yet you restored this content & reference after I removed it - and you did it not just once but twice.

Ani Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Battleship Bismarck
Hi, I notice the Last battle of the battleship Bismarck article contain two different ships named Māori but there were only one. However there were eight destroyers, the other being HMS Somali which is a supporting role Aces of the ace (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Biased edits on Leopard 2 article.
Hi, as Wikipedia editors, our job is to convey the information from a neutral standpoint without being biased because of our personal opinions, it does not matter what have or could have happened in the past, or it does not matter if you believe the claims made by one of the sides or not. Wikipedia is not a website to write your personal opinions in or to direct public opinion towards one spectrum, it is a website for conveying information in an unbiased and neutral fashion. In every article regarding war, every casualty claim made by both sides are written, whether or not those claims are 100% confirmed, or whether or not you believe these claims, it is for the reader to decide which claim they believe in. ALTGRENDPGDN (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, I did not write the claims made by the Defense Minister of a literal Government- a country(Which are deemed as reliable no matter which country it is) as facts, neither I wrote anything confirming these claims, these are just claims, they are supposed to be conveyed by us- editors, whether or not you personally believe in them, or whether they are confirmed or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALTGRENDPGDN (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Also if your concern is that one side had made false claims(which other side has made as well) in the past and that is why they are deemed as "unreliable source" from now on, does that mean any claims made from this side for the rest of the conflict will not be written in Wikipedia? This is an idea with no base in Wikipedia policies. I want to kindly ask you to undo your edits, and make contribution to my edit as you like, you can write "half of the numbers claimed are not confirmed" if it would make you more content with it. ALTGRENDPGDN (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * We do not use unrealiable sources on Wikipedia. The russian claims have been proven false to complete bogus countless times. I have already given the example for Himars. Not even their own troops believe the BS presented for the russian audience. Remember Baghdad-Bob? His reliability was similar to the russian reports. --Denniss (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Another example is Storm Shadow - they claim to have shot down ~30 of them but at best one may have been shot down recently unless its just another decoy used to distract air defense from the real cruise missile. There's sufficient video evidence of air defense systems being unable to lock on Storm shadow missiles. May have been a lucky shot with an IR-based Manpad.--Denniss (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So you say that because they had claimed things that turned out to be wrong(just like the other side did) no claim made by this side will never ever to be written on Wikipedia ever again for the entire continuation of this conflict? ALTGRENDPGDN (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ukraine's claims have to be taken with a grain of salt but there's not enough salt in the world to buy russian claims. It may be possible to include the russian fantasy claims if they are weighted properly such as the addition of them "providing no evidence at all" or "have been proven false multiple times" --Denniss (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you really think the way you said you do, I would suggest you to take a look at any War article, including the current one's. You will see many "fantasy" claims written in there. In War articles, casualty claims made by either sides are written with the bracket of (alleged/claimed), whether they are confirmed or not, you can check this out as well. Your standpoint holds no base and what you do is called edit-warring(as you have been warned for this in the past), also you violate the neutral standpoint rules of the Wikipedia, by taking one side's claims as bogus while taking other side's as a reliable source in a war, this is called being biased. ALTGRENDPGDN (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi again...
Hope you are well. Something positive perhaps, for a change... MinorProphet (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Luftwaffe eagle
Hi

You just, with the argument "Eagle looking to its left is a party symbol, looking to its right is a state symbol, Luftwaffe was not a Nazi party organization but a state organization". This is incorrect, according to all images and sources: image 1, image 2, image 3, image 4, image 5.

As such, I will change the eagle to the correct orientation again. Skjoldbro (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You need to separate personal insiginia from official state/unit insignia . Adler looking right is also visible on docs bearing a Luftwaffe insignia stamp.--Denniss (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Your second image has an equal number of eagles looking either way. Per image 1: the eagle looking sinister is the "Hoheitszeichen der Luftwaffe". Skjoldbro (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Actors birthdate
Denniss, can you please put Judah Lewis' birthday which is May 22nd, 2001 on the Wikipedia account, please? Thank you. Bugsy27 (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We need to have a proper,verifyable,credible source for this. IMDB, Famousbirthdays or other gossip sites are nothing of this. --Denniss (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Maxwell Jenkins
Hello! The way in which you have reverted my edit implies that the series was released in 2020 as well, which it did not. Hence my edit. -–ACase0000 (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Please regard
please regard these BLP edits for Austin North and Jacob Tremblay in watchlist. 180.183.67.38 (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Denniss, this IP is a banned LTA, please ignore requests from them. -- ferret (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Barbarossa
Hello, my edit on the Operation Barbarossa page created a more logical ending to the introduction and kept only relevant information. In addition, there was nothing wrong with my edit. I do not think there was any reason to revert it. Theresonly1zlatan (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2023 (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) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

User MManville
Hi, Dennis. You previously reverted this user yourself after they reverted me on some pages, such as Asher Angel and a couple others. As they've never edited these other pages before, it seems to be pretty clear that after I reverted them the one time on Laura Ingraham, they began contribution stalking me and, while granted it's only been a few times so far, are just reverting me for any little reason. They just did it again 16 minutes ago. Taking a look at their talk page and many of their edit summaries, they are coming across as condescending and a little rude. They seem to think, for example, that anything that is mentioned in a reliable source should be included, when that's not the case at all, as per WP:VNOT. You know as well as I do that there are other factors, such as weighing whether it's due or undue, among other things. I don't know if there's more going on here, and I'm certainly not going to make baseless accusations, such as sockpuppetry, without evidence, but, whatever it may be, something about this user strikes me as weird, like them taking guidelines and policies too seriously. Could you please look into this user, if you're able and have the chance? Thanks in advance. Amaury • 21:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Judah Lewis
Denniss, can you please put Judah Lewis' birthdate and birthplace? He was born May 22nd, 2001 and he's from Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Thank you. Bugsy27 (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia account deleted
Can you tell me how to delete my Wikipedia account? Bugsy27 (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

German aircraft designations
Hi, I have been watching the trouble with German WWII aircraft types, you may need to start a discussion at WT:AIR to stop this happening or possibly raise an ANI case if it continues. What I find odd is that official documents like the Bf 109 flight manual covers here and the German Wikipedia articles support the long established convention on wiki:en. If I am in doubt I go to the home language wiki for guidance. I hope the problem passes one way or the other, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  14:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion at WT:Air to attempt to agree a consensus on this issue here.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Gordon Cormier's birth date
Hi, just let you know that you removed my edits about Gordon Cormier's birth date due to unsuitable sources; however, you didn't remove the mention of his "slight speech impediment," which literally lacks a source. Anyway, I will remove it myself, again. 216.247.13.44 (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.247.13.44 (talk)

Schmeisser Post-WWII Edit
Re: " rv, this theory has already a reffed rebuttal to it (not like your unsourced claims)" 

Hi Denniss, I'm starting a thread here to avoid an edit war. Please reply with clarifications if I missed anything.

What do you mean by "unsourced claims"? I didn't make any claims in my edit. There is no need to add a reference to something as easily verifiable as a rifle's locking mechanism (this isn't even referenced on either the AK or the StG. main articles), especially when there isn't even a reference for the origin of the theory.

The main reason for my edit is to fix grammar errors and questionable wording choices, I have no issue with the content itself. For example, it is not accurate to call superficial similarities between the Sturmgewehr & Kalashnikov "undeniable". The only notable commonality is their use of an intermediate rifle cartridge (8mm Kurz & 7.62x39), and that is only notable because of the time period. Otherwise, any selfloading rifle from the second half of the 20th century could be said to have "undeniable similarities" with another.

I am not trying to make a claim one way or the other. Historical theories should be presented clearly and in their full context. SwellingRH (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

See talk page on T-60
Talk:T-60 tank

Btw isn't Harald Schulz a convicted war criminal? Blitzkriegfree (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Operation Bagration - Free France as belligerent
Hi Denniss,

In my opinion, if Poland (at the time a non-existent, dismantled, state) is included as belligerent, Free France should also be listed. Normandie-Niemen, a free french squadron under soviet command is indeed listed in "Units involved" section.

Please note that :
 * the german, italian, ukrainian version of the page list only germany, USSR as belligerent
 * the french, belarussian version of the page list Free France as belligerent
 * the russian page list the same belligerents as the english one.

If only the states with effective operational command must be listed, I am also OK to keep only the USSR and Germany.

Thank you for taking these arguments into consideration.

Youpeekai (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The contribution of a single french air unit is by far too small to be listed. The Polish Army in the east had several infantry division active in land combat thus they are listed. --Denniss (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your answer. Okay, you are right : the 1st polish army was indeed a far bigger unit that this sole french squadron.
 * However I fail to understand why Romania and Hungary are listed on the axis side. I couldn't find a single reference to a single unit from either country in the entire article. Shouldn't we remove them as irrelevant then ? Youpeekai (talk)
 * AFAIR two romanian armies with up to 15 division fought in the south, hungarians may have had a similar contingent somewhat north of the romanian troops. Bagration ended on both rom/hun borders or already within. --Denniss (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

12 nanometer redirect and more
Hi Denniss, thank you for your contributions :)

Just an FYI on the 12 nanometer redirect you created. It was actually decided in some 2021 RfDs that these redirects from half node shrinks (e.g. 12nm, 6nm, 4nm) be deleted, hence why most of them don't exist anymore. If I were you I would change the links that go to "12 nanometer" to go to the 14nm process article rather than recreate the redirects, unless there's some good reason why the consensus from those RfDs no longer apply.

Regards, — AP 499D25  (talk)  13:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Volkssturmgewehr
Hi. W. Darrin Weaver, in his book "Desperate Measures: The Last-Ditch Weapons of the Nazi Volkssturm" states that up to 10 000 Gustloff Volkssturmgewehrs were ever built.

Number 50 000 in the article by Peter G. Kokalis refers to Walther VG1. Msgevans00 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)