![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Hello EyeSerene, thanx for your message. Sorry, I didn't know about this former discussion. As a German I read mostly the german WP. Of course we use the term "Nazideutschland - Nazi Germany" in political and historical talks and essays. But I thought that in a factual article about armament you should not use idelogicals terms and such little cute flags, and when you use it, then you should use it for all involved. The other mentioned states like for example Spain were also fascistic and dictatorships (also Hungary and Romania). Then you should write "Falange Spain" and so on to stay consistently.
The correct denomination would be Deutschland (Germany), Deutsches Reich (1933 -1945), Großdeutschland ( from 1937), Großdeutsches Reich (1937 - 1945) and Drittes Reich (1933 - 1945). Under constitutional law only Deutsches Reich is correct.
Großdeutschland (Great Germany) means a great Germany, to which all german states and Austria belong. This term is from pre-Nazi-period, it is a term of the 19th century and the period of Bismarck and b e f o r e. It means the contrary to Kleindeutschland (Small Germany), a Germany without Austria (Österreich). When Hitler had annected Austria in 1937, this term was often used in political speeches and propaganda. The term Drittes Reich (Third Reich) means, that Hitler had installed a new imperium after the first Reich of the middelages (Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, about 911 -1806) and the "Wilhelminisches Reich" (1871 - 1918). Hitler's III. Reich should last also 1000 years like the first one but it made only twelve. About this exist some jokes. The flag is correct for the Reich but not for the Wehrmacht. The armed forces used the Reichskriegsflagge, which consisted of black, white and red from the wilhelminic period. In Third Reich the swastika (Hakenkreuz) was added. The military symbol was the Balkenkreuz, which would fit quite better as the Naziflag to an article about Panzer. This as explanation of my changes.
Elsewise I must say, that the articles about these military items are very interesting, also the discussions. You english and american peoples are much more imprejudiced with such subjects than here in Germany. Sorry for mistakes in grammar and vocabulary. Ogygia ( talk) 11:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 19:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a favor to ask of you. Could I request that you check your e-mail? Thanks. Zephyrnthesky ( talk) 20:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
You probably want to process Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357.— Kww( talk) 02:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, EyeSerene. I saw your name on the list of GA review mentors, so could you please review my comments on Talk:Whitney High School (Rocklin, California)/GA1? If the nominator resolves my concerns, then I plan to pass the article. Is that a good idea?-- Edge3 ( talk) 17:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
He posted his account password on his userpage, ergo compromised account. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Read through the sanity check header today, and I agree you were completely in the right. Doing one's duty here often puts us in a position where these things happen, but as a friend of mine once observed if you are not being criticized in such a manner then your not doing your job right. I hope this won't discourage you from staying the course, you've done a great job up till now, and I hope that you will continue to do a great job as we move into the future. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that it's protected, would you also consider restoring the PSCF article to this state [1], since there was no consensus to merge the two articles? I'm suggesting that the article stay protected, but just in its pre-edit waring state.-- Firefly322 ( talk) 18:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You have generally shown to have a much more firmer grasp of English grammar than myself so is there any chance you can identify the role of the double colon below?
"An alternative suggestion, however, was accepted :: a ministerial committee would be established in London with the task of continually keeping the affairs of the Middle East region under review."
Cheers -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 15:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been talking to Burningview on my talk page about an essay he has [[ drafted for the Academy. I don't think it's quite there but your input on the essay would be welcomed. Roger Davies talk 04:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. I see, that you are trying objectivity and neutrality. Of cause you can use my informations. A lot members of my family were fighting in the war on western and eastern front and I can say definitely, they were no Nazis, because I knew them for decades. I'm glad that today we are friends with our former opponents and I had and have friends in US, UK, France and even Russia. My interest for weapons of the war is for historical and engineering reasons and not for ideologicals . All the best! Ogygia ( talk) 15:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
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) 19:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, how are you. OberRanks, here, formally User:Husnock. I wanted to drop by and let you know about the user above, since I have had sonme run-ins with him over the years. First off, I am not kicking him when he is down here, I just want to share some facts with you. This person is an upper middle aged man (60+) who retired from the Army and pretty much doesnt give a damn about Wikipedia regulations. The patterns you noticed, i.e. cutting and pasting huge amounts of text from other websites, has gone on for years. I have also seen several cases of him openly threatening users and taking matters on Wikipedia into the real world when and if he may figure out who a user is in real life. Many years ago, when he first became active, I actually had to advise him against contacting parties in real life and also told him to take his own personal information off of Wikipedia. So why am I telling you all of this? CN doesnt care what you, I, or anyone thinks. He WILL use sockpuppets and probably is carrying on with business as usual right now. I dont dislike this man, just as with you, was very concerned about his behavior. We all should be given a second chance (I am a fallen admin and was given more than a few second chances) but this situation should be watched carefully. CN takes matters on this site very personally, thinks that a block or a revert is a slap in his face and an insult against his character, and doesnt respect our regulations. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks for your time. - OberRanks ( talk) 00:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi there mate, would you mind throwing a glance over this article? I believe it could make a successful FAC but would like to see a prose expert's opinion before. Cheers, -- Eurocopter ( talk) 10:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Featured Article Medal | |
For your outstanding contributions to three or more featured articles I hereby award you the Featured Article Medal. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC) |
Hello, I saw you voted for delete on this article, I myself originaly voted for keep. But, after researching the article, I came to a change of heart. I am still for keep, but I would like to massivly change the article so it is not in violation of the OR or Synthesis rule and wouldn't contain the massive raw data anymore. I made my proposition on the restructuring of the article in the discussion known. Your advice would be welcomed. MidnightBomber ( talk) 06:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to sound like a tattletale, you may recall earlier this year an article was created that was extremely bias and showed a one sided view of the breakout during the Normandy campaign that was quickly deleted. I believe it was considered to be created by User:Mrg3105 who appears to be back again as seen from the little quip here (sorry don’t know how to do the fancy wiki link to a revision history lol) He appears not to be disruptive at the moment but thought it was something people should be aware of.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 08:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way: this isn't wikipedia, so NPA doesn't apply. You're a intolerant narrow-minded confrontationist bigot who doesn't understand the meaning of the wikipedia value of consensus, and checks the Great Soviet Encyclopedia before farting, or blowing your nose, for that matter.
No problem, good luck in dealing with him! - Eurocopter ( talk) 10:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi EyeSerene, I just accidentally blocked you for about a minute when I was trying to block one of Mrg's IP accounts. Sorry! I recorded that the block was an error in your block log. Thanks for chasing down these socks, and sorry again. Nick-D ( talk) 12:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
Jappalang has directed to ask you for help in copyediting School Rumble after he turned me down due to time issues and feeling his skills were not good enough for an otherwise FA quality article. If you have time, I would appreciate some help. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Re [2]: Awesome, thanks so much. A fresh pair of eyes on the situation is long overdue, and help may well be required to stop these problems recurring when the blocks expire. Best, Knepflerle ( talk) 17:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
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) 19:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Eye.
Regarding the comment in "I, the Supreme", certainly, I had to put "one of the main sources" or neither this. The source for this comment was Augusto Roa Bastos -that was friend of mine- personally said it to me. Anyway, any paraguayan investigator knows that all this data came from this Collection, made in the 20's and 30's. It transcripts all the correspondence SINCE the Supremo office to all his collaborators. It is one of the main collections in the Archivo Nacional de Asuncion (where we are sponsors) despite his only 6 vols devoted to Francia and 10 vols devoted to Pdt. Carlos A. Lopez. I think it was important to the public to know that the collection is finally published and accesible. If you agree, you can edit my little text as you find convenient, and put it in the exact place you evaluate, but I ask you to consider to put it in some place of the main text of ther article.
Best Regards,
Martin —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Genealogistas (
talk •
contribs) 18:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
As you've been recently involved in discussion with Stevertigo at Talk:Holocaust denial, I thought you might want to add your thoughts here. Jayjg (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for leaving the comment on my page. I think this article was made much worse several momths ago, along with other Normandy articles, and I've lost the energy to care any more. I have a complete alternate version almost done but I dont know if I will bother finishing it.
Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 21:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
hi, thanks for your comments and suggestions
regards....
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 15:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 05:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
Sorry, i reverted ur edits on Vector Graphics. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 08:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I have been working on resolving the remaining problem of the Villers-Bocage article and have instead added additional material to the Perch article. With the additional comments I have added, in conjunction with Wilmot's comments that were already in place, do you think we are in a confident position to claim that the operation was a strategic victory for the Allied forces? Most of the negative comments are basically looking at the command mistakes made and the missed opportunity but not the “bigger picture”.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 02:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.
Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?
All the best for the new elections!
AshLin ( talk) 04:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
You've asked some interesting questions that have certainly made me reconsider my time helping to coordinate Milhist. I'm grateful for this, because it's easy to settle into a routine and neglect to reflect on things like goals and performance, simply because what was once new has now become habit. My main ambition for the next term is to develop our Academy. Although I've been able to spend far less time on this than I would have liked, I've nearly cleared my copyedit backlog, so I should be able to get more hands-on soon. I'd like to see the Academy develop into a resource that's not only useful to Milhist, but all of Wikipedia. Before being coopted to the team in late 2008, I was very active at GA and elsewhere, and I think we perhaps need to remind ourselves every now and then that Milhist doesn't operate in isolation :) At Wikipedia's heart is the notion of empowering people by giving them access to knowledge - what could be a better reflection of this than providing quality material that lets them empower themselves? There have been a few annoyances, but nothing major. I see the main detriment to the project as POV editors who make life difficult for others, even to the extent of putting off many of our productive members from working in certain areas. I think we're generally good at handling these when they're brought to our attention, but I'd like to do more to encourage good editors to involve themselves in these areas (examples include India/Pakistan, Britain/Ireland, the Balkans etc). I wish I knew how to do that, but I think we can make a start by providing clear support, guidance and backup for editors who want to get involved. Overall I've found Milhist to be an immensely rewarding and satisfying place to work, and I'm sure will continue to do so. EyeSerene talk 12:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
That's odd. Most of the information I have concerning Hill 262 is already firmly embedded in the article for Operation Tractable. I'll go back and look through my other sources when I have time. Cam ( Chat) 04:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Parsnip of Glory | |
This user has contributed to WP:WikiSpeak, and is hereby entitled to display this Amusingly Shaped Vegetable, second class. |
Just as the company's enemies can edit, can't an interested employee also do the same? What would stop them? Besides, that one person would edit on their own. They could seek opinions from the company just as teenage Wikipedians can ask their parents what not to edit and to comment about their edits.
Of course, that person will be outnumbered but could still present neutral, reliably sourced ideas. How does Wikipedia guard against many editors who are dissatisfied customers from having a negative bent article of a company on Wikipedia? Or from a unpopular country from having a negative bent, maybe like Burma?
If I were to be asked that question, I'd say that companies are not allowed to be users but that their employees could individually edit. Whether their employees review their work with the boss is up to their company computer use policy. Naturally, we would like disclosure that they are employees but we should also demand disclosure from irate former employees, dissatisfied customers, etc. How we balance that the irate former employees and customers don't disclose their situation is an unanswered problem. We should also demand a well written, neutral article and shear votes should not count. What are your thoughts? President of Chicago ( talk) 03:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the ani comment about some company (record company?) who asked if an employee can edit. President of Chicago ( talk) 14:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)