User talk:Trekphiler/Archive 2

History of the bicycle
Thanks for helping to clean up my mess. If you have any more suggestions on how best to distribute the material between the two articles, I'd love to hear them. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Faulty links
Hehe... when I clicked the link in your description for your barnstar (the wikiholic test one), it turned out to be a faulty page! Click here to find out more.Zheliel 10:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (January)
–  Cs-wolves (talk)  16:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

==  WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 3, Issue 2 - Feburary 2009 ==


 * }
 * }

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 08:17, 5 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) 05:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor
Please take a look at the changes to this article proposed by User:GoldDragon and respond on the article's talk page. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Scoring the aces
I saw your comments on the Rickenbacker talk page. I have probably written more on the World War I aces than any other contributor. I thought I might share a couple of comments with you concerning the aces' credits. One is from the Rickenbacker page, further down.


 * Aerial combat has always--repeat always--been subject to error and exaggerated claims. No matter what rules are set, or what technological means are invented to verify aerial victory, verifying victory claims was and is an imperfect process. Fractionate the victories, use the most stringent means of verification, and cross-collate the casualty reports in the aftermath--and you are still probably wrong.
 * History credits Eddie Rickenbacker with 26 victories, and the count is probably wrong, along with the score of just about every other ace who ever lived. Live with it.

The other is on the Richthofen talk page, in reply to Monday morning quarterbacking and statistics mongering.


 * While all of the above discussion of the probability of Richthofen's victories is very interesting, all of it is so intrinsically flawed as to be meaningless.
 * While math theories work on carefully gathered data, the victory claims of World War I aces are anything but that. Highly stressed men, difficulties in vision, vagaries of weather and terrain all made reports of victory more of a guessing game than an accurate accumulation of fact. Some combat reports state only EA--enemy aircraft--as the target; some lack even a date; many lack a time of day. There are historians who attempt to match up reported losses with combat reports with an eye toward validating the scores of individual aces, and they always fail.
 * Passage of time and subsequent loss of records further erodes credibility and accuracy.
 * The comparison of fleeting observations in the air to sporting events witnessed by multitudes is so basically fallacious as to be laughably unbelievable. It is not even a comparison of apples and oranges; it is more like a comparison of pomegranates and bananas.
 * In short, if you allow "garbage in garbage out" into the mathematical realm, you can prove most anything.

You also might want to check out List of World War I fighter aces, for explanation of scoring systems and difficulties.

I may have given you more info that you even thought you needed, but I hope you will forgive me for that.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't Worry
Don't worry. I'm not campaining.Abce2 (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Abce2

Just fyi...
I enjoyed looking through your userpage... super-intense with all those animated gifs! kilbad (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

==  WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 3, Issue 3 - March 2009 ==

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 01:12, 1 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) 00:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (February)
–  Cs-wolves (talk)  09:43, 5 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) 20:33, 8 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) 07:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

adding tags to articles
Hi! I've been assessing fish articles for some time now and i've noticed the tags you've added. thanks, but there is one, small problem. i saw you put the tags for WP: archaeology when dealing with fossil fishes, i thought archaeology dealt mostly with human activities. if that's so wouldn't the banner for WP: Palaeontolgy be more applicable? thanks, Ryan shell (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Help
What should I do if a User seems like he or she is just promoting a website? Not as in editing the websites wikipedia page (if it has one) but as in, well, just promoting it. Abce2 (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Abce2

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) 06:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

==  WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 3, Issue 4 - April 2009 ==

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 05:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (March)
–  Cs-wolves (talk)  12:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Page blanking
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. --Allen3 talk 13:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fifth Horseman
Hey man, saw your (admittedly old) query on the gnosticism page, re: the 5th horseman, name of Oblivion or Extinction.

None of the Gnostic gospels mention such a figure - it was a fact cooked up by Grant Morrison, a comics writer, for his run on the DC series Doom Patrol. The fifth horseman is mentioned by a member of the aforesaid team. Cheers Visual Error (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Understand DP? Well, some of it - the bit about Dada and the Fifth Horseman I got.  It helped that I had (by chance) read up on a few topics that Morrison seems to find of interest.  That said, I don't he's written anything to compete with his early stuff, except perhaps WE3, which was a blinder.  The Filth, mind you, was like a geode caked in crap - you see the occasional sparkle through the muck, and it's pretty - but in the end no geode's valuable enough or pretty enough to get your hands covered in crap for.  Visual Error (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

==  WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 3, Issue 5 - May 2009 ==


 * }

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) 00:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

April Newsletter
Chubb enna  itor  19:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (May)
–  Cs-wolves (talk)  01:43, 2 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) 04:14, 5 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) 04:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

==  WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 3, Issue 6 - June 2009 ==

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 23:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

==  WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 3, Issue 7 - July 2009 ==

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 2px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #f5fffa; border: 2px #336600 solid; text-align: center; " |Previous Issue | WikiProject Saskatchewan Volume 3, Issue 7 - July 2009 | Next Issue Parks • Festivals • Museums • Conversions • Search • Clean ups {| class="plainlinks" Navigation: Archives | Tip Line | Editors | Subscribers | {|style="border-spacing:center:8px;margin:-8px -8px"
 * style="border: 2px #cef2e0 solid;"|
 * style="border: 2px #cef2e0 solid;"|
 * colspan="2" valign="middle" style="width: 60%; border: 3px #cef2e0 solid; background-color: #f5fffa; padding: 1em;" |
 * class="MainPageBG" style="width:100%;border:1px solid #076A21;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#076A21"|


 * }


 * } New condensed format delivered by: ENewsBot. Thank you!
 * }

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 00:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (June)
-- Midgrid (talk)  15:25, 6 July 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) 00:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

nested parameter now extinct
Hi. Concerning this edit of yours I would like to just inform you that nested is not needed anymore. In fact many bots are cleaning it and the templates are automatically suppressed when they are inside WPB and other similar templates. It has also been removed from all documentations. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Berlin
Can you reconsider the encyclopedic value of this edit please? Thanks, --76.117.164.50 (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's a cultural thing. It's customary for Americans to treat placenames worldwide as though they were American placenames (Akron, Ohio; while Paris, France is a redirect). It looks kind of funny on an article about a European subject. Realistically Berlin is not ambiguous, which is why we have a different naming convention for European cities. I'll take it to article talk if necessary. --76.117.164.50 (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Call out
WikiProject Alternate History is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to have annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active within the project. If you still consider yourself an active editor, please add your name back to the Active members list. You can also list yourself as a Supporter if you feel you cannot dedicate the time necessary to be an active member.

Please also see the Project talk page for more information concerning this Call Out. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

==  WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 3, Issue 8 - August 2009 ==

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 09:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (July)
–  Cs-wolves (talk)  22:32, 3 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) 21:17, 9 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  05:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wording on Pacific War
Hey, You've recreated the part of a sentence I removed regarding Pearl Harbor in the Pacific War article. You asked what part of "blunder" is unclear... well, the answer to that is all of it. Nowhere does it clarify why the Axis' actions were a blunder. In fact, the sentence links to the article on Grand strategy where it classifies those actions as "sensible" and a "classic example" of such strategic thinking. If there was an additional sentence or reference that clarified why such actions are seen as a "blunder" then it definitely should be kept, but as it is it's slightly contradictory and unqualified. I'm going to remove it again, but should you disagree with my reasoning above, then it's probably a good idea to take this to the article talkpage before restoring. Best regards,  one brave  monkey  10:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (August)
–  Cs-wolves (talk)  14:49, 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)

Infamy, infamy, they've all got... etc
In ref to your note; seems good to me. My main view was that it's quite an interesting strategic viewpoint, so surely there must be decent sources out there... somewhere. So far I've found some interesting stuff from here (albeit not terrifically sourced itself), but I'll let you know how I get on once I've found time to trawl through t'internet. Cheers,  one brave  monkey  11:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No loftier a source than this. :-D  one brave  monkey  08:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for the kind words!--Mr Fink (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

World War II Bombing: Morale
Hi Trekphiler

Re: the sentence in question - what do you think about adding to the end of the morale sentence (no measurable effect on morale) - "in Great Britain or Germany." ? Does the reference cited note that detail?

Thanks.

Etrangere (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

==  WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 3, Issue 9 - Saskatchewan 2009 ==

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 08:43, 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) 21:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Motorcycle land speed record
Please use the talk page to explain your reverts. From what I can see, you're trashing a large number of edits I did which corrected false information and added a reliable source that was missing. And your motive is some minor geographical nit? If you have a guideline or policy that should be followed here, please point it out. And don't undo the entire edit because of something this minor.--Dbratland (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Bandini articles
When you tagged the Bandini articles, what did you mean about improving the English?Relevantsus (talk) 13:33, 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)

Trans-atlantic Zeppelin or airship flights prior to May, 1927
The only trans-atlantic airship flights between North America and Europe prior to Lindbergh's May, 1927, first ever non-stop flight from New York to Paris were a round trip between the UK and Mineola, NY, by the British airship R-34 in 1919, and the delivery flight of the Zeppelin-built US Navy airship USS Los Angeles (ZR-3, ex-LZ-126) from Friedrichshafen to Lakehurst in 1924. No airship, however, ever made a flight between New York and Paris either before or after the Spirit of St. Louis therefore making Lindbergh's solo flight the first ever non-stop flight over that route made either solo or otherwise. Centpacrr (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Orteig Prize for which Lindbergh and the other aviators (none of which others made "solo" attempts) were competing for was for making the first "non-stop flight between New York and Paris" in either direction, a distance of roughly 3,600 statute miles. Alcock and Whitten-Brown's non-stop trans-atlantic flight in 1919 was made between St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Clifden, Ireland, which, at roughly 2,000 miles, was 1,600 miles shorter than (and thus not remotely comparable to) the distance Lindbergh's non-stop flight between New York and Paris covered. The fact that he also happened to accomplish it "solo" was not, however, a required element of setting the "record" of doing so first, nor would any competitor have had to do so to make a successful claim for setting that record and thus winning the prize. Centpacrr (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Friendly note regarding talk page messages
Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:98.172.157.241, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages or warnings from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or shared IP header templates (for unregistered editors). However, it should be noted that these exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 3, Issue 10 - October 2009
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 07:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Convoy PQ 17
Thanks for your interest in the article. I have responded to your points in the talk page, here. Thanks again! reuv T 12:04, 1 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) 16:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (September)
--<font face="Forte"> Midgrid (talk)  10:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor
Just an FYI, the reason all of the ships had "USS" in front is (likely) because whoever added all of the ships did it with the pipe trick, which only removes the disambiguation (the part within the parentheses). It's a hassle to type out all of the ship names twice (before and after the pipe) just to eliminate the "USS"; I wouldn't have done it either. You really went ballistic (re:the edit summary), so I thought I'd defend whichever editor was responsible for raising your ire.  Horologium  (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thompson page
Hey there. You recently posted this:

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Thompson submachine gun. Your edits constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 23:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)"

That was done from my computer, and it was done by my 10-year-old son, who discovered that "anyone can edit wikipedia, Dad". He noted that people could mess with pages and I told him yes, they could, but people monitor those pages and will revert vandalism. Apparently he decided to test that. My apologies. He will be sternly dealt with when he wakes up tomorrow.

Cassavau (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Weapon Alpha
Could you please revisit the Weapon Alpha article you created back in 2007. These edits (the latter from last April) seem to have considerably changed the meaning of the last sentence, and I don't have access to the reference to sort it out. (I considered simply reverting to the original wording, but I must admit that I found it a bit confusing as well.) -- ToET 02:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

== <div style="font-family:monotype corsiva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:15px; color:Purple;"> WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 3, Issue 11 - November 2009 ==

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 01:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 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) 20:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (October)
– <font face="Zemestro"> Cs-wolves (talk)  15:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Detroit Tigers shortstops and others
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are List of Detroit Tigers shortstops, List of Detroit Tigers second basemen. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to the relevant discussion pages: Articles for deletion/List of Detroit Tigers shortstops for List of Detroit Tigers shortstops, Articles for deletion/List of Detroit Tigers second basemen for List of Detroit Tigers second basemen. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

== <div style="font-family:monotype corsiva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:15px; color:Purple;"> '''WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter:
 * Volume 3, Issue 12 - December 2009''' ==

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 03:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

USF1
Why is the third US team worthy of a footnote when the first Indian and Malaysian teams are not? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Midway
I do not think it is right to edit your talk page in such a way to wipe discussions. If you dislike that the comments are not properly cited what you are suppost to do is ask for references.

As far as it breaking the narative, this claim I dispute. Those guys were on a suicide mission and they knew it. The coordination they were given were nonexistent. They had no fighter escort and not enough fuel to make it back to the Hornet. Yet they pressed their attack. All of the Devastators were shot down. Only one man, Ensign George Gay, survived.

Reargun (talk) Reargun (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

They did indeed agree with you.

I agree that you can do many things on the wiki, as can I. Does not mean it is right Reargun (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Your help SM U-44, SM-U71, SM U-108
Trekphiler, please: why do you change the content of a CITATION ? Doyou know the differencebetween a CITATION and PLAIN TEXT ? Would you change anything in a citation from the bible or from the Magna Charta or from the American Constitution, only because its not according with nowadays Wiki standards ? Why do you delete texts in other peoples Wiki-conform articles, and without asking ? What is the value writing 1 January as "1 January", when it was written "1st January" in the ORIGINAL text ? Someone new to wiki (me I am a M.A. in history, working with my clear name here) gets annouyed very easily by this. For scientists a citation is HOLY - you can answer to it, you can add another view etc, whatever you want, but you have not to MANIPULATE it. If this continues, I will retire all my 100 submarine articles written in the last 4 weeks (and I could write another 250, if one would let me work quietly . I cannot see the value of your actions for SM U-44 or SM U-77 or SM U-108 for the end-users. Maybe its only to augments your scores ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AchimKoerver (talk • contribs) 16:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe what Achim is here calling a "citation" actually means a "quotation". I think there is a way for you two to work together, I just have to finish running through Achim's contributions so I can get up-to-steam on the complete nature of the conflict here.  Thanks for archiving your page by the way.  Works much better.Wjhonson (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gone through about half of his contribs. Here is what I think so far.  When he states that he is "reverting to original text" I believe what he means, is that he misquoted the underlying document originally and is now trying to fix it by quoting it exactly.  If we want exact quotes, then I agree with him, that those should not be changed, however if we want to paraphrase the document, than I agree with you that we can use a smoother presentation.  I'm wondering if his full quotations would not live better on our sister project WikiSource and then could be cited to the articles here?  Just a thought as a possible way forward for you two to work together.  I'll cc him this thought as well, he may be unaware of WikiSource.Wjhonson (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * He has now modified the presentation method on SM U-92 as an example, showing the actual page images, and then the transcription, to make it clear that what follows is a verbatim transcription of the image, so anyone can verify that for themselves. Looks like a possible way forward.  Then any other comment can go into a new section citing sources which discuss these documents or other related documents from a secondary source perspective.  What do you think?Wjhonson (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the reason for putting up the image is "See I'm right". I think, that he is putting up the image, so that others can check that his transcription is accurate, that's all.Wjhonson (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well look at this one I just mocked up here. It allows Achim to have the verbatim exact transcription, and you to have to flowing prose version as well.  The entire transcription could I suppose be put into a footnote, but that would be a very large footnote.  I suppose typically things like this are put in appendixes, but I've never seen that used here.Wjhonson (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Trekphiler look at what Achim did here SM U-51. It's beautiful. I would not object to all of them being done in this way. Looks better than my stodgy table.Wjhonson (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please have a look at SM U-14 now, also SM U-18}} and [[SM U-22.

Please dont fell sorry about the reset: me I said originally "abcd". Then you said       "ab_d".--Hans Joachim Koerver 23:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Then I went to      "ab__". So, we are on the new design now, entries get standardizd for the community, no style mix. And a future basis for co-contributors. I am not good in jokes; but one I remember: "Life is nothing. So if you loose nothing, what have you lost at the end ? :-)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AchimKoerver (talk • contribs) 23:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)