User talk:KjellG

I prefer to keep conversations on one talk page.

Welcome!
Since you haven't been welcomed yet...

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~ ; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Lisatwo 01:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Re: German military ranks?
I don't know the answer myself, but I forwarded your question to Kirill Lokshin, who seems to be active in the German military history task force of the Military history wikiproject. Lisatwo 02:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In case you haven't read this yet, Kirill's reply on my talk page states:


 * I don't usually work with WWII-era articles all that much, so I'm not quite sure what the current practice is—you may want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/German military history task force instead—but I'd think that "Grand Admiral Dönitz" would be the correct form of a first mention everywhere outside Dönitz's own article; compare the typical use of "Captain" instead of "Kapitän zur See", for example.


 * (Obviously, subsequent mentions do just fine with merely "Dönitz"; it's typically not necessary to give a rank more than once.) Kirill 02:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps, Lisatwo 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Prefixes
Kjell, do you really think it's all that good to remove the HNoMS from a number of RNoN ships? I don't protest the fact that in Norwegian the ships didn't have prefixes prior to 1946, but there an issue of consistency here, don't you think? And "Name (Ship)" is a bit colourless too, it doesn't really give a sense of that this is a warship. Manxruler (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're going to change the system to not include prefixes for the pre-1946 ships then we're going to need a better name, for the Eidsvold class ships for example: Eidsvold (coastal defence ship). Besides, did you ever stop to consider the redirect problems we got out of these moves? I'm moving the articles back until we can decide on the naming convention for the pre-1946 ships, that is the ships no longer in service by 1946. This was a bold move, and now it needs some thinking through. Manxruler (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, KNM is not used on W:no for the Eidsvold class, only Norge, Eidsvold and Tordenskjold. Normally they should read «Norge», «Eidsvold», etc. on no:,  but that will conflict with article Norway and the village of Eidsvold, so the carry the name «Eidsvold» (panserskip) (1901-1940) etc. I do not know the correct translation for "pansership" into english, but maybe that "battle cruiser" will do? so HNoMS «Eidsvold»  -> Eidsvold (battle cruiser)? Imo we should not go back to HNoMS as theese ships never used that prefix. KjellG (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * «Name» is the Norwegian way of writing ship names, here we should stick to Name. "Battle cruiser" is about as far away from these ships as we could possibly get. The correct term is coastal defence ship. On this Wikipedia the country to which the ship belongs should be included in the name, so the only non-HNoMS name that would be possible, in the case of Eidsvold, would be "Norwegian coastal defence ship Eidsvold". Now, the problem is that loads of the pre-1946 ships also served post-1946 and what do we then call them? And what names did the ships go under when they where in exile 1940-1945? You see the problems here? Besides, you haven't exactly got a fixed system for ship names over at Norwegian Wikipedia, see for example KNM «Draug». Shouldn't that be fixed first? Manxruler (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not suggest «Name» as in norwegian, but Eidsvold (battle cruiser). The reason I did not suggest (battle cruiser), but (ship) in the first place was that I did not feel this to be correct, as you have pointed out. Please find a better English exp. As for other non british ships, have a look at how this is solved for this German ship and this this German ship. I'm still of the opinion that KNM/HNoMS should not be used on ships that never used any prefix. As for KNM «Draug», find also this to be wrong, but let's keep the discussion to the English WP. As for ship names and categories, its clearly a hasle.  KjellG (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree that it is a fact that KNM was not used for Norwegian naval ships before 1946, but using HNoMS in all ship articles have been a stable and good compromise solution for a long time now. HNoMS is not a translation of KNM and if we should decide to go in a different direction we would at least need to figure out when Norwegian ships started to be called HNoMS (by the British?). There are so many problems connected with going away from the present solution that I strongly oppose it. By the way: I believe further discussion should take place here to include as many relevant editors as possible.Inge (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above statements by Inge. Manxruler (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I was also about to shift this dicussion to a more public place, but was overrun by Inge. Looking forward to a good solution on this isssue. KjellG (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Commander position
Could you provide a ref. for | the fact you added? Manxruler (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hvordan vil du foreslå å legge inn denne: Detalj fra verneplanen KjellG (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that can be easily done, with a cite web, but that's not a ref. for your edit(s). Manxruler (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, please remember to use English only when communicating on English language Wikipedia. Manxruler (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (That was a miss, you are perfectly right.) KjellG (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll get on it right away. Manxruler (talk) 21:36, 7 Manxruler (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)November 2008 (UTC)


 * Any chance seeing you in NorwayKjellG (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well... I do live in Norway these days, but I don't really do the whole mixing Wikipedia/IRL thing, not just yet, anyway. Manxruler (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Siting: "...but that's not a ref. for your edit(s). " No it's not. Told directly to me my Lt Høie, Drøbak, in 1985. He was at the orograf in the main battery. He also told me that the filaments in the sight fell out in the most critical moment and that's why Eriksen corrected the estimated distance of 1800m from top of his head to 1400m refering to his practice as battery commander in 1905. KjellG (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That can't be used on Wikipedia because it's impossible to verify. Everything here needs to verifiable. Manxruler (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but it can be very difficult to live up to. E.g. the reference: "Kongsberg Defence Association: Guided tour of Oscarsborg Fortress (Norwegian)" are no longer awailable on the net, AND, what was written there but for what that editor "liked to write"? What was HIS source. Not everything is a "good source" just because it is in writing. What do WP say about contradictive sources? An article full of pro an cons are boring to read and only of interest to some historians. KjellG (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Deadlinks are bad, yes. I'll be looking around the Kongsberg Defence Association's website to see if they've moved the article. That sort of thing happens from time to time, it's a weakness that websites have. However, I must insist on the fact that we cannot use conversations we have had with people as sources for Wikipedia. We just can't. I've had tons of conversations with people about things that have Wikipedia articles, but I don't go using those conversations when contributing. What would I use as a ref? "Conversation with so and so on such and such a date"? Can't do it like that. If you have an issue with how Wikipedia works then I suggest you first read Verifiability, then if you still have misgivings about how things work, then take the discussion to the Village punp Manxruler (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

re:Rank
What I've been doing, at least in part, is to use, say, Oberst and link Oberst to Norwegian military ranks instead of the disambiguation page that Oberst is. However, I have recently begun to reconsider this as Naming conventions (use English) instructs us to use English. Like, before the German U-boat U-64 would be called "Unterseeboot 66 (1940)", but now it's named German submarine U-66 (1940). So to use English seems to be the norm. Thus, I would suggest to show Eriksen's rank like so: Oberst (Colonel) Birger Eriksen. Or something to that effect. I haven't seen any final ruling on this matter, though. Still, you can see what Kapitän zur See now redirects to. We're to use English, still figuring out the exact norm in this case. Manxruler (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

re:Torpedo battery
Not sure about that. The way it is presented right now is the standard English language way of showing that there was a system with three launchers (torpedo tunnels) that had two torpedoes loaded at a time. I think it works fine now. What specifically is off with the way it is? Manxruler (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please keep discussion on same page. KjellG (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. I'll make a copy over at my place then. Manxruler (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox
Hi Kjell. Might I enquire why you have copied things off my talk page and moved it to your Sandbox? Thanks. Manxruler (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Simply because I wanted to read it and be sure I could find it back. Had a little trouble finding some old stuff and stumbled over this interesting topic. Not for any other purposes. KjellG (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. I never remove stuff from my talk page (although I might soon get one of those archive functions, still, it won't disappear), but I can sympathise with the wish to keep track of things, sure. Manxruler (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Obergefreiter Günther Morgalla
At what point in time did Morgalla tell of his experience? It's kinda important to have the timing of such things clear in the text. If not, someone might come along and slap a label on it. Manxruler (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Binders book as of 1990. Interviews made by Binder and Blücher-crew:Schlüz. Probably in late 1980ies, but Schlünz also seems to have had contact with shipmates over the years. Two battle reports from 1.offiser and 1.engineer are referred to, none say anything about any singing. The stories are told by old men many years after the incident, but if one concatinate them all into one statement: none but Morgalla told about any singing, everyone told about desperate fire fighting, crying injured crew members, throwing live ammo overboard, water sypply falling out, pumps falling out, communication falling out leading to orders beeing yelled and messages runners, all Heeressoldaten "locked up" under deck. Is it likely that anyone in this tumult would start singing? Is it likely that such behaviour would have been accepted by officers, disturbing their ordering? This despite the norwegian sources saying otherwise. These sources are from mid -90ies? You have yourself brought the word "myth" onto the table (Filtvet). Could it be that Deutschland Deutschland .... also is a myth or that a likly singing at Askholmene at about 06:22 (and even repeated later?) have "drifted" backwards in space and time down to Oscarsborg at about 19:38?? The signalling log from Oscarborg is a good source to say that the reported German intruders did not reach Osc. Are the any good sources that prove that Deutschlandlied was sung at about 19:38 I have not found any yet. (Anyone, please correct my spelling, even on personal pages, I'm writing without spellchecker).KjellG (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. That's good then. What do you mean by 19:38? I don't fully understand that time reference. Are you contributing with Firefox? They have some really nice spell checkers. Just download Firefox 2 and you'll have a spell checker. I seem to recall that it required an extra little download to get the British English spellchecker, but the US one is standard with Firefox 2. As to the Norwegian sources vs German sources with the singing and all, I think that can be rather easily fixed, I look into it pretty soon. Manxruler (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Arados on Blücher
Hi Kjell. I just saw that you changed the number of Arados on Blücher from three to two. Not to be nit-picking and all, but could you add a ref. to the German cruiser Blücher article for that? Manxruler (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right, this is a statement that need reference. Sorry for working too quick last night messing up the books. But why did you correct my edit? It is equal to what is found on the Battle page, and I like that the better, but would suggest to drop the English tag on the last one. KjellG (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Kjell, but which edit are you talking about? The style in which the books are presented? I agree, there's no need for English language tags on the battle page. It's now been removed. What I did over at the ship page earlier was not to correct your book addition in any way, but rather remove it since the Binder book was already listed there, and had been for quite some time. Manxruler (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Battle page: (copied to Blucher page):
 * Binder, Frank & Schlünz Hans Hermann: "Schwerer Kreuzer Blücher", Koehlers Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Hamburg 2001 ISBN 3-7822-0784-X (German)
 * Current Blucher page:
 * I like the more consistent literature list on the battle page better. AND section: "references" on Blucher and "literature" on battlepage?KjellG (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Consistency is good, yes. The reason the literature list is inconsistent on Blücher's page is because back when I added the Norwegian refs to that page I did not know how to use "cite book". It seems to be standard to use "cite book" in literature lists. I like the heading "Literature" better, since that is what it is, a list of literature. Manxruler (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Consistency is good, yes. The reason the literature list is inconsistent on Blücher's page is because back when I added the Norwegian refs to that page I did not know how to use "cite book". It seems to be standard to use "cite book" in literature lists. I like the heading "Literature" better, since that is what it is, a list of literature. Manxruler (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Fjeld 189?
What exactly is going on? I have the book in question and it says nothing like the things you are constantly trying to add. Manxruler (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Anderssons map, this map Speed of Blucher set to 6kn as stated many sources, drawing in Fjeld 159 and simple calculus. KjellG (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So 159, not 189? That still doesn't say what you just added. What exactly is "many sources"? See also my talk page. Manxruler (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that page 159, or 189, does not say something that would translate into: "the first torpedo from the south directed launcher at a range of ca 500 m, then about 60 seconds later another torpedo from the central launcher at about 400 m". Manxruler (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And "simple calculus" might very well constitute WP:OR. Present-day internet maps of Frogn municipality doesn't count as valid sources for a 1940 event either. Manxruler (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please explain how Main battery, N and S Kaholmen, Husvik, Drøbak shoreline etc has moved since 1940. Or do you indicate that the map is not to meassure? KjellG (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What I'm talking about is that that map is not a valid source for the edit in question. Manxruler (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The map in itself doesn't specifically say the things you want to add to article. It doesn't matter how accurate the map is, it doesn't tell the story in question. Nor does any of the book pages you've cited. Manxruler (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As a newcomer I would have appreciated some help rather than a fight. My objective was only an attempt to improve this article. Meanwhile you can figure out in what way the map made by k.kpt. Adersson in Fjeld p 189, ar not correct. There are probably at least 3 errors in this map. A true source? Yes, and no, it must be enterpreted. KjellG (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't a fight, that's a misunderstanding on your part. There's nothing wrong with the map, bu the map doesn't say "the first torpedo from the south directed launcher at a range of ca 500 m, then about 60 seconds later another torpedo from the central launcher at about 400 m". Do you understand what I'm talking about? The map on p. 189, or the Frogn map, does not say the things you want to add. OK now? Manxruler (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure absolutely everything is clarified: The issue with quoting those maps as sources for that edit is that neither of the two say anything about the three vital aspects of the edit in question Manxruler (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. The maps say nothing about the ranges at which the torpedoes were fired.
 * 2. The maps say nothing about which launcher was fired first and which was fired second.
 * 3. The maps say nothing about how much time passed between torpedo launches.

October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page User:KjellG/The Club has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  Btilm  21:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the "bomb doors" opened while still over UK. Intended for this sandbox. KjellG (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Energy vs. power
In this edit you assert that energy is measured in TWyr/yr. But the source you cite correctly states that TWyr is a unit of energy, and makes no mention of TWyr/yr. TWyr/yr might have some jargon meaning in some restricted technical community (of which I am not a member), but to state it is an energy unit in a general interest article is wrong. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

September 2022
Hello, I'm Scope creep. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Enigma machine, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  scope_creep Talk  09:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)