User talk:MisterBee1966/Archive 2

Max Hansen
Thanks for that I have changed the article Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Malmady
He was put on trial along with a lot of others - he was attached to Peipers battle group so I believe thats the reason he was found guilty, as it was never proven who gave the order to open fire. I think the telling thing here is that the death penalty was changed to life, if they had any real proof he would have been hung. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Could not find a cross, but this one seems fitting Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Misterbee, thanks for the support on this. It's not my intention to start an editing war (and to be fair, I am actually registered as User:Pat Payne, but I've been getting lazy recently about logging in before editing), but the edits by Dapi as they stand I do believe are POV, the use of quotes around "war crimes" and the liberal use of the word false smack to me of heavy editorializing. And I resent him calling me an idiot because I don't comform to his opinion of how the article should be written.

If this keeps up, I'm going to ask for an RfC on this, because I believe he is trying too hard to assert Hartmann's innocence (a belief that I mostly share, if for no other reason than the USSR was not known for its sterling record of transparent, impartial jurisprudence). 216.52.210.40 (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is BS. I have acted in good faith, this guy has not. He had continued to revert without discussion; and I have continually sought it, but been ignored. And Payne, you have nothing to be thankful for, yet.Dapi89 (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Article on Walter Oesau
Hi Misterbee,

Since you had contributed to such a large extent to this article, I was wondering if you could let me know your comments on the addition I have made so far. I have scored every possible web page referring to Oesau and practically all the books that I had access to. I believe that's all the information one can find on Oesau. Unless of course one searched into older German language books. Do you think it might at all be ready for a GA review ? I am going to request a Peer review anyway.

By the way, do you think you might be able to do a GA review on another article Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II) ?

Please let me know. Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your comments. You went to School ? Awesome! I did find a Marie H. Oesau in Manitowoc, WI. USA. Do you know if there's a relationship ? (She died in July 08 born Nov 1906). I had already mentioned his reluctance to trade his Bf 109 Emil for the F variant. I did read about the fact that he was a excellent marksman. However I can't find a primary Reference for Citation. Hence the omission. I will incorporate the feedback. Thanks once again. Perseus71 (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I came across a lot more information about Oesau's personal Life recently. Two points that I hope you could shade some light on. One is regarding his wife and children. Do you know their names and Date of Birth etc ? Second is regarding one Hans-Walter Oesau in Hamburg. Would you know if there is a relation ? Appreciate your help. Perseus71 (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Erich Rudorffer.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Erich Rudorffer.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Karl-Gottfried Nordmann.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Karl-Gottfried Nordmann.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Heinrich Bär
Seems okay! Dapi89 (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Helmut Lent.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Helmut Lent.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Heinrich Bär
The article Heinrich Bär you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Heinrich Bär for things needed to be addressed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi mate. I didn't think you were a native speaker of English, so I figured any issues with the prose would be down to that. If there is any specific area would like me to help out on in relation to the article, don't hesitate to ask and I'll do the best I can to help ammend that issue. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing; I'll have a look at the article a little later on tonight. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've started going through the article again, in order to asertain whether it will now pass GA. So far, I still have concerns with the following sentence: "He was transferred to I./Jagdgeschwader 135, the core of the later to be Jagdgeschwader 51 (JG 51), on 1 September 1938 as transport aircraft pilot in 1937, mostly flying the Junkers Ju-52/3m." It implies he transferred to I./Jagdgeschwader 135 in 1938 but as a transport pilot in 1937, and is a little confusing. Could you please clarify this? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now competed a second review and a minor copyedit of the article, and the above is the only remaining concern I have. Once the above is clarified, contact me and I will have no hesitation in passing the article. Good work! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied that the article now comfortably meets the GA criteria, so I have just passed it as such. Condratulations and good work! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)
Hi Misterbee,

This article is currently undergoing a GA Review. You may find the review comments on Talk:Jagdgeschwader_1_(World_War_II)/GA1. One of the comments is to cite reference for the list of Geschwaderkommodores. I think you may have provided the Lists of Geschwaderkommodore for JG 1 Oesau. If you did then would you be able to provide the reference for the same ? I do not have my own reference for the same. Thanks for the time. Perseus71 (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Marseille
I added some stuff about overclaiming by Tate. But I think it should be put into context. He says that a fair number of M's victims should have been shot down, but given his fast and not so thorough nature he moved onto the next before making sure that his opponent was down. In this sense he lost many sure kills. What say you? Dapi89 (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not Marseille! This picture is in Scutts' Bf 109 aces of NA and the Med'! Although it is Marseille's car. Dapi89 (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Make that Weal's JG 27 Afrika, p. 111. Dapi89 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have given some thought to your response about claims. One should always be carefull of sticking to a position too rigidly regardless of the evidence presented against it! The citation was not meant to impugn his record, but rather point out that it was well intentioned claiming. Rather, there would not have been any question over this issue at all if Marseille had been prepared to do things a little slower and more thoroughly. It is also valid to say that German pilots tended to be self obsessed. Marseille only shot down four bombers because it was tactically expedient to shoot down fighters. Meanwhile the DAF was blowing the crap out of the DAK. This demonstrates a military flaw in all German serviceman and military thinkers; an obsession with tatics in operations and not thinking about strategic consequences of operational actions, or inactions in this case. Overall one could argue his influence took JG 27 away from its primary goal as an air superiority force; protection of the ground forces. Anywho, merry xmas HerrB. Dapi89 (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really. When you read the intent of RAF pilots in combat their first priority was always each other and their mission mandate. For example, RAF fighter units did not actively seek German fighters to engage when they were on the defensive and outnumbered. The BoB and Battle of Malta are examples; the bombers were priority and kills were shared. In a German unit it would be decided who deserved the kill most. Under these circumstances some RAF aces would have had significantly higher scores. But it didn't matter to them, they were not rewarded heavily. The Germans were and it encouraged them to be selfish.
 * Marseille, contrary to what Franz Kurowski says, he did not "always bring home is squadron safely", Marseille lost a few squadron mates and wingmen because he did not protect them - Franz Elles was one of them. In an RAF unit mutual protection was always top priority. Moreover they allowed everyone to get involved, and did not let those they deemed the best be the only ones to have the stab at the enemy. This is why Stahlschmidt, Steinhausen and Marseille accounted for 42% of all the kills in North Africa between April 1941 and September 1942. Add the exceptions of Schröer, Schulz and Homuth no other German pilots reached those kind of figures in the campaign. It also hads to be acknowleged that the DAF had a different operational agenda. It was tied to ground forces at low-level (with mostly inexperienced pilots and obsolete aircraft until June 1942) which gave the Germans the tactical advantage. Overall the DAF proved far more effective than the Luftwaffe, and didn't really care about fighter losses. When you compare this situation to the Battle of Britain, very few German pilots were able to achieve these kinds of scores, because the advantages were not there. Dapi89 (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes perhaps I am overdoing it too much. While I admire the skill of the German pilots, the circumstances were in their favour. Particularly on the Eastern Front, and they scored heavily accordingly. People seem to buy into the myth of German superiority without understanding the circumstances. If Bader, Caldwell, Barr, Tuck, Gentile or Johnson had been in Marseille's position they may have had the same success. Dapi89 (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review of Walter Oesau
Hi!

Thanks once again for your time on the Peer Review. It was a very valuable feedback. I have incorporated pretty much all the points. I'd appreciate if you could give me those additional comments you mentioned ? Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Again!
 * Thanks a lot for your feedback. It was invaluable as ever. I have incorporated most of your follow up comments. As to the the mentions in Wehrmachtbericht, I am afraid its going to need citation with actual texts. I did mention it in Aftermath and historical importance, but its going to be shot down badly for lack of Primary source citation. Given my sources, I am unable to provide the same. Would you by chance have those handy ? I'd appreciate if you could.

P.S. I noticed that you incorporated an Image in the Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II). Thanks a lot for the same. Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi !
 * I noticed the entries for the mentions of Oesau in "Die Wehrmachtberichte". Can I bother you for the exact text of those entries ? I noticed how you put up the Section for Heinz Bär. If you could pass me the text, I can put in the formal table etc. Thanks once again. Perseus71 (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello & Merry Christmas!
 * Thank you very much for the section on the "Die Wehrmachtberichte" entries. I have incorporated all of the Round 2 comments. I appreciate all your help and time. Thanks once again. Perseus71 (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Dornier Do 17
Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

BundesArchiv Images from Commons
Hello MisterBee,

2 Thanks for adding those images from BundesArchiv via Commons. One for JG 1 and the other for JG 11. That actually inspired me to some of Walter Oesau images. I had one photo of him from France 1941 that's on Bundesarchiv with signature Bild 101I-361-2193-25. I tried to look for it with the signature or classification.

Would it be possible to to give me some pointers on effective searching those archives on Commons ? Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 11:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for Citation help
Hello Misterbee,

I am afraid I need a bit of help. I was wondering if you might have access to Eric Mombeek's Book "Defenders of the Reich: Jagdgeschwader 1" Published by Classic Publications, 2003 ISBN 1903223016 ? If so could you please let me know if it has a list of Jagdgeschwader 1's Geschwaderkommodores and Gruppenkammduren ? I put together enough courage to go for FA for Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II) and the review questioning my secondary sources might want a primary source. Appreciate your help and time. Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned before. I did notice that the book is not in your library. But then I was hoping against hope. Appreciate your help. Thanks. Perseus71 (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Very Merry Happy New Year!


Thanks! And you. Dapi89 (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Heinrich Bär has passed its A-class review
Congratulations, I've justed closed the article's review as a pass. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Helmut Rosenbaum
Notice something odd about the dates? Dapi89 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed it. It says 5 October in the lead, at the bottom it says he was killed on 10 May. Dapi89 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Do 17 + He 111
I hope to take these to GA in the near future so help would be appreciated. I have asked two others what they thought but have been ignored! I think it will take a month or two to reach the quality and sufficient standard I would consider necessary for nomination. Dapi89 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. Well I think that applies more to the Do 17 than the He 111. I think the BoB section sticks mostly to how the design performed it combat; thus how it was suited. I guess it does need to be streamlined and some individual statisics need edtiting out and generalising. I always thought op' histories were just as important in evaluating the aircraft as technical data - I guess not!
 * Production should not be a problem. On the He 111 page figures for various variants are put into their sections. But given that the He 111 had a much longer production timeline there won't be too much to say with the Do 17. What is known about foreign production (the Yugoslav side) has been mentioned. I understand they were the only other country to be granted production rights. More of an effort will be made to highlight this in both articles. The other things can wait until last I think. Priorities first! Dapi89 (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try, but as you can appreciate the Do 17 is a far more difficult job. The F-4 literature is far more available. I'm not sure I'll be able to get that kind of information (costs). Dapi89 (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On the He 111 I think this better. Production figures are in the variant sections, rather than have one section on production. Or do you think this is best? Dapi89 (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just out of interest, do you have any information on Heinkel pilots that won the Knights Cross? Dapi89 (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ju 87
Take a look at the Ju 87 article. Is this more to your taste? I have good info on the individual factory production. I could add that in due course. Dapi89 (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I could have a look. It would be a case of finding the total of sorties by each unit. I'll try. Dapi89 (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think of it? I can find total sorties up to certain periods for particular Geschwader but I cannot find even an estimate for total sorties overall. Dapi89 (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers!
Much appreciated. Dapi89 (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Knight's Cross
Thanks I started working on the 1 SS article and come across red links then one thing lead to another. I am going to try and clear all the red links from List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS but there is very little known about some of the recipients. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Priller
Certain. KG 77 and KG 30 flew missions against Normandy shipping. Missions over the beachhead suffered a high loss rate. One force of Ju 88s were destroyed. Dapi89 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Did some more research, de Zeng also says I and III./KG 54 Attacked the British sectors on the afternoon of 6 June (Volume 1, p. 183.). Dapi89 (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Mini Review
Hi Mister Bee,

Thanks as always for your excellent observations. I did incorporate the lead comments. The career table might be a little while. Thanks all the same. Perseus71 (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Triple Crown jewels
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Heinrich Bär - quite comprehensive. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Article for deletion
Hi an article has been put up for AFD Karl Brommann. The reason seem to be around if a Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipient is notable? any input yourself as I know you have an interest in the subject would be appriciated. The AFD entry is here Articles for deletion/Karl Brommann Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Being English and a Conservative I have no problem with Germans/Germany I was even posted there with the Army and met some great Germans, but it seems some of the Wiki community do have problems. I wonder if he was in the Luftwaffe or Heer if there would be a problem ? I have come across anti SS before when putting articles in for DYK. I hope you were not planning on putting List of Waffen SS Knights Cross recipients in for FA as it this goes against me there looks very little chance of achieving it . Thanks for the SUPPORT Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Further I have put Paul Egger in for DKY seems quite a character lets see where that goes Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am at an impasse now I was going to work on the List of Waffen SS red links but will wait for the outcome of the AFD. There are only about 50-60 red links left so it may noT cause any problems when you go for FAC Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As normal your sources are correct I have changed the date for Paul Eggers Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment added to RD talk - I had also left messages on MILHIST and MILHIST-GERMANY talk, but I am a little bemused at the lack of response from both Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After my day, I figure if I was to pound my fist I should do it in "style and damn the consequences"! Dapi89 (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Blitz week
Hi Dapi,

I am back with another question. I came across a concept/term called "Blitz Week". To my surprise it was not coined by Luftwaffe but by bombers of USAAF. Since many of the Jadgwaffe of western front had to participate, would it make sense to write a separate article on this topic or make section in the individual JG's article ? What do you think ? Does it have enough importance to merit its own article ? From what I understand so far, its primary aim was to whittle down Day fighters. Let me know. I am of Course posing the same question to Dapi. Perseus71 (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi MisterBee,

My Bad. In haste copy-Ed, Should have changed the greeting. The question was for you. I did post the same question to Dapi too. To me it matters what you two think. I got thinking, perhaps we could make it as a section in Defense of the Reich ? As always, your thoughts are valuable! Perseus71 (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Walter Nowotny
The article Walter Nowotny you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Walter Nowotny for things needed to be addressed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done; an easy pass. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Heinrich Bar
I don't know what to tell you. Usually at this point in an FAC candidacy, somebody will have either supported or opposed, even if there isn't much activity. Unfortunately, there are way too many articles at FAC right now, meaning that everybody is stretched too thin. It's possible that Sandy or Raul may restart this if nothing happens, but that's looking ahead. Another possibility is that the candidacy will be archived to reduce the number of active reviews. I hope it doesn't fail because of inactivity, but you should be aware of that possibility. For now it's probably best to stay patient, because it's on the feedback needed template, which can be seen here. Assuming it doesn't get archived, someone will eventually pay it some more attention.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 02:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Help required please
Hi Looks like the AFD for Karl Brommann is going well -- I am having a problem with a translation its for Spräher Staffel somthing to do with Radio or Signals I believe. Could you please assist ?--Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks that makes more sense, no wonder it would not translate !--Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Heer infantry template
Hey there,

been watching your progress with this template, one question though. The side bar is called "numbered divisions"; was there any infantry divisions within the Heer that had names (excluding panzergrenadier units)?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ju 87
It got there. Thanks for the help. Dapi89 (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've put it up for peer review and requested opinions for FA status. The reviewing editor suggested I should push for FA. Dapi89 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have put it forward for A-Class. Dapi89 (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. On a personal note, is it possible that I could contact you via your e-mail? I have some questions about the German archives. I am currently doing some research into the relationship between the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine. Dapi89 (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

SS Divisions
Yes I agree - I found something similar on the French Wiki which looked better then our version - I am trying to work on articles for smaller formations [Brigade] size that could be included. These are the ones that I have managed to find:-


 * 1 SS Infantry Brigade (mot)
 * 2 SS Infantry Brigade (mot)


 * 4th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Brigade Nederland
 * 5th SS Volunteer Sturmbrigade Wallonien
 * 6th SS Volunteer Sturmbrigade Langemarck
 * SS Cavalry Brigade
 * Sturmbrigade Reichsführer SS
 * SS Brigade Westfalen
 * 8th SS Volunteer Sturmbrigade Frankreich
 * 3rd Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade
 * Schutzmannschaft-Brigade Siegling

Some of the above redirect to the Divisions they eventually become later in the war, which will need work on

I would suggest a suitable layout of the template would be;
 * Panzer
 * Panergrenadier
 * Mountain
 * Cavalry
 * Waffen Division like 19th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (2nd Latvian)

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks a lot better - I moved 27th and 28th see if you agree --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Question regarding "Waffen" divisions. Waffen means armed, and the information provided within one of the articles i looked at makes these look like infantry divisions. If that is the case i would suggest changing the name of the "Waffen" section to "Infantry".--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Another one, wernt the "police" divisions actually combat formations and not police units; shouldnt those two formations be transferred to one of the other areas: Panzer, Panzergrenadier, mountain, Cavalry, Waffen/Infantry etc?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I can see the point - Waffen / Panzergrenadier / Mountain are all Infantry Divisions of different types. We could also use Grenadier as the name as they were all Waffen Grenadier Divisions. The 4 SS were formed from the Orpo (not sure about the other) and were used in a policing role for much of the war until changed to Panzergrenadier. We would have to agree at what time period they are put onto the template as the older ones 1 SS 2 SS 3 SS wpould fit most of the sections. Infantry - Panzergrenadier - Panzer  Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont think there is a problem splitting the infantry divisions up by type like has been done, i.e. Mountain, Cav etc I would keep that.
 * If my understanding is correct all landser in the Heer were redesignated "Grenadiers" to "boost morale". I believe the same was applied to divisional names hence grenadier divisions. I dont want to be perdantic about this but i think infantry would be the better name for the section rather than Waffen or grenadier.
 * The 4th SS - that is a good point you have raised regarding there role that i was unaware of. If thats how they operated for a good deal of the time prehaps they should be left were they are?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, lets go for Infantry then MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Coolio--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree Infantry Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made some changes to Template:SS Divisions if you want to check thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Defense of the Reich
Cheers. On another note have you heard of this? The Finnish Secret service recorded Hitler without his knowledge during his visit to Finland on 4 June 1942. He was talking to Mannerheim about the state of the war effort. It has been released (sometime in 2004) and remains the only known recording of Hitler in a non-public tone. He is very frank about the situation. The link enclosed provides you with the recording itslef, just click on the top right. Dapi89 (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * About the oil stuff; do you think it is over kill to go into too much detail? I think it would be best to stick to the damage done due to bombing first. Then I think losses should be mentioned periodically, at the end of each month or so with reference to particular days if they show outstanding abnormalaties. As it is the 60k mark had been reached, and I fear this may lead to a denial of GA status, which is where I want to go in time. Dapi89 (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Notability of Knight's Cross recipients
Ping! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 01:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Ditto - I tried to vote in this one not being aware you could not vote on nominations for awards at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards unless you are a coordinator. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wolfgang Lüth
A good read - I have made some small changes Captain read better in English then Captain at Sea and some other small changes - Shame about his demise --Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure the families of his victims would agree :) Dapi89 (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm affraid it only mentions him once, in just two short lines and he mentions nothing about his abilities or personality. Dapi89 (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

KG 55
Hi.

I have just noticed on this articles history page that the German wiki link was removed due to its removal from the German wikipedia. I was rather stunned. How could this be allowed? Some time ago you mentioned you prefer to edit here rather than the German wiki because it was more "open". Is this the kind of behaviour you were talking about? Dapi89 (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

20/7
Don't let them bully you. They will twist and turn your words inside out, so don't feel you have to apologise to them, they knew damn well what you meant. There is little point trying to engage these people in any type of debate about this, they removed a citation and then have the nerve to tell you "we rely on reliable sources". You'll be beating your head against a brick wall. I wouldn't be surprised if they take issue with your source, if and when you bother offering it. Dapi89 (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Marseille
Check the talk page, error in progress! Dapi89 (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Generals
MisterBee, There are still many lesser known German generals with no wiki articles. Are you looking for more? Schmausschmaus (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review for Wolfgang Lüth
Hi, i have made some comments on the GA review page for the article, and have put it on hold while you consider my suggestions. Please leave any queries/questions etc. there or on my talk page. Thanks, MarquisCostello (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You addressed all the issues i had, and so i have passed it for GA. Thanks, MarquisCostello (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats on the GA, however were you planning to address points raised at the article's peer review? A few there were duplicated in the GA review but at least one, re. possible suicide, was not and it would be good to see a response and perhaps a rewording on that at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Another AFD
Hi see we are back again I was unable to find any information of Ruf - interesting part of this is that Hugo Ruf was created by the person who put in the AFD I fail to see any more of less notabilty between the two. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

p.s Best wishes on the GA

C-Class
I loved your opinion of not adding C-Class to the Military History WikiProject (mostly because it is the same opinion I have :) The voting on it is close at the moment though. Either way one side will be forced to bow to the consensus of the WikiProject (lets just hope it is the other side :) Keep up the Good Work, and Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 16:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting involved in the Voting process (cross your fingers for my bid for coordinator) Keep Up the Good Work! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 21:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Jagdfliegerführer
Hi I have seen the articles you are doing Jagdfliegerführer Bretagne have you considered doing a redirct from the English translation ? for ease of searching most people searching here would use English Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes Great--Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Erhard Mösslacher
Changed details award on the 9th killed on the 12th February --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Anzac
THANKS --Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

KNIGHTS CROSS RECIPIENTS
Sorry I have nothing more then what you already have. however this source has the spelling as HALBECK, Heinrich (also HAHLBECK) (* 21.02.1909 in Hansühn / Gemeinde / Testorf / Holstein) 	RK: SS-Ustuf. u. Fhr. einer Kampfgruppe DES V.SS-Gebirgskorps, E.Front 	RK: 17.04.45 - I don't know what the web sites source is. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

mmmm
Spot any Brits? Dapi89 (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Umlauts
Noticed your umlauting of Otto Koennecke. There are a lot more Germans on the List of World War I flying aces that could be umlauted, if you are up to it.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Medal of Valor
I thought I checked for a Medal of Valor listing when I dubbed those Notes in the List of World War I flying aces. I was unaware that there were individual listings under Bronze, Silver, and Gold. Looks like I am going to have to go back through the Notes column and re-enter these honors. That should take care of the linkage.

Thank you for alerting me to this.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Werner Mölders
In 1938 Mölders volunteered for the Condor Legion (codename Übung Rügen — Bombing of Guernica), reads like he volunteered for the battle. did you mean something else
 * Its also not clear if he was involved in the bombing
 * Mölders claims his last and 14th aerial victory - was he the top scoring pilot in the war (or the [[Ace of Aces) ?
 * The origins of the maneuver appeared in the Royal Air Force (RAF) Training Manual of 1922 as used by a Vic of five aircraft — a tight formation forming the letter "V" - Very interesting I did not know this we are sometimes very slow but get there in the end
 * The Battle of Britain/Eastern front section is a bit cluttered with images they are getting on top of each other

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Its very good I did not comment on the lack of references as its still a work in progress --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A Class reviews
Hi reading again the A Class criteria [A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.] Do you think you should add some images ? This is the only thing I can see them falling down on --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly a gallery near the end of recipients or award ceremonies there must be something suitable in commons from the Bundsarchive --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

AWARD
By my count you have seven FA and three are required for this;

Thanks
For the chevrons --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Staffelführer versus Staffelkapitän
Sorry. I'm dumb. I was going to send you an e-mail for an opinion on something. I am busy with examinations at the momement, so it might be a couple of days before I do. I thought I should clear it with you first. Dapi89 (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

terror bombing
I'll have to get back to you in a few days as I'm in the middle of exams. What's going on in the article has to do with one individual's attempts to write history anew by scouring the internet to find sources that vaguely (or so he claims) to support his own POV. He has systematically deleted sources that scupper his own attempts at justifying the German attacks in Poland. Then he trys to portray the raids on German cities, by Bomber Command, as attacks aimed at civilians, whilst claiming the attacks during the Blitz were aimed at industrial targets. Its a disgrace. Dapi89 (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

List of World War flying aces
Transliterating the umlauts into the German names will be most helpful.

Also, you seem to have found articles about the Italian Medals of Valor that I did not. If you should link with those, I would be most happy, and so would those who peruse our work.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That lack of fun has been the subject of past discussion, and it is, for sure, a disincentiveizer.

I have a suggestion pending that would deal with the problem, although no one has taken me up on enacting the solution.

My solution calls for the initial article to be the first 'page' of the list, with the present list strung out over a number of successive 'pages' that would be linked to the initial page.

All I can add is, Bless you for what you have done.

Georgejdorner (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If the aces list were to be split like the examples you show, a great deal of the utility of the list would be lost. At present, the various nationalities and flying services are comparable in a number of ways.

An alphabetic split, a split by nationality, or a split by flying services would destroy that. Splitting by nationality becomes a nightmare; for instance, Americans served in British, French, and American units. Splitting by flying service means the UK is represented by the RFC, RNAS, and RAF; then, too, who today knows that Austria-Hungary existed or had an air force?

I firmly believe my plot of sequential 'pages' is the best solution thus far.

Georgejdorner (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review for Werner Molders
Hi, mate. Just to let you know I have completed the GA Review for Werner Molders and have passed it. I made a few small changes, mainly just endashes, spaces etc. Reworded a couple of sentences, but not really very much was required. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Walter Borchers
This is not quite ready for DYK, I think it needs to be at least 2695 characters; it's around 2050. ceran thor 21:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dimitri Khazanov
Hi.

On the Erich Hartmann article the links for his "criticisms" of Hartmann are no longer available owing to the website being shut down. Do you have any cites for this? Dapi89 (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Bruno Loerzer
While not disagreeing with you about the status of German Freikorps, I have never found a reference to cite concerning their illegality. Indeed, the sources I have read simply state they existed. Will it be possible to cite a reference for their illegality and effect on public (dis)order?

Georgejdorner (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Belgium
What do you think so far? Do you have any info on German casualties? Dapi89 (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yes please. I have added the notes to the casualties to make known losses for the British-French and Germans are impossible to know when dealing with combat inside the Belgian borders only. Dapi89 (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross
I think it is a case of overcomplication. Just get to the main point of what you're trying to say. I would edit out the merger of all the four listings, i.e the KC, OL, S and D. Just get across the main points: You should be able to to rewrite in three or four sentences in rather simpler language. Dapi89 (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Individual lists for each arm at first.
 * Once merged, they didn't include foreign, (or just non-German -Austrian?) people.
 * Keep the two principles of chro' amd alpha' orders.


 * No problem. I think they are telling you to use simple language and cover the basics. Dapi89 (talk)


 * Well, we know the Jerries aren't perfect :] Dapi89 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A class review
Yes of course, have a good time --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sedan
I missed out the BoS which should have been first - thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think you could start an article on Heinrich Krampf? To kill the red links? I found this (please scroll down -it covers 134 + 135), but I don't have the sources for his birth etc. Dapi89 (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Do 17
Yes. I was under the impression the note was quite clear. The author says 9./KG 76 of course this implies 9 gruppe. KG 76 had no such group. What he was saying was 9 staffel of the III Gruppe KG 76 - 9 staffel was a part of third group. Dapi89 (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

He 111
Thanks for your "achtung"! I will prod about later. I don't seem to have interested anyone @ the GA review page. Perhaps they have something against the '111. Dapi89 (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorted. Dapi89 (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Do 217
There are lots of pictures on the German archive website, but they are not available on wikipedia. Is there anyway of checking this? Dapi89 (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I asked. These are the ones I want. Dapi89 (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Biographical Dictionary of the Extreme Right Since 1890 (2nd nomination), which you contributed to. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Belgium
I'm tempted to nominate this. Is it missing anything? Dapi89 (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Me 262 kill
I have no idea. It was just a page dump (copy and paste from the Mosquito article) to form a new article to allow for the expansion of the article in other areas. I don't have either source and I did not write any of it. Dapi89 (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Schmid
One must be careful not to blame Schmid too much. The Luftwaffe was not a force fit for purpose when it came to strategic bombing. It takes more than intelligence to win a battle. Besides, Sealion almost certainly would have been a disaster - the 1974 sandhurst experiment with former German staff officers?

Anyway, I have some stuff on him:


 * Schmid had a reputation for telling his superiors what they wanted to hear.
 * In May 1939 he told Goring that Britain was two years behind Germany and had obsolescent aircraft and a weak defence system, making the UK, "very vulnerable from the air".
 * 22 November 1939: Schmid issues "Proposal for Conduct of Air Warfare against Britain". As is turned out a more realistic paper
 * He identifies Britain as being the most "dangerous" apponent. He claims, unlike France, the Uk could continue the war alone which would not lead to a favourable outcome.
 * After the war he claimed that he realised it would be difficult. It would the the air arm not the navy that would have to stop the Royal Navy. He claimed he realised the british could increase production making success less likely and claimed a prudent Luftwaffe leadership would never have begun the battle.
 * Schmid lied. In 1940 he issued a number of reports. On 16 July 1940 he wrote:
 * Hurricane and Spitfire were inferior to the Bf 109 and only a skilfully handled Spitfire was better than the Bf 110.
 * number of operational airfields in Britain was severely limited
 * Industry was producing between 180-300 RAF fighters a month (true figures were 496 for July) and would decrease
 * Command was inflexible. Fighters being rigidly tied to bases
 * Regarded equipment/training/command/location of bases superior to RAF
 * Overestimated light flak capability of RAF airfields - Luftwaffe did not launch low level strikes
 * Underestimated repair and organisational service of RAF which put back machines in the air rapdily
 * Failed to mention radar
 * Estimated production of RAF at 250 maximum throughout summer (primary production was 500 a month)

Overall he claimed the information given was the most accurate ever put together.

He did get some things right:


 * Estimation of first line RAF strength
 * Production sites of Hurricane and Spitfire

Hope this helps. Dapi89 (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Joachim-Friedrich Huth
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.
 * There was a problem with the hook. Can you check back again? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Dabomb87 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

support for FA on German Unification
Mister Bee, Last month German Unification was not promoted to FA because, apparently, not enough people had taken the time to read and comment. If I nominate it again, will you read it (it's lengthy) and comment? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've renominated the Unification of Germany article.  I've also included a section on the rationale about the bibliography and footnoting format (your primary concern) in the talk page. I think we're reasonably good on it. I'd appreciate your support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia took out your collapse template, so it probably will be necessary to cross out the comments that have been dealt with (which is all of them). sorry for the inconvenience. Ruth Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
I raised the question on the article talk page if someone was too shy to discuss it on the featured article section. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

List of World War I flying aces
Load time is considerably reduced, if you should care to return and edit. Georgejdorner (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mölders copyedit
Do please keep an eye on my edits and let me know if I stray too far for your liking, or if you have any other concerns.  JN 466  12:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Prima. War die Beförderung zum Leutnant am 1. 3. 34 oder am 1. 3. 35?  JN 466  13:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Welche Rechtschreibung hättest Du gerne: die britische (internationale) oder die amerikanische? Momentan haben wir z.B. manoeuvre (britisch) und authorized (eher amerikanisch), sowohl honored (amerikanisch) als auch honoured (britisch).  JN 466  17:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * certainly, I'll be happy to do that. Ruth  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

okay, I did so, but ran into an edit conflict with JN, so it was lost. I will start over later, when yinz are done with this effort. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Another query: Did he shoot down two Curtiss on 27 May 1940, i.e. were these nos. 19 and 20?  JN 466  19:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  JN 466  19:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 questions.


 * Who sentenced the French officer to death – the Germans, obviously, since Mölders intervened with Göring? Do we have further details?
 * We say, "Mölders was promoted to Major on 19 June 1940 and announced as the new Geschwaderkommodore of Jagdgeschwader 51 (JG 51) the next day. He took over the command on 28 July 1940 from the recently promoted Generalmajor Theo Osterkamp.[29]" I don't understand that; if we was named Geschwaderkommodore of the Jagdgeschwader, he already had command of it. What command did he take over then one month later? -- JN 466  19:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks btw. for fixing the cite error I introduced earlier today. I have only just noticed that I mistook a ref name for ref content. ;) -- JN 466  19:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could I ask you to check the first paragraph of Battle of Britain to see if we have the July dates right now? Including the sortie on 28 July?
 * Looks good, well done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Secondly, re his being a French PoW, we say in the article body that he was "liberated three weeks later on 30 June 1940 upon the armistice with France." But in Battle of Britain, we say that he was promoted to Major on 19 June upon his return to Germany. The French armistice was signed on 22 June, coming into effect on 25 June. In the lede, we used to say he was a PoW for just two weeks (I changed it now to match what is in the article body, but I wonder if it wasn't the lede that was right. Could you have a look at the sources?  JN 466  20:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the prolem was that the promotion to Major is dated on the 19 July and not the 19 June. I fixed this MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, now it makes sense.  JN 466  10:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Eastern Front section, we say, Under the leadership of Mölders JG 51 had claimed 500 Soviet aircraft destroyed since the beginning of hostilities in the east and 12 July 1941. In return JG 51 suffered 3 casualties. JG 51 also reported its 1,200 aerial victory of the war that day, the credit going to Hauptmann Leppla. The "and" before the date is odd, perhaps a leftover from an old "between ... and" wording. I take it to mean that on 12 July 1941, the Eastern front tally stood at 500, that JG51 had suffered 3 casualties up until that date, and that it achieved its 1200th aerial victory on 12 July 1941. Please check paragraph when I'm done. Cheers, -- JN 466  21:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The timeframe is 22 June to 12 July 1941 (3 weeks). Within this 3 weeks 500 aircraft were destroyed for 3 casualties in return. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. -- JN 466  10:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We describe Mölders' position at the Reichsluftfahrtministerium as a "park position". I don't understand the intended meaning; could you explain? -- JN 466  21:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Göring didn't know what to do with him after the banned him from combat flying. So they parked him in a staff position until he was made Inspector of fighters MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've called it a "stopgap position" for now. Perhaps Ruth can think of something better.  JN 466  10:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ansonsten bin ich jetzt einmal durch. Interessanter Artikel.  JN 466  01:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

re Victor Mölders...Did you see this  Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
need you to review what I've done, including shortened lead. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  03:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Heligoland Bight
I'm affraid that only 22 were involved, Frankland and Webster in the offical history and Terraine, The Right of the Line say that only Number 3 Group's No. 9, 37 and 149 Sqdns were involved. Two dropped out owing to engine trouble. The other formation was not engaged by German fighters. Three further machines did crash land. The sources do not say they were written off. Caldwell and Muller always mention when an aircraft is written off during landing -they make no mention of it. Caldwell and Muller, and Mackay, mention that 38 victories were claimed, and Mackay says all 38 were credited. But the sources I have all agree "twelve were lost", meaning to me the damaged machines were not written off - though they don't say that. Max Hasting states in his Bomber Command: "Only after a visual sighting report by German naval observers, whose message was duplicated in transmission and reached HQ as a warning of 44 approaching enemy aircraft, did the Luftwaffe at last group the reality of attack."Dapi89 (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course not! I hope Mr Bekker is right about that though! Dapi89 (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
need to add the space thingie to the rest...I've done some of it....&nbsp with the; at the end. one of the FAR reviewers requested it. I've noted on the FAR page that some of the comments were addressed (added Fixed etc) to the comment. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a definition of aerial victory in the lead, based on how you'd explained it on my talk page. Is this wording okay? -- JN 466  19:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Aerial victories
I think we have to decide whether he had 15 or 14 confirmed kills in Spain: the current lede wording implies 15 (15 + 53 = 68), the Condor Legion section says 14. -- JN 466  01:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

J88
This wording does not make sense: ''He was assigned to the 3rd squadron of Jagdgruppe 88 (J 88) commanded by Oberleutnant Adolf Galland. The unit, stationed at the Valencia-Ebro front, included four squadrons equipped with the Heinkel He 51, but was later equipped with the Messerschmitt Bf 109 B-2; the He 51s were turned over to the 4th squadron'' We say the four squadrons had He 51s, and then say the He 51s were turned over from the third to the fourth. But the fourth would have had their own already.

For reference, your original wording before all the copyedits was ''He was assigned to the 3rd Staffel of Jagdgruppe 88 (J 88) commanded by Oberleutnant Adolf Galland.[Notes 1] The unit was stationed at the Valencia-Ebro front. Mölders took over command of the Staffel on 24 May 1938 when Galland returned to Germany. Initially the Staffel flew the Heinkel He 51 A-2 and re-equipped with the Messerschmitt Bf 109 B-2. The He 51s were turned over to the 4th Staffel, commanded by Hauptmann Eberhard d'Elsa, and carried on until the end of the Spanish Civil War.'' -- JN 466  01:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this edit has now fixed the inconsistency: The apparent error had been present in one of the notes:, but please check.  JN 466  01:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, just writing to give you early warning that I'll be without regular Internet access for a week, starting this coming Friday. Keeping my fingers crossed for the nomination in the meantime. Best, -- JN 466  01:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph
Hallo, nachstehend der revidierte Absatz. Ich hoffe, es passt so. Viel Glück mit der Nominierung; ab 6. 9. ist bei mir dann wieder business as usual.-- JN 466  13:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In 1985 Viktor Mölders stated that his brother had saved Georg Küch—one of Werner Mölders' closest friends, who had been classified as a half-Jew by the Nuremberg Laws—from death in the concentrations camps. The MGFA ruled this "highly speculative", and it was not investigated further. Mölders' and Küch's friendship dated back to their school days at the Saldria-Gymnasium in Brandenburg an der Havel. Küch's mother, Alice Küch née Siegel, was of Jewish birth. His father, Richard Küch, ran a pharmacy in Brandenburg. Georg, himself a student of pharmacy, was expelled from university on the grounds of the Nuremberg Laws, just two semesters shy of his graduation. In 1940 Richard Küch fell ill, and owning and operating the pharmacy became a bureaucratic problem for the family. Georg Küch contacted Werner Mölders in mid-February 1941, asking for help. Werner Mölders immediately responded to Küch on 16 February 1941 stating that he had taken care of the matter, and asking Küch not to pursue the issue on his own. Richard Küch died in June 1941. According to the German law of the time, Alice Küch would have inherited the pharmacy. However, as she was Jewish, the pharmacy would normally have been confiscated by the German state. This did not happen, and Alice Küch was able to sell the pharmacy for the normal market value. She remained exempt from wearing the yellow badge until late 1943. She was then taken to the Theresienstadt concentration camp where she worked as a cook. Georg Küch, Alice Küch and Georg's sister Friedel survived the holocaust. Friedel Küch repeatedly stated that Werner Mölders had been responsible for protecting the family.

Werner Mölders
I'll look. Dapi89 (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Time Zones
It doesn't really work that way either. No Spitfire was lost to German fighters around 16:00. Infact only one Spitfire were shot down by 109s that day. A great number of RAF fighters were shot down by German bombers, not fighters. German overclaiming during the battle was nearly 3:1. Dapi89 (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew what you were getting at, but that gets us off the point. Marseille's claim was made at a specific time. No RAF fighter fell at that time. Looking around for losses that were reported around that time is scrapping the barrel and perhaps even tendentious. Dapi89 (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is okay. I have chosen a subject/service that has no official history and has been (and acknowledged to have been) neglected for 73 years! (There's a clue). This gives me more room to be creative with the primary sources - which I almost am totally reliant on - without having to battle against entrenched, incorrect and old published material. Tutors don't take kindly to their buddies’ work being questioned by snotty final year students. I recently was verbally nailed to the wall for disagreeing with Richard Overy's opinions on Blitzkrieg. One of the Professors (who knows Mr Overy personally) took exception and invited me to debate the point with him. I declined. One ace up my sleeve is my supervisor, who is an Air Commodore. That gives me a sound advantage. Dapi89 (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Walter Nowatny
I went through it once. I think we decided on the last round to use the english names and put the German in parens. this is correct, yes? I don't think I've changed the meaning of anything except in your translation grid, where you had translated 'heldentot' as heroes death -- the death of heroes (many) rather than the death of one hero...If I've read 'heldentot' correctly, it's singular (my German plurals can be shaky). Take a look and see what you think. What kind of flap was there over reclassifying his grave? Do we get a legacy section on this one too? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Marseille claims 26/9/42
I will be at the archives next Tuesday and Wednesday, I will see if I can trace Marseille's 7 opponents on this date from the listed Squadrons:

No. 33 Squadron RAF No. 213 Squadron RAF No. 92 Squadron RAF No. 145 Squadron RAF No. 601 Squadron RAF

There might be a clue in there as to casualties in the operational records. Maybe. Dapi89 (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Law Lord (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
This looks promising! And in no small part thanks to Auntieruth and Roger Davies, who got a few more reviewers out of the woodwork. :) Best,  JN 466  17:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * YAY!!! (throws confetti). Congratulations on the star.  This is a nicely done article, and I'm very pleased to see it recognized!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Law Lord (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hans-Arnold St.
I'll ave a look. Dapi89 (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS
You nominated List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS for GA. However, it may not be eligible. According to Good article criteria lists are not eligible for GA and should be forwarded to WP:FLC instead. maclean (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

LENT
Is the picture here of the aircraft of any use? NJG 2 It was interesting to see it, and the difference between it and the "lighter" fighters that Moelders used. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)