User talk:Kurt Leyman

Take a look at Image:Tirpitz.jpg, Image:Bismarck.jpg and Image:Bastico.jpg, and please provide the license for those pics. Also, if you add a new pic to an article, there's no need to delete the previous ones (just take a note on how the article on German battleship Tirpitz looks now and how it did after your edits. Finally, why did you delete the description for the Image:Schlezwig after skirmish with Hel.jpg and deleted the interwiki link from the respective article?

Please reply on my talk page. Thank you. Halibutt 11:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Loss of HMS Hood
Kurt,

You seem to have very strong views about what caused the loss of HMS Hood. I recently corrected a false rendering of the 2nd Board of Enquiry's conclusion on the loss, replacing it with a verbatim quotation from the transcript at. You then changed it back to a reading just as spurious as the one I changed. Why are you doing this?? If you don't agree with the Board's conclusion - and many people don't - then by all means add a paragraph explaining why it's wrong; but please, please. please do not misrepresent a primary source.

I would be very grateful if you would put a message, either on the Hood talk page or on mine, explaining the reason for your changes.

Regards,

John Moore London, UK John Moore 309 18:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Images on Wikipedia
I see you are new here so you might not be familiar with Wikipedia policies. In general, Wikipedia is very strict about images, and allows the inclusion only of those images which have precise license information that releases them into public use.

For example, this page appears to be copyrighted (look at the bottom), so you cannot just use the images without permission.

Personally, I find this policy a bit silly when applied to images over 60 years old, but it is what it is. Balcer 17:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Gneisenau class battlecruiser
I have moved the debate about class to a central page which did not exist when the debate started. Perhapse you would like to comment further. Philip Baird Shearer 09:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW on talk pages you can sign you comments with ~. Wikipedia will automagically put in your user name and a time stamp when you save it. Philip Baird Shearer 09:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

German battlecruiser Scharnhorst
Please can you add a source for the quote you added. Philip Baird Shearer 30 June 2005 10:10 (UTC)

Battle of the Denmark Strait
You deleted some small parts of this article as "irrelevant". I don't agree. The reasons for the PoW not being pursued, if true, seem relevant. The other bits about the fate of the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen are more debatable, but a thumbnail of the aftermath puts the rest into perspective, IMHO. Your comments? Folks at 137 18:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Tirpitz
Please explain your deletion of info from this article. Do you regard it as untrue or as irrelevant? An answer to my query, above, about your deletions from Battle of the Denmark Strait would be courteous. Folks at 137 23:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks for your response. I assume we’re talking only about Operation Catechism on 12th November 1944. I’ve been chasing and comparing sources on the net. The following is based upon them. There are some differences (always will be) but what is not disputed is that no RAF bomber was attacked by any Luftwaffe fighter. That sounds correct as the Lancasters were significantly dis-armed (one turret and some armour removed) and, against FW190s, casualties should have been far greater than one, with damage to surviving aircraft. Sources then disagree: some say all aircraft returned safely, some say one was brought down by flak. I would tend to accept the latter as there are also details of a bomber crashing in Sweden. The failure of JG5 at Bardufoss to protect Tirpitz is indisputable: Tirpitz sank. But, why? It appears that the fighter wing had only just been transferred to Bardufoss, as a response to the previous attack on 29th October and crews were still training for their new FW190 aircraft. They were restricted to local defence and emergencies. Again sources differ. Some say that JG5 was not informed in time. Others say that Bardufoss claimed that it was under attack, which would support your source’s claim of a planned diversion. (No sources that I’ve seen say that this was an planned diversion – just misinterpretation.) What then confuses is the statement I’ve seen of Bardufoss' report that there were planes overhead. Another site points to weaknesses in the German air defence system in the area, so this probably contributed. I’ve also seen, but cannot reference, a statement that Luftwaffe commander(s) were court-martialled.


 * In summary, I still hold to the view that the Luftwaffe failed to protect the Tirpitz – it sank! Given that the sources for no fighter “kills” come from RAF and veteran sources, I would accept them – after all they would know who did and didn’t return. This can only be due to the Luftwaffe not being ready, probably due to their recent arrival in the area and their new aircraft, coupled with the wish to defend their own base (but why not airborne?). One source states that the fighters were scambled, but too late.


 * Here are the main on-line sources I've used:


 * http://groups.msn.com/BritishNavy/sinkingofthetirpitz.msnw
 * http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/history/tiropercatechism.html
 * http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/tirpitz.html
 * http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/tirpitz.html
 * http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/overlander/attack.htm


 * Last point: it would have helped if you had left a reason for your deletion at the time. I think that there will be enough common ground to reinstate a version of the deleted text. I’ll continue looking for info. Regards, Folks at 137 11:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Tin-Foil Hat Brigade
Saw your comment about conspiracy theories -- lurk around those pages for awhile, you won't believe how many people actually believe that crud. Morton devonshire 10:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Italian involvement in Battle of France
Hi, Kurt! You have of course been correct in adding the Italian involvement in the battle; however mentioning the entire theoretical strength of Army Group West is very deceptive as most of these divisions weren't fully mobilised, let alone deployed. Besides Gruppo d'Armate Ovest had only 22 divisions, six of them with a reserve status: so am I correct in assuming you added the entire strategic reserve, the ten divisions of 6th Army? Also the number of 500,000 you gave, matches the theoretical strength of the 22 divisions (including supply and support forces), not the 32; on the other hand less then 100,000 Italian troops were really at the frontline. So we might even enlarge the number of troops to be consistent; or we could be more realistic and give the numbers of 16 divisions and 300,000 troops. What do you think? Greetings, --MWAK 18:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Peru v Kriegsmarine
If you look at the article on Peru, the history section states that the Peruvians destroyed a German submarine and a German "battleship": ''In 1943 the Peruvian navy destroyed a German submarine that had arrived to the port of Callao to get supplies. Peru also sunk another German battleship in 1944.'' I've found NO evidence for anything like this, even allowing that "battleship" might mean "warship". Have you any evidence? Folks at 137 10:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)
You are invited to vote at Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 21:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviet partisans in Finland
It would be great if you can provide a source for this. Without that, it is much more likely that you will be reverted. Some users at that page seem way to willing to erase any mentions of misconduct on the part of Soviet partisants, however they can be stopped with the use of proper, academic references - see Soviet partisans in Poland. I'd strongly recommend that using references is the best way to ensure your information stays in the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
Oletko suomalainen? Meillä näyttää olevan samoja mielenkiinnon kohteita, ja eräät täällä näyttävät muokkaavan asioita aina Neuvostoliiton hyödyksi. Soviet partisans lisäsin niitä lähteitä, ja nyt se näyttää olevan jo niskan päällä. Laitoin sen hautakiven kuvan Commonsiin ja lisäsin artikkeliin. --Pudeo 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Deng
I blocked him for a week. Not only was he stalking you, he committed a 3RR vio on Second Battle of the Atlantic. Your edits on that article are not vandalism. In fact, I think they are just as good as what Deng is reverting to. Now, please don't take this to mean that you can do what you want. I'll be monitoring the situation. But I just wanted to let you know. And thanks for the heads up on it. I usually don't watch user's edits, so I wouldn't have known that he was back to what he was doing with you. So. Be good. Please. For me. :) --Woohookitty(meow) 14:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Btw, please don't "discuss" via edit summaries. That's what talk pages are for. --Woohookitty(meow) 22:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Gneisenau
You asked: ''The only sources that I have seen to say anything about the claim of the ships being built to carry 15 inch guns from the beginning are internet sources. Can you provide books?''

The stuff I have at home is lightweight but supports the belief that this class were designed for up-gunning. My copy of the Collins Warships of World War II which is an extract from Jane's says they were quite capable of up-gunning to 15-in mountings. Why the down on web sources? Some are just as reliable as some books. Hard copy doesn't guarantee hard fact. Folks at 137 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe I can help here. They do appear to have been designed for upgunning. But I hear you asking why go to all the additional hassle and expense of under-gunning when first built. I don't know the answer to that question, but it seems likely that it was related to treaty committments prior to 1936. Then in 1936 Germany agreed to the Anglo-German Naval Treaty which loosened those committments somewhat, although Germany was still bound by restrictions on tonnage of individual ships, and that limited armament to some degree. It is impractical to mount a 15-inch gun on a lightly built ship of limited tonnage without sacrificing other items, usually armour. The former German Navy intel officer Cajus Becker wrote in  The German Navy 1939-45  (ISBN 1 85152 591 2 published 1974 in English by Hamlyn) that the German Navy were planning for a war with Great Britain that was unlikely to begin before 1944 (page 34). He also writes (page 38) that "the latter [Scharnhorst] and [Gneisenau] to be rearmed in 1941-42 with 15-inch guns." That seems to fit well with Germany's repudiation in April 1939 of the 1936 Anglo-German Naval Treaty, giving the German Navy the freedom to advance plans for an upgunning, and probably an increase in tonnage. However, WW2 began earlier than the German Navy's plans envisaged, and the rest is history. George.Hutchinson 13:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kurt
I am very interested in these ships like you. I was just wondering why you removed the images of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau? Do you think there are to many, or you just didn't like them. I think personally that the more pictures the better. Wallie 22:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * These accusitions are very sceptic. Kurt.

Advice
Hello Kurt. Just some advice. I think you would be much better off by using talk pages to discuss controversial changes you want to make instead of using edit summaries. Talk pages are to discuss changes such as the ones you made to Battle of Königsberg and Kronstadt. The changes themselves I have no problem with. The problem I have is that it's your usual pattern. You make the change, it's reverted...instead of then opening up a discussion on the talk page, you make the change again. That kind of behavior leads to edit wars. Do others have the same obligation you do? Sure. But what's bothersome with you is that you never do it. Instead you get into revert or edit wars with people with very little discussion about it. It doesn't hurt anything to say "hey, why do you object to this change?" --Woohookitty(meow) 10:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you *please* start using talk pages? --Woohookitty(meow) 06:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Rex and the Poles
If he reverts again, just let him. I am up to 2 reverts. I'll change it back later. I do get the feeling that some people think that Poland and Canada were the only participants in WW2. Very strange. Wallie 22:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Stalingrad
Well I took a look. Honestly, my first thought was the troublesome editor you were talking about (whose indefinite block was endorsed by the Arbcom a month ago). But honestly, this Potaaatos doesn't have any of Deng's earmarks. But. I did WL the page. If you see anything more Deng like (bad spelling, reversions using words like "liar", etc), let me know. I know that he's lurking somewhere because Deng doesn't just go away. Wish he would but it doesn't work that way with him. So. Keep me posted. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's Deng. This edit was the dead giveaway for me. I don't get it. "Chummy with Kurt". We've heard that before. I've blocked you several times. In fact, I recommended that you be blocked in the post right above his. I sometimes don't like how you operate. But it doesn't excuse Deng's behavior. It never will. Anyway. He has been blocked. Again. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaksure
Yeah it's Deng. I brought it up as a possibility to DMorpheus a week or so ago but he wasn't sure. Well. If you look at his talk page, he's sure now. I'll block him. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

corpo aereo italiano
I'm fine with amending the phrase to 'some' historians. Perhaps a reference at that point to the Wiki Battle of Britain page would allow users to see the difference between the British and German historians' views. --Christopher Bryan 11:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

109 Picture
This image was added for the reasons I stated on the discussion board, I suggest you look there. As for the 'is that even real' have you never heard of the 'Black 6' its the most famous 109 survivor. In fact it last flew I believe in 2004.



Dapi89 00:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Neverlose1
I'm not 100% convinced it's Deng. But I'm watching his edits closely. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 03:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Denmark Strait - German casualties
Hello, Kurt.

You ask, in the edit summary of your latest edit to Battle of the Denmark Strait, "didn't the Germans suffer one dead?". The answer is "not during the battle itself". The first German fatality occured later in the same day, during the attack by torpedo bombers from HMS Victorious; the shock of a torpedo hit on Bismarck threw a petty officer against a bulkhead, causing fatal head injuries. This is confirmed in sources such as Kennedy's Pursuit and Mullenheim-Rechsberg's Battleship Bismarck. I have taken the liberty of reversing the change. Please advise me if you have any problem with this (I have added this page to my watchlist). Regards, John Moore 309 14:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nordost
Vaihdoin tuon Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS tuolle nimelle siitä Nordostista, ja nyt vasta huomasin, että se oli ollut melkein samanlaisella nimellä aikaisemmin. Ilmeisesti sinä olit vaihtanut sen. Että olikos tämä nyt huono siirto, vaikka eikös se nimi juuri vaihdettu pois tuosta pohjoisidästä tuohon Suomalainen Waffen-SS-vapaaehtoispataljoona? Kieltämättä tuo uudempi on hieman huono joissain yhteyksissä, kuten "German Finnish Volunteer battalion" jne.. --Pudeo (Talk) 10:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Continuation war
Hi Kurt, a user (Elrith) is doing some major changes and deletions on Continuation war please review these changes since you are familiar with the subject. Recesende 02:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Citylaugh
I blocked him. Almost certainly Deng. Thanks for the heads up. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Slovak invasion of Poland
I would say that the original name, Polish Campaign of Slovak Army, was fitting more. The word "invasion" suggests a large scale operation, not the sub-secondary role played by the Slovak State. It also does not provide context and could be mistaken for any of historical incursions of Poland from Slovakia. It also fits with the commonly used term Polish Campaign and typically used Czech and Slovak terms ("invasion" would sound absurd in these because of possibly shifted semantics of the word in these two languages).

If you get convinced by this you may request the move back on WP:RM (it needs an admin). I won't - I am low on time and try not engage with bureaucracy and single-side actions. Pavel Vozenilek 19:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

LWP on eastern front.
First, I'm not pro PRL it was rubbish from the very beginning until it's deserved end. Second how do I mark the LWP that fought along the Red Army on the eastern front in many battles between 1943 and 1945 (including Battle for Berlin)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperTank17 (talk • contribs) 19:48, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Omaha Beach
Hi there. I've re-edited the German casualty figure back into the infobox in the Omaha Beach article. Whilst not cited there, the number is cited in the main article ('End of day' section). It does look a bit odd that the number of Germans at Omaha is given as 'Unknown', but as far as I can tell, whilst the units defending the beach were known, they were spread across a sector that only partially included Omaha, so it's not so easy simply to state unit strength as the defensive strength (and of course be able to cite it). Cheers. --FactotEm 15:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Second Sino-Japanese War's result
Thanks for your note. Your comments reflect the same thinking I had behind the change; the simple addition of the clause "to the Allies" puts everything in context, bringing everything together, and I believe sums up the result much better. There might be other, better solutions, but it's hard to be much more brief and still get the detail in there.

I agree that Mibovosky's assessment is too simplistic, making it sound like an isolated war between the two parties of Japan and China resulting in Japan's unconditional surrender. The talk page seems to reflect others sharing the same concern. Surely most people these days still have a peripheral knowledge of the second world war, but the summary box taken on its own without the clause could certainly be confusing. I will keep an eye on the article in case Mibovosky or others take issue with it. — LactoseTI T 06:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm not arguing with you. This was the edit summary to which I was referring. It's wrong to label edits as vandalism when they clearly are not. Parsecboy 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fiat M11/39stä
Uskoisin (tai ainakin pidän täysin mahdollisena), että viittaus M11/39-miehistöjen innostukseen uudesta panssarivaunustaan on lainattu Nicola Pignaton italiankielisestä kirjasta, joten sen vuoksi kyseisen kohdan poistaminen artikkelista on mielestäni täysin turhaa, ellet varmuudella voi esim. mainitun kirjan perusteella todistaa, että kyse todellakin on pelkästä arvailusta tai mielipiteestä. Läyhä (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Laitoin aiheesta kysymyksen tuon WikiProjekti Sotahistorian (jonka piiriin väittelyn kohteena oleva artikkeli kuuluu) pääkoordinaattorin Kirill Lokshinin keskustelusivulle. Käy katsomassa jos huvittaa, ja lisää tarvittaessa omia kommenttejasi. Joka tapauksessa en enää itse aio puuttua artikkeliin ennen kuin tuolta taholta tulee vastaus siitä, minkälainen sisältö Wikipedian artikkeleissa on suotavaa. Hyvät joulut. Läyhä (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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) 18:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Crete
You seem to be caught in an revert war with User:R. A. Hicks over the Battle of Crete article. Please try to discuss the issues on talk. I'm close to protecting the article, and it will certainly be on The Wrong Version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Finnish reserve strength
Hello!

We seem to have rather differing opinions about the Finnish Defence Forces reserve strength. Could you please provide a source for the number you give, 485,000? From 2008 on, the full mobilized strength of the FDF is 350,000, as evindenced by the Finnish government decisions on the matter and several FDF publications. If you have info to the contrary, please give it. The full reserve strength, on the other hand, is much higher. If you count all the persons who have passed their conscription, and have not fulfilled their 50th or 60th year, you arrive at a number that is somewhere between 830,000 and 950,000. --MPorciusCato (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

East African Campaign (World War II)
I put the casualty figures into the East African Campaign (World War II) article. I am writing to say that I will probably leave them out even though I can provide a source. The numbers I found were for the British and Commonwealth forces only and, on second look, they do look exceedingly low. In addition, it seems that this is a delicate topic for many and there may never be a totally reliable source for acurrate numbers.

In other words, I agree with your removal. Best wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Halbe
User:KapHorn is raising some valid points about the positioning of the Battle of Halbe, and as you had access to the other major source that we used to write the article (Tony Le Tissier, Slaughter at Halbe), perhaps you would like to contribute to the conversation on Talk:Battle of Halbe --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Constantine XI
Seeing "actions" in Constantine XI article I am writing my comments on users talk pages.
 * Constantine XI is last emperor of Constantinople
 * Maybe I am mistaking but there is only 1 historical source that he has been crowned in Mistra and it is ease to put this source under question.
 * Byzantine/Roman Empire has not died with Constantine XI. Many users are forgeting that Byzantine Empire has existed next 7 or 8 years (Byzantine province Morea).
 * Last direct piece of unbroken line of Roman Empire has died only in 1476 .This fact has been public knowledge for very long time (around 300 years).
 * Similar problems are created by historians in last years of Western Roman Empire but we can't do anything.

During his time Napoleon has been speaking that it is not important what he is doing, because history writes will say what they want and this will become history.

I am not weird historian or something similar because if you look history you need to look state laws and documents without POV thinking. Example for Western Roman Empire. Evidence against Romulus Augustus:
 * Person will become emperor (of west or east) only if after taking power he is accepted by other emperor (west or east). If he is not accepted he is usurper. Because of that rule Romulus Augustus has been failed usurper during Julius Nepos reign.
 * Romulus Augustus has not even been recognized in Dalmatia and northern Gaul which has been last 2 Roman provinces (without Italy).
 * After Odoacer has taken power he has accepted fact that Julius Nepos is Western Roman Emperor and has even issued coins in Nepos' name.

Because of this 3 simple reasons Julius Nepos has been last Western Roman Emperor and Romulus Augustus nothing more but last Roman ruler of Italy.

My point is that about end of Roman Empire we can't trust historians :)--Rjecina (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine Empie
Very well, but next time make sure you write a better worded summary. I see that the issue is that a link to its own article is pointless. Tourskin (talk) 17:50, 7 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).

Saving Private Ryan
Kurt,

Putting a note on your talk page as I'm not looking to start an edit war. While I think the information on the shaven head issue is interesting from a mil-historical standpoint, I don't think it has great bearing on the movie article. What I'm really worried about is it opening the door to all of the rest of the 'inaccuracy' additions like the folded sights on the MG42 ad nauseum. We just got that stuff cleared out of the article. If a couple of the regular editors of the article agree with you and disagree with me then I'll go along with consensus.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I've made some (what I consider) minor changes to your addition in an attempt to tie it in to the rest of the section. I hope you're OK with them.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I think I finally see what you are trying to say. I found a wording to make everyone happy and is better overall since he is now a member of an entourage and not just someone who is loved or beloved by Hadrian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geriech (talk • contribs) 14:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

image on infobox
Hi, there is a consultation at Talk:Alexander_the_Great. Can you pass by that and explain your rationale for using the bust image on the infobox instead of the mosaic image? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Alexander's picture
Well, I opened a RfC on the matter of the picture. Please see my comment above, there are four editors (including me) that think that the mosaic looks better, I don't need to define "looks better". --Enric Naval (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Maximinus Thrax
Kurt, your recent addition about his height would be more useful if it was supported by a citation to a reliable reference. Anyway, I think I have seen it somewhere, perhaps you would be able to find one in Google books. Otherwise, I think we should revert it (please also check the relevant discussion page). Dipa1965 (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC) And I just noticed that you based your edit on some user views in the discussion page. Unless these views are backed by a scholarly reference, it's nothing but original research therefore they cannot be used in articles Dipa1965 (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Kurt! At the heart of my reservation is that we should not add material that is akin to WP:Original Research (e.g. when adding what we think it makes sense), at any rate. Anyway, I 'll try myself to find a reference. Don't forget that I am the one who has found the correct medical reference on his assumed acromegaly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipa1965 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Kurt, I tried hard to find a scholarly reference for your edit and failed. Instead of it I found two very good references who dismiss the information of HA as popular stereotypes for barbarian bandits or soldiers. So I reverted your edit and put this one. If you could find a reference supporting your edit, I would be glad to embed it in the article Dipa1965 (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Image at Justinian
Hello. I'm sorry, but your explanation doesn't seem to explain anything. How and why has the picture been "superseded" by the other one? To me, the coloration of the bright picture looks more varied and more akin to that of the photographs I have seen in print. (I have not seen the original mosaic.) The current one looks rather as if it was underexposed. Iblardi (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you could respond to my question in the form of a talk page comment. What is "better colour adjusting" supposed to mean? Is there any underlying policy on account of which that statement should be considered authoritative? Iblardi (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. So it's a matter of colour adjustment and of increasing/decreasing brightness. The other picture, which had been there since August 21, 2003, was replaced by a bot on July 10, 2007, and I never quite understood why. If colours are the issue, I can instead argue that the new picture makes Justinian's face look a pale ash grey instead of a healthy pink, the robe looks anthracite instead of imperial purple and the golden background has lost its splendour and looks like some earth colour, while it is exactly the splendour that is such a recurring theme in descriptions of Byzantine art. Hence I would say that the older picture is more fitting than the new one. Iblardi (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I right to understand that this is all older material of which the copyright has expired, Self correction: probably not, but the colours look strangely undifferentiated, as in pre-1970s art reproductions. This is exemplified by an image such as this, and indeed in the Justinian image. The range of colours seems quite poor, and I would rather trust the other photograph regarding accuracy of coloration. Therefore I have restored it. Iblardi (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I opened a RfC about which image to use. Please don't revert each other, and accept the outcome of the RfC. This is supposed to be a community work, so sometimes it's necessary to swallow one's personal preferences, accept that things won't always go one's way, and go to work at some other article. (by the way,personally, I have no preference for any of those two images) --Enric Naval (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, edit warring can get an article dropped from GA/FA status per point 5 of Good article criteria, so please [removed after posting] err, I mean, stop reverting each other and let the RfC run for 30 days and then abide for what the RfC says even if you don't like it. The stability of the article is more important than getting the "right" image on it. (this is directed to both Kurt and Iblardi) --Enric Naval (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC) P.D.: I removed unnecessary harsh wording from my post, sorry for my uncivility, it's just a common wording used in very informal message boards but I shouldn't have used it here --Enric Naval (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't know that. I certainly don't think it's all that important, and I admit that it would be childish having an edit war over a picture. I will stop reverting. It's just that I was a little annoyed, I think, by the lack of a clear explanation for that change. I do tend to be a little uncooperative lately. It might be time to take a Wikibreak. Thanks for the comment. Iblardi (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Empire: Total War units
Do you have a usable reference for those retail units? I know they exist, but I'm turning up a blank on reliable sources to reference it to. It really needs a reference, or else its probably going to need removing. -- Sabre (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * They'll have to do. -- Sabre (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Maximinus Thrax again
Hello Kurt! Primary sources (Herodian) are not suitable for supporting debated claims (Maximinus' height). Please read carefully this one from WP:OR:Primary,secondary and tertiary sources : "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Therefore, it is clearly wrong tactic to use a primary source in order to refute a secondary scholarly view. Therefore, I moved Herodian's claims before the secondary references,in order to emphasize the latter. I also performed a general cleanup of the section.--Dipa1965 (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles XI of Sweden
Hi Kurt! It's nice to see you improving articles such as Charles XI of Sweden. As you seem to have a disagreement with another user, I suggest that you present your views on the discussion page before you revert him.

Note that I don't have any opinion either way -- I only noticed that you were making an argument in the page history when you reverted, which is a difficult place for discussions.

Fred-J 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

basileus
hi Kurt. Could you pls explain the issue regarding the title of alexander as basileus of macedon? we use all the original forms for his titles and not the translations ie hegemon of the hellenic league ( instead of the translation sovereign of the hellenic league, shahashah of persia instead of great king of persia pharaoh of egypt instead of king of egypt etc). By convension we should use the same as we did thus far. I will revert it back to my own update and pls fell free to adress to me any concerns. All the bestMelathron (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

History of the Eastern Roman Empire
I'm sorry for bothering you, but since I noticed in the past your interest regarding the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, I thought you might want to know that there is a request for renaming the article "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" to "History of the Byzantine Empire". However, there's no problem if you're too busy.

Possibly unfree File:Soviet child soldier.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Soviet child soldier.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly hi! 01:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Page move discussion
There is a Page move discussion going on for Rajneesh. Would you be interested in participating? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajneesh#Requested_move_11_June_2018 Accesscrawl (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Controversial Page moves
Hi There, thanks for your contributions. Please remember to start a discussion thread before making controversial moves like you made on Death of Jamal Khashoggi. Please see the page at WP:RM to know more on how to do this. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:01, 20 October 2018 (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) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)