User talk:HansMair

WP:FILMS Welcome
 Welcome! Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add User WikiProject Films to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:
 * Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].


 * The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for May has been published.  June's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
 * Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia.  Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to ARS!
{| style="border: 4px solid #CC0000; padding: 6px; width: 80%; min-width: 700px; background: #FFFAF0; line-height: 20px; " align=center Hi,, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!
 * colspan="2" |

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

August 2012
Hello, I'm Hohum. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Western betrayal, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Please stop adding material which is not reliably referenced as being relevant to "Western Betrayal". (Hohum  @ ) 23:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Using the stub template on long articles
Hi Hans. Using the stub template on long articles is improper use of the template and should stop. Thank you. Dr.  K.  23:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Geoffrey M. Footner has been accepted
 Geoffrey M. Footner, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 13:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Geoffrey_M._Footner help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

USS Constellation
I've reverted a good faith edit that the USS Constellation currently preserved in Boston was in fact a rebuild of the original Constellation. It is in fact not. 1850 Sloops of War were built differently and plans and a model half hull support this. If this becomes an issue I have documentation as to the facts I can present. Please do not change the article again without one hell of a lot of documentation. Tirronan (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I've continued my research into the issue and found something worthy of consideration. The 2nd ship was longer which means it had a longer keel. As such ships are built from the keel up it lends that this was a new build. I don't doubt that scantlings and any other material would have been recovered from the 1st ship however. The oak used was rare and hard to find. Tirronan (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the rebuild was extensive - from the keel up, to finish what we would today call a service life extension. (By contrast, Constitution's later rebuilds were intended to preserve her as a training and later museum ship.) Footner (2003) documents the extensive re-use of materials in Constellation - up to 50% - including the massive 'knees' which are still proudly preserved and displayed inside the ship. There were questions in the 1850s about the originality of the ship, but Congress and the Navy continued to formally identify her as a rebuild of the original ship; the legacy was very important to maintain. The same is true of Constitution, which twice was rebuilt - at least once from the keel up - even more extensively than Constellation. In all likelihood, Constellation maintains significantly more original (18th century) material than does Constitution, which is estimated at a paltry 2-5%. The designation of Baltimore's ship as a '2nd Constellation' is a modern fiction created by poor historians.HansMair (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Impeachment of Bill Clinton
There's two problems with that. Regards Widefox ; talk 14:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) the lowercase title is correct so you'll need a requested move (which I guess you found taken, so just used the incorrect uppercase?)
 * 2) As I've contested it, you'll need a move request discussion now
 * 3) The previous consensus at Talk:Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton RM is that this is the correct title
 * 4) ditto

Constellation
Please stop edit-warring on the index page (and elsewhere, like the Constitution page). You've been around long enough to know better. Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Consider this another warning - stop edit-warring and pushing your WP:SYNTH and discuss the issue on the article talk page (or at WT:SHIPS or WT:MILHIST). The simple fact is, the two ships are not one in the same, and despite what you might read into primary documents, modern historians (and indeed the US Navy itself) do not agree with you. Parsecboy (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I have protected USS Constellation because you were involved in an edit war there. Please use any of the above-mentioned talk pages to discuss changes you would like to make to the article.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

No need to talk down to me; you are edit-warring yourself. As you can see, I am creating an encyclopedia of official evidence regarding Constellation's 1853-1854 rebuild. Your opinions of that event seem to be based on a very modern (post-WW2) American re-interpretation by a few influential individuals regarding wooden ship preservation and legacy. Prior to WW2, very little attention was paid to the "preservation" of our old frigates; wholesale lumber replacement was commonplace, yet the ships' legacies were considered intact. Constitution suffered from that style of "preservation" much more than did Constellation; Constitution's 85% replacement by 1931 was a preservation tragedy, as was her earlier 1858 rebuild - yet her legacy remained intact. She was "new" again in 1858, and "new" again in 1931. You are free to detail the 1990s evolution of the Constellation Question in the article, but you are not entitled to cover up the official and historical evidence surrounding Constellation's 1854 rebuild.


 * You seem to be confused. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, based on reliable secondary sources. What you are doing is original research based on primary sources to reach conclusions not made by established experts. That is prohibited here.
 * In any event, these kinds of "rebuilds" were common, especially for cash-strapped navies of the period - as was confusion about what actually happened to the ships. There are still sources floating around that state that this Brennus was the same vessel as this one even though it demonstrably was not. Much the same with this Prinz Eugen and this one (in this case, it can be even more confusing, since Pöck deliberately misled the parliament as to the nature of the new ship). The idea that the Navy might have represented the new Constellation as a cheaper "rebuild" of the earlier ship in a period where it lacked the funds to finish many of the ships under construction hardly requires one to suspend disbelief.
 * What it comes down to, until you can provide reliable experts who subscribe to the belief that the two ships are one in the same, you're not going to get anywhere here. Parsecboy (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Your confusion is alarming. To claim that my citations from sourced and available official documents is "original research" is fakery on your part; you are naively rewriting history. You clearly adhere to Chapelle's claim that Constellation's rebuild was just an administrative fiction - I believe that even Wegner disavowed that simplistic conclusion. The more reliable experts include Footner, who is far more expert in wooden ships than you or I; his book is far more authoritatively researched and resourced than Fouled Anchors. No historian is claiming that the two ships are "one and the same" - as if the ship now in Baltimore is as she was launched in 1797. All I am trying to document is the official period understanding of the ship's rebuild, deliberately employing significant materials (iron tanks, knees, etc.) from the "old" ship in order to maintain her proud legacy while commissioning her for further active duty as a fighting ship. (By contrast, Constitution's rebuilds were far less preservation-oriented, and were NOT for the purpose of life extension as a fighting ship.) Finally, your insistence on tying the issue to more modern ships shows a shocking lack of understanding of the unfortunate necessities of wooden sailing ship construction, maintenance, and rebuilds.HansMair (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * See, I'm not the one confused - you can't seem to follow the logic of the point I was making. My "insistence on tying the issue to more modern ships" was to illustrate the point I had just made, namely "these kinds of "rebuilds" were common, especially for cash-strapped navies". Which is to say that Chapelle is correct. It has nothing to do with wooden or steel construction. If the "official period understanding" is incorrect, based on the Navy's subterfuge at the time, we ought not include it.
 * And you are trying to shoe-horn the nonsense about them being the same ship, as per your edit here (where you insist that the 1797 Constellation was "rebuilt" into the 1854 ship), and here, where you produce lengthy block-quotes from primary sources and present them uncritically, as if they are fact. That is a problem, obviously. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You have been mentioned in a discussion thread on the WP Ships talk page. Brad (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

U-35 link
Please see WP:NOTPROMO and WP:ELNO for reasons your link is inappropriate. Parsecboy (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Some other user kindly created that reference to my website some 15 years ago. It is quite appropriate, as my site is by far the most encyclopedic authority on U-35 (1936) - it is hardly a spam link.HansMair (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Really, you haven't been spamming links? Parsecboy (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)