User talk:Denniss/Archive 1

80486SX
Why did you revert the edit to this page? The information in this page is incorrect. The source for this material does include numerous verifiably false statements such that a reasonable person would attach no credibility at all on that source article. If the author(s) can't get the most obvious public details about microprocessors correct, why should wikipedia trust them as a source for internal information. Over time, much of the information in that source article was removed, but it should be time to remove all the information that came from that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awitko (talk • contribs) 18:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see 80486 SX Talk page section "Free Online Dictionary of Computing article cited as source for this article makes numerous verifiably false statements" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awitko (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but you are applying a double standard. Crispmuncher updated the article without resolving the inaccuracies and without providing the references promised more than one year ago. The only source cited in the article -- the one with the numerous novice mistakes -- does not support the claim that the early 486SX units had defective FPUs. In fact, it claims ALL 486SX units had defective FPUs. It seems like the authors are picking and choosing what they like from this article. At least please remove the claims that you cannot find reliable sources for. I can accept that you won't allow my personal knowledge to go in even though there is no one in the world that knows better how the early versions of the 486SX were tested, but at least apply the same standard to the information in the article so that the false claims about a defective FPU can be removed. I should not have to raise this issue a dozen times. You and crispmuncher can see as plain as day that there is no reliable source for that statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awitko (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see the updated 80486 SX Talk page section "Free Online Dictionary of Computing article cited as source for this article makes numerous verifiably false statements." which also refers to other talk sections related to that article. The statements in the wikipedia article have existed since 2002 and were incorporated from a foldoc article last updated in 1997. If you open the foldoc reference, it is shockingly sparse and cryptic to be the only reference relied on by the wikipedia article. Foldoc was apparently a publicly sourced dictionary so the contested information could have come from anyone, including a practical joker. The source does not identify how they know this information or where they got the information. The source also presents numerous statements that can be verified to be false and misleading. This should cause a reasonable person not to rely on the article. But the editor crispmuncher and the ip manager have gone to embarrassing lengths to defend it in the talk section.

I happen to have worked at Intel on the testing of the 486DX and 486SX so I know the speculation is false. About 15 months ago Crispmuncher made bold claims that the ultimate source of this information was Intel (as you can see from the talk section) and he promised to produce an Intel reference at the time, but did not follow up since. More recently, when I followed up on this issue, he now claims that I was the one that owed a reference and that the only way to even challenge this discredited source is to provide a contradictory source on the point of speculation. But I can't do that since Intel did not publish information about it. This is also why he cannot find an Intel reference to support his view. I think there are two reasonable ways to go: remove both scenarios because neither is supported by an Intel reference, and random websites with unsupported claims may be nothing but rumor. But I think wikipedia and foldoc have spread a lot of misinformation over the last decade and there should be some effort to actively correct that. I would prefer you explictly acknowledge that the current claims were a rumor that have no known reliable support to an Intel reference and that since its been on these two sites for as long as 13 years, unsourced statements on the web may very well have come from your article. Challenge people to provide any references to support that rumor -- you may get references to consumer magazines that speculated on it but nothing from a reliable source. And then offer an alternative explanation that I provide pointing out that it also does not have an official source. Let people at least know that there are two versions of events. Mine happens to be true. :) --Awitko (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Graphics PCIe
Have you really looked for any "reliable" sorce? If "Observer" one of them - seach it for nVIDIA PCIe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stasdm (talk • contribs) 19:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Bombing of Wielu&#324; in World War II
At Talk:Bombing of Wielun in World War II you asked a question. Could you explain your problems a bit? Halibutt 19:17, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

List of World War II electronic warfare equipment
FYI I have moved the list of code words from H2S radar in to List of World War II electronic warfare equipment. I have added it to a category:World War II electronics. Philip Baird Shearer 02:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

German WWII redirects.
I have speedied the "Pazerwagen", I am inclined to leave the other two. Capitalization is likely to be mis-entered, and while you are doubtless correct about the naming convention for aeroplanes, the designation Junkers JU87B-1 returns enough hits to validate a redirect as far as I can tell. If you think I am wrong, you could perhaps stick them on the Redirects for Deletion page? Cheers, Rich Farmbrough 01:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

hp vs. PS
You changed the units in the BMW 802 article from hp to PS, and then re-calculated the kW numbers, apparently based on the PS values. I would like to know what source you used to decide to make either of these changes. The source I am using is a 1946 copy of Jane's All The World's Aircraft Engines, which lists values for this engine, and every other, in hp.

Maury 21:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you really sure Jane's used imperial hp or just translated PS into hp ? I have no source but these PS/hp-ratings you used are too fine to be recalculated from PS to imperial hp. --Denniss 21:29, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Leopard Split

 * Those are some very valid points! I ran out of time to check for redirects on that article- yes it is important to get those, and ditto for minimizing smaller m edits. Muchenhaeser 19:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok I did not find any double redirects, so it was fine. The only issue was that pages in other wikis link to the wrong page! Perhaps you with your german and french accounts could change the links on there respective pages to the leo 2 (rather then other page). Muchenhaeser 20:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I updated the german and french link. Previously I checked all links to Leopard MBT and changed a lot of them to Leo 2 --Denniss 21:41, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
 * Oh ok duh, you had already fixed the doubles! Thanks for doing all that with the links. Muchenhaeser 21:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apollonia
Hey, it would be both pleasant and good if you could help me translate a little german text on article Apollonia (city) into english. Thank you in advance! --Albanau 18:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Leopard 2 images
Hi. Those were some good photos you removed from Leopard 2. Are they all pending deletion, or are you removing them just in case? If the latter, why not leave them, and remove them from the article in the case that they do get deleted? —Michael Z. 2005-10-15 22:18 Z 
 * They all have no source and no license. They look like taken from the manufacturers website and are clearly not available with a somewhat free license required by the commons. If these images are needed/wanted then go to the Leo2 article in the commons and look at the older version with these images, then upload them with promotional tag to the english wikipedia. --Denniss 09:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you have evidence that these images are copyright violations, then say so. Mark the image pages with copyvio tags, so they can be deleted.  Otherwise we are free to use them.  It's not your job to strip images out of Wikipedia articles just because you have a bad feeling about them.  —Michael Z. 2005-10-16 14:48 Z 

Aer Lingus
Thanks for your support of my removal of ICAO codes etc in the text of the Aer Lingus article, much appreciated. It looked very strange to have an exact repeat of that data in the infobox - Adrian Pingstone 16:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Coppermine-T
Hi Denniss, i'm the guy who submitted the edit for the coppermine-T that you reverted. I can't guarantee ALL BX boards support coppermine-Ts, but there's no question at least the Abit BX-133 RAID does, so it's not accurate to say they are old-core-new-board only as is the impression in the current state. Their last released BIOS notes explicitly list support for 1GHz Celerons which are definitely Coppermine-Ts:

http://www.abit.com.tw/page/sa/download/download_bios_detail.php?pFILE_TYPE=Bios&pMAIN_TYPE=Motherboard&pTITLE_ON_SCREEN=BX133-RAID&pSOCKET_TYPE=Socket%20370

Also, on this forum there's an excerpt from someone who's had communication from Abit re: coppermine-T support (you have to scroll down, no direct link):

http://www.abxzone.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-6817.html

i'm pasting it here:

I think the PIII 1200mhz you guys are seeing is not a Tualatin but a faster PIII called the CopperMine-T.

Check this thread at anandtech:

Link (http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=28&threadid=512647)

There is a post from RichieZZZZ there and he posted:

you need to read HOCP they e-mailed abit about it.

<< There is and has been confusion about what exactly Tualatin CPUs will work in as we stated earlier. It seems as if Tualatin CPUs are not backwards compatible with BX or i815 chipsets. When I posted this earlier I got this mail from Don Goff that pointed us to this link which we had posted a month or so ago that states this, "Supports Intel Coppermine T CPU." about their BIOS upgrade for the ABIT BX133 RAID board. Admittedly I am a bit confused about this too so we asked ABIT what exactly the deal is and here is their response.

Kyle,

OK, I have it. It is the confusion about CopperMine CPU vs. CopperMine-T CPU vs. Tualatin CPU.

The CopperMine-T was the CPU that was the bridge between the CopperMine and Tualatin platforms. The CopperMine-T can work in BX boards, usually through a BIOS update.

The Tualatin CPU has a different pinout and simply will not work in a BX board. I have confirmed this with our R&D and FAE so have to believe that this time it is true.

Scott.

I just received (12 hours ago but I just checked my email) an email from a user which says that they are blocked and quotes the 165.21.154.111 number that you reverted on the Pentium III. The blocked list does not show them as blocked however. The email also includes the section above that starts "Kyle". They also included this (as the edit they wanted to add):
 * Coppermine III (part 2)

An intermediate Socket370 CPU produced by Intel as they shifted the Pentium III to the Tualatin core; e.g. the last pre-netburst/P4 Celerons released were Coppermine-Ts.
 * 'Coppermine-T

The Coppermine-T is a hybrid Tualatin-process chip but which is electrically/pinout similar to the older Coppermine chips and therefore can work on the older Socket370 boards (though a BIOS upgrade may be required to recognise the higher clock-multiple CPUs). While Tualatin-compatible boards are usually also backwards-compatible with older Socket370 CPUs, but the reverse is not true (Tualatin CPUs will not work on older Socket370 boards).

An example would be the old Abit BX-133 RAID mainboard, which despite being based on the venerable 440BX chipset, can support up to 1.1GHz Celeron CPUs at the official 100MHz FSB.

There has been some confusion between the Coppermine-T and the Tualatin: (from http://www.abxzone.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-6817.html, a post referencing a response from Abit staff)


 * I have no idea if this is a proper edit or not. I'll leave it up to you. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Look at this : http://users.erols.com/chare/586.htm There's a Coppermine Celeron with 1.1 GHz as well, not only Tualatin. Coppermine-T is listed with 95mm² die size and Tualatin is 80. According to german C'T computer magazine it is definitely a Coppermine with support for Tualatin low-voltage bus system (1.25V/1.5V instead of 1.5V on standard Coppermines) http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/14782 (german). It is said the Coppermine-T is often confused with the Tualatin but it's really based on a slightly modified Coppermine design. --Denniss 22:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:A10 gun.jpg
Please remember to notify the uploader when tagging an image "no license". Thue | talk 19:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Mussolini/Skorzeny/Student
From Talk:Benito_Mussolini:
 * Sorzeny did not lead the rescue team ! The operation was planned by General Kurt Student and his staff. His Paratroopers/elite infantry did execute this operation. Skorzeny did only take only in this operation as observer.--Denniss 17:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Denniss -- please see discussion at Talk:Benito_Mussolini. Best, Xian 23:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Denniss, I added some comments myself. Pls. check. Talk:Benito_Mussolini. g999b

Tagging PD images as copyvios
Please see the explanation here. Thanks, --Irpen 08:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Gneisenau/Scharnhorst
Hi, I don't think the class name changes were meant to be vandalism, just a newbie who wanted to help. --Yooden

Image:S vs pelton schnitt 1 zoom.png
Guten Abend Denniss, ich habe bei dem Bild oben die GFDL nachgetragen, die aus einem mir nicht erkennbaren Grunde gefehlt hat. In der Diskussion zum Bild ist nochmals die Mail wieder gegeben, mit der mir Voith-Siemens die Verwendung unter der GFDL frei gegeben hat. --Markus Schweiss 18:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, das war das falsche Wiki. Ist mir zunächst gar nicht aufgefallen. --Markus Schweiss 18:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Falsche Wiki, richtiger Benutzer. Hab's schon gesehen und Dir geantwortet.--Denniss 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandal
Hey don't call me a vandal. Portable 22:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you are. You created a secondary account just for the River Plate battle. --Denniss 22:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No. I did not. I have forgotten my password, I haven't used my account in ages. Portable 22:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm on my laptop and it doesn't have my account details. Portable

Spitfire
Brookie here - the captured Spitfire used by the Germans was not in France but over central England - have reverted your deletion. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 19:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * RAF did not use Spits in France - how should the germans capture a Spit there? Spits were preserved for home defense and not for offensive operations during this time (1940). How should it be possible for a captured Spit to fly missions over central england ? It may had better range than the 109 but not that much higher. --Denniss 21:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

>(rev (again); who made the photo ? Sow us any docs that this image is free of copyright) Denniss - I've changed the copyright notice on the Spitfire again because, as I mentioned in my note, I contacted M P HOUGHTON at the Ministry of Defence, UK, to confirm that this images is in the public domain, formerly Crown Copyright. Please see the entry to confirm the meaning of Crown copyright: any image taken by MoD personnel in the course of his duties is Crown copyright. So, the creator's (i.e. the photographer's) identity is not relevent to the copyright discussion, since the MoD has confirmed that the photo was Crown copyright.

Thanks!
Thanks for helping to revert User:RareAviation's vandalism. They continued to restore the links and I listed them for banning. - Emt147 Burninate!  04:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the revert on the T-34 article. Nice catch. DMorpheus 16:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Virgin Blue 737.jpg
Greetings. I noticed you tagged Image:Virgin Blue 737.jpg as PD-self. Why do you think that the uploader owned the copyright to the image? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:2000 CF-18Hornet.jpg
Hi there, what's the problem with the picture? Just curious as to why it isn't allowed, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks! Ouuplas 13:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read this copyright statement: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/notices_e.asp . These images are far from having no usage restrictions. You should always carefully read usage restriction on thirdparty websites ! --Denniss 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Which usage restriction wasn't I abiding by? Ouuplas 14:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The part with commercial reproduction ? This is a usage restriction you should't forget to mention. --Denniss 21:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What does the commercial reproduction section have to do with posting the picture on Wikipedia though? Ouuplas 00:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read Image use policy, non-commercial images are not accepted anymore in en wiki. And in general you can't ignore a usage restriction and stating a false free copyright status just because you don't like the restriction. --Denniss 01:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't. I was unaware I was using the wrong usage tag. I do think deleting the image altogether is a little extreme, isn't there another tag that could be used to keep the image? (Not to mention all the other images you tagged?) I really think all those images contribute to their articles, and I'm not sure deleting them is completely necessary. I'm still not completely sure what was wrong with how I tagged the image originally. If it's alright with you, I would be interested in getting a third party to provide their opinion on the whole situation, otherwise a whole lot of great images are going to be deleted. Ouuplas 03:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe they are usable within the fair use regulation but I'm not an expert in fair use. --Denniss 09:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Granville Mall Halifax.jpg
You were pretty agressive with. You changed the tag, without offering a real explanation. If, for the sake of argument, your aggressiveness was justified, let me encourage you to remember that that people you are dealing with are other volunteers. You risk alienating them, or really pissing them off, by acting high-handedly.

Over on the commons you accused someone of a copyright violation, without offering any substantiation. I got accused of a copyright violation myself, four months ago, by a very aggressive guy. It is a very unpleasant accusation. My accuser couldn't admit he made a mistake. -- Geo Swan 23:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not very aggressive other than with copyright problems or obvious copyvios. People uploading images have to be sure there are no copyright problems with images they upload. They can't "forget" some vital parts of a license. Over at the Commons this user is uploading abviously copyvios, I remembered some of them to be of canadian forces origin because i had to tag several of these as noncommercial here. Surprisingly I found several of them over at the Commons tagged as PD-self. And an IP releted to this user tagged these noncommercial images here as copyright free use but again "forgot" the noncommercial part. --Denniss 00:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, but please bear in mind that it is an ugly accusation. Very disturbing to receive, and disturbing to read.  I am suggesting it is important to substantiate that kind of accusation.  And, assuming good faith -- well, doesn't it require at least giving lip service to assuming the copyright breaker made a mistake?  At least the first time?  If you found multiple instances, shouldn't you link to them, for the sake of the innocent bystanders?


 * About this non-commercial issue -- frankly I am confused. I uploaded half a dozen to a dozen images from the Canadian Coast Guard site.  (1) Non-commercial, (2) give credit, (3) no misrepresentation...  At the time I uploaded them there seemed to be no problem with uploading those images.  Is the reason the images are being removed to facilitate canning a version of the wikipedia to be distributed as part of linux distributions?  If that is the only reason, why not just use the tags to not include those files when the CDs are being made?  --  Geo Swan 03:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * AFAIK there was a change in the image usage policy, Jimbo Wales and others wanted to have less conditional use and more free images. But if there's a non-commercial restriction the uploader has to mention this in the image description. --Denniss 03:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of this image, you could've told me about the problem and I easily could've gotten permission. I wasn't aware there were any problems with it. Ouuplas 23:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

resistance
Wow. Some people are way about losing those DFO images than I am. -- Geo Swan 06:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the same user who uploads these copyvio images on the Commons with his IP here, he even has another sockpuppet account on the commons ... --Denniss 09:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:GR-C
I don't understand why you won't discuss your edits and why the image needs to be changed. Ardenn 02:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * All .png flags are replaced by .svg versions at the Commons. They render better on the server side (consuming less CPU time). They have other benefits, too. --Denniss 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? Please reply on my talk page. Ardenn 04:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

An image deletion question
After thinking about the DFO and DND images that may be deleted soon I decided to go through all the CCG images, and determine which were under free liscenses, and go looking for more free images. My notes seem to indicate that there was an image named that was a free image, and another image with the almost identical name , which is noncommercial.

Now, either I made some errors, or the one my notes indicate was under a free liscense has been deleted. I'd like to get to the bottom of this. If I didn't make a mistake, then an admin deleted the wrong image. Can you tell me where I would look to see the list of removed images? If I can't find a file with the spelling I thought was from an OK image in that list I am the one who made a mistake... -- Geo Swan 06:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Athlon 64 3800+ Winchester?
You say there is no 3800+ Winchester, yet I own one. Using CPUZ (www.cpuid.com), it was identified as a 90nm with 1.5v with code name Winchester.
 * What stepping is shown ? If it's really a Winchester then it's not a standard one. It is not listed at http://www.amdcompare.com . --Denniss 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Using CPUZ, it says stepping is 0. Any idea what this means? --Chuggwald 02:02 20 March 2006 (AEST)
 * Hmm, No. Try the latest version (AFAIK 1.32.1). Do you have Everest Home ? It may be able to show more Info. --Denniss 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, am using latest CPUZ (1.32.1). Using Everest, it says Unknown for CPU Type, Winchester S939 for Alias, and DH-D0 for Stepping. --Chuggwald 16:09 21 March 2006 (AEST)

Image copyright
Hi, just wanted to ask a question regarding the Hawk Mk120 and SAS Drakensberg images. I just got off the phone with the person responsible for the South African Department of Defence's online presence (eg the dod.mil.za site and all those related), and established that the DOD was ok with any non-commercial use of its images, and he expressly stated that using them on Wikipedia was perfectly fine. Do you have any suggestions for which licence should be applied to the image for this? &mdash;  Imp i  12:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Use   (one article is enough for the template), please check other possible fair use tags according to the link given inside this template. --Denniss 16:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
I noticed that you tagged the page Image:UNKG0001.GIF.gif for speedy deletion with the reason "Duplicate of Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg --Denniss 18:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)". However, "Duplicate of Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg --Denniss 18:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use one of our other deletion processes, Images and media for deletion, if you still want the image to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle 20:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Leopard image
I changed the two fair-use images on Leopard tank in keeping with the fair use policy.
 * 'If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it ... The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible.
 * We've no shortage of free images for this article, so replacing Image:Leopardpanzer.jpg seemed sensible. Hope that makes it clear... if you've no objections I'll take it off again.

Reverting is not minor
Please stop marking your reversions at Heinkel He 111 as minor edits. Please review the minor edit policy. --Xanzzibar 10:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Sturmtiger 4.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sturmtiger 4.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Thuresson 00:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan International Airlines copyright violations
Thank you for your spirited comments backing up my removal of two of Youssef90s pics of PIA aircraft. He steals them from Airliners.net then (incredibly) calls them Public Domain! I very much appreciated your help. I have replied to him here. Best Wishes, - Adrian Pingstone 17:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't like people like him. I recently had lots of trouble with one user registering with many names at the Commons. The only purpose of these names was to upload manipulated images stolen from airliners.net (copyright notice removed). --Denniss 21:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:N805SY 2 small.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:N805SY 2 small.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. EdwinHJ | Talk 00:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Fw 190G data...
I removed the build numbers from the G section.

The build numbers and acceptance numbers for the Fw190G given by RLM starting in the fall of 1943 are very very innacturate. Some of it was interdepartmental propaganda to hide the true impact of American daylight and British nightime bombing, as well as the fact that rebuilds were happening a lot more frequently.

The actual estimates for the Gs was no more than 800 aircraft.

--Evil.Merlin 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello check this out
Hello I have made a request for comment on Kurt Leyman and I need people to sign the request and also to sign on the specific page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kurt_Leyman

(Deng 03:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

SDR-SDRAM Move
Can you please add to the discussion on the naming of the SDRAM article before reverting its move? It had been discussed and the consensus was that the bacronym naming was unnecessary. Please comment on Talk:SDR SDRAM. -- uberpenguin

T-34 edit
Nice edit. I had to do a revert back to your version just now; glad you caught the TV BS. DMorpheus 17:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

T-34 and Military Channel Ranking
Just like the Enzo Ferrari article has a couple of mentions of "Top lists" so can the T-34's article. There are many lists out there that don't place the Enzo anywhere close to number 1 in any aspects, does that mean that those pieces of information (eg. Sports Car International's ranking) don't belong there?

Military Channel gave a very good criteria for their ranking, and has a reference online as well. It is valid and is worthy to note. Don't delete that paragraph again please.
 * Sorry but those rankings are always with a personal point of view and do not belong to an article.--Denniss 05:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Then why are you not editing the Ferrari Enzo article?
 * Not my field of interest --Denniss 07:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But in your opinion, those who wrote it and the thousands who read it are wrong? Interesting. Interesting indeed. I am not going to waste my time putting it back. It's a shame there are peopel like you who think they are always correct.


 * FYI, it does NOT violate NPOV. The article doesn't sway into stating something like "As a result it it safe to assume that T-34 was the greatest tank in history".

Prinz Eugen's Denmark Strait Explots
Hi, Please see the Prinz Eugen article's talk page for my comments on your revision of my last edit. Thanks bigpad 08:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Royal New Zealand Air Force B757
Denniss, thanks for noticing my error with the Boeing 757 pic on Commons. I was careless when I typed the filename as 767, and the error carried on from there. I have corrected it everywhere. The pic is on Wikipedia Royal New Zealand Air Force and on Boeing 757, and of course on Commons under Boeing 757 and under New Zealand. I took the pic at Kemble Air Day in Gloucestershire. Kemble is a small airfield (once home of the Red Arrows), about 25 miles from where I live - Adrian Pingstone 17:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

F-5 Image
It was clearly stated that the image was from a number of Aerei of 1977. Anyway, there was a typo in the tagging. Ciao! user:Attilios
 * Being an image in an italian magazine does not qualify for the PD-Italy tag, you have to know who the photographer is. Only if he is an italian citizen then PD-Italy may be usable. As soon as this photographer is a non-italian citizen this tag is not to be used (copyright regulation of his home country applies, most of them have 70 years pma). --Denniss 08:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

BAe 146
Hi. I didn't add the template or put it back after you removed it. I just thought I'd point out however that the BAe 146 is an aircraft operated by the Royal Air Force and hence an "Active military aircraft of the United Kingdom" Mark83 21:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Airbus Deliveries
Hi, Thanks for updating the O/D details on some of the aircraft.

It seems there is some discrepancy between airbus documents.

I had used 1974 to 2005 Deliveries to compile the Airbus Deliveries and Orders set of tables.

But if you compare the original document, and indeed, my tables with the orders and deliveries document you used up to may 2005 there are some descrepancy's!

Damn Airbus

I suppose i know which would be right, but, why would the other document be so far out on some numbers? (maybe with the A310, cancelled or changed orders....)

Reedy Boy 08:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's wrong with this compilation, maybe they did not remove orders if changed to another type( 310 ->300/330). Listing by model and customer available here --Denniss 19:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Strategy

 * Delete - Seems to be only created to continue personal attacks at User:Mmx1, the creator has some strange view about some plane's history (like F-14 Tomcat and others). He does not listen to valid arguments and sources but prefers personal attacks and insults. --Denniss 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Denniss seems to make sensible contributions, so does Denniss believe that Bob Kress told Modern Marvels that the F-14 was designed for good turn performance? Flight Magazine 1969 titles a photo "VFX air superiority fighter: F-14", does that mean that the F-14 was the first "air superiority fighter", not the F-15 as claimed by Mmx1? If you agree with Mmx1 that both premesis are false, then I am indeed and we are all in a good bit of trouble. I'd like to know on my talk page what you think is a "strange view" of the F-14, and Mmx's claim that the F-14 never had a dogfighting requirement and must be removed from the air superiority fighter page. --matador300 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ju 388
Thanks. I tried to get it to work but it didn't, even though it was just like other infoboxes, with the exception of the data. --LWF 04:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Elefant
Thanks for keeping me posted on it, let me know if I need to raise protection or unprotect it. There is likely going to be a ripple effect on this and all related articles soon. You're free to warn Colbert-related vandals (but be nice, is fine), and report to have them blocked. -- Pilotguy (roger that) 17:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A300 picture
Please refrain from calling me a troll. I am only trying to remove a picture from Wikipedia of which I own the copyright, as I have done with multiple others. You are the only user in history that opposes this. Nick Mks 11:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Restore Points
Danke fuer den Tip Deniss. Ich habe das leider auch selbst erst viel zu spaet gemerkt, es ist wie gesagt das erste Mal, das ich hier zu etwas beigetragen habe und von daher musste ich mich da erst einmal einarbeiten.

Florianbrenn 00:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Würzburg Radar
Would you please stop removing valid information from this article? I can see no reason why the reference to Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory should be omitted; it does not fall under any of the criteria on WP:NOT and although you may not feel that it is important, that is not grounds for removing it from the article. I might agree if it had been included indiscriminately in the main body of the article, but it is neither an irrelevance nor an unverifiable piece of information and is doing no harm under the heading 'Trivia'. Plenty of other articles include Trivia sections. --Yummifruitbat 00:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry but this article is about the Würburg radar and not about any piece of computer software. Its minor appearance is absolutely irrelevant to this article. We in WP:Air have a hard fight to keep this BS out of articles because it adds nothing to these articles. Would you like to have articles flooded with Trivia sections like "this ... was seen in the movie ... (although only for two seconds" ?--Denniss 08:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not exactly a 'was seen in... for 2 seconds' example, is it? If you read the Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory page you would notice that this mission makes up a sixth of the game. As I have said, it's not in the main body of the article, and is not 'flooding it with BS'. I admit that the original line was untidily done, but my rehashing and link was not detracting from the article. FYI, I have little interest in computer games and am as serious about the topic of articles like this as you appear to be - as I think my previous contributions to this article should make clear. That does not mean that information, relevant to the subject but not of great interest to us, 'does not belong to Wikipedia'. --Yummifruitbat 20:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How could an appearance in a computer game be of any relevance in the Würzburg radar article ? It contributes null, zero, nada relevant information to the target of this article (informing us what this radar had been used for in WWII). --Denniss 20:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you have the 'target of this article' confused. The article isn't only about its uses in World War II, it's about the radar, its development, history, notable related incidents and any other information pertaining to the radar. If it was as you say, the title would be "Uses of the Würzburg radar in World War II". I've browsed the talk page archives of WP:Air and I think you're acting outside the consensus of opinion on removing trivia from articles - the criteria for inclusion there are apparently that the subject of the article makes a substantial appearance in a game/film/etc. notable enough to have a significant article of its own. On that basis there is no reason to delete the trivia/popular culture reference from this article. I also take issue with your tagging of this edit as 'minor'; this runs contrary to the second point of minor edit policy and is considered poor etiquette. I don't wish to become involved in an edit war over this but I would ask you to reconsider your actions and re-insert my version of the reference. --Yummifruitbat 22:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Aufhören
Stop the branding my image licenses as "bogus licenses". Stop it, my licenses are valid under BsG.Smith2006 10:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Warsaw siege1.jpg
On what do you base your statement that this image is copyrighted? If so, then please be so kind as to provide the copyright holder before you list the image for deletion.  // Halibutt 11:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's easy: Photographed from a german plane thus copyright protection is life of author + 70 years. Even if the author died in 1939 it's still copyright protected until 2010. --Denniss 15:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry about the 747 thing. It wont happen again.

F-117 Nighthawk
Actually, the US Air Force publicly classifies the F-117 as a fighter/attack rather than a bomber. Cheers,  Netsnipe  (Talk)  21:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Images
You first have to: prove my licenses are "bogus" (can't you speak a proper English?). Then I would like to be notified of your tagging "my" images as "bogus" and "unsourced", so I can improve their sources! That's an absolute minimum. I am contributing to wikipedia to have you in a clerk-like way destroy all the work, merely because a source is a bit lacking or deficient in the License description! Please observe this and notify me of all your changes to images by you made after August 24. One other addition: pictures are not copyrighted anymore + 70 years after author's death, but instead are copyrighted until 70 years after first publication. Sadly, despite your good intentions, you are doing great harm to the articles by tagging them for deletion, while at the same time nót notifying the uploaders and nót specifying the reasons.Smith2006 08:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The uploader has to provide accurate source and license information. You may want to read and understand the german copyright law, it is life of author + 70 years. There might be a very small chance that image become PD 70 years after publication if the author is unknown and there's no way to find out who the person in question was. That does not affect images where the author is known, especially those from Hoffmann. P.S. : bogus = obvioulsy wrong or at least highly questionable --Denniss 11:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

f14
Thanks, I'm well aware of what wikipedia is. However, my edit meets all grounds policy wise for inclusion, including notability grounds, as the game in question is a platinum best-seller. If unverifiable inspiration for an anime can be included, my edit shall as well. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Appearance in games is irrlevant for an article about aircraft, it may be included if it's a F-14 simulation but not with this minor appearance . --Denniss 23:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of NowCommons template
Please stop removing valid NowCommons templates from images, this template's only usage is to mark images available at the Commons. Do not remove the template because the image at the Commons has a different name, this is only a marker template to prevent these images from being uploaded twice. --Denniss 00:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is quite a backlog at CAT:NC. As I understand it, these images need deleting per CSD I9 or to have NC templates removed. I have been removing the tags of images I am not deleting to clear the backlog. My reasoning in removing these templates is to keep them from getting deleted unduly by someone else in the case that: 1) the author is uncredited at the Commons 2) the article doesn't exist on the Commons or the link is botched 3) there are more articles linked than I can rename the images to accord with the Commons name in a reasonable amount of time. Since you bring this up, I'd like to get a third opinion. DVD+ R/W 00:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the broken links on many of the templates I removed. I've gone ahead and started deleting the ones that were properly transferred. Many of the others lack credit to their authors and it would be a shame for some one else to delete them for being redundant and to loose that. DVD+ R/W 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem

 * What, exactly is the problem with the template? It would be vastly more constructive to know what specific thing is the problem. A75 01:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

747 table
Thanks for filling out the table. I have been busy lately and didn't get a chance to finish it off. Thanks again. --Bangabalunga 23:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW - I deleted Boeing 747SP (which was atm a redirect) per your speedy tag. You can continue your move operation now. Syrthiss 11:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Flight International aircraft in service additions
Why are you deleting all these additions without any reason being given? A little common courtesy wouldn't go amiss. The information being added is accurate, up-to-date, referenced, useful and legitimate. I will be reverting the references. Ardfern 18:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Several reasons: 1) Linkspam to Flight international article 2) Data is two months old, do you want to keep them all up to date ? 3) often doubles information already available in article. --Denniss 20:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

DDR2 "pure marketing trick"
Please read up on Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies before contributing anything further to this article. --Dtcdthingy 14:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

in service planes
Hey Dennis, Im getting tired of these people puting planes in service in aircraft articles. Like Ardfern. Or other guys that just added all the planes at boeing 737. What do you think of deleting them all? There is already a list of 737 operators. These people can put their info there.--Bangabalunga 05:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like that, too. Who should maintain these entries, they need constant watching and updating. We should find a regulation at WP:Air to typically have only the five major users in the infobox and eliminate all others. Maybe there's an exception for old planes or old versions of a somewhat recent plane like the 737 with only ~5-10 of them still in use.
 * I also dont like this IP guy adding every single user of an aircraft type regardless how many they used but this is a different task and not that important. --Denniss 20:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Lego
Hi Denniss, I didn't care much for the lego thing either. Some guy put it there. I thought whatever its fine with me, our trivia could use some new material. So I put a link to it. Did you see the barnstar I gave you? Hope you dont mind me puting it on your userpage and not talk page. Since you live in Germany, I have a question to ask you. I am doing a paper on wind power. I know Germany is very engaged in wind energy. I want to know, are people there aware of wind energy becoming very common in Germany or not? The research I have been doing leads me to believe that the country is so pro wind energy that people that oppose it like some farmers or landowners are not heard from. Schleswig-Holstein is where most of the wind turbines are being erected. This state feels it is becoming the wind factory for germany and too many turbines are put here while the electricity is generated for other places. Is this true? Is there a strong sense for green energy in Germany? Thanks--Bangabalunga 05:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

...

Hubble copyright
Hello Denniss We noticed you removed our Hubble copyright tag. On the copyright page you wrote: "remove Template:PD-Hubble; as soon as ESA is involved it becomes noncommercial." I think there must be a mistunderstanding. We have carefully crafted the Hubble copyright tag to comply with all the agreements between NASA and ESA (called Memorandum of Understandings) on the Hubble project. Please talk me if you disagree and let me know where you think the problem is. For now I have reverted your deletion of the tag so that our work can continue. Cheers Lars Lindberg Christensen 09:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

removal of photo links
Denniss, why are you removing the links to photographs of various US military aviation subjects? I checked the forum pages where these photographs were placed, and they seemed to be useful images. Is there a question of copyright or other issue I don't see? Bzuk 17:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Pure linkspam to promote their own site, user contribution has nothing more then posting these links, website do not pay attention to copyright (they do not cite image sources). Do you need more ? --Denniss 22:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Message
Sorry, I don't know how to send messages (if there is a way). For the image EstherBioPic.jpg, what would be the copyright license if the image was found on a website and then editted? Xephyrwing 21:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You have to specify the source website and the source of this image (if the website has it taken from someone else). If this image is copyrighted then you can't use it without agreement from the copyright holder. --Denniss 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Forces Images
Denniss, in rereading the copyright provisions for Canadian Forces Images, I can't see what the problem with them is. Here is the quote: Copyright/Permission to Reproduce

Materials on this Web site were produced and/or compiled by the Department of National Defence for the purpose of providing Canadians with direct access to information about the programs and services offered by the Government of Canada. The material on this site is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act, by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and international agreements. Such provisions serve to identify the information source and, in specific instances, to prohibit reproduction of materials without written permission. Non-commercial Reproduction

Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission by the Department of National Defence. We ask only that:


 * Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
 * The Department of National Defence be identified as the source department; and
 * The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Department of National Defence.

Bzuk 5:54 27 January 2007 (UTC).


 * What do you not understand in personal, non-commercial use? You are allowed to use those images at home for anything you want as long as you don't sell them or use them to harm Canadian forces in any way. Wikipedia falls under the commercial reproduction regulation thus those images are only usable under fair use. --Denniss 04:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Denniss, Can you please send me your Yahoo or MSN id as I need help from you. Thank you Best wishes Sorin - Hello, I have worked a little on the website and I have made this page : http://www.aircraft-list.com/copyright.html and fix the "flas as inappropriate" script. Is now all better? Thank you very much Take care Sorin

KV tank
The sentance was added by ip 209.130.203.190 dec 21 2006 and today it is 30jan 2007 so a whole month has gone by without any sources. I am certain that he/she has no sources, and since there are no sources then it can be removed, please do not revert me since the statment which is not "a nice story" does have sources.

This page has lots of info about the tank

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=50

Thank you

66.246.72.108 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Need for members' help with the Gloster Meteor and de Havilland Comet articles
I need some help here. One editor has constantly (12 times under his user name, perhaps many others with an IP address only, since 30 January 2007) reverted the introductory paragraph to read that the Gloster Meteor was the first operational jet fighter. Now there may be compelling arguments for this claim, however, this editor has taken to using the article and the Me 262 article as the forum for his argument rather than taking it to the discussion pages. Since there is no consensus from other editors, I believe that the most effective path would be to have bonafide sources and provide them in the discussion page. From a cursory observation of the same editor's modus operandi, he has also been involved in a similar dispute on the de Havilland Comet article where again he has championed a very nationalist viewpoint which has been characterized as "POV." What can be done? Is there a way to block his constant reversions? Bzuk 22:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Reply:Well, one could perhaps refer to an offense against the WP:3RR rule and report him/her to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Is it User:Michael Shrimpton that you are referring to? MoRsE 23:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. Bzuk23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply:It all looks a bit arguable, the German and British jets had considerable overlap in their introduction period into service. You need to stick to only what can be cited, POV isn't wrong provided it's somebody else's. Using a technical policy infringement to what may amount to or be perceived as enforcing your own POV isn't likely to do anyone any favours.WolfKeeper 23:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply:Good point, if you check the history of this argument, substantial references and citations have been provided on both sides, but the discussion page was only at times the forum for the back-and-forth, which is the key reason for my commentary. I stressed on the discussion page and with the editor that was posting that if there was a questionable point raised that it should first go to the discussion page and get worked out there. Instead, there has been wholesale "chopping and dicing" going on. I do not have an abiding interest in what argument prevails but there is a lack of decorum that is being instilled. Bzuk 23:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Reply:Now he's at work on the de Havilland Comet site, changing and reverting areas to suit what he considers his own research. There has to be a method to challenge these constant reversions. Bzuk 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Want a hoot? Do a google search on our friend. I was astonished at what I found. This is a classic case of a person highly respected in his field of expertise but...Bzuk 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I have blocked User:Michael Shrimpton for 24 hours for violating the 3RR, and have outlined my position on his talk page. As I have stated there, I am offering the following advice: for those involved in this dispute, try not to make significant edits to the Messerschmitt Me 262, De Havilland Comet, or Gloster Meteor articles. Stick to minor edits, and include with each edit a reference for the information you are changing or adding. One of the most important policies of Wikipedia is Verifiability, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

I think that everyone involved needs to take a step back from these articles for a moment, take a deep breath, and make sure that what they are doing is correct. Do not continue to revert each others edits or further action will be required. -Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Barcelona
Aside from the product numbers, what else would there be that's relevant to the article? A spokesman today revealed the details for 3 models to HEXUS, what else is there to know? --Tene 17:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please wait for an official release of these processors. This list is not for speculation or info collected from various websites. --Denniss 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Troll?
Please refer to WP:NOT, which shows that my edits are in the right, and then refer yourself to WP:CIVIL. You may also want to keep aware of WP:3RR. Thank you for your time. --Action Jackson IV 04:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot?
If you are not a bot, please read the message at the top of User talk:Emax. It was at the bottom, too, but some people still posted below it (perhaps I should make it blink and scream...). Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Maus destroyed rear side view.jpg
Check the talkpage. Check User_talk:Starfury. Your changes have been reverted. I (the IP you claim doesnt know what theyre talking about) will be reporting that image as a copyright infringement. Any other images not CC2 which go in its place will also be reported as such- an example of the vehicle exists preserved in the Kubinka museum.

When new information comes to light which casts serious doubt on the rationale for an image you really should try to take it more seriously. Why not try to get in touch with the original uploader to find out why that rationale is justified? (hasn't been seen since April 2005) 'Starfury' may also be able to explain why that image was deleted from wiki.de. I suspect because its a copyvio making the rationale "nonsense" and not the rights of the person with copyright. Fluffy999 12:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI Fluffy999 12:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on RDRAM mediation
I've commented on the RDRAM mediation request here. YechielMan 01:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Shipwrecks
Please do not add articles to this major cat if they are already included via specific subcats by location like M/S Estonia (in Category:Shipwrecks in the Baltic Sea). Please also consider using these subcats instead of the major cat. --Denniss 15:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying, Denniss but the major catagory is underpopulated. If M/S Estonia appears in Category:Shipwrecks a reader will find it more easily, then while actually reading the article the reader could then select Category:Shipwrecks in the Baltic Sea to see what other ships have sunk there. I hadn't planned on adding every ship to the major cat, just the major ones I happened to think of. Anynobody 00:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is what the guideline WP:CAT says about this kind of situation: Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. For example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges. However there are occasions when this guideline can and should be ignored. For example, Robert Duvall is in Category:Film actors as well as its subcategory Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners. See #5 for another exception. For more about this see Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories


 * To an editor just interested in the subject of shipwrecks in general but without much nautical knowledge, is probably not going to find what he/she is looking for. By selecting a few well known shipwrecks and applying them both to the category describing what sea/ocean they sunk in but also the main category. I'll go back to the M/S Estonia and it's placement in Category:Shipwrecks in the Baltic Sea. There are 27 listing is that category, I'm not suggesting all 27 be added but having one of them in the main category too gives the whole Baltic sea category more exposure. Then there is the case of the RMS Titanic, it's a pretty famous shipwreck wouldn't you agree? Shipwrecks that many people have heard about belong in the main category because they are well known examples. There are many, many people who have heard about the Titanic but couldn't tell you in which ocean it sank, by taking an article like that from the main page you're actually hiding something that should be easily accessed.


 * I'm not saying every ship I added should stay, but several of them should. Anynobody 05:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Schutzstaffel
Can you explain why you removed Template:Schutzstaffel from the Hauptamt Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle. I don't know much about the SS so I can readily believe that I was fooled by somebody else's ignorance or mischief. However, I do think it would be useful to have a single template which would be used on all SS-related articles. Do you agree? If so, what would you suggest such a template should contain?

--Richard 22:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The double-S symbol is the SS insignia and not a flag. The skullhead only belongs to Totenkopf units but not to SS in general. The template in its current version is misleading if not totally wrong. --Denniss 13:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Copy Right Images
Guten arben Herr Dennis.

Just wondering if you could have another look at the images I have uploaded. As far as I know I have sourced them correctly (although they are probably wrong!).

Danke.

Dapi89 16:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you add a source then add the primary source. A Primary source is the person actually taking the photos. An appearance in a book does not help to determine the copyright status, PD-BritishGov is only for images created by members of the british Army/RAF in the given time limits. --Denniss 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Country data Japan
Please read de:Flagge Japans and de:Rising Sun (Flagge) if weak in English. --saburny 04:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why can't you call Poland an operator even if it did operate that vehicle. Because if you're judging by who produced the vehicle then it would only be Germany...

M Van Houten edits
Dennis, I've reverted some reverts of the M Van Houten to your version which is more correct. I'm afraid that he will not understand that and will revert those reverts starting edit war. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 21:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bf 109 and RLM
Hi Denniss,

Is the info you get regarding the figures of the D series off a German Website or is it a record book or something? I'm interested to know because it seems the German stuff is always more reliable, is this your experience?Dapi89 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Data is from the military archive Freiburg, a collection done by the Reichsluftfahrtministerium. Sadly my Bf 109 data goes only up to about 1940, already missing some parts of the late Bf 109E production. --Denniss 22:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete the part about West Germany usage of Leopard I & II tanks?
Why did you delete the part about West Germany usage of Leopard I & II tanks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperTank17 (talk • contribs) 11:00, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Why did you deleted the part about West Germany usage of Leopard I & II tanks?
Why did you deleted the part about West Germany usage of Leopard I & II tanks? --SuperTank17 09:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

AMD Geode NX 2001
Hi Denniss,

I see you are pretty avid in keeping the NX 2001 to the list of Geode NX processors. I would suggest that this is a wrong assumption, based on the following facts:

There are Geodes on the market which are sold as Geode NX 2001, but they appear to be OEM Athlon XP 2200+ "Thoroughbred" processors (and are recognized as such in motherboards), unlike the other Geode NX which are based on Athlon XP-M processors. AMD does not supply any reference to this processor on its public web site. Though part number ANXA2001FKC3D is suggested, it doesn't appear in AMD's Geode datasheets and a Quantispeed rating ending in "1" is never used in any of AMD's numbering schemes. The part number does make sense (see also AMD Geode datasheet):

ANX = AMD Athlon-based Geode Solution A = TDP 2001 = Model Number F = OPGA Package K = 1.65V Vcore C = 266 FSB (133 MHz) 3 = 256 kb L2 Cache F = Max. Die Temperature 95C Lead Reduced

But then again, it doesn't, because a 1.65V Vcore is way too high for mobile/low power use. Typically, a Thoroughbred core @1.65V would consume 60W or more power. Unless a Vcore/multiplier switching is at play, of course.

Specifications of the "AMD Geode NX 2001" as advertised: Clock Speed: 1.8 GHz, 1.65 Volts core operating voltage. There are no references found for low power operation, nor any figures for power consumption.

I don't think AMD is approving the sales at all, I think this is just a marketing trick to get rid of surplus stock Athlon XP processors, meant for the embedded CPU market. Unless someone can provide solid proof of power figures (25W/40W, I have only read one reference at a German forum, the sales ads do not give power figures), I would think it is just a relabeled desktop processor, or a mobile "desktop replacement" processor.

May I suggest a separate header where the existence of the NX 2001 is explained? Please do notice that lots of people use Wikipedia for reference and adding false/inaccurate information is something we should be careful of.

Cheers, Brinkie 09:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You
Stop deleting my flags by birth places. They are legit. Sgt Simpson 22:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

TB115
Thank you for reverting TB115. You've noticed, as I have, that he's changing aircraft infobox pics to Emirates and Etihad pics, regardless of merit. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 22:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

proof of 36 second batch of leopard tank for singapore
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e352/shadow200671/leopard.jpg

here is the newspaper clipping from singapore regarding the 2nd batch of leopard tank.

singapore has a habit of ordering weapons systems in batches... sometimes in close timings to misled others as to its actual purchase numbers...

note that other then the 36 second batch purchase... "a few more" spare tank is also mentioned.. which seems to indicate a total of 102 tank plus 30 spare tank(wonder if it still spare, given the need to order additional tank on top of the 1st purchase) plus "afew more" spare tank in batch 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.3.254 (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Will be aqcquiring 36 more tanks" is not having acquired them nor having them in their hands thus operational. That looks to me like a planned purchase for the future but that's not finished yet. --Denniss 10:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

in singapore... when the govt official, especially the defence minister makes an announcement of a purchase... you can be sure that it is as good as deal already done and sealed.

but its up to you to believe or not... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.3.254 (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A380
21:33, 27 October 2007 Denniss (Talk | contribs) (67,572 bytes) (Undid revision 167495316 by 85.225.96.49 (talk)) (undo) * 2 Do You nowing someting about the airplane or ?? 85.225.96.49 22:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not vandalise images uploaded from WWII in Color website
Do not revert the copyright status of the images which have been loaded in to the Wiki Common which I have spent converting from the website WWII in Color. These images fail to cite any source of the image or the copyright status. As indicated on the website, unless a copyright status is listed--these images are not for use for public domain. I saw that there was an old template used for licensing for the use of the image tamptles for WWII in Color website but this template is now obsolete and is no longer valid. It is fair to say that at least some of the images were indeed copyrighted from various websites and the copyright righted FAQ for WWII in Color

Most of the images stored on ww2incolor.com were collected from government sources or submitted by their respective owners. '''This does not mean that all images on this site are in the public domain. The majority of the images, unfortunately, have an unknown copyright status and therefore it is recommended that you do not distribute or copy them for any commercial purposes unless they are specifically stated to be in the public domain''' (some images have a “public domain” notice in their captions). Most of the images in the gallery are products of government works and therefore are required to be in the public domain by copyright law. However, some of the images were photographed by private individuals, media or other government entities (such as the United Kingdom) that do not fall under public domain law. -TabooTikiGod 22:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Help needed on Image challenges
HELP, The follwoing images have all been challenged:
 * 1) Image copyright problem with Image:P-51D Tika IV 361st fg.jpg
 * 2) Unspecified source for Image:P-63 Kingcobras.jpg
 * 3) Image copyright problem with Image:P-59 Airacomet.jpg
 * 4) Unspecified source for Image:B 26.jpg
 * 5) Unspecified source for Image:B-25 refuelling.jpg
 * 6) Unspecified source for Image:P-39N.jpg
 * 7) Unspecified source for Image:B-25s in New Guinea.jpg
 * 8) Unspecified source for Image:B 24 in raf service 23 03 05.jpg
 * 9) Image copyright problem with Image:Capturedfw190 red.jpg
 * 10) Image copyright problem with Image:Fw 190A starting up.jpg
 * 11) Image copyright problem with Image:Fw 190As in flight.jpg
 * 12) Image copyright problem with Image:Me 262 Abandoned.jpg
 * 13) Image copyright problem with Image:Junkers 88.jpg
 * 14) Image copyright problem with Image:Junkers 88.1.jpg
 * 15) Image copyright problem with Image:Junkers 88k2.jpg
 * 16) Unspecified source for Image:Stirling of 7 sqn.jpg
 * 17) Image copyright problem with Image:Spitfire V 316.jpg
 * 18) Image copyright problem with Image:Mosquito Fighter-bomber.jpg
 * 19) Image copyright problem with Image:DH98 Mosquito bomber.jpg
 * 20) Unspecified source for Image:Hawker Typhoon.jpg
 * 21) Unspecified source for Image:Beaufighter252sqn.jpg
 * 22) Unspecified source for Image:Short Shetland.jpg
 * 23) Image copyright problem with Image:Fairey Barracuda.1.jpg
 * 24) Unspecified source for Image:Westland Whirlwind prototype.jpg

All of these images will be removed by TabooTikiGod who has made the sweeping challenges based on some dubious premises. I believe they can all fall under or  or other appropriate PD tags. Can you help! Bzuk 23:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC).
 * In reference to your claim, the webmaster of the website WWII in Color has a FAQ website which states the following:


 * "Most of the images stored on ww2incolor.com were collected from government sources or submitted by their respective owners. This does not mean that all images on this site are in the public domain. The majority of the images, unfortunately, have an unknown copyright status and therefore it is recommended that you do not distribute or copy them for any commercial purposes unless they are specifically stated to be in the public domain (some images have a “public domain” notice in their captions)."


 * It further states:


 * "However, some of the images were photographed by private individuals, media or other government entities (such as the United Kingdom) that do not fall under public domain law."


 * Therefore, the images which you have uploaded directly from the website, unless specified, are not public domain. These images all have unverified sources which you have uploaded to Wikipedia and the Wiki Commons. -TabooTikiGod 23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All I can say is this issue was reviewed previously and it was thought to be resolved since: "an image in this gallery contains an unknown copyright status (these notices are available beneath the photo captions. NOTE: I am currently implementing this, not all images are marked) then it shall be known that it is being displayed on this website under the 'fair use' doctrine under U.S. copyright law that provides for the licit, non-licensed citation or incorporation of possible U.S. copyrighted material. In a nutshell, this means that those images, according to US law, can only be used by this website for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research and is therefore not an infringement of copyright as this website's sole purpose is to educate and research the World War II era.


 * Furthermore, ww2incolor.com complies and is protected in other countries under 'Fair Dealing' [CDPA] (United Kingdom, Canada)." I believe you are on a well-meaning but disruptive campaign that was never discussed in relevant talk, discussion pages. Be that as it may, I think there can still be an equitable resolution. FWIW Bzuk 23:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC).

-TabooTikiGod 00:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion.
I've deleted 12.8 cm PaK 44 redirect per your request. In the future, you may find e.g. "" shorter to type for similar cases.—Random832 17:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also done the move.—Random832 17:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Denniss 17:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Junkers 88k2.jpg
This image is in the public domain because it was published in Japan before 1956. In this case it was published in the 1940s. 哦， 是吗？  (review O) 00:49, 03 December 2007 (GMT)
 * Publication date in Japan is irrelevant as it's obviously not taken in Japan. --Denniss 11:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How would it be "obvious" though? We may need to further research into this. Attic  Cat  (public account of User:O) 20:26, 03 December 2007 (GMT)

A question please
Why do you revert my edits on Japanese Navy articles? Style of distance measurements is wrong. Military history books are consistent. Articles in Wikipedia should reflect common practice in the profession. Shibumi2 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:MoS --Denniss 16:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Airbus/Boeing orders 2007
Justplanes.com is not a proper reference. Please refer to the discussion page on this issue.

Scharnhorst & Gneisenau
I have opened an RfC on whether to refer to these ships as battleships or battlecruisers. Since you have participated in this debate previously, please have a look, read the debate, and make your views known: Talk:Scharnhorst_class_battlecruiser Regards, The Land (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

DDR3
Hi, I dont know why do you think, that ddr3-1800 does not exist, but I can show you, that Samsung and many other companies has today a DDR3-2000 memory modules. So, can you explain me.. please.. why you removing these specifications from DDR3 page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.207.47.134 (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not exist, the highest standard is DDR3-1600. All other home-brewed "specifications" are irrelevant. --Denniss (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop following me around
A short while ago, you followed me from one edit war on Luftwaffe to start another on Bundeswehr. Please stop following me around, as this is a violation of Wikipedia policy. --87.189.110.108 (talk)


 * Denniss, I noted that you are involved in that particular discussion whether or not the word Luftwaffe is used in a generic way in German. I added some new and compelling (so I think) arguments to the discussion, you might be interested in. I would like to invite you to share your point of view and to facilitate the decision making. -> link. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Me 263
What's your source for changing the speed for the Me 263?

Most of the article was written by me using the Luftfahrt article. Also the estimated speed I got from the Luftfahrt article which uses official data. The max speed couldn't have been as fast as that of the Me 163: the Me 263 was much heavier though its maximum engine power was the same.

Regards Kris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.55 (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

IP/Luftwaffe/Bundeswehr
I don't think it's prodocutive for either of us to continue this. I don't troll, please try to accept that and let's work together on the articles. --87.189.88.78 (talk)

Licences
Is your wiki email activated? I'm going to send you those permissions right away. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please post extractions of these mails to the image discussion page so everybody is able to check them. Please do not post E-Mail adresses, only the part giving you the permission to use these image under the license you chose. --Denniss (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, regarding the two images from the Romanian MoD, please read the disclaimer on the Official MoD website. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Would this be ok - Image:Bell 427.jpg?? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm as I read this (hard to read) answer the permission is for Wikipedia only and the image credit line has to be kept which makes it non-derivative. Both are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. If the other authors gave a similar response/permission those images have to be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, then which would be the proper permission for an image to be suitable for use on Wikipedia?? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User: Wrongmonth55
Hi Denniss. I notice that you have reverted the edits of the user on the Battle of Moscow page. He has been systematically deleting all the information on causualty and strength figures I have put into many articles. He has done this on the history of the Luftwaffe page and the Battle of Stalingrad page as well. I think your ast revert on the Moscow page of "Thisterms" was just "Wrongmonth55" in disguise. Is there anything that can be done? Dapi89 (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Mozilla Digital Memory Bank
Dear Denniss,

I am a graduate research assistant at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University. In recent years we have produced a number of online archives such as The September 11 Digital Archive (http://911digitalarchive.org/) and the Hurricane Digital Memory Bank (http://www.hurricanearchive.org/). Our team is currently gathering digital documents related to Mozilla products for the Mozilla Digital Memory Bank (http://mozillamemory.org), and we are in the process of interviewing some of the lead members, former and present, of the Mozilla community.

I recently found your Mozilla/Firefox-related contributions located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mozilla_Firefox. Given your involvement with Mozilla, we think your voice would be an excellent addition to the archive. If you are interested in having your perspectives added to the record, we can conduct the interview via Skype, instant messenger, or email—whichever method might fit your schedule and preferences best.

I have included below the first three questions of the interview in order to give you a sense of the process. For examples of completed interviews, please feel free to examine the interviews section (http://mozillamemory.org/browse.php?cat=interview) of our archive.

If you are interested in contributing your perspectives on the Mozilla community and its products, you can reach me by e-mail at gcheong@gmu.edu. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding the interview process or the Mozilla Digital Memory Bank.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Best regards,

Giny Cheong

Gcheong (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Graduate Research Assistant

Center for History and New Media (http://chnm.gmu.edu)

Department of History and Art History

George Mason University

4400 University Drive, MSN 1E7

Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

Interview Questions

When did you begin using computers? How did you get interested in computers?

What is your education background? Have you had formal computer training?

What’s the first programming project you remember working on?

Torpedoes
Sorry about my stupid edit I should pay more attention.

Cheers, nyenyec &#9742; 19:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

FW 190 page
Hi Denniss, Please don't simply revert the 190A section back to what it was; I worked long and hard at correcting some erroneous information that has been there since 2006; if you have accurate engine date and production numbers it should be incorporated along with the scources. Also, please note I didn't write the comment about the MG 17s. TIAMinorhistorian (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Wirbelwind
Because of the edit-warring, I've protected the article. I don't know if anybody's correct, but the three of you who are involved need to start using the talk page to discuss. I recommend finding a reliable source that supports your position. --Carnildo (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't revert my edits without explanation.
Regards,

130.49.2.244

130.49.2.244 (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. "Vandalism." I know how wikipedia works and I'm certainly not at risk of being blocked, but I appreciate the suggestion that your edits are somehow more valuable than mine. Regards, 130.49.2.244 (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't falsely tell people they are vandalizing a page when they are posting the truth. If I didn't do it right by Wiki rules, then educate me, don't threaten. Posting the truth is NOT vandalism.Twiddlebug (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

DDR SDRAM
Hi. Apologies for the inconvenience but I have reverted your changes to DDR SDRAM article. The only reason for this was down to the content you deleted cited sources, whereas the reasons for your deletion did not. If you could perhaps provide credible sources for why the information should be deleted, that would certainly help to make your changes stick. Even so, I would recommend keeping some of the information in, but adding that some of it is not included in whatever standards are applicable. Cheers, --Rebroad (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See answer on article discussion page. DDR-300 is not a standard but home-brewed stuff by some manufacturers (as per the note below the table) --Denniss (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: These XP-M are Athlon64/K8-based and already listed as "all K8-based CPU"
In response to your edit of SSE2, how can that CPU be Athlon64 based when it is really 32-bit, not 64-bit? It is not Mobile Athlon64. --Bisqwit (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See List_of_AMD_Athlon_XP_microprocessors. These XP-M are relabeled mobile Semprons lacking the 64Bit capability (disabled) but having all other features like SSE2 and integrated memory controller. --Denniss (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Socket F(1207) / Socket F
Denniss, why did you undo my correcting of "Socket F" to "Socket F(1207)"? The offical AMD branding for the sock et is "Socket F(1207)". Please see http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8826_14266,00.html or http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/sales_sheet_opteron_rev_f_v8.pdf or http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/Quad-Core_AMD_Opteron_processor_Fast_Facts.pdf where is says "Socket F(1207)" in several places - not "Socket F". Or look at offical AMD documents - you'll see titles such as "Thermal Design Guide for Socket F (1207) Processors". Dr unix (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

x86-64
Denniss, To undo the the gibibyte->gigabyte type changes is one thing - at least from your terse comment I think that's what you objected to. Though please provde a pointer that it has been standardized on for all Giga/Tera/etc.. to be the *iB versions. None of Gigabyte, Talk:Gigabyte, Gibibyte, or Talk:Gibibyte articles state the *iB versions should be used within Wikipedia as a standard. Nor am I aware of the IEEE or ACM recommending *iB verbage. Additionally, I had other changes you backed out, and best I can tell you didn't provide a reason for doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr unix (talk • contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Blohm & Voss aircraft designation

 * Can you cite a reliable source to point out the wrongness of Bv? Dirk P Broer (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Original sources are hard to obtain but I have at least an image of an aircraft data card (Flugzeugtypenblatt) of a BV 138 clearly showing to uppercase letters. See also here --Denniss (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I stand correctedDirk P Broer (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Phenom X4 9750 at 95W
You say it's in the official price list, URL please?

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_609,00.html?redir=CPT301%3fredir=SPDR0010 doesn't show it.

http://products.amd.com/en-us/DesktopCPUFilter.aspx doesn't list it.

Besides the article lists it as "released" on Mar 27 2008. It's already April 7 2008 and I can't find the part for sale anywhere.

If it is an OEM only product it is poorly named especially with many of the low end boards dying when a 125W part is put in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhanson865 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It was on this pricelist as seen here but it was removed. It's still noticed there. --Denniss (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering that it was removed from the price list don't you think it should be removed from Wikipedia? Or at least moved to the list of future Phenom Processors?--Dhanson865 (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning
You might not be aware but Wikipedia has a three-revert-rule regarding reverts of material on a page in a 24 hour period. You are approaching this limit with these edits. Fnagaton 14:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What's your problem? Fight your war against binary prefixes elsewhere and do not vandalize my talk page! --Denniss (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Panzer IV Image
Since you reverted me about my new image id like to discuse it. Personaly i think that my photograph does a better job of displaying the whole tank while the currently shows the front and doesnt display the whole outline of the tank nicely. please get back to me on my talk БοņёŠ ɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 20:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Flags in the infobox
Why do you remove flags from the infoboxes when alsmost every other article on war machinery uses them? I mean atleast have the flag of the country of origin. flags realy help in recognition at a glance, which makes up most of wikipedias browsing.--SelfQ (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:MILMOS --Denniss (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware of WP:MILMOS, but thats not what was happening here. do you feel like there cluttering up the place? and why the double standard like these:
 * With place of origin flag:
 * Without place of origin flag:
 * With all flags minus place of origin:
 * With all flags:
 * --SelfQ (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

NSU Ro 80
The Ro 80 wasnt`t just a commercial failure, it was a commercial disaster leading to the demise of NSU and the stigmatization of Wankel technology, wich only a few other makers dared to use after NSU, with Citröen also failing in succeeding with the GS Birotor. The only reason it continued to be produced was that there was no money to develop any new models; it was produced in very small numbers as total production amounted to little more than 37,000 examples in ten years: about 3,700 a year is a poor achievement for a car of this segment and price. Anyway, sales numbers shouldn't be the only standard for measuring a model's success: this car was a commercial failure because of its neccesarily generous warranty policy and bad reputation, leading NSU to bankruptcy. By the way, I LOVE this car! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratzinger Z (talk • contribs) 18:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Polish Leo 2s
More on discussion page, please see there. 84.138.17.183 (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Competition between Airbus and Boeing
In the article Competition between Airbus and Boeing I noticed you reverted my removal of non-cited information, what is your reasoning for this? Including the fact that Airbus outsells Boeing in recent years without including a citation to me indicates POV. 193.63.173.241 (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Messerschmitt Me 262
I notice that you reverted me inserting a tag on the above article requesting citations for it being the first "jet fighter". This is how I would treat any other important fact on Wikipedia that lacks a reference. I do not wish to enter an edit war on this, and hold no partisan views on the matter. However, if this is a fact, it needs to be verified in the body of the article. It is not truth but verifiability which is key - that's my understanding of Wikipedia. If it is a fact, there will be many reliable references for it. All I ask is that they are added in the article. It should not be up to the reader to trawl a talk page and wade through various editors' personal arguments and opinions to establish if something is fact or fiction. Regards Emoscopes Talk 01:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Greenbox
There's been a Complete rewrite of section 4 (greenbox) of the MOSNUM in the last few days. Could you give feedback and vote?

While your at it, check out the bluebox and purplebox proposals.

Thanks. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 02:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Junkers Ju 352
Can you please use some references for this article?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert on Helmut Schmidt
You have just reverted a good faith edit by an IP on Helmut Schmidt. This edit was not perfect, but contained a reference and was to the topic. It was obviously not vandalism. That does not imply that it has to stay in the article, but it means that reverting it with neither edit summary nor talk page discussion is very bad style. Please, be more sensible towards other editors—even IPs—in the future. Tomea s y talk 11:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Geschwader correction in Organization of the Luftwaffe during World War II
Sorry, a previous editor had placed Geschwadern in one paragraph, and I unfortunately ass-umed that was the plural form (similar to Rotten and Rotte). GMan552 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

GAA Logo
Why did you undo my edit here? Fasach Nua (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

airpics.gr Links
Hello. I am the owner and administrator of airpics.gr! Can I ask you why you removed our links and described them as "spam"? Plekkas (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not use Wikipedia to advertize your site. --Denniss (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

On the article of the Boeing 777 for example, the link to photos featured on Airliners.net... is that advertising? I am trying to give people a way to have a look on specific pics not to advertise my site. Plekkas (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

IEC prefix: articles affected by new MOSNUM guideline
Hello Denniss. I would welcome your comments on this list. Do you know of any other articles affected? Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Windows 2000 rev.
I see that you reverted the page on Windows 2000 to remove an erroneous reference to it being replaced by Windows Me; but in the process, you removed my valid edit. I'm assuming that was a mistake, so I'm re-doing my edit. (I explained my reasoning in the summary, I'll also put it on the talk page.) If you disagree with my edit, please feel free to discuss it on the talk page. Ehurtley (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, Denniss. I noticed the problem you are having with 86.32.178.163, and I just wanted to remind you to always be civil. Yes, it can sometimes be difficult to do so in the face of the kinds of comments the IP has hurled at you, but it's best to not sink to their level. In any case, I've blocked the IP for disruptive editing and personal attacks. If he returns and starts the same stuff, let me know. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Tank Task Force
Hey,

I wrote my reasoning for the founding of a task force for tanks on the Military History WikiProject, which you can read here. I guess its success is dependant on membership, and given that you have edited the Leopard 2 and Leopard 2E articles I wanted to extend an invitation, since I thought you'd be interested. The task force wouldn't require editors that do 'heavy edits' - as in, entire articles - and, in fact, I would be looking more for active copy editors that do minor edits to maintain the quality of the article - but, really anything is fine. What I'm looking for is more or less detailed in that message I left on the WikiProject talk page (previously linked above). If you're interested it would be great if you could mention it there, and if not that's fine - but, it's worth a try. ;) Regardless, thanks for your time and patience! JonCatalán (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

LOI vs. Order on 747-8
On reviewing Boeing's announcement, I agree with your characterization of the Arik Air announcement (Arik Air's Wikipedia page lists the 747-8 as being ordered, but I did not write anything on that page). I would appreciate your correcting or improving text rather than simply reverting. Reverting is appropriate if somebody screws up a page, and is generally considered rudeness otherwise. It takes time and effort to put in sourced material, and if there is an error in interpreting said material, it is more appropriate (and thoughtful) to write the correction yourself rather than simply erasing someone else's work. Please try to be more considerate.Raryel (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Add this order if it's in the book but don't add oders that are not finished. A Letter of Intent or an intention to buy some aircraft is not worth noting until the contract is signed. --Denniss (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft of the Battle of Britain
Could you kindly look at this article as it needs attention. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

Cleanup after providing Referances
helpme Hi Dennis

I have placed proper Source & Copyright information for all the images I have uploaded. I'd appreciate if you could let me know if that's done in correct manner ? How does one go about removing the Notices above this message ? I know you can simply edit the page and remove them. I don't know if that's the proper way. I'd appreciate the help.

Cheers

Perseus--perseus71 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed to Panzer IV
I apologize for undoing your edit, but I found it a bit overwhelming. This is especially true for changing referenced facts with unreferenced facts (like production numbers - claiming that they are wrong, but not adding any evidence, doesn't really help the article) and changing unit conversions with incorrect unit conversions (24 metric tonnes is not 39 tons). Before editing, can you please discuss these changes on the talk page? Perhaps, add some references to these claims? Thanks. JonCatalán (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd better check your (outdated?) sources, several of the claims are plain wrong (such as the MG 13, engine power ratings, the introduction dates, several production numbers, the Krupp 75 mm L34.5 gun (that never existed), the Panzer III transmission that was not used (only used in the Geschützwagen III/IV) and many others. Sources are Spielberger "Panzer IV and variants" (1977), http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/tanks-medium/pzkpfw-iv.asp and others. --Denniss (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My sources are newer than yours, while that website is not a reliable site by Wikipedia standards. All my information is referenced.  It's a bit frustrating, given that it doesn't seem as one could argue with you based upon the fact that while my information comes from published and peer-reviewed sources, you'll believe your own information even if it doesn't come from reliable references. JonCatalán (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, the information on the L/34.5 gun came from Spielberger himself. JonCatalán (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Newer sources does not mean they are better, the later Spielberger books (late 1970s) are not free of errors but better than older books. I have heard of the 7.5 /L33 gun but this was a prototype, a shortened version of their L/40 to L/42 prototype 7.5 gun. Both were very soon dropped in favour of the Rheinmetall 7.5 L/46 which was used for the 7.5 KwK 40 L/43 and L/48 with the modifications needed for a tank mount (recoil mechanism, chamber (as your sources stated) and the change to electrical priming. The only images I have seen of what was believed to be a 7.5 L/33 gun was in "Waffen Arsenal 74 - Sturmgeschütz III". But those images are of low quality and are probably nothing else than 7.5 L/43 StuG III with a censor washing out the muzzle brake and some parts of the barrel. And btw, this example website lists a lot of books as reference, that's not very different to our way of using references. Please crosscheck the transmission with other references, I have not seen this transmission on anything else than the Geschützwagen III/IV or the Panzer III. It may be possible it was introduced with the Ausf. J to reduce production cost and maintenance efforts by having only a single type in two major production lines (Panzer IV and derivatives, Panzer III and derivatives). Sources tend to vary, two books by the same publisher, one of the short Jagdpanzer IV L/48 states SSG76 and the other one of the the later L/70 versions states SSG77. --Denniss (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Athlon X2 7550, 7750
Hello, I wonder why you are against the inclusion of AMD's announced Athlon X2 7550 and 7750 CPUs. A reference is published at this website. http://en.expreview.com/2008/10/15/kuma-to-become-athlon-x2-75507750.html The section that I put them in specifically states that it "contains information about scheduled or expected future computer chips". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuckhil (talk • contribs) 09:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not really sourced information on this site. That's another rumor site like theinquirer or others. --Denniss (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks. You posted the reason for your first revert was because the chips were not released.  If you had mentioned unreliable source, then the matter would have ended there.  Cheers!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.58.35 (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

name name for Image:Leopard.jpg
I have reuploaded Image:Leopard.jpg as Image:The Leopard Signet 1960s.jpg to avoid conflicts with an image on the Commons with the same name and another editor's upload of a photo of a Leopard tank. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Flag icon in MG-42 article
This is at least the second time you've inappropriately removed flags from the MG-42 article. You also misinterpreted the WP guidelines. Please reread the WP:GUN project and talk pages as well as the manual of style you quoted and cite the exact rule that prohibits flags in infoboxes before you edit again. --Winged Brick (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect revert
Your recent revert was not correct because the case has been moved to the archive, for proof of this view this page Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive and search for "Greg". The actual date of the move to the archive is shown in this diff. This means any edits to add content to the case page after that date are made to an archived page, which is wrong. Since your edit was not correct I have reverted you to make the page correctly reflect the version of the page at the time the case was moved to the archive. The edits Thunderbird2 has tried to make are to an archived case page, that is why his edits have been reverted because editing case pages to add extra misleading content after they have been closed is not the done thing. The archive template was then added because I noticed that it was missing and because indeed the page is in the archive and closed. The archive template is there now to serve as a warning that editing the page to add content after it has been closed should not be done. In future if you want to follow correct procedure on similar case pages then the correct action would be to revert to the date the page was archived and then place an archive template. In this specific case this means that you should have also reverted Thunderbird2's changes and placed an archive tag. Think about it for a second, when case pages are moved to the archive they are closed and if someone was allowed to come along months afterwards and then continue to edit old closed case pages then that means the person is presenting a false misleading picture of what has happened. So, in summary, do not allow Thunderbird2 to violate correct procedure by replacing his incorrectly added text. In short, do not re-revert because that is the incorrect thing to do. Fnagaton 10:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Das Boot correction
Denniss, I appreciate you are typing to keep the language true to the era. But have you ever listened closely to what the crew call der Alte? They call him "Herr Kaleut'n. The 't' and the 'n' are both clearly heard. I have tried to give the phonetic spelling, which I got from a German friend. The "Kaleu" which you prefer may be correct when writing, but it is not correct phonetically. Skylark42 (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what version you have but I have the the original movie and the three-part TV-series (in german language), in neither of them they call him anything but Kaleu. Also Kaleut'n is not a valid short form of Kapitänleutnant, the only known short versions were Kaleu or Kaleun. --Denniss (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Messerschmitt Bf 109 Benzineinspritzung von Prosper L'Orange
Nach einer vierjährigen Beschäftigung im Vorstand der 1922 neu gegründeten MWM gründete L'Orange im Jahr 1926 die Firma „Prosper L'Orange Ingenieur-Büro“ in Stuttgart. 1927 übernahm Prosper L'Orange die Firma „REF-Apparatebau“ in Feuerbach bei Stuttgart, die jedoch 1932 Konkurs anmelden musste. 1933 wurde das Unternehmen als „L'Orange Motorzubehör GmbH“ neu gegründet, deren Nachfolgefirma L'Orange GmbH heute Weltmarktführer bei Einspritztechnik für 4-Takt-Großmotoren ist. Außer mit der Diesel-Einspritzung beschäftigte sich das Unternehmen auch mit der Benzin-Einspritzung.

So war z.B. der Mercedes Flugmotor DB 605 der Messerschmitt Bf 109 mit einer Benzineinspritzung von L'Orange ausgestattet.

it is in german L'Orange wiki! check english version pls. thanks for the attention. wdelang@cogeco.ca Wdl1961 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ariana Airlines
Hello!

please refer to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Denniss#Ariana_Airlines

for a question. Thank you! Aryadne (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Do 17 + He 111
Hi. Do you have any data on unit cost for these two? I have some on the Do 17. About 16 Do 17Kas were sold to Yugoslavia for 207,299RM each, but do you know the cost of production? Dapi89 (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to look into my books but I don't remember ever reading something about production costs there. --Denniss (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ju 87
Yes, that is right. I made a mistake. Dapi89 (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of the "Historical Comparisons"  section, and Wikipedia deletion policy
The "Historical Comparisons" section is intended to be a neutral report on what has become a frequent historical comparison between the bombing of Gaza, and that of Guernica. It attempts to provide factual information regarding the reasons cited for the comparison, along with an externally verifiable metric for its prevalence, and the best estimates available on the number of casualties sustained by each side (with separate figures for combatants and non-combatants).

The "Historical Comparisons" section was placed along with the Bombing of Dresden 70th Anniversary passage in an effort to group together material relating to the aerial bombing of other densely populated cities (such as Hiroshima and Dresden). Historical analogies are always somewhat problematic. However, that does not prevent them from being made or cited by scholars, news organizations, or the general public. When they become a part of the global discussion, they acquire relevance.

As of 16 January 2009, the google keyword search combination "Hiroshima" and "Guernica" yields 49,000 pages, which is only about 1/3 of the "Gaza" and "Guernica" combination. The Bombing of Guernica article makes reference to deputies from Hiroshima. Presumably, the deputies were in attendance because there is a common perception that both cities suffered heavy losses of civilian life. Objectively, the same connection is made even more strongly with Gaza (as the 144,000 pages returned attest).

Wikipedia's focus on content  policy is:

When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral. Note that unreferenced text may be tagged or removed because of our policy on Verifiability.

Given Wikipedia's stated bias towards the inclusion of material, I've restored "Historical Comparisons". Before further action is taken, I'd appreciate hearing from you, and hope to reach a clearer understanding of your objection. I'd be happy to discuss ways in which you think this section could be improved. As a last resort, we could make a formal request for mediation, but I remain optimistic we can resolve things ourselves.

Sincerely, JonDePlume (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Focus on content, not views.
After referencing Wikipedia policy regarding focusing on content and describing the rationale behind the "Historical Comparisons" section at some length, my hope was that we could resolve this issue without the need for mediation. That hope has dimmed a bit with the latest revert, but perhaps we can still work this through. There are some complex issues here, and I think we may both stand to gain something by deepening our understanding of Wikipedia's policies and each other.

It appears to me that you regard the mere inclusion of well-referenced and related material as political, while censoring it as non-political. The relevance of this section has been justified using an objective metric, but no grounds have been given for censoring it. Adopt this perspective for a moment, and I'll try to adopt yours if you tell me what it is beyond a 1-line condemnation. Ground your assessment in something. Show me what words you think could be chosen differently to keep the focus on content, not views. Do you think that the historical comparison isn't content at all? If not, why not when other aftermath-oriented content is? Where is the dividing line and why?

From my reading of Wikipedia's guidelines, the goal is to work together and achieve balance by way of inclusion (subject to the constraints of verifiability). I'm supposing you've read this policy as well, so I'm left to wonder if you've decided to ignore it, or if we have a different understanding of it, as applied here. Assuming it's the latter, on what grounds have you repeatedly deleted the "Historical Comparisons" section?


 * Are the references not ample enough?
 * Do you think the BBC's stories were erroneous?
 * Do you have an alternative to google keywords as a measure of zeitgeist?
 * Do you dispute the actual number of non-combatants who've lost their lives?
 * Could the wording be improved in some way?

Help me understand how you perceive the removal of "Historical Comparisons" as deleting political speech rather than politically censoring well-referenced and objectively related content.

Sincerely, JonDePlume (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Significant figures
Hi Denniss. About the edit to Pz 38(t)...

Converting PS to “horsepower” is a bit silly. PS means horsepower. If you want to convert it, then you must specify what you are converting it to: metric horsepower, British horsepower, or what?

Secondly the significant figures are incorrect. You can't convert 125 PS to 123.3 hp or 91.9 kW, because you are claiming more precision than the original figure has (unless the original was “125.0 PS”). Since PS and British horsepower vary by about 1%, and horsepower is variable, depending on the individual vehicle, fuel quality, engine tune, etc., it's safe to assume that the original figure is rounded to the nearest 5 PS. There's not much point in putting anything other than 125 hp, but I suppose one could defend a conversion rounded to 123.

Power-to-weight ratios are always calculated in hp/t, so they can be compared. There's no point in using different units in one article. And again, unless you have the power accurate to .01 horsepower and the weight accurate to the nearest kilo, you can't cite four significant figures – we usually round to the nearest 1 hp/t. —Michael Z. 2009-02-06 17:52 z 
 * Ps is not horsepower, it's metric horsepower. hp is used for imperial horsepower. Thus PS is not hp. It may not be important with engines having rather low PS but the differece grows larger the more powe ran engine has. It's always better to keep PS/hp/kW separate to avoid confusion. Try to get an english language book about world war 2 aviation and look at the power ratings of german/italian/soviet aircraft engines, you'll almost always find a literal translation from PS to hp (without proper conversion) which is sometimes off by ~100 PS/hp and goes even worse if those boks were translated back into german/italian/russian language keeping the wrong PS/hp conversion and converting them back into PS or kW. --Denniss (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The added precision is still wrong. —Michael Z. 2009-02-07 15:59 z 

Speedy deletion
Please don't add tags for files that don't qualify for speedy deletion. It provides clutter that we have to revert, and if one goes unnoticed, the image will be unfairly deleted by an administrator. Eugene2x-talk 00:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

ME262
What's your problem with Albert Fonó's jet propulsion patent in 1928? Fonó showed the idea of jet propulsion for Germans Celebration1981 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not relevant for the Me 262 article. Should be relevant for articles about jet engines. --Denniss (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A320
I appreciate your intentions but please be wary of WP:3RR which applies even though the other editor may be adding information against consensus. Probably best to bring it up at the related project and ask for help. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical comparison to Gaza
Mustafa Barghouthi, Secretary General of the Palestinian National Initiative published paper making a direct historical comparison of Operation Cast Lead to the bombing of Guernica. The material in this section relating to war crimes is well annotated with footnotes, and involves well-known public figures, NGOs, and news organizations. If you wish to have a section that rebuts various historical comparisons (or shows different perspectives on them) please do so. It is counter to Wikipedia's guidelines to merely censor material based on personal POV. If there is anything you don't understand about this policy, or if you feel there is some way to make this section better, please feel free to contact me. Respect for Wikipedia's policies and everyone else who relies upon our cooperation is vitally important.

JonDePlume (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC) signed by SineBot-->

Political censorship not tolerated on Wikipedia
Prominent political figures have drawn a historical comparison between Guernica and Gaza. Your POV does not entitle you to censor this fact, nor the well-documented war crimes that have lead them to draw this analogy.

JonDePlume (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD of JEDEC memory standards
Hello,

You haven't edited the article in question, but since you are or have been actively involved in the IEC prefix discussion (sorry to remind you of it if you, like me, got tired of the uncivil discussion and wanted to have nothing to do with the issue anymore), I invite you to consider the nomination for deletion of the article JEDEC memory standards, which I believe can fairly be said to have been created only as a hammer for the discussion.

I beg you to try to keep your sentiments about the actual IEC prefix on Wikipedia question out of the deletion discussion and consider the merits of the deletion proposal, namely, notability in the Wikipedia sense (WP:N), regardless of which units you believe Wikipedia should use.

The deletion discussion is at Articles for deletion/JEDEC memory standards. --SLi (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ragarding the Hispano Aviación HA-1112 article
I removed the photo of the BF 109G6 from this article. It is not a HA-1112 modified to look like a G6... it is a G6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.82.161 (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally: even if the aircraft pictured was indeed at one time a HA-1112 (which I cannot find evidence of), the photo confuses the actual airframe differences; Daimler-Benz inverted engine, gun placement, spinner, and prop. The photo does not address the uniqueness of the HA-1112. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.82.161 (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ragarding the KC-777 tanker image in boeing 777 article
Hi dennis

I have forwarded the permission of the creator of the image to use in the article. Please let me know if it checks out ok. isteele00 (talk

sorry
Hey, I just want to say sorry about yelling at you about my jagedpanther II page.I just want it to stay up.is it okay with u if i keep the page up?Plz answer when you can.Thx. Kingtiger101 (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Big help
Hi again.

Sorry if you are tired of me but,I need your help.Can you tell people about me? Well, could you tell I am a world war I and II tank expert.(well not to full function.)And could we be friends? thx! Kingtiger101 (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't a good way to make friends. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Kv-2
I am asking what did i vandaliz? i made that kv-2 anyiss befor i had this sever. Kingtiger101 (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Folke-Wulf Fw 189 page...
Dude, if you're going to change to PS values, you have to do it for the whole page... otherwise, I'm reverting it back to hp... Magus732 (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, dude... I would've done it myself, but I don't have the conversion values handy... Magus732 (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A321
There is absolutely nothing either "irrelevant" or "fictional" about Microsoft Flight Simulator. It is the industry-leading simulator, used by real-world pilots to train. The inclusion of the A321 in FSX is highly significant; it affects the entire recreational as well as professional pilot community. For you to argue anything different would be nothing less than ignorant.

Do your research before removing a perfectly valid, sourced edit.

Drummerdg (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Bundeswehr
Why did you undo my revision? To my knowledge (and experience), soldiers are allowed to swear "...so wahr mir Gott helfe." Please explain. --MartectX (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

109K propeller question
Hi Dennis,

I noticed you are keenly interested in the 109 article, there seems to be some disturbance over the props and engines used in the 109K on the Messerschmitt 109 page, and your insight would be welcome to the matter. TIA! Kurfürst (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Pack of camel.jpg
Regarding the edit you made to this file about 2 years ago, the original pack design is from 1915 and is thus public domain. See for example File:Camels_advertisement_1915.jpg and File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-19000-3293, Berlin, Schwarzmarkt -Zigaretten.jpg. I am letting you know I am changing the file back to free use to to avoid an edit war. -Nard 19:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Challenger.jpg
File:Challenger.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Challenger.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits to 8.8 cm PaK 43 page
I just wanted to let you know that I swapped the Nashorn back under tank destroyers. I know that the German vehicle designation only indicates it to be a self-propelled gun, but it was, like the Marder series, explicitly an improvised tank destroyer, meant to destroy (primarily Soviet) tanks. This contrasts with weapons like the Hummel, which was of course was meant as a self-propelled gun (a mobile artillery piece to support the advancing army). The Nashorn article, I'd note, immediately sets forth that the vehicle was a tank destroyer, which accurately describes its mission. After all, everyone would agree that the Ferdinand was a tank destroyer, but its official designation was Sturmgeschutz. Sacxpert (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ju 87
Denniss, you are probably right. But you need citations! I'm more than happy for you to remove the cited material or fix them, as long as you cite your own sources and kick out Griehl. Otherwise its a violation, the article now says something the cites do not support. This is not a content issue, I'm happy to withdraw my moaning if you can provide sources. Dapi89 (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Bell 212
You revised my addition to the Bell 212 page by saying that the it was for 'Civilian Operators' Only, the item I added was listed under 'Government operators', according to the article, the Bell 212 is operated by the British Army according to Modern equipment of the British Army, it does not related to the military version UH-1N Twin Huey as stated at the top of the page. I believe my addition was correct, please advise. Steeve24 (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Do 217
Please see the talk page. There are some things that don't add up. Dapi89 (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Air France A380
Hey! Would mind chiming in on this discussion - User_talk:DagErlingSm%C3%B8rgrav? Editor doesn't seem to understand that AF 380 has yet to be delivered. Thx! Rgds. Planenut (Talk) 09:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Bf 109 designations
Hi Denniss; I'm not particularly familiar with German WWII aircraft and noticed you changed the designation format in several places in the Bf 109 article; e.g. "Bf 109G-2" to "Bf 109 G-2" (added space), but left "Bf 109G" as it was (no space) rather than changing it to "Bf 109 G". However, on looking at some of the online reference sources I notice 'spaced' versions tend to prevail in all cases. I'd like to know what the 'accepted' view is on this for the sake of accuracy and consistency in this, and possibly other similar articles – any comments? Cheers --Red Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et   20:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If a model number like G-2 is specified then there should be a space between 109 and G-2. If no model number is specified but only the series then there's not really an official term to use. For readability I prefer 109G over 109 G but that's just a personal opinion. --Denniss (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thx for the explanation. Regards --Red <font style="color:#AA0000;">Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et   19:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Troll in Bf 109 article
A troll seem to have has risen his ugly head (you may be already familiar with him from the Bombing of Wielun article) in the Messerschmitt Bf 109 article, and is on the path of initiating an edit war with barely hidden motives. I know you care about the quality of that article, so I kindly ask you to take a look at what he does. Thanks in advance. Kurfürst (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Rotterdam Blitz
No serious dispute on this matter. It's really a shame! That Rotterdam's destruction was caused by many bombs scattered all over the square-mile of its area is a fact. I stick to my wording: It's Hooton that is disagreeing and he should come up with sources. The number and spreading of the bombs, in other words the deliberate carpet bombing, is already sufficiently covered in the article, with references. From reliable sources. It is a fact, like the Bombing of Guernica, like the bombing of Warsaw. Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.--Antiphus (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

U 212
Hi Dennis, here you go.

P.S. the U 214 was a Nazi submarine, built in the 1940s.--Gilisa (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Front Side Bus page math
Per this passage in Front-side bus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front-side_bus:

"The bandwidth or maximum theoretical throughput of the front side bus is determined by the product of the width of its data path, its clock frequency (cycles per second) and the number of data transfers it performs per clock cycle. For example, a 64-bit (8-byte) wide FSB operating at a frequency of 100 MHz that performs 4 transfers per cycle has a bandwidth of 1600 megabytes per second (MB/s)."

That looks like 8 * 100 * 4 = 3200. You reverted it from 3200 back to 1600. How did you arrive at 1600?

Bartinny (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Permission to promote File:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg as a featured picture.
May I have permission to make File:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg a fatured picture? Secret Saturdays (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you doing?
Hi Denniss, why did you undo my contribution to the Nebelwerfer article? The source never suggests "Smoke Launcher" so you are tampering with the sources. Secondly non-German speakers will be misguided in that the German word "Nebel" means 'smoke', that's why I added the literally stuff. It's like the word 'space shuttle' - a dictionary would translate it to Raumfähre like dict.leo translated Nebelwerfer to 'Smoke mortar' but literally it means Weltraumschütze like Nebelwerfer is 'fog thrower'. Wikipedians have the right to know that A) Nebel was a codename for chemischen Waffen, B) Nebelwerfer should be translated to 'smoke mortar' and C) Nebel is German for fog and mist. The Talk:Nebelwerfer is about translation OR literally 'fog thrower' and not appropriate to me since I recognize both. By the way is -werfer not strictly 'mortar' since Flammenwerfer is a flamethrower and not a 'flame mortar'! I'm afraid that Americans will say "Nebel is German for smoke because Nebelwerfer is "smoke mortar"". Why must the readers not learn that Nebel isn't 'smoke' in German? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hyper-threading
Hi Denniss, trying to understand what you mean about HT Technology. This is the term Intel use. Just because the abbreviation HT is used for other meanings, does not invalidate the fact that Intel refer to their own technology in this way. I reverted back to my changes, as it is backed by a reference. Widefox (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no official Intel document referring to Hyper-Threading as HT, they always use a form of HTT (HT Technology, Hyper-Threading Technology or similar). They do use it as brand name though (Pentium 4 HT) but not if left alone. --Denniss (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * well, exactly my point - HT is used by them and others for HTT as example, but the correct name as pointed out in the article is HTT or HT Technology. HT for HyperTransport is disambiguated at HT already, if you are concerned about that? Don't understand why if you are saying that Intel use it for P4 HT, and others use HT. If I add a ref for it, will you accept it then? Widefox (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please use only primary sources for this, as said Intel primary sources (techdocs, specification updates, even on their website) always use a form of HTT. What others use is not relevant. The example used, Pentium 4 HT, is just a marketing name for a Pentium 4 with Hyper-Threading Technology. Even the flag set by a CPU with HTT (or by HTT-aware by Bios) is called HTT. The explanation in the intro was made to avoid confusion with HyperTransport, it's official abbrevation is HT. --Denniss (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * primary source logo exactly as you say. 3rd party (I think IBM is reputable enough)  - note - the flag is *also* listed as 'ht' in Linux. When I make the change, I will disambiguate with HyperTransport, hopefully quashing any fears here. I agree this really does need disambiguation, as per the wording on HyperTransport. Note that *due* to the common usage of 'HT' for Hyper-Threading Technology, HyperTransport is nowadays spelt out. Widefox (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

MD-11
I've reverted your deletion of todays accident as I found a reference for it. When an accident to a large aircraft such as the MD-11 occurs, you can bet that it will be reported upon in the media. Rather than deleting, it would have been better to tag it with a fact. Mjroots (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

strange edit
Hi Denniss, please note the following discussions: and. That's why I would ask you to undo your contribution to the A320-article. Thanks, Anesinan (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't, just for the simple reason that we prefer inflight images and because the aircraft of the image in question are too small for a lead image. The image needs some cropping and is then suitable for inclusion in the article. --Denniss (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Socking
Where's the sock puppet investigation being held? --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Did you miss the message above? --Dweller (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Erich Hartmann
Can you please check the recent history of the article and note a deletion of a paragraph by an anon who has similarly deleted many passages in other articles showing the Russians in World War II and beyond in a bad light. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the Info. Will have a closer look at this article. --Denniss (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Jagtiger
You recently reverted an edit by an IP author at Jagdtiger stating that more than two had Porsche suspension. The editor provided a reference which links to the Bovington Tank Museum site which says "This Jagdtiger was one of two completed with the Porsche-designed longitudinal torsion-bar suspension, with wheels in pairs." . I'd normally consider them to be reliable. <font color="Green">Hohum 18:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And I would easily counter the museum claim with this website. I don't have my books accessible now but I remember a chassis number listing in at least one of them supporting more than two Porsche suspension Jagdtiger. --Denniss (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just checked one of my books which covers the Jagdtiger It says 2 were built initially, with more later. So, good catch. <font color="Green">Hohum  00:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

AMD Phenom Processor
TigerDirect.com is selling an "AMD Phenom II X2 545 Dual Core Processor ... Model: HDX545WFGIBOX". I do not know anything about these and came to Wikipedia to find out. But there is nothing in the entire Wikipedia with the "HDX545WFGI". My concern is that this is some sort of conterfit offshore item and not a real AMD item. Do you know? Thanks, Nick Beeson (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See here:, already listed there --Denniss (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Iosif Stalin tank Edit
It was a mistake for you to recently undo my edit. The German & Soviet ballistic tests were very different. The Soviet test had the target tank directly facing the vector of the incoming shell. The German tests (as mentioned by the Jentz reference page 127) had the target tank turned 30 degrees to the vector of the incoming shell; this turning of the tank creates an additional angle to the incoming shell so the surface is much more resistant to penetration. That is why the Soviet tests resulted in frontal glacis penetration of the Panther and the German tests did not. The German method of turning the tank 30 degrees is a very important and overlooked difference in the two tests, which is why the Soviet & German tests gave different results. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbig1 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Major IS Stalin Tank rewrite
Denniss, I am doing a major rewrite of the Wiki article based on more current sources. How would you like me to proceed. Would you like to see it first before I post it? Drbig1 (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Do 217
Do we have any more Bundes photos for this article? I want to expand it, but pics are lacking. Can anything be done? Dapi89 (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

C-Amt or T-Amt?
On Messerschmitt Bf 109, why C-Amt? It seems an unlikely abbreviation of Technisches Amt, and the page uses "T-Amt" in several other places. The RLM page uses T-Amt as well. SeanWillard (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * T-Amt is not an abbreviation for Technisches Amt. I'm not that deep in RLM organization but it was called C-Amt for historical reasons (name used before renaming to Technisches Amt). That's also visible in technical documentations, aircraft and aircraft parts manuals, they all have (or should have) an GL/C number associate with the C being an indicator of Technisches Amt. --Denniss (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See also --Denniss (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So why didn't you change the other usages of T-amt on the Bf 109 page? Why not edit the RLM page too?  It seems pointless to revert just the one.  The  page doesn't mention either abbreviation so I don't see its relevance.SeanWillard (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

NWA/Boeing 747-400
Yes, I know the reference is from 2008 but the secion reads Current Operators of the Boeing 747. Since NW has folded into DL, it should not be listed. Is NWA currently operating the 747? Snoozlepet (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Liberty.jpg
Are you sure that 4MB isn't too large? --JokerXtreme (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should it be ? It's auto-scaled down, a 482x599 pixel iamge is shown as having ~68 KiB in size. --Denniss (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Boeing 747-400
Regarding this edit, why are you happy to revert (a) to information that is clearly wrong (e.g. the non-existence of Northwest Airlines), and (b) corrections to grammar/presentation (i.e. capitalization)? There is a source given, but the list does not claim to be tied to the date of that (it does not say "As of 2008 [...]"), and also I don't see why you want to have NWA and Delta, since all the Delta 747s are ex-NWA aircraft, if I recall correctly, so I'd be interested to see if the source lists both. (I don't have a copy.) The section of the article is, after all, entitled, "Current operators", so how can you justify a non-existent airline to be "current"?

Please take care when reverting changes, as (believe or not), some of us do engage our brains when making edits and are really trying to improve the encyclopaedia. --RFBailey (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A380 troll
I seem to have kicked up a hornet's nest upholding your revert on the A380 page last week. Please see this diff] and following diffs, plus the diuscussion on the taslk page. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Revert
In reverting me you re-added unref'd material that was marked as unref'd and removed. You clearly know better than to do that. Do not do so again, ever. Material marked as unsourced must be sourced if returned & you haven't even attempted to do this. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Squeakbox, in what way was the material "marked as unref'd", and how long was it marked that way? I checked the revision as of April 1 and it did not appear to be tagged as lacking sources.  I am assuming Denniss and others need some time to dig them up.  Thundermaker (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hello Denniss, Do you know anything about the German V-1 attacks on Great Britain.If so could you please tell me about it. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC).

Question on your revert
Can you please explain why you reverted the edits I made to Bombing of Guernica? Your edit summary notes only "removed content", however there is no rule against removal of content if there is a reason why (I thought the edit summary explained the reason why clearly enough). In this case, the removed content was an editorial&mdash;basically, an editor using the article to argue with the source. If you have another reason to disagree with the edit or that you reverted it, I'll be happy to discuss the issue with you, but please don't revert edits just on the basis that content was removed. That's called editing. 75.71.46.105 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As it seems you have no further objection, I've restored my edits. If you do have more of an objection or would like to talk over it more, please let me know. 75.71.46.105 (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Gibs
Just curious, if I replace IEC units w/ the recommended WP:COMPUNITS, using a literal power of 1024, e.g. 10243, are you going to revert it because you prefer Gibs to GBs? If so, I won't bother. Thanks. Jeberle (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Maus
"V2 was not part of the official designation, just designates it as second prototype of the Panzerkampfwagen VIII"

And you decide that upon the data from the article, right!

Well, what you think is the official designation of that variant since they gave it the additional designation "V2". This is not like the "Maus" which is not officially part of the designation. Here the "V2" is a part of the official designation. Try to look beyond the data from Wiki! Oblivion Lost (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, V1, V2 and similar numbers were always prototype designations, be it land or air vehicles. AFAIR the full name is "Versuchsfahrzeug" (experimental vehicle). The designations was "misused" however for the V 1 flying bomb and the V 2 rocket but full name here was "Vergeltungswaffe". --Denniss (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that the absolutely correct complete official designation (name) was this : Panzerkampfwagen VIII. Nothing more added, nothing different? Exactly that : Panzerkampfwagen VIII. Right!? Oblivion Lost (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

V2
See first the thing i wrote at the previous section (up)!

I dont think many people are aware of the fact that since only one unit (variant) was build the correct name must be in full details. That means that if there were more than one variants, the correct name would have been : "Panzerkampfwagen VIII", but since we have only one variant built at all (and that variant is not the first try), the correct name should be "Panzerkampfwagen VIII "something"", if there was a "something" at all, as you specified! Don't you think!? Oblivion Lost (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

...promotional user page that you tagged for CSD
..is not one of the 3 userpage csd criteria. See CSD U1, U2, U3. FYI. prashanthns (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

phenom 955
"955 with HDX.. OPN is not a black edition, upper VCore correction (is 1.425 Max on all Deneb an derivatives according to AMD techdocs" prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravbr (talk • contribs) 20:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the AMD techdocs, understand the OPN structure. A Deneb Black Edition is always HDZ, HDX are standard CPU. Do never ever trust the AMD product compare website regarding technical details - there are just too many copy/past errors there. BTW it's techdoc 43375.pdf from support.amd.com .--Denniss (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Horten Ho 229, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --195.113.8.138 (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, WP:DTTR and please, try to resolve the situation without resorting to vandalism warnings. These issues clearly aren't going to go away for some time.  Find an alternative way of dealing with it.  I'm sure we're all mature enough to do that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Windows 2000 / Windows XP
Why did you revert the edits that I did to Windows 2000 and Windows XP (in regards to service Pack 2)? I will get someone to revert it back as it almost midnight here. You should know that Windows 2000 and Windows XP SP2 are no longer supported as of 13 July 2010 not the 14th.

I'm pretty sure that users on both sides will be blocked form editing Wikipedia if this keeps up. User:74.42.188.45 —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC).
 * BS - support ends on July 13th thus unsupported status starts on 14th. Please don't edit wiki articles if you are not even able to do basic math. --Denniss (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to add on a little, sorry if I was too impatient to edit those articles, but sometimes there will be disambiguation when certain sentences are phrased in a particular way (to different readers/interpreters). In this case, it does not mention whether support will be completely gone on the 13th, or whether it will last until the end of the day. It's not math that matters, really.  No News  !  11:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If saying that Windows 2000 is unsupported as of 13th July 2010 is incorrect, then the Windows 98 article is incorrect as well. It says that Windows 98 is unsupported as of 11th July 2006, and the same date is listed here. The date listed on Microsoft's page for Windows 2000 is 13th July 2010, so the article should reflect that. Furthermore, there is no need to question one's math skillfulness if he inputs a date you consider wrong. ThexDarksider (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have to correctly read the M$ page - it say support ends at the specified day. By this day it's still supported, it's unsupported the day after. There's a difference between support ends and unsupported, this difference is one day in this case. All one has to do is to correctly read/interpret the source and move this information over to the wiki article. --Denniss (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just asked Microsoft Support about the end date, and I got a clear answer: “please be informed that "Extended Support Retired" means that Microsoft will not provide assisted support anymore.” You can ask them the same and you will get the same answer: Windows 2000 is officially unsupported as of 13 July 2010. ThexDarksider (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't start an edit war here. Personally, I do not think there are any problems with "Unsupported as of (date)", since it makes grammatical sense and is also written on older Windows version pages (e.g. Windows Me). But if you are really against doing so, you can make your point at the discussion page or the other user's talk page to allow a consensus to be arrived at. Don't just revert the edit without giving any reasons.  No News  !  13:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion in Talk:Microsoft_Windows
Hi, Denniss

Please kindly report in to Talk:Microsoft_Windows and join discussion. Fleet Command (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your Protest to "Avira Security Software" Speedy Deletion
The article in question has almost the exact same sections as Avira. The only thing Avira makes is security software, so isn't having both article rather redundant? There is very little additional information in Avira Security Software, and perhaps that info. can be added to Avira, once it is deleted. Please leave a message either here, on the Avira Security Software Article, or on my talk responding. Thanks. PlantRunner (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Avira Security Software
An article that you have been involved in editing, Avira Security Software, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 14:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of "Avira Security Software for more information. PlantRunner (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Naxos
Hello Denniss,

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you are talking about re: Naxos, but before we start an edit war I'm going to give you the opportunity to prove me wrong.

Please explain how a "radar detector" is different from a "radar warning receiver".

Lexington50 (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Naxos was more an offensive weapon, homing in on H2S emmissions and giving a rough direction were the emissions came from. Used by night fighters to find the enemy bombers. In a smaller area (some subs had a navalized version) it was used as a warning device, reporting incoming radar signals to subs thus giving them the chance to dive before being attacked. --Denniss (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of how Naxos was used, I'm asking how it differed (in either application) from what today would be called a "radar warning receiver". If you know what Naxos was, and know what a RWR is, this shouldn't be a difficult question to answer. Lexington50 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do 17
Hi. I checked, and there are mistakes in the English version. I had the English and German version as well, but given I had the English, I did't cross-check so I overlooked the differences. Dapi89 (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Fw189 1.jpg
Can you say why you think File:Fw189 1.jpg is in the public domain? Almost no German pictures newer than 1938 are. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Disrespect is responded to with disrespect. If Geoff B wants respect he should earn it instead of systematically pissing off everybody he comes in contact with judging by his user and talk page history. I won't tolerate his nonsense spewing over elsewhere so don't edit my edits on my user or talk page. Until that respect magically appears from thin air, you can motion to ban my IP or go away and deal with the article in question, which I encourage. The article is a joke and should not exist.67.246.185.40 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Arc Trainer Page
Hi Denniss, the Arc Trainer page is written in an objective and unbiased style. This machine is found in many gyms and most likely you will find it in your local gym as well therefore I think it deserves to be in a wiki page. All the statements there are technical referenced facts and not advertisements. Please reconsider your decision and please remove the advertisement warning. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serfit (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

your File:Leopard3.jpg in commons
Hi Denniss, I saw this image in the article about Leopards in the English wikipedia with the caption titled "Indian leopard (Panthera pardus fusca)". But since you did not provide any info when you initially uploaded this file, I would just like to know where you took this photo of the leopard. I just wonder whether this is really an Indian leopard. Looking forward to your reply. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockfarm operator busted!

 * Hello Denniss, this is to let you know that User:Scania N113 has been blocked indefinitely as the sock of User:LS C HIST, as confirmed by a Checkuser as the operator of a large sockfarm, I guess you'll be glad to know that he won't be bothering us no more from here on. Best. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 22:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for info, I already stubled onto it by the block notice og BilCat. Holy cow, what an amount of sockpuppets! --Denniss (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I just added another one to his list of 28, making it a grand total of 29 right now. As Strawberry-Five's report to CinC-Pac during WW2: "The whole Jap Navy!". -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

00:53, 12 November 2004
Du bist ja einer der schon lange dabei ist. Nun das Problem besteht bei der Liste der Deutschen Zeitungen (Tabelle) darin, dass diese Tabelle keine Weblinks und keine Facebook-Links hat. Nun schau Dir mal meine Tabelle der Deutschen Zeitungen Deutschland Oesterreich Schweiz List of Newspapers in Germany genau an, probiere es einfach mal, Du wirst feststellen, dass das mit Websitelinks und Facebookslinks viel einfacher ist (nur klicken). Die Deutschen Zeitungen so zu tabellisieren mit Links hat mehrere Stunden gedauert. Ehrlich verstehe ich nicht wieso Du u.a. dies rueckgaengig gemacht haben. Ist doch einfach besser. Na ja zu mindestens habe ich jetzt dort eine Linktabelle die meinen Erwartungen an dieser Sache entspricht. Meine Aenderungen (englisch ) sind eine Auswahl der wichtigsten Links von Deutschen Zeitungen, die Deutsche Seite der Zeitungen in Deutschland de.wikipedia.org mit Weblinks und Facebooklinks zu versehen, ist mir zu aufwendig (150 Zeitungen + x). Bist Du das wirklich bei Deinen Facebooknamen Denniss? MfG. 62.200.52.25 (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

File:ECFlame1.jpg
Just to let you know it's been deleted, not for CSD, as I cannot validate a copyvio without a proper source. It's been deleted as it's now on Commons, so if you can show where it came from, you could ask for a speedy there.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

AMD Phenom microprocessors revert
I'm not sure I understand why the edit was reverted. It was sourced so it shouldn't have been a problem, right? If I'm missing something I'd be more than willing to fix it. 75.62.40.223 (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * AFAIR it was at least the claim for Deneb as hexa-core. BTW please be were careful if using products.amd.com as source, the Infos tend to be not very reliable as they sometimes have c&p errors. Should always be double-checked with AMD techdocs. Also the VCore is wrong on the products sit as it counts the C&Q VCore as the lowest and not the lowest at standard clock setting. --Denniss (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was actual saying Zosuma was a hexa-core Thuban with 2 cores disabled, and the reference was an article on techpowerup (http://www.techpowerup.com/120231/Phenom_II_X4_960T__Zosma__Unlock_to_Phenom_II_X6.html). As for the VCore I hadn't touched that at all. If you want you can check over the article, though from many people I hear Tech Power Up is a fairly reputable technology news site, so it should be fine. 75.62.40.223 (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A350 Revert
Hello,

You undid my revision 398865030 to the A350 article without providing any comments.

My edit was done to clarify possibly misleading text that could lead one to believe that 10 abreast on the 777 is not as feasible as it is on the A350.

Could you possibly offer some clarification?

Thanks. 99.88.51.112 (talk)

Landmarks_of_Strumica.jpg
In the image I added as source "own" and as Creator user:Ukulelea. If you think that this image has to be deleted (I saw the deletion notice here ).. please invert my edits in commons. Best regards.. Ggia (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Celebration of The Lizard image
I properly annotated the image properties just like they annotated for the image for the L.A. Woman article, if you know a different copyright tag, then edit that information for the image but do not delete or mod the image from this article because it just makes sense for it to be here. Wikipedia has the most unfriendly UI ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blogman4k (talk • contribs) 03:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair use images are not permitted at Commons. That's a fact and clearly stated at the Commons upload form. You need to upload it to the english wikipedia with a proper fair use tag or it will be deleted here, too. --Denniss (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Translating German WP articles
Denniss, do you know anyone who could translate a couple of German WP articles into English, with English sources? The articles are MAN Turbo and MAN Diesel & Turbo. I want to create an aeroengine navbox for MAN Turbo, but realized we don't have an article on the company, and not even a section in one of the other MAN articles. I had originally considered moveing MAN Diesel to MAN Diesel & Turbo, and updating it,. but having looked at the German articles, I think separate articles could exist. If not, we need to move it back to MAN Diesel & Turbo, and update the articel with the new company's info,a nd info about MAN Turbo. Thanks for any help you can provide. - BilCat (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Baluch people
Hello, recently you delete the title image of the article Baluch people. Please do a research on these people and in some cases those linked articles need some corrections or need to be written. Also please do a research on the region, it is at war at the moment and the people are a minority.

Thanks. Usualphonexs (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Baloch people
Dear Dennis, hope you are good. I appreciate your concerns over the title image of the article Baloch people. But I want to bring to your knowledge that those images greatly undermined the article that is why I had to upload a different one. But now I have removed both to keep the conflict neutral till I reach a solution. Please consider the current situation of the geography these people live in when looking at the issue. Thanks Usualphonexs (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Jingstatic
User:Jingstatic is posting more images of Yida Huang with dodgy licences. I've tagged File:Yidahuang001.jpg under F4 as it's admitted that it's lifted from Facebook but now he's uploaded the same image as File:Huangyida43.jpg claiming that he is Yida Huang and it's his own work. I'm sceptical of this, any ideas on how to go forward - list it as possible unfree image? NtheP (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: BDSIsrael.com is not a spam link.
Deletion of link *BDSISRAEL Canadian Anti-BDS Association - Countering BDS Movement on page Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions

The Coverage of this new site has been profiled in Jerusalem Post Article - 12/22/2010 BDS 2010: Fighting back I disagree with your analysis that this link is SPAM. (Spam sites don't get profiled on major international newspapers) - This site is as legitimate expression countering the more established bdsmovement.net. Since all links from Wikipedia are nofollowed, my goal is to represent the other side- not some pathetic attempt to get link love.

Searchengineman (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Archiving
Hi. Is it possible you could archive some of the older material from this page? It's getting quite bulky, which is awkward for people using low-bandwidth, especially mobile devices. If you need help, I'm happy to explain/show/do. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Articles
Hey, I have found many articles that do not have any references at all or are claiming certain things that cannot be confirmed and sound bias. I think you are here for a long time and I wanted to ask you if it is appropriate for me to take immediate action when I found these articles or try to report them? Thanks. Usualphonexs (talk) 07:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Manfred Von?
See here. Bzuk (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

DirectX
Why do you undo my article and reset it to yours? The DirectX logo in png was replaced to an svg-image by me only. SVG images are better cause they take lesser storage and are indefinitley scalable. And when you reset my version because there appeared over the svg "||Image:" and under it "64px||" or something like that, I don't know why. I had tried many and searched about that in commons, wikipedia and the internet, but didn't find any solution for it. If you know, how I can solve the problem, please post it on my talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Know-World (talk • contribs) 11:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy
Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your wishes, I wish you a happy new year as well (from Brr-cold Germany). --Denniss (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Fw189 1.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Fw189 1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 06:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You might be able to help an editor at
WP:HELPDESK - I think he does need advice, he appears to be editing in good faith but new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DVD Shrink Gold 2011
I was about to mention that this is a scam as DVD Shrink 2010 was when I realized someone had already entered it into the article (probably Chetwood as he also updated the forum recently) and you reversed that edit. Why is that?

AllElseFailed (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mark Thomas page
Why did you undo the edits on the Mark Thomas page? It needed an image and the last paragraph I added was factual about Mark's latest activity which only served to bring the site up to date with a history of his work.

I don't understand. I am undoing your undo as you have no reason to undo the changes I made.

JeffJenkins (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Stump photo
i don't understand why the photo is removed. The picture that is up now is old and irrelevant (from 2006). The one that I am posting is from December of 2010. Gabyiscrushed (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll have to find an image available under a free license. Not an image taken from a website with a clear copyright statement like "all rights reserved". --Denniss (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I work with Patrick's management and this is his most recent/up to date promo photo. It is available for CC-by-3.0. Gabyiscrushed (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Allow me to butt in here, if indeed that photo is available for reuse per "CC-by-3.0", Wikipedia will permit it for reuse here. However, since Gabyiscrushed has admitted that he works with Pat's management, he is now disqualified from editing on Patrick Stump and also at great risk of being blocked for violating Conflict of interest if he carries on with his edit of the said article page. Call it an unpleasant fact of life here on Wikipedia but this is the only sure way of producing a quality article without interference from involved parties. Out. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 05:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo, Allied Force and Kosare
Operation Allied Force- Sources- Lessons of Kosovo, NATO's illegal war on Serbia doucmentary

If NATO had won, why are we still fighting Albanians in person? If NATO had won the battle, how come sources show that the military casualties are low? You need to study alot, I mean, ALOT!

Battle of Kosare (Bitka na Kosarama)- Sources- Google News

If the KLA decisively won, how come their goals were not achieved? If the KLA Strategically won, how come their strategic goals were not achieved? If the KLA tactically won, how come they didn't use tactics? Even though they took an Outpost, we still tactically won... Do you even know what tactical, decisive, or strategic means? What you do is reverting the articales back, I'm telling truths, okay maybe the Arab League wasn't an all participtant, but foreign arab mercenaries came to KLA aid, but still lost. But nope, if I put that on, you will revert truth back to the crappiest format. Stop it.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by VJ-Yugo (talk • contribs) 01:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously your not getting information, don't reply to me again...```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by VJ-Yugo (talk • contribs) 21:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
Hi. I noticed some apparent disagreement about the fact tag regarding the number of civilian casualties in the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia article. However, I see the number is actually given further down the infobox, with sources, so I've taken out the tag. But if you think what's there is inadequate, please feel free to revert my removal. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)