User talk:DMorpheus - Knowledge (XXG)

1632:

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).

4378:"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, 4827:"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 Knowledge (XXG). 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 173:

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.

1678:) 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. 1345:

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.

4644: 4686: 3069: 1146: 21: 1654:

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.

4234: 4114: 3947: 4963: 4786: 3143: 3110: 2693: 3843: 3739: 3635: 3531: 3427: 3335: 3235: 2980: 2880: 2780: 2592: 2492: 266:

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.

2420:

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!

644: 1695:

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.

2400:

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

1694:

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

1592:

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

425:

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

2419:

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

1348:

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

1344:

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

1241:

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

516:

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.

281:

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.

265:

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

172:

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 -

2334:

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.

1631:

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

1597:

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,

1220:

Thanks for your help (sarcasm). I thought we were working together here. Apparently you don't care about quality of Knowledge (XXG). 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

802:

You say in your recent contributions to the Dred Scott article: "This decision 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

481:

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

362:

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

1946:

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

1653:

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

500:

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

439:

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

259:

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."

61:

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

1721:

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

547:

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

280:

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

192:

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

51:“…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.” 1569:

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

531:

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

2432:

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

1554:

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

396:

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

187:

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

4433:

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

1926:

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.

1783:

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

1745:

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

1092:. 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, 2354:

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

621:

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 Knowledge (XXG)'s

1722:

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.

3392: 3300: 3045: 2945: 2845: 2734: 2657: 2557: 4429:

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.

2290: 1746:

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.

108:

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.

3804: 3700: 3596: 3492: 1118:

I follow the rules. The text that I added to Knowledge (XXG) 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. -

4343:, 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 2454:

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

1204:

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,

1271:

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. -

527:

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.

898:

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? -

62:

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.

944:

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? -

873:

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.

3135:

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

1488: 4936: 4881: 2023:

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"?

853:

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.). -

3180:

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

2258:

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 --

1296:

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.

2065:

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,

3774: 3758: 4265: 4249: 3986: 3978: 3962: 2899: 2711: 2611: 2374:

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?

4521:

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.

4145: 4129: 3878: 3862: 2799: 2511: 3670: 3654: 2923: 2723: 2635: 358:

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.

3766: 3254: 2999: 2823: 2535: 46:

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.

626:

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?

4587: 4559: 4406: 4338: 4257: 4153: 3970: 3566: 3550: 3462: 3446: 2907: 2719: 2619: 2456: 1221:

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. -

554:

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.

4932: 4908: 4877: 4853: 4828: 4137: 3870: 3354: 3278: 3023: 2915: 2807: 2715: 2627: 2519: 3782: 3662: 2815: 2527: 4273: 3994: 3370: 3262: 3007: 998:

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. -

4161: 3886: 3558: 3454: 3270: 3015: 3678: 3362: 521:, 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. 3574: 3470: 690:

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.

1512: 1187:

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.

918:

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.

227:

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? --

1603:

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

1674:

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

381:

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.

4912: 4857: 4655: 783:

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.

304:) 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. 734:

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.

2146:

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.

1772:

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 ;)

2335:

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.

652:

Do not stop other editors from enjoying Knowledge (XXG) by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information.

321:

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.

2738: 1895:

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 (

491:

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.

4583: 4555: 4402: 4364: 4344: 3808: 3704: 3600: 3496: 3388: 3296: 3041: 2941: 2841: 2653: 2553: 2451: 4983:

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.

4806:

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.

4620:

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.

5013: 384:

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.

5008: 2371:!! 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? 118:

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.

4978: 115:

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

4940: 4885: 4666:

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.

1950:

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,

355:"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." 4708:

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

4540: 1876:) 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.-- 4350: 4298: 4186: 4019: 3904: 3800: 3696: 3592: 3488: 4801: 4615: 1627:

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

1947:

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.

482:

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.

4450: 3081:. 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. 513:

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.

390:

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.

4233: 4113: 4061: 3946: 3842: 3738: 3634: 3530: 3426: 3334: 3234: 3093: 2979: 2879: 2779: 2692: 2591: 2491: 3170: 577: 971:

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.

548:

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.

1532:

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.

4931:. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at 4876:. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at 4495: 4472: 4375:

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:

1749:

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

1570:

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,

263:

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:

4579: 4551: 4398: 4360: 4330: 4294: 4182: 4015: 3850: 3746: 3642: 3538: 3434: 3342: 3242: 3190: 2987: 2887: 2787: 2702: 2599: 2499: 1404:? 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. 1868:

history channel is actually a very reliable source. There are many experts on these subjects who would undoubtedly agree with history channel.--

260:

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."

4739: 3198: 4948: 4911:

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

4893: 4856:

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

4838: 4725: 3117:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 4483:, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! 4460:, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! 551:

I don't think it is against wiki policy to add *published* points of view/reputations/assesments. Adding several enriches the article.

407:) on most questions of allied strategy or policy. (As an Australian, he is neutral in Anglo-American disputes). I don't recall reading 35:. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. 143: 1813:

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

839: 1832: 4974: 4797: 4720: 4611: 606:

Thx for the grammar and spell check. Your amendments are good. The paragraph appears significant (=short) and neutrally composed. (

1349:

50 cm from where the shell penetrated the armour, therefore the Werkstatt-Kompanie (maintenance company) wasn't able to repair it.

1158: 3174: 3166: 1846:

It was uncited; all uncited material is a candidate for deletion per wiki policy. It was also not completely accurate. Regards,

27: 4944: 4889: 4834: 4535: 4515: 4502: 4490: 4467: 4445: 4435: 4426: 2158: 2112: 2036: 1984: 699:

3. I have information about the user's content and source unreliability that I can provide if it will lead to official action.

532:

managed to adapt to the failure and win the campaign. Interestingly enough, it militates against the 'material' criticism.

223:

A while back you added some considerable information to the section /*Between the Wars*/, which was more in its place in the

4558:

election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the

4405:

election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the

3084:

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

3160: 1974: 1150: 3194: 3154: 1511:

article. In recognition of your efforts towards maintaining military history and weaponry articles, please accept these

1040:

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.

239:

Thanks, I made a few edits to it. I also removed a few small items that were correct, but not 'between the wars' info.

4916: 4861: 2401:

of the sources used are truly silly, like ads for model kits. I am willing to keep trying to pare them down though.

1970: 1750: 1242:

with copyright. At any rate it is asking an awful lot to expect others to clean up the problems you are creating.

1628: 4749: 681:

1. I think that the user's bad faith is clear enough to spread the word about a "Do not feed the troll" policy.

4928: 4873: 4724:

may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a

4531: 4486: 4463: 4441: 4970: 4654:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at 301: 4705: 1820: 197: 4663: 4647: 4636: 4457: 4383: 4308: 4302: 4196: 4190: 4029: 4023: 3912: 3908: 3077: 2404:

A simple method to trim them would be to cut the flag icons and some of the photos. I've tried that too ;)

517:

No one planned anything remotely resembling 'Cobra' before the landings. Another source, Russel Weigley's

4086: 4731:

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

4607: 3125: 2228:

Untrue is one thing, calling it propaganda is quite another. You cited no sources; this makes your edit

2190: 1881: 1873: 1828: 1560: 1445: 1375: 1277: 1226: 1195: 1124: 1067: 1004: 950: 904: 859: 842:

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

607: 4793: 4709: 4693: 4480: 4056: 3089: 535:

Not so keen on the second bit- looks like using a single piece of indirect evidence to back a theory.

4939:(examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the 4884:(examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the 580:. I've identified a few passages which absolutely need supporting references. Please have a look at 4771: 4671: 4625: 3920: 3816: 3712: 1659: 1637: 4090: 4066: 3118: 2163: 2117: 2041: 1498: 4412: 2153: 2107: 2100:

So, tone and style are okay? I am horrible with grammar, despite being extremely left-brained(?).

2031: 1981: 623: 468: 467:!!!11!!!11 Whatever will the world do...(!) Seriously though, let's hope it stays that way. Thanks. 453: 217: 200: 155: 804: 4989: 4316: 4204: 4037: 3608: 3504: 3400: 3308: 3053: 2953: 2853: 2746: 2665: 2565: 1937: 349: 204: 159: 634: 193:

strategical military plan (from November 39 to May 1941), which provided offensive operations.

4763: 4762:-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the 4379: 4059:" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so 2463: 2264: 2213: 2198: 1537: 1516: 1166: 322: 305: 228: 224: 4759: 769:

Please see the talk page. 13-18 hours is definitely possible when the situation is desperate.

4074: 3387:

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section

2313: 1877: 1869: 1824: 1647: 1613: 1556: 1441: 1410: 1371: 1273: 1222: 1191: 1149:

In support of Operation COOKIE MONSTER (OCM) I'm presenting WikiCookies in appreciation for

1120: 1063: 1046: 1000: 946: 900: 855: 788: 774: 761: 589: 584:, and see if you can provide any sources, most importantly for the Soviet naming. Thanks, 96: 63: 4924: 4920: 4869: 4865: 4714: 4659: 4651: 1675: 4767: 4667: 4621: 4525: 3916: 3812: 3708: 2383: 2340: 1756:

I believe the article had and has a big POV problem primarily stemming from this question.

1655: 1633: 757: 2229: 1896: 147: 3187:

Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged

1062:

I thought Knowledge (XXG) was a cooperative effort. It seems I was mistaken. Regards. -

3203: 2612:

From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report

2434: 2421: 2233: 2148: 2102: 2067: 2026: 1998: 1978: 1951: 1900: 1847: 1785: 1773: 1759: 1723: 1696: 1679: 1571: 1459: 1423: 1298: 1243: 1206: 1093: 1022: 972: 919: 875: 818: 556: 492: 282: 240: 174: 119: 2289: 5002: 4984: 4593: 4565: 4320: 4312: 4307:

If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from

4208: 4200: 4195:

If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from

4078: 4041: 4033: 4028:

If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from

3604: 3500: 3396: 3304: 3049: 2949: 2849: 2742: 2661: 2561: 1933: 1154: 412: 366: 4933:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants

4878:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants

4643: 1268:

Just so you know the sentences you pointed out were rewritten and not thanks to you.

153: 4650:, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for 3295: