User talk:GeneralPatton/Archive2

No problem. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:51, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Faraday picture

Actually, I kind of like the other image on the Michael Faraday page as well. Couldn't we have both of them, labeling the other one "An older Michael Faraday"? Brutannica 02:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Husnock nomination

I see that your candidate has not been on Wikipedia much lately, and not since your nomination. It doesn't appear to me that this nomination will succeed if he is not around and people can't read his answers to judge his adminship. Do you think it would be a good idea to withdraw the nomination until you can ask him if he wants to be an admin and will be around to perform the duties? -- Cecropia | Talk 18:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge

You go girl! You're on a tear. -Joseph 21:00, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

A favor - when you're going to make all kinds of edits to an article like that, please don't make lots of tiny edits. Instead, we prefer that you make one large edit. (You might also want to put {{inuse}} at the top to prevent edit conflicts). It saves on drive space (since each saved version is saved in its entirety) and it makes change histories easier to track. →Raul654 21:04, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Also, when making changes all over a long article, I find it easier to copy the text into a word processor and work on it in a large window, rather than trying to scroll up and down in the little Edit window. Then copy it back and Preview it for typos and such.

—wwoods 00:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Query

I'm not sure what the point of your query on my talk page is meant to be. I have no involvement in "scams" or illegal activities of any sort, and my involvement with Empire of Atlantium is public knowledge.--Gene_poole 01:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from posting irrelevant, false and inflammatory POV assertions on my talk page. I have no interest in raking over matters that are well documented both on Wikipedia and in multiple third party reference sources. --Gene_poole 01:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note that I've deleted your most recent inflammatory comment from my talk page. I have no interest in your irrelevant POV concerning me or the organisations I choose to associate myself with.--Gene_poole 01:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Weichsel vs. Vistula

As I already said on Ruebezahl's page, I give up, feel free to add all names wherever you find it suitable or convenient. I'd rather withdraw from discussion than be called a nationalist.

IMHO the German name of the river that had flown through Germany for five and a half years in its history is not really relevant to me (or rather not relevant enough to be mentioned in the header). IMO it should be mentioned in the history section - just like the Slavic name of Berlin. However, if you think otherwise - fine, I withdraw. But please do not look for a hidden agenda where there is none. I believe the German name does not belong here because the river was "German" for some 100 years in its history (if one counts the 19th century Partitions when approximately 1/5 of the river flown through Prussia, the rest flowing through Russia and A-H, see User talk:Rübezahl for details). If you read my posts carefully you'd probably see that I'm not one of the guys who have a god-given mission of erasing all traces of German presence on Polish lands. At times it happens that a German name is simply irrelevant and that is not because of some nationalist POV but because of a common sense.

Anyway, please be so kind as to provide a reference to an English language source calling the river with its German name.

Finally, the "German nationalism" remark was but a joke, I was mocking at your comment above, the one that suggested that my nationalism might blind me. I found it exceptionally funny since you have no idea on my nationality whatsoever. However, since I'm usually considered to be a Pole, I noticed that most of Polish POV is considered nationalist, while German or French POVs are absolutely ok. But this is rather a notion among the western societies than a notion among wikipedians and you have nothing to do with that (I hope). Anyway, please be so kind as to not mention my nationality when discussing with me, this has nothing to do. Try to find out what is said rather than who says that. This would spare both you and the rest of wikipedians such misunderstandings in the future.

As to your arbitration warning/advice/threat/whatever, please feel free to start it if you find that there are matters or discussions with me that cannot be resolved. It's always good to know what others think about me. But please be so kind as to try to understand my point of view before you start advocating yours. Cheers, [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:35, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Not really, the number of referrences is 6 870 after you change the language to English. And still the vast majority of pages are related to either Weichsel as a surname or to German WWII army ( Heeresgruppe Weichsel and such). You'd still have to point me to an English language source calling the river with its German name (and no, I don't mean the Prussian encyclopaedia or any other German page translated to English). [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 08:37, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration

At this point, I think the flame war is silly and that it hurts our cause to post anything more. I think we have clearly demonstrated, with links to "Gene Poole"'s editing history, and with "Gene Poole"'s response to our concerns with personal attacks, that, well, "Gene Poole" is not a well-behaved editor. The arbitrators do not (or, at least, should not) care if Empire of Atlantium is a legitimate Micronation or not. They do care, however, that "Gene Poole" responds to criticism with personal attacks ("Crank Editor", "Crackpot"), makes false claims of vandalism, and that he has engaged in multiple edit wars over anything Micronation-related. I've wasted too much time on this person, but I know that he does need to be combatted, or he will continue to make Wiki unpleasant for any editor unfortunate enough disagree with him. Samboy 06:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, additionally, we only need one more arbitrator to accept taking this to arbitration for "Gene Poole" to be arbitrated. This is a done deal at this point; more flame-war with "Gene Poole" hurts our cause instead of healping it, IMHO. At this point, we need to work together to come up with a statement on the Arbitration page, akin to this or this. The actual arbitration pages are structured in such a way that the arbitrators don't have to trudge through a flame war if they don't want to. Samboy 06:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

David Irving

I'd support protection personally, but I can't do it, having edited the article. I can't remember if you're an admin, but if not, I'd suggest you could contact one about it, or post the article on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I'm not sure I believe that the edit war will continue, but if you suspect it, please do what you think needs doing. I think if I seek protection, it will look as though I want to change the article and then freeze it in my preferred version. :-) Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 20:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

Thank you very much for your support during my recent run for adminship. I appreciated the support very much. We should talk on IRC more. Message me when you see me. Mike H 03:52, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Greco-Buddhism

Hi General Patton, can you specify what "still needs to be worked on" in the Greco-Buddhism article? Thanks PHG 07:41, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

Your case is now open at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gene_Poole_vs._Samboy. You may want to clean up the mess on that page and move the evidence elsewhere. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 13:32, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Say Friend

My reasons are obviously the reasons given by JK in both his edit summary and talk, since I reverted to his version. Wolfman 07:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to interject here -- "Although it is not made explicit on wikipedia:revert, a review of Wikipedia policies such as wikipedia:staying cool and wikipedia:dispute resolution, together with common practice and community expectations, strongly suggests that "When reverting, explain your reasons for doing so" is a longstanding de facto Wikipdia policy." -- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2 - you have to state your reasons even if you think they are "obvious". →Raul654 07:16, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Point taken Raul. I will justify my future reverts of that edit.

Now GP, I see you feel free to edit my comments. You may think "That's a mighty neighborly attitude" is a cynical insult. I think it's a pretty mild response to someone who goes leaping straight to talk of "partisan vandalism". Wolfman 07:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I edited it out because I really wanted to avoid a flame war. GeneralPatton 17:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kerry

I explained on the talk page, if you bothered to check. At any rate, it should be pretty evident. Snide parentheticals are just designed to make Kerry look like a jerk. They certainly don't have any bearing on a discussion of his childhood. If we don't think he saw the ruins of Hitler's bunker (I have no idea if this would be feasible or not - I do know that the fact that they were in the Soviet Zone is not dispositive, since one could go into the Soviet Zone before 1961), then we should just remove the whole incident from the discussion of his childhood. If we have evidence that he is lying (and I'm not sure why this would be called a "Kerryism" - Slate's "Kerryisms" generally revolve around Kerry saying something unnecessarily complicated, not him lying about his childhood), I suppose it might be significant enough to mention, although I'm pretty dubious that this story is significant enough for that. Do you think that our section on Arnold Schwarzenegger's childhood should revolve around his stump speech discussion of how Austria was a Communist country behind the Iron Curtain when he was a child, along with snide comments about why this wasn't true (yes, I know he didn't say that, per se, but that was the pretty strong implication of what he said. If Kerry "lied" to a greater degree than Schwarzenegger, I'd be very surprised.) john k 07:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• My addition wasn’t politically motivated at all. GeneralPatton 07:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

your motivation is irrelevant. the actual impact on the article is relevant. perhaps, since you're apparently not American, the apparent innuendo is not as clear to your ears as to mine. Wolfman 07:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry I assumed that. Let's just remove the whole story, as you suggest. I'm a bit overly sensitized to this kind of stuff by some recent arguments I've been having at other pages. But as Wolfman suggests, I think the implication of your addition was "wow, look at what a big liar that John Kerry is." If that was not your intention, I apologize for assuming that, but I think that's how it comes off. john k 07:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ok, no innuendo intended then. but it's still there to my ears. so, let's sort it out on talk. sorry for the misunderstanding. i should have explained the revert, and you shouldn't have started talking vandalism. water under the bridge. but for now, i'm off to bed. Wolfman 07:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Serb Krajina

Just a note - the Serb nationalist brigade is now targeting Republic of Serbian Krajina, trying to paint Croatia as the all-horrid agressor. Ambi 03:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

David Irving article

Hi General, I know you're working hard to add information to the David Irving page, but would you mind stopping by the Talk: page there for a couple of minutes to answer some questions posted there? Thanks. Jayjg 21:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Irving

I posted my notes on WP:FAC earlier today. Jeronimo 19:22, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Sure, I'd accept a nomination. Thanks. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:46, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

URGENT: Opposition to "Sam Spade": See User:Spleeman/Sam Spade

(Doing correct placement now, thanks. IZAK 10:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC))

See a critic's tracking of SamSpade's activities on Wikipedia at User:Spleeman/Sam Spade Vote "NO", or reverse your vote, even at this late hour. This is criticle (and critical) information! IZAK 10:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See: User:Spleeman/Sam Spade#Political bias:

• From Sam's own user page: User:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases
• Removes references to groups such as the KKK as "right-wing" [1]
• Attempts to sugarcoat racist views [2]
• The claim the Geli Raubal was Hitler's mistress is just that, a claim [3].
• Wants Hitler labeled as a socialist on the communism page (see Talk:Communism)
• Insists on including his personal theories regarding a relationship between nazism and Chinese communism in nazism article:
  • User_talk:Andries#Nazism.2FChina
  • Talk:Nazism#China
• From Talk:Socialism:
  • "I intend to do what I always have, which is insist that the Nazi's were socialist because... they were." (Sam Spade 00:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC))
• Called another editor a "fascist" (Talk:Socialism#protection). This is similar to his attempts to try to provoke me by implying that I was a nationalist, or not an anarchist:
  • "Enforcing american spelling is a sign of nationalism, and would therefore seem to suggest your not an anarchist? Or perhaps your a "anarcho-nationalist"? ;p" (Sam Spade 08:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC), User_talk:Spleeman#Nationalism)
  • "Censorship isn't very anarchist" (Sam Spade 23:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC), Talk:Anarchism/Archive10#deleting_links)
• More on belief in non-racial eugenics: Why Sam is Right Wing (a list by User:Stopthebus18)
  • Stopthebus18: "People (including our country) have done horrible things in the name of eugenics." (StoptheBus18 16:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  • Sam Spade: "Seems to work in Singapore. Bad things have been done in the name of all sorts of medicine, but we don't stop going to the doctor, do we?" (Sam Spade 17:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
• Guess what everybody!!! "The attempt to paint them [the Nazis] as "reactionaries" is a propagandistic fraud." (Sam Spade 16:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC), Talk:Nazism) Wow! You learn something new everyday.... Not.
• Hmm. For some reason, Sam doesn't want anybody to know that white-supremacist Wolfgang Droege was involved in drug trafficking [4].

VfA

Hi, I wanted to drop you a note of thanks for your support, as well as your kind comments. I found all of this to be quite a positive learning experience, and intend to work hard at improving the community concensus regarding myself. You've always been a class-act yourself, I've not seen anything other than superb edits from you. Please keep up the good work, it is appreciated, and thanks again, Sam [Spade] 23:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My nomination for adminship

Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 00:10, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

User:GeneralPatton suggests that HistoryBuffer be taken to Arbitration

From User:IZAK#Opposing Anti-Semitism on Wikipedia: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK

:Izak, from my own experience, I suggest you now take HistoryBuffEr straight to Arbitration, and demand he be banned from all articles concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You have a great and compelling body of evidence against him. GeneralPatton 19:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Users are asked to please help set this in motion.

Pathetically, HistoryBuffer is now antagonizing more people at Holocaust denial examined, see the "history" of that page and the "revert wars" and other stuff at Talk:Holocaust denial examined IZAK 02:29, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC):

"This article contains an unsubstantiated assertion about the use of term "Zionist" by Holocaust deniers. The Zionist extremist and Palestine denier Jayjg keeps reverting any attempt to correct the false implication that anyone using the term "Zionist" is/could be a Holocaust denier, without supplying any evidence for the assertion. HistoryBuffEr 07:48, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)"

Question about Demographic history of Kosovo

Hallo, Patton, I see you've been here for quite a time so I wanna ask you something:

Two other users and I set the article Demographic history of Kosovo straight (meaning deserbified it and made it NPOV). Since then Nikola Smolenski has engaged im repeated terrorist attacks on the article without logging himself. What can I do to protect the article? Looking forward to your response ~~VMORO

Hey, thanks for the answer! I guess listing the page for protection is the best possible solution, how can I do that? ~~VMORO

HistoryBuffEr's RFC against Proteus

You might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Proteus. Regards, Jayjg 01:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Catholic Serbs"

I thought you might be interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#Catholic_Serbs Mir Harven 11:06, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The arbitration is in the decision stage

I'm just letting you know that the arbitration that you originally started against "Gene Poole" is in the decision stage. If you have any comments to leave, leave them here.

See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":

See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Middle_East_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Islamic_terrorist_organizations and this one too: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Jewish_terrorist_organizations

IZAK 10:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opinion for IZAK

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence. Thank you. IZAK 07:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Grossdeutschland again

You didn't reply to my message in August, you just demerged the content again. I've just remerged it and started a discussion on Talk:Grossdeutschland. Can we gain consensus as to where the "historical concept" content should live before we continue this edit war, please? :o) — OwenBlacker 15:11, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Augustus 01.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Augustus 01.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:54, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur

Hi, General. :) There is a discussion over at the Wikipedia:Reference desk over what Douglas MacArthur's middle name was. I was curious if you would happen to know. Thanks. func(talk) 06:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast!

You're one speedy general, General, I'd only just nominated Restoration comedy on FAC! Thanks very much for the encouragement, it feels really good.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 14:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Info on image, please

Please go to Image:Hitler vonManstein Zaporozh'ye01.jpg and edit that image description page to give the source (URL, if online; ISBN, if scanned from a book; and if you've taken the image yourself, just say so) and the licensing status (the list of image copyright tags might be useful) of this image. All our images should have this information; images without source or license info will be deleted after seven days. Thank you. Lupo 11:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The same applies to Image:Von Manstein 01.jpg, too. BTW, you wouldn't happen to know when these images were first published? I take it that they are German photographs. As I understand it, the copyright on photographs expires in Germany 50 years after the photograph has been taken (surely pre-1945, in this case) if it wasn't published within that time. If it was published within that time, the copyright expires 50 years after the initial publication. See §72(3) of the German "Urheberrechtsgesetz". Hence, if you can plausibly show that this image has been published before 1954 or was never published until 1996 (1945 + 51, add one as a safety margin), it would most probably be in the public domain by now. Lupo 11:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Erich von Manstein references

Hi, General, I saw some talk on FAC about the format of the references at Erich von Manstein. I'd be glad to format those for you in the standard way, if you like. Just say the word.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 00:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He's baaa-ack!

Nikola. Kosovo. Ustase. Thank you. ;) Ambi 00:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Silkin

Thanks! -- Emsworth 03:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 02:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Wonderful idea! I have joined. I will let some others know. Thank you. IZAK 03:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration matter of Avala is closed

1) The above findings of fact show that Avala has often worked against consensus and majority opinion. We therefore rule that Avala must follow the majority opinion of the users involved concerning any controversial edits that Avala makes. One specific consequence is that violations of the three revert rule are not permitted. This probation period will last for one month.

2) For a period of 3 months, should a serious dispute arise between Avala and other users with respect to editing of an article Avala is required to cite substantial authority supporting the position he is taking and either enter the dispute resolution process regarding the matter or drop the matter. A serious dispute is defined as one in which any party to the dispute has reverted the other 3 times or more. After Avala makes his third revert he shall cease editing the article with respect to the disputed matter until completion of the dispute resolution process. Resolution of the dispute in his favor shall require verification that the authority cited adequately supports the information he advocates including in the article. With respect to matters of taste such as size of templates he is required to defer to majority opinion.

3) Given the fact that Avala is now editing at a low rate, we reserve the right to revisit the conduct issue of this user once/if Avala starts to edit at an increased rate again and other users complain about Avala's conduct. This probation would last one year.

For principles, findings of fact, and enforcement see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Avala#Final decision. --mav 21:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind encouragement

You've encouraged me to hang in there; and, since the Wikipedia project is useful and worthwhile, from time to time I'm sure I'll look in -- but my nerves, and the best use of my time, pull in the opposite direction. My main personal problems with Wikipedia are (1) the sheer magnitude of the effort; (2) the amount of nervous energy to effect even what seems to me the most ordinary change: I'm neither a fighter nor a political animal; (3) the amount of garbage being tossed into the pot, which lowers the credibility of the whole, and correcting which would be a full-time job; (4) the general flatness of the result — quite understandable since everything is reached by compromise.

Now I do have a site of my own; much narrower in scope, it means I can turn out an integrated set of (I hope!) carefully written, detailed pages with much less effort per page, and by my lights greater results for the Person Scouring The Web For Whatever It Is. There's so much, even within my own narrow areas of interest, that's not online yet, that I need to keep on plugging away at it.... Best, Bill 13:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FAC

I don't feel that it is exactly the type of article I would support, but do not want to throw objections up at this late point. Neutral does not keep it from being featured, only objections do, so no, I am not ignoring the process. I have now struck out everything but the neutral, that will not hold the article up. The mention of the Commissar and Reichenau orders could be explained a bit inline for the uninformed. Also acting as if it was just any other army he fought for instead of the Nazi German one is where the whitewashing feeling of the article still seems to come from. I did not change the wording in the intro because that could be problematic, but since it links to Nazi Germany, it should probably say Nazi Germany. Feel free to move these comments to FAC if you like. - Taxman 13:56, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Alchemy

Hi, I like the new lead picture on the alchemy article, but was puzzled by your choice of uploading Image:JosephWright-Alchemist.jpg to a new filename. I understood it was normal practice to overwrite images with their modified versions. Also there was some discussion on the previous image's talk page about the problems with excessive jpeg artifacts showing up when brightening the image. In any case, I've had another go at brightening the Joseph Wright painting whilst keeping the jpegs under check, which you might prefer over the current version. -- Solipsist 18:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this is pretty much how Wright’s painting looks like when it comes to illumination [5]. I’d use this if it wasn’t for the annoying compression artifacts that are even worse here. I do indent of adding a whole bunch of other illustrations and artwork, there's no shortage of that. GeneralPatton 19:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a bit of a problem. That example shows that the colour on the one we've got at the moment is way off. And the data just isn't there to correct it. I can do a bit to remove the moire from the levity.com version, but the arches end up looking a bit impressionistic, which doesn't really suit an 18th century painting. There is also this scan which is somewhere between the two, but also a bit dark and has its own set of problems. -- Solipsist 20:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I’ve taken a look on google, and sadly there isn’t one good reproduction of this great painting on the net. I did find some others that were nice. GeneralPatton 23:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I found the same thing when I googled. If you can force a reload on Image:JosephWright-Alchemist.jpg you should get a lighter version based on the levity.com scan which you suggested. I've partially removed the moire pattern, whilst trying to preserve the detail in the bottom right. Its not entirely successful - you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Now I can't decide wheather I prefer it; on the one hand the colours are closer to true and it is relatively free of heavy jpg blocking, however the blurred top left looks impressionistic and hasn't totally irradicated the moire and overall there is less subtlety of detail and shading. -- Solipsist 00:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Greetings, Gen.

I see we have a mutual interest in the history of WW2 and its accompanying issues (specifically, as I noticed, Nazi Germany). I have been seeking a senior Wikipedian to be a mentor of sorts, if you are interested in showing me around the place (just a few tips here and there) I would be quite grateful.

My grandfather met your namesake in 1944 as part of the 8th Air Force, 3rd Army. Speaks very highly of him, and says the Patton of cinema (George C. Scott, of course) was a "dead ringer."

Look forward to talking/working with you.

Paul 23:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RFA

What I meant was, I don't think you've matured much since that quote of yours. Andre (talk) 20:44, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you understand at this point what adminship is about, based on your response to the bringing up of the quote. Andre (talk) 21:15, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you'd be a bad administrator, I'm just not confident enough in you to support. I'm most likely not going to change my vote this time around. Try again in a few months if you don't succeed. Andre (talk) 21:30, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Quotes and votes

After reviewing your explanation, I have moved my vote to neutral. Sorry, it's nothing personal, but I remembered that you had made that rather broad statement before, and I felt the issue needed to be addressed as part of the process. I didn't mean to hold that statement against you, recognizing that it was made a while ago and expressed on the spur of the moment. But given how explicit it was, I think it will prove better (if you do become an admin) that you have acknowledged making it and made clear that you have reconsidered. I much prefer this to people who say something once and then later say something completely different simply because it's convenient for them. --Michael Snow 22:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adminship etc

I don't mean to be insulting, I just think that you often miss the boat on NPOV. Perhaps this is a language barrier, I don't know, but this is the English Wikipedia we are talking about, so intentionality hardly matters in comparison to results. This is not a personal insult, in the end things worked out but only after I sought outside confirmation, a real hassle for what (in English) was an obvious solution to me. As I said, I don't think it's a maliciousness on your part, perhaps just a haplessness, maybe because of language barriers. Either way, I stand by what I've written; take it as you will, it is not meant to be mean. --Fastfission 05:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's the problem, you still don't get why that's a methodological problem, it just underscores what I am saying. It is not "how the Nazis see themselves" it is "a document posted by people who are likely neo-Nazis" which is not the same thing. If you posted the same document from a more trustworthy source it would be a different thing completely, but your insistence on this particular source as valid is emblematic of the problem I have. Sorry. --Fastfission 05:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look, buddy, the fact that you can't seem to understand the reasons why I dislike your bid for adminship is again further evidence towards my interpretation. It isn't about calling names -- I could really care less if people want to call people silly names at times, to be honest, if the situation warrents it -- it's about fundamental problems relating to your ability to comprehend nuanced issues of point of view. The fact that you are going back and forth over and over again with my talk page simply because I disagree with your bid for adminship, trying in vain to convince me that your use of neo-Nazi sources was justified, that you never called me names (I never accused you of doing such a thing), etc. is more than enough to suggest to me that you lack the ability to exercise proper judgment in administrative matters. It's just one vote, and you'll note that at the end of it I simply advise people to look at your own comments for themselves and make their own judgments, and explain why I feel the way I do. Ease up a bit, it will make you seem more sensible. --Fastfission 20:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Map

Thanks for your feedback and for quick response on my talk page. I don't really know which greyish blue you meant so I used the same as on the Image:Royal Ducal.png map. I also added some towns to the south. I don't know the program you cited and I'm afraid that I'm not that much of a map geek so it might be somehow difficult for me to learn it, but I'll give it a try anyway. Do you have any other suggestions? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 05:03, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin, Monty

I've seen offensive used more often than battle though. It really was a larger operation.

As the section has the title "The East German offensive" I think that the the sub-title "The battle of the Oder-Neisse" is more appropriate because it is about the bridge-head and breakout. Which involved very heavy fighting and was nothing like the crossing of the Rhine.

By the way, I really think its about time somebody makes Monty into a featured article, similar to what I’ve done over at Erich von Manstein. I think it would be crucial that an Englishman is involved, to avoid unfair shoots and give perspective. --08:5 0, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Monty is one of those people like Thatcher, where there are strong differing opinions in England. I personally come down on the mediocre general, and later a crackpot side of the fence, which seems to be the view of the current article Philip Baird Shearer 10:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chuikov

I no longer edit non-Australian history articles, at least for a while. Adam 23:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following images:

• Image:Decius.jpg
• Image:Dietrich_in_color_01.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 05:12, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Untagged images

Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:PrinzEugen bw 01.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 06:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:Me 262a color2.jpg

Please verify the origin and tag this one, too. Thanks. Kbh3rd 03:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and:

• Image:Me262 bw 01.jpg
• Image:Me262cockpit color.jpg

Untagged images

Hello. I was image tagging, when I came across Image:He162 color010.jpg. I was unable to determine the copyright status, so I tagged it as "unverified". Could you add a proper image copyright tag to it? Pictures without tags will eventually be deleted. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)} 21:06, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

About tolerance, peace and harmony

(cur) (last) 01:35, 10 May 2004 GeneralPatton (vidi, vidi, srbo se brine za malog ivicu, vidi se ciji je... returned photo, not as bad as he is)

From Ivica Račan history comments.

From Wikiquette (read this) : Don't label or personally attack people or their edits. Terms like "racist," "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively