User talk:DMorpheus

Interests

I enjoy contributing to articles related to military history, especially WW2 and the Soviet-German conflict. I also do some contributions to articles on tactics and weapons. I hope folks find my contributions useful.

“…what impressed me then, and has impressed me ever since, is that atrocities are believed in or disbelieved in solely on grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence.” – George Orwell

SS Division Nordland

I would prefer you do not continue to insist on your 'addition' to the article, I am in the midst of a major addition to it, to improve qaulity as it is a division I am quite knowledgable with. As I said on the discussion page there, if you want to keep reverting my removal, I will bring an admin into this, because if it is on that division's page, according to your logic it should be on the 1.SS, 2.SS, and so on. If you'd want to add it to a division who WAS implicated in war crimes, you could add it but I would state it differently. user:ratzinger81

yeah, I'll continue to insist.

T-34 nomenclature

I've tried to explain the nomenclature at T-34#Variants. Please look over this note. —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 08:11 Z

Nice edit. I think this is pretty good. The only improvement I can suggest is that the "Model 43" is still used as the designation for the hexagonal turret. That should be "Model 42", if we are going to use the latest info available from old Soviet records. So:

Model 40: L-11 gun Model 41: All narrow-turret (that is, turrets with one large hatch) variants, regardless of other detail changes Model 42: All hexagonal-turret variants

I recognize that the designation 'model 43' is still in *very* common use in the west, but you've done a good job of introducing the problem in the text, so it should be OK. DMorpheus 19:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Meltiukhov

I googled (the form Meltiukhov is often used):

the publishers annotation: [1]

A review by my compatriot

A full-length review of the book 8and other similar studies): [2] Constanz - Talk 16:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for this link. While I think Suvorov is easily dismissed (his work is obvious nonsense), I can't tell much about Meltiukov without reading it myself. I followed the link you helpfully provided. It is glaringly obvious this "Institute" is an anti-semitic site of questionable validity - I see they have some David Irving content along with other offensive and ahistorical material. I would like to think the political bias of a site would be separable from their historical work, but in reading the review I don't think so. The review is largely political, highly illogical, and has little real military information. If the best evidence for a Soviet invasion plan is a plan written on May 15, 1941, the evidence look spretty flimsy to me. I hope to see the book in english to form a better judgment on it. DMorpheus 17:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the so-called insitute: yes, I used it only for the simple reason that no other English reviews could be found. The things concerning that May proposal look complicated for 'traditial theory' supporters: Russian historians (incl those mentioned by 'institute' article) and specifically Meltyukhov in his op. cit. bring forth evidence, that this particular memorandum by Zhukov was no exception in the direction of Soviet stategical planning, on the contrary: M.M states Soviet military planning in yrs 1939-41 included first and foremost offensive planning; there were at least five different versions of the strategical military plan (from November 39 to May 1941), which provided offensive operations.

BTW I've found a study by Albert L.Weeks covering Soviet offensive strategy [3]. Constanz - Talk 15:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Edits in history of the tank

A while back you added some considerable information to the section /*Between the Wars*/, which was more in its place in the Tanks (1919-1939) article. I've moved/merged this information into the latter article and would appreciate it if you could look over both articles to see if nothing has been lost or inadvertely been duplicated? --Martin Wisse 15:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I made a few edits to it. I also removed a few small items that were correct, but not 'between the wars' info. DMorpheus 15:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


German v Allied soldiers

A while back, we exchanged views on Montgomery. At one point I'd written "Recent historians also point out that Allied armies were drawn from populations that were less militaristic than the Germans and this difference repeatedly showed up in German skill and determination in critical situations." and you said: "This is a pretty broad statement that is bound to generate discussion, but its not really necessary to the article anyway, IMO."

At the time I couldn't find the reference to pusue the point - now I have. Professor Sir Michael Howard (a military historian and WWII veteran) said: Until a very late stage of the war the commanders of British and American ground forces knew all too well that, in a confrontation with the German troops on anything approaching equal terms , their own men were likely to be soundly defeated. They were better than we were: that cannot be stressed too often. Every Allied soldier involved in fighting the Germans knew that this was so, and did not regard it as in any way humiliating. We were amateurs ... drawn from peaceful industrial societies with a deep cultural bias against all things military ... We blasted our way into Europe with a minimum of finesse and a maximum of high explosive. Time and again, Howard's point is re-made. It's quoted in Max Hasting's Armageddon, chapter 5.

Well, as a statement in wikipedia about what a historian thinks, that's perfectly fine. But it is simply repeating an author's opinion/judgement, it contains no actual data about the social militarism of any society. I don't even know how we would measure something like that. I am sorry if I am splitting hairs, but saying "Author X says Germans are better soldiers or more militaristic" is different from saying "Germans are better soldiers or come from a more militaristic society". The first is a valid thing to put in wikipedia but the second is impssible to know for the period in question. DMorpheus 13:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Dragoon

Thanks for the compliment! Wholly undeserved! I asked the prvious contributor (User talk:71.112.113.62) to support his/her assertions about the oil supplies - do you have any thoughts? I doubt they're correct but I don't what to discourage a new editor by being too heavy-handed, too quickly. Folks at 137 19:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Omar Bradley

I've made changes to the page on Bradley. If you have time and the inclination, I would value your comments. I thought that the original was a bit POV and I don't want to err myself. Folks at 137 22:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post a few comments on your page.

Goodwood / Normandy

You added to the article on Operation Goodwood:

"Post-invasion buildup plans thus provided the Second Army with more armoured units than the First Army, since the breakout would be expected on the Second Army's front."

Buildup plans were constrained by the shortage of British infantry reinforcements at this stage of the war. One division (59th) had to be broken up in Normandy to keep the other units up to strength, and others later.

The dispute over where Monty expected or intended the breakout to occur is a complicated and contentious one. However, I do not think that the provision and type of units in the buildup can be used to support any particular point of view. (It should also be noted that at the time of Goodwood, there were three British and four American armoured divisions ashore.)

HLGallon 15:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book Eisenhower's Lieutenants makes precisely this point - that the far greater number of tanks in the Second Army is, along with much other information, evidence that the armored breakout was expected on the eastern flank.
Simply counting Armored Divisions overlooks the very strong British Tank Brigades, which had no equivalent in the US Army. If you look up the tank strength, Second Army had more.

Five British or Canadian armoured brigades in the bridgehead. On the other hand, there were lots of independent tank battalions attached to US infantry divisions.

Weren't Canadian/British tank brigades three battalions strong? i.e. in the neighborhood of 150 tanks each? Didn't they sometimes include mech infantry also? US tank battalions were 54 tanks strong, and had no Infantry element. Typically, each leg Infantry Division got one bat each. Airborne Divisions didn't get any.

I tend to go with Chester Wilmot (Struggle for Europe) on most questions of allied strategy or policy. (As an Australian, he is neutral in Anglo-American disputes). I don't recall reading Eisenhower's Lieutenants; I'll do so as soon as possible. HLGallon 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wlmot, while a valuable resource, is both dated and quite biased. Not that I am claiming any other source is *unbiased* - they simply have different biases. IIRC Eisenhower's Lieutenants has a bit of a critique of Wilmot on this issue of the breakout plan. Makes for interesting reading.I am a big D'Este fan also.
On a slightly different topic, while we're talking, have you happened to notice the artillery ammunition expenditure info on wikipedia for El Alamein? It's in the neighborhood of 600-700,000 rounds for the initial barrage. I find that hard to believe but I have no sources on it other than the wiki article. It much more than the opening barrages for Cobra or Goodwood.
Good discussion here ;)

Your recent edits at History of the tank

OMFG! An article on tanks that doesn't use the word Blitzkrieg or Panzer!!!11!!!11 Whatever will the world do...(!) Seriously though, let's hope it stays that way. Thanks.Michael Dorosh 02:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Montgomery

Hi, I thought I should explain why I reverted your recent edit. According to Hamilton in his DNB entry, Montgomery's strategy for Normandy as presented at St Paul's School in April and May was for the British and Canadian armies to form a left shoulder and the American armies to wheel round on the right. Clearly alot of improvisation was necessary, not least because of the resistance before Caen, but the original basic strategy seems to have been followed. MAG1 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you want to read Carlo D'Este, Decision In Normandy, and then we can discuss further. At minimum both views should be stated, since they are in reputable, published sources. DMorpheus 18:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it would be nice to know what D'Este thinks Montgomery's strategy actually was supposed to be and how he knows that rather than just an assertion that it somehow all went wrong. These presentations were big things, and I should think that Hamilton (who was Montgomery's biographer) would not be able to make it up. MAG1 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton was also an admirer. Please give D'Este a try, it's a terrific book even if you had no interest in Montgomery. I added a bunch of quotes to the talk page.
Essentially D'Este uses the notes of officers present at the St Paul's briefings (including Dempsey), plus other materials, to show that Montgomery planned an *offensive* strategy around and well beyond Caen. The idea was to attack with armor on the east flank, and not to let a static front develop. No one planned anything remotely resembling 'Cobra' before the landings. Another source, Russel Weigley's Eisenhower's Lieutenants, shows that the buildup of armored units in 2nd Army was done at a faster pace than for 1st Army, which backs the notion that the original plan did not assign 2nd Army a 'holding' or non-mobile role.

Will do. I think all biographers are into their subjects, otherwise why spend so long with them. I was careful to try to stick to the facts from Hamilton's article rather than the commentary. The point is that he will have read the evidnce.

Now the next bit is interesting stuff, and worth including, though possibly in the Battle of Normandy page. It is not clear how it should affect Montgomery unless you want to talk about reputations (I don't like to do that- see the article's talk page), and even then it is not clear how as he managed to adapt to the failure and win the campaign. Interestingly enough, it militates against the 'material' criticism.

Not so keen on the second bit- looks like using a single piece of indirect evidence to back a theory. MAG1 20:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, read it in context. You don't send lots of armor units to an area that is expected to hold a defensive front. Armor units use up precious shipping space and have enormous logisitical demands compared to Infantry units. If a breakout was always planned for the 1st Army front, the armor units would have been sent there first. In fact they were front loaded much more heavily towards 2nd Army. Much of this is already in the Battle of Normandy page.
I don't think it is against wiki policy to add *published* points of view/reputations/assesments. Adding several enriches the article.
He won the campaign by opportunistic improvisation - nothing wrong with that. Part of that included an attritional battle on the 2nd Army front, which in D'Este's view was *not* planned but was the outcome anyway. DMorpheus 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for T-34 nomunclature

Hi. As you may have noticed, T-34 is on the way to FA status. I've identified a few passages which absolutely need supporting references. Please have a look at talk:T-34#Drive for Featured Article quality, and see if you can provide any sources, most importantly for the Soviet naming. Thanks, Michael Z. 2006-07-08 16:32 Z


Monte Cassino

Thx for the grammar and spell check. Your amendments are good. The paragraph appears significant (=short) and neutrally composed. (213.70.74.165 09:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Wiki Stalker - Part deux?

To the user stalking me (again) - We aren't here for your entertainment, but to create something of value. Think about why you are trying so hard to establish this close emotional bond with me ;) What reaction are you looking for? I'm not biting. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy, "Don't Be A Dick" policy, 3RR, and so forth. You are consistently violating all of them, and attacking the admins is not going to help your case. If you hate wikipedia this much why not just leave it alone?

Looks like you followed my suggestion. Well done.

Please see wikipedia:troll

Is there a club, barnstar or Purple Heart for stalkees?Wikist 22:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
1. I think that the user's bad faith is clear enough to spread the word about a "Do not feed the troll" policy.
2. I think that the user's recent rants on his userpage and elsewhere strengthen the sockpuppet case (the April 2006 user and later IP)--imagine how tidy the talk pages would be without those users.
3. I have information about the user's content and source unreliability that I can provide if it will lead to official action.
I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's discipline procedures.
Thank you.Wikist 03:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, the club would be bigger if the case includes the pevious IP/aliases but you might know the better way to proceed. I will be available to support an official action. Thank you.Wikist 20:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Battle of Kursk

Thanks for providing the source (Glantz) for the paragraph I had removed from the Battle of Kursk. I have added to the discussion on the talk page. JS 20:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page. 13-18 hours is definitely possible when the situation is desperate.Dapi89 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can, could you help "flesh out" the ground struggle a bit more, to balance the article, and put the aerial operations into some perspective. I think it requires more detail at points. Dapi89 (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dred Scott

You say in your recent contributions to the Dred Scott article: "This decision [by the Missouri Supreme Court] was inconsistent with the Court's own precedents. Missouri courts had consistently ruled that slaves taken into free states were automatically free." I think it would be useful to have a citation for that, if you could provide one. Thanks. Theleek 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Wilentz book I added as a reference. DMorpheus 03:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Handy tags etc

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view be fairly represented in an article regarding the subject.


Why did you remove my questions without answering them?

I agree that you all the right to that but your edits are clearly going astray from simple grammar and spelling correcting to removal of vital parts of the article (fact that the T-44 was kept secret for political reasons etc.). - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obligated to answer them. I have the same responsibility to edit the article as you do. You are getting into cold war politics and speculation that have little place in an article about a tank. Just make a link to a cold war article. DMorpheus (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T-34 variants

I once again have to inform you that a significant part of the text you deleted/corrected was there for days or maybe even weeks. So please stop making me guilty for someone else's bad grammar. And please could stop following me like a hyena? - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I check the diffs, and the edits you make tend to have the same grammatical errors over and over. Please dude, you are very knowledgable, so improve your writing. I'll ignore your other comment. DMorpheus (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's one thing that amuses me about one of your latest edits. In the "T-34 variants" article in the part about T-34-100 prototype you keep insisting on writing "were not" rather than "weren't". Why? What's so bad about the shorter form? - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia. The writing should be formal. We're not writing informal notes to our friends here, with the possible exception of the talk pages. DMorpheus (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm modifying the text right now. Although I see that while you have time to look around for copyright violations you don't have time to modify the text so it doesn't violate any copyright laws. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


LOL ! I didn't create the problem - you did. This is laughable. DMorpheus (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still saw a lot of copyvio in the article, so I rolled it way back. Sorry if I stomped on any of your contributions. —Michael Z. 2008-04-30 18:29 Z

I thought Wikipedia was a cooperative effort. It seems I was mistaken. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a highly cooperative effort at most times. But it is not unconditional. The rules are easy to find and follow. I see from your talk page that you have some improving to do regarding fair use, copyrights, and reliable sources. When you violate those rules repeatedly you may find other editors cooperate in trying to fix the problems that result. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I follow the rules. The text that I added to Wikipedia wasn't completely the same as the one on that website. But no matter because I rewrote that section and it was not thanks to you. You might now as well return to your usual copyedits. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In support of Operation COOKIE MONSTER (OCM) I'm presenting WikiCookies in appreciation for military service to the United States. Happy Independence Day! Ndunruh (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


SU-122

Hello.

Please feel free to rewrite sections which are problematic. One thing though: Don't delete any information. During your "copyedits" some of the information is deleted and I have to add it again.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. You are adding information which violates copyright after receiving several warnings. It is your responsibility to remove it or deal with wikipedia administrators. I have been cleaning up after you for weeks now and I've had enough. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help (sarcasm). I thought we were working together here. Apparently you don't care about quality of Wikipedia. All you care about is deleting what other people added because it violates the copyright and than you boss them around. If you're so stuck on removing that content is it too much to ask to rewrite those few sentences? You're making a big deal out of it, screaming to the rest of the world about it and then you're just sitting there doing nothing to help the situation. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I am not bossing you around, I am reminding you what the policy is. You have been warned three times now on three separate articles. If you would like to involve an administrator here that might be a very good idea - you might get some good advice. Or, you can stop creating problems with copyright. At any rate it is asking an awful lot to expect others to clean up the problems you are creating. DMorpheus (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know the sentences you pointed out were rewritten and not thanks to you.
I still don't understand why you couldn't rewrote those sentences? Was it a too big of a task for you? Also I believe administrators have bigger things to worry about so there's no reason to bother them with this since it's already fixed. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the article with a copyright violation tag. Hopefully, administrators who are smarter than I am can figure out whether there's a violation and, if so, what to do about it. The constant minor tweaks are not productive. DMorpheus (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a rewritten version:
On 31 August 1943 Major Gomille, commander of the III.(Tiger) Abteilung/Panzer Regiment (Panzer-Division Grossdeutschland) filed a report according to which, a Tiger commanded by Hauptmann von Villerbois, commander of the 10th Company received eight hits from assault guns armed with 122 mm howitzers based on the T-34 chassis. One of the said shells managed to penetrate the Tiger's side armour. The six other shells managed to hit the turret. The following damages were done to the turret: Three shells made small dents and two shells caused small pieces to fall off. The sixth shells made a bigger fragment fall off (it was about two hand widths big). It flew into the fighting compartment most probably causing injures among the crew members.
As a result of this attack the following happened: entire electrical firing circuit of the main gun was knocked out, several vision blocks were either destroyed or broken off and Hauptmann von Villerbois was severely wounded. The shells that hit the hull caused the weld seam to sprung open for about 50 cm from where the shell penetrated the armour, therefore the Werkstatt-Kompanie (maintenance company) wasn't able to repair it.
Is this ok or do you still see a problem with it? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T-80

Do you have time to lend an opinion at talk:T-80? I'm trying to remove dubious statements with poor sources, but I've reached a standoff with Supertank, and I'm about ready to cook off. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 16:37 z

I'll be happy to do what little I can. DMorpheus (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling on reinforcements? Well I keep on defending sourced facts than. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Super, please realize wikipedia is about the articles, not the editors. DMorpheus (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


ZSU-57-2

 The WikiChevrons 
Good work on the ZSU-57-2 article. In recognition of your efforts towards maintaining military history and weaponry articles, please accept these Weaponry Task Force WikiChevron! --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 22:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the 17 pounder ATG page

Thanks for fixing the info on the 17 pdr page. That guy who messed up the page also tampered with the info on the Sherman Firefly page which I had to fix. Wokelly (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Tags

I have noticed on many articles (Cobra, Falaise, Villers-Bocage, Perch, Market-Garden) that you show a contuined trait of what some could call absuse; reverted edits you dont agree with or think they are not too gramatically correct, tagging the hell out of articles etc. Why not lend a hand instead?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly believe my editing to be "abuse" of any kind I urge you to report it to an administrator so that I can learn better behavior. I'll admit to being short sometimes when I see gross inaccuracies being introduced into articles. As far as "lending a hand" I invite you to review my edit history and you can see for yourself the work I've done. I'd love to work with a cooperative team on these articles. That's a two-way street. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katyusha & straddling

Hi.

Well, battery fire by guns is area fire anyway. Katyushas could be fired individually or in salvo, so it would be reasonable to try to straddle the target with single rockets when testing for accuracy and range, or when observing a static target. Alternately, the rounds from a single salvo could be said to straddle a target if the beaten zone was centred on it. Straddling may refer to the results of a successful fire mission, not necessarily to the practical targeting procedure being used (“on target, fire for effect! . . . Oh – Never mind”). Cf. another definition from Webster's: n., “a salvo of artillery rounds, in which some fall on opposite sides of the target, indicating a hit on or near the target”.[4]

The passage wasn't referenced (I need to find a ref or remove it, to improve the article to A class), so we can't immediately say exactly what was meant. I don't mind changing the wording, but saturate may mean something different. —Michael Z. 2009-02-13 20:08 z

Mayor Jennings

Along with what I said on the talk page of the article on the mayor I thought I might point you to some sources regarding events concerning the mayor. If you look at Port of Albany-Rensselaer you will find as one of the sources, I believe citation 16, 17 or 18 (somewhere around there) is the State Comptroller's audit on the Port Authority, it has some things regarding the mayor in it, mostly not good. BUT, as I stated on the talk page you should search and add good things as well as bad as it may look bad on your part to admins and others should you only be adding negative things. I am doing this in good faith to show I'm not an operative of the mayor's seeking to silence bad info (as that would get me blocked at least temporarily and possibly permanently, just as someone who was an operative from a Jennings opponent would similarly be blocked from wikipedia for editing the article on Mr. Jennings). There is also an article in the TU from...I believe it was Monday...regarding similar port dealings mentioned in said Comptroller's audit (though mostly the article dealt with how it affected former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, if you want to put scandals regarding politicians in their articles Mr. Bruno's article is a good place to go, it would also show that you are not partisan in putting in negative news).Camelbinky (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latest gun scandal story: http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=773606

That is the weirdeset coincidence that! On a side note- I'm in the process of doing the History of Albany, New York article but I'm working chronologically and am only up to the 1870's I believe. But you can feel free to add any of this information to the article if you have any spare time. When I moved the history section from the Albany, New York page to its own article the latest event listed in the history of Albany was the building of the Empire State Plaza, and I'm pretty positive things have happened in Albany in the past 30 years, but I could be wrong. Any information you have on latest events in Albany (or historical ones) would be of alot of help to the article.Camelbinky (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Op Cobra

I don't believe your revert was particularly helpful, though I don't intend to change it back because revert wars are equally unhelpful. By reverting, you have reintroduced a stylistic (and an WP:MOS) error; you may have noticed that the section was formerly in chronological order, which is a logical way to present such things. I don't quite understand why you're feeling the need to attribute Cobra to Bradley quite so emphatically and prominently - the text already explained that Cobra was Bradley's brainchild, because Montgomery's early intentions had become outdated. You seem to be seeing POV where none exists, and introducing it where there was none before. EyeSerenetalk 13:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary my friend, my original edit was designed to bring us back to where we should have been all along - Cobra was a Bradley plan, all the campaign histories agree on that. Introducing Montgomery's issue here is a fringe view at best - I honestly don't think it belongs in the article at all but I agree, edit wars are not good things. II have introduced no error; I am in the process of fixing one. Denial of your POV isn't helpful either. We all have biases; the article as it stood did not conform to what most of the sources tell us. It wasn't Bradley's brainchild *because* of anything Montgomery did. DMorpheus (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely have no interest in one view over another here. Of course Cobra was Bradley's plan, but under the wider umbrella of Montgomery's strategic intentions for the entire campaign. Montgomery intended first to unbalance the Germans by pulling them to his left, and then to strike them on the right where they were weakest, so Cobra was Bradley's way of achieving what Montgomery wanted. I believe this is what the article said. I really do think you're reading too much into the text, and by addressing the bias you believe is present you're unbalancing the article. EyeSerenetalk 18:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree on the basic level that Montgomery was the senior commander and thus by default everything that happened was under his umbrella. But that's not particularly helpful is it? Bradley is on record, despite his pretty deep general anger towards Montgomery, as saying that in terms of operational direction, Montgomery gave him very wide latitude and never attempted to tell him what to do; Bradley appreciated that as the sign of respect that it was. This is inconsistent with any sort of notion that Montgomery had responsibility for the plan.
Montgomery's strategic intentions for the Normandy campaign are a topic of contention, which is why I suggested that a separate article be created (the Global Warming Controversy page is sort of the place I got this idea).
I believe the article had and has a big POV problem primarily stemming from this question.
DMorpheus (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was only later, IIRC, that the two of them fell out. Anyway, this conversation is going on in at least three different places, so I'll take further comments to the article talkpage ;) EyeSerenetalk 18:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They fell out long before Bradley wrote his second autobiography, though, which is my point. Even though Bradley resented how Monty treated him on a personal level, and was still viscerally angry about it decades later, he still acknowledged (in that auto-bio) Montgomery's tact in handling professional matters of Army Group operations. DMorpheus (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Tank Destroyer

Could you please explain your edits to this article, specifically deletion of the explanation I included of German armored doctrine?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexington50 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was uncited; all uncited material is a candidate for deletion per wiki policy. It was also not completely accurate. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

history channel

history channel is actually a very reliable source. There are many experts on these subjects who would undoubtedly agree with history channel.--Krasilschic (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC) It doesn't matter if you break the rules to publish the info as long as it's right. It's a shame that most people here can't realize that.--Krasilschic (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion, but to the extent that it is inconsistent with wikipedia policy your edits will continue to be reverted. I suggest you review the links I sent you (WP:RS for example) and then try editing again. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


M3 Lee in M4 Sherman

How does it make more sense? The section effectively reads as though the 37 mm gun turret at the top of the tank contributed to the high silhouette, whereas the sponson mounting section reads as separate section, listing the disadvantage of the gun solely in terms of its sponson mounting.

Also, it is a run-on sentence.

AllStarZ (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the 37mm gun turret did indeed contribute to the high silhouette, and the main disadvantage of the sponson mounting of the 75 mm was indeed the fact that it had a restricted arc of fire. The main reason for the high silhouette was the radial engine of course, which is why the M4 also had a high silhouette despite having neither a sponson gun nor a 37 mm gun turret. The preceding M2 didn't have a sponson 75 mm yet its silhouette was as high as the M3.

The current sentence is far from perfect but it is better than the alternatives so far. I don't agree it is a run-on sentence but it certainly could be improved. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French Army in World War I

Other than run-on sentences, what in French Army in World War I do you see that needs copyediting? I am working on New York City ethnic enclaves right now, but I will get to copyediting. Thanks, mynameinc 21:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much everything. The writing is awful throughout. DMorpheus (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't very helpful, not to mention uncivil. Everything isn't very definitive. The six parts of copyediting: grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. I know the spelling is correct, does that mean the other four are "awful"? mynameincOttoman project 00:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what I meant was that the grammar and cohesion are so bad it isn't worth tweaking to make minor fixes. A complete rewrite is in order. I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to do it myself, thus the tag. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, tone and style are okay? I am horrible with grammar, despite being extremely left-brained(?). mynameincOttoman project
And, would you do me a favor? If so, do a quick analysis on each of the articles I have written in the past for grammar problems. I need to improve my grammar to be a worthwhile editor. mynameincOttoman project 22:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Battle of Berlin

I refer you to Talk:Battle of Berlin, the "Soviet Losses" section mentions that the official casualties are untrue.-- OsirisV (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

any reason for the sudden revert?-- OsirisV (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue is one thing, calling it propaganda is quite another. You cited no sources; this makes your edit WP:OR. OR should not be substituted for cited material. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always forget that rule. The really hard part is finding a NON- Bias source, though I am sure plenty of books on the Soviets during the war mention the control over the number of casualties. I shall research further, regards -- OsirisV (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
For a long series of clear and informed edits to the Korean War article while remaining civil, collaborative, and neutral. Pslide (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger II, B class?

Hi, I see that you've taken an interest in Tiger II could you do me a favour and take a look at it and decide if it's WPMILHIST B class? I've ticked all the boxes in the WPMILHIST template, but not changed the class field to B yet - I've made most of the changes recently - so I'm probably too close to it, and rating myself doesn't seem right anyway. Although I know a WPMILHIST peer review process is available, and that it's informal, I didn't really want to go that far yet. Perversely, I may go for a peer review if it is B class. Hohum (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

Hi DMorpheus, sorry for my tardiness in replying to your offer of help in copyediting the ZSU-57-2 page, which, as of today, despite my best efforts, is 54k long. I see what you mean about how some editors want to include every nut & bolt. I have been editing the three, yes three BMP-1 articles; the first is 83k, the second: 88k! The third is only 45k long but the article name is BMP-1 service history!! When I can read it, the one thing that stands out is the amount of repetition in all three articles. Do you happen to know what the computer equivalent of a blue pencil is?

I would suggest that the first (main) article should not be much bigger than 50k and the other two - 'variants' and 'service history', should not exceed 25k. As for the ZSU-57-2 article, 30k should be sufficient. Thoughts?

RASAM (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Unfortunately you have a single editor working on all of these articles (plus BTR-40 if you ever want to have a look there) who insists on this approach. He uses non-English and self-published sources extensively, which contributes to the serious quality problem all these articles have. Some of the sources used are truly silly, like ads for model kits. I am willing to keep trying to pare them down though.
A simple method to trim them would be to cut the flag icons and some of the photos. I've tried that too ;)

Op Cobra

Those first sentences in the Planning section were still bothering me; they were interrupting the flow of the section and, as I read them, seemed to be saying "hey look everyone, this was Bradley's plan!!!" (as though the article is trying to convince readers by getting the first word in before we'd even got into why there was a need for a plan or what it was). It occurred to me that your objection was rooted in the text below not making it clear enough that most sources support Bradley as the planner, so I've tried to integrate them into the paragraph below. I believe it says what you think it should say more clearly now - I hope! EyeSerenetalk 09:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you're watching my talkpage, but there are some responses to your post there. I'm concerned that you still feel the articles are inadequate even though they've been through FAC, so I've suggested an RfC as a possibility for examining any issues you think ought to be raised. Your thoughts would be welcome. EyeSerenetalk 16:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies talk 21:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010



To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:StykerCover.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:StykerCover.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Relief of General Watson

Saw your (old) question on the talk page of the 3rd Armored Division article asking why Gen. Watson was relieved in Normandy. I found this on the web:

"On August 1st, Collins requested the relief of the 3rd Armored Commander, General Leroy Watson. Collins argued that Watson “failed to demonstrate the leadership and control required for the command of an armored division.”50 Citing Watson‟s lack of mobility and poor efforts to control advances, Collins absolved himself of the responsibility of committing a mobile division to a defunct objective. Although Collins recalls receiving somewhat conflicting orders to “continue present operation to isolate enemy forces at Coutances and at the same time continue to push rapidly to the south” 51 it seems that the logical choice would have been the utilization of 3rd Armored to the push south, given the commitment of VIII Corps and the 1st Division to Coutances." Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Amps 2006 judging area.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amps 2006 judging area.JPG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:M36engine.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:M36engine.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:DMorpheus/Sandbox

User:DMorpheus/Sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DMorpheus/Sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:DMorpheus/Sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:BrianT38.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

Also:

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:AMPS mug.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AMPS mug.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 11:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berlindiorama.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Berlindiorama.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ✗plicit 13:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]