User talk:ÄDA - DÄP/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

USNS Observation Island

Hi there, with this edit, I was just wondering what citations issues you observed. I fixed the duplicate citation error and didn't know if there was something else that needed to be done. Cheers. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessments of WPSHIPS and WPMILHIST should be interchangeable, so I merely used the one project assessment for the other. If you feel your improvements should be reflected in the assessment, you can simply ask for a re-assessment. For now, I did it for USNS Observation Island. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I was definitely not complaining, I just wasn't sure what exactly the issue was (if it was more than just the citation error that was present). I know next to nothing about the assessment process. Thanks for your work! — Huntster (t @ c) 02:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

German submarines assessment

Hello ÄDA - DÄP, I noticed you are keeping all project banners up to date, when assessing those articles. When updating Germany-related articles, please keep an eventual importance parameter in the Germany project template. See this diff for example, where the importance parameters went missing :). It's not a big deal (unfortunately a lot of Germany-related articles are unassessed due to a lack of interested editors) - just thought I let you know for future updates. Thank you for helping out with those maintenance tasks. GermanJoe (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I am not familiar with the way importance is determined on WP as neither WPSHIPS nor WPMILHIST use that parameter. Are individual ships in general of low importance? In that case I can simply tagged the relevant articles accordingly. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

That system was implemented long before I joined, but almost all single ships (and officers) are usually marked as "low" importance within the wider country project. Exceptions are a few articles like the German battleship Bismarck, which is set on "mid" (or Manfred von Richthofen on "high") - but those are relatively rare cases for the most notable topics. And not all settings are necessarily 100% consistent, but that's probably true for all projects. A short summary table about the intended importance criteria can be found here. GermanJoe (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 345 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

Buster Seven Talk 14:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glossary of German military terms, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Recruit, Rotte and Rank and file. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

German submarine U-402

Just curious why you tagged subject article as British English? Thewellman (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Eleven (UK) to three (US). ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Populated places by year of establishment subcats

Several categories, including at least one which you created, have been nominated for possible merging. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wehrmacht Luftwaffe

Would you please indicate why you emptied this new category, seemingly out of process? The Luftwaffe category is large and thoroughly confused between the force over different time periods. There is also good precedent for subdividing other German military formation categories by period (eg Category:Units and formations of the Bundeswehr Luftwaffe). We are also WP:NOTCENSORED; there's no reason for continuing the jumbling up. Would you kindly explain? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The English name of the German air force is 'German Air Force' - and this is the English-language Wikipedia, isn't it? 'Luftwaffe' however is most commonly used for the air force of Nazi Germany - so that category is used for the 1935-45 establishment. Like for 'Kriegsmarine' and 'Waffen-SS' there are unfortunately no useful English translations around that would not mix up two completely different organizations. The Luftwaffe category, though indeed large, is far from jumbled, so whatever is confusing you has nothing to do with the recently deleted category you mentioned above. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Luftwaffe and German Air Force indeed mean the same thing for the entire era since 1933. But I am not too interested in whatever we finally come down on, though to translate 'Luftwaffe' now, and not do so for 1933-45, is bizarre. I would note that we've standardised on 'Panzer'/Panzergrenadier rather than 'Armoured' for divisions for the entire period from 1933 onwards.

What I'm interested in however is separating things that deal with the 1955 onwards force from the force that disappeared in 1945-6. These are two completely separate services and deserve two separate categories. Thus I will reestablish the recently deleted category. It's clear from your listing of the category I just mentioned above that (a) I need to be crystal clear that 1955-today wings should not be in a category with 1933-45 wings, and (b) that you know how to use the categories for discussion process. I trust therefore that there will no further out-of-process deletions, and should you like to standardise the entire category and article structure on one language, you will use the proper CfD process. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Bizarre is the right word; diffusing a foreign language term by using more foreign language. In the meantime 'German Air Force' has for the past 60 years been the English-language name of the air force of (West) Germany. BTW, I used the CfR-template. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Axel Schimpf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andreas Krause. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Himmerod or Himmeroder

Hi, I noticed your edit to "Himmerod Memorandum". I've not come across sources that refer to the Memorandum this way. My sources for "Himmeroder Memorandum" are:

• Wette, Wolfram (2007). The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674025776. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) and
• Smelser, Ronald; Davies, Edward J. (2008). The myth of the Eastern Front: the Nazi-Soviet war in American popular culture. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521833653. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Here's a 3rd: Screening War: Perspectives on German Suffering

Could you clarify where you see "Himmerod Memorandum"? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

E.g.: David Clay Large (9 November 2000). Germans to the Front: West German Rearmament in the Adenauer Era. Univ of North Carolina Press. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-8078-6274-2.

But if you are writing an article on the topic you are free to choose a title. There can always be redirects for alternate names. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Looks like both are acceptable -- I will think about it. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Germany or Nazi Germany?

Do you have an opinion about this RFC? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Albrecht Brandi

I am not done yet but nevertheless may I ask you to review the article? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

SMS Schleswig-Holstein

Was there a change in policy about photos in infoboxes in ship articles? I do not understand why you removed the 300px. Just asking so I don't step on anyone's toes Llammakey (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Multi-tasking gone wrong. That was a different infobox, I was thinking about. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I thought I had missed a policy change again. Llammakey (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gustav Kleikamp, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Memel and First officer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hein-Peter Weyher

The article Hein-Peter Weyher has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

MilHist FA/GA discussion

Hi, just a note that there is a WikiProject Military history discussion on WWII GA/FA articles that you may be interested in. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

New article

The article on Franz Kurowski is taking shape and more eyes would be appreciated, especially given the fact that it was a translation from German, and was then copyedited by me (not a German speaker). Any help you can provide, even if quickly glancing at the article, would be great. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

ship articles

I've had to clean up several articles such as this diff where [[German submarine U-601|''U-601'']] turned into {{GS|U-601|''U-601'']] Not sure if you use a regex with AWB or manual. Bgwhite (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jesus of Lübeck, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vera Cruz and John Hawkins. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Lindemann

I reverted your edit because your edit left a vertical bar, pipe (|) in the article, see diff. You should fix your script. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Not sure what went wrong with Lindemann, but the script seems to be fine. Probably fat fingers. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

<br>/<br/>

I saw that you'd put the / into <br>, is there a WP describing when each should be used? Keith-264 (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Check here. My problem is, that the syntax highlighter will tint everything on rose after <br>, making it hard to distinguish code. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

So <br/> is the one to use, does it have to have a space <br /> or doesn't it matter? Keith-264 (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to matter. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

GoodKeith-264 (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

picture size in infoboxes

I've noticed that you've started removing the 300px size from the ship infoboxes. That appears to work OK for images larger than that size, but it doesn't help when images are smaller than 300px. You should start a discussion about this before continuing any further.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz

Hi, a community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, which you edited. The reassessment page can be found here, if you would like to comment on whether the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Victoria Louise-class armored cruiser listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Victoria Louise-class armored cruiser. Since you had some involvement with the Victoria Louise-class armored cruiser redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I recently came across this discussion in the MilHist archives, which was helpful: Unreliable sources, 2013

Do you happen to have similar insights into works by Obermaier? Is this more like Kurowski and Huß & Viohl or more like Scherzer and Busch & Röll? For example:

• Obermaier, Ernst (1976). Die Ritterkreuzträger der Luftwaffe 1939–1945 Band II Stuka- und Schlachtflieger (in German). Mainz, Germany: Verlag Dieter Hoffmann. ISBN 978-3-87341-021-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I have not been able to have a look at the book itself, but the catalogue entry suggests it is more like Busch & Röll vol.1. However, it is no longer in print and hard to come by in libraries, I would suggest to replace it with a more accessible source. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Error in AWB edit

Hi there. This edit of yours back in September 2015, introduced an error which I have just corrected. That didn't get spotted for nearly 10 months! Are you able to check your other edits to make sure no similar errors were introduced into other articles? Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Berger & Fraschka

Hi, thank you for removing Helden der Wehrmacht from WWII articles. Would it be possible to use your powers to automatically remove these sections from Lists of KC recipients? Such as here: List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (R) and similar articles.

Further reading

• Berger, Florian (1999). Mit Eichenlaub und Schwertern. Die höchstdekorierten Soldaten des Zweiten Weltkrieges (in German). Vienna, Austria: Selbstverlag Florian Berger. ISBN 978-3-9501307-0-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
• Fraschka, Günther (1994). Knights of the Reich. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Military/Aviation History. ISBN 978-0-88740-580-8.

These are non RS or likely non RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

And you base this on? I've never looked at either one myself, so I don't know either. But you're gonna need a better reason to declare these non-RS rather than "just 'cause".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Self-published sources are generally considered non-RS unless there is strong evidence pointing otherwise. Selbstverlag means precisely that. ::As to Fraschka, Dr. Wolfgang Schmidt of the MGFA is not impressed with his publications. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Berger is a self-published source; Selbstverlag Florian Berger stands for "self-published by Florian Berger". The content of his journalistic works is dubious; see sample from his book: The Face of Courage.

Fraschka, who has a de.wiki article (de:Günter Fraschka), is non RS; he wrote, among other things, for the German pulp series Der Landser.

The sourcing issues are not recents and have been raised before by other contributors. Please see these 2013 discussions on authors including mentioned on this thread: : (1) Deletions of so called unreliable sources and (2) "Immortal German Soldiers".

Hope this helps. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Range & Kurowski

Additionally, many articles on the members of the U-boat arm includes these two books, which are not used for citations:

• Kurowski, Franz (1995). Knight's Cross Holders of the U-Boat Service. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing. ISBN 978-0-88740-748-2.
• Range, Clemens (1974). Die Ritterkreuzträger der Kriegsmarine. Stuttgart, Germany: Motorbuch Verlag. ISBN 978-3-87943-355-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

Is it possible to have them auto-removed as well? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier. Shouldn't be a problem using WP:AWB. You might want to think about registering yourself with the workload you imposed on yourself. I might find some time in the coming days however to help you out with this. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will look into AWB. As an aside, it also helps that I'm not the only one concerned with the issue of unreliable sources in WWII articles. For example, it was helpful to find the 2013 discussions on Helden der Wehmacht and other non RS sources -- this shows that other contributors also consider them to be non-encyclopedic. That way, certain MilHist coordinators cannot dismiss my concern as personal whimsy, a "campaign" or a "crusade". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's never nice to be told, what you read - and possibly paid for - is crap. So there is a tendency to defend rather than critically assess one's point of view. It's only human. So sometimes it's wiser to wait by the river. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if you sit by the river long enough, things like this happen: Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Otto_Kittel/1. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be made of the same cloth -- VDM Nickel Verlag & not used for citations:

• Nietrug, Gerd (2004). Die Ritterkreuzträger des Saarlandes 1939 - 1945. Zweibrücken: VDM Nickel. ISBN 3-925480-93-5.

I'm also curious about this one:

• Schumann, Ralf (2007). Die Ritterkreuzträger 1939–1945 des LG 1 (in German). Zweibrücken, Germany: VDM Heinz Nickel. ISBN 978-3-86619-013-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

Same as Kurowski, Range or legit?

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. VDM Heinz Nickel has published some of Kurowski's and similar writers' works. They are definitely no academic publisher or known for their editorial control, there is also no fact-checking. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Peter Stockert

This work (in various volumes) is used is listed in bibliographies of about 880 articles; I assume all of those who received the Oak Leaves to the Knight's Cross:

• Stockert, Peter (2008). Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 Band 8 (in German). Bad Friedrichshall, Germany: Friedrichshaller Rundblick. OCLC 76072662. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

Is this a respectable series? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Question

I believe you replaced the citation to Vause here:

• Lüth failed to respond to the sentry's challenge and was shot in the head by 18-year-old Matrose (seaman) Mathias Gottlob, a German guard. The password of the day was "Tannenberg." Whether he deliberately failed to answer the sentry's challenges or the guard simply did not hear his response, is unknown. The officer in charge immediately informed Großadmiral (Grand Admiral) Karl Dönitz, whose adjutant, Fregattenkapitän Walter Lüdde-Neurath, who had accepted the call, initially thought that it was a bad joke. Lüdde-Neurath then informed Lüth's brother, Joachim Lüth, as the two siblings were staying together. It was he who informed Lüth's wife and their four children that Lüth had died.

References

I am curious if Vause goes in the same level of detail as Kurowski did here? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much the same story, as I suspect Vause and Kurowski used the same source. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I found a review:

• The second book, U-Boat Ace by Jordan Vause, is a biographical account of Wolfgang Lüth, whose accomplishments include sinking 48 Allied vessels and becoming the youngest full captain in the Kreigsmarine (German Navy). Unlike his famed counterpart, Otto Kretschmer, Lüth has remained obscure outside of Germany until now. Vause found little helpful material in the German archives but was able to track down some of Lüth's crewmen and fellow U-boat commanders. The result is a revealing account of an enigmatic commander who was often ruthless yet earned the devotion of the men who served under him. (link)

I'm not sure this source is RS (whether the author or the publisher). It was published by "U.S. Naval Institute"; I'm not sure what type of an organization it it or how it is financed. About us states: "As an independent forum for over 135 years, the Naval Institute has been nurturing creative thinkers who responsibly raise their voices on matters relating to national defense." (??).

"Nobody answers him, but the wind is rustling the leaves ..." :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS is a bit vage on specialist fields of interest as e.g. naval history. By and large I would consider USNI publications a reliable source, although they sometimes miss the mark. They have some sort of editorial oversight and they serve a community of experts even if they once in a while pick an unsavoury author. Contrary to Kurowski, Vause tried to verify facts from different sources, rather than tell a tall story and let others do the leg work. And that's what RS is all about, I guess. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

German right-wing publishers

Hi, I am wondering if I could interest you in creating a German right-wing publishers article, based on German wiki articles? I come across quite a few sources issued by fringe publishing houses, but it's difficult to oppose these sources with nothing to point to, except for de.Wiki. For example, it's been very helpful to have the article on Kurowski to point people to.

I've been compiling a list here as I come across them on Wikipedia articles: Right-wing publishers. There is probably more, but that would be a good start. What do you think? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I will see what I can whip up over the coming week or so. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm also curious about "Würzburg, Germany: Flechsig Verlag". This publishing house produced many individual biographies of highly decorated German soldiers, including one by Kurowski on Otto Kittel. which started it all for me. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

While I am at it. There is a cluster of German publishers which cater for those "interested in contemporary history". The phrase is sometimes used to describe a certain type of people enthusiastic about Nazi Germany. They are not necessarily political activists, but they have a problem seeing anything wrong with their subject. These publications I would not consider RS, unless they are purely technical or serve as sources on themselves. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

U-96

Thank you for all of your excellent work on the U-96 article. You might enjoy this material for another website. I recently found a lot of information about the actual crew members and was amazed how closely it matched the book and film.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/145970050@N03/albums/72157671250840610 Sink them all. -O.R.^Comms 17:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, wilco ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk)

Witzleben and Fromm

If I understand Scherzer correctly the court rouling of 1998 did not address the question of awards. Subsequently he argued that the awards are still revoked. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Para.7 is quite clear. Scherzer is no lawyer, mind. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, Scherzer is not a lawyer but he did his homework (see pages 102 to 116). Scherzer consulted the Generalstaatsanwalt with the Landesgericht in Berlin, specifically inquiring on Friedrich Fromm, Otto Herfurth, Erich Hoepner, Roland von Hößlin, Fritz Jäger, Friedrich Olbricht, Carl-Heinrich von Stülpnagel, Erwin von Witzleben, Karl Freiherr von Thüngen and Gustav Heistermann von Zielberg. The Landesgericht in Berlin, represented by the Oberstaatsanwalt Zuppke, handled this case and ruled on 13 March 2006, that due to the nature of the law governing the presentation of the Knight's Cross, the 1998 NS-Aufhebungsgesetz did not change the ruling of the Knight's Cross and the presentations remain judicially revoked. However, the Generalstaatsanwalt did give recommendations on how this ruling could be changed on an individual basis. The heirs and/or family of the men listed above have to individually file a case before the court. The court would then have to individually rule whether the decision could be changed. The Landesgericht in Berlin stated that so far (until 13 March 2006), no case had been filed. Given this 2006 ruling of the Landesgericht in Berlin, I think you have to find evidence of specific court rulings on every single instance. Removal of this information solely based on the 1998 NS-Aufhebungsgesetz is not supported by the 2006 ruling of the Landesgericht in Berlin. Thoughts? MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. With the 2009 amendment, sentences by the military courts were included in the 1998 law and no longer need individual action. The opinion of the state prosecutor is nevertheless interesting, as it contradicts the opinion held by the LG Braunschweig in its 1952 ruling against Remer, which is considered the rehabilitation of those mentioned above. It reminds a bit of the Dohnanyi case, where it took the court quite some time to figure out, that the conviction had been already repealed by a 1946 law. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting! One element I forgot to mention, the Landesgericht also pointed out that the individuals were sentenced to death by a civil court and not by a military court. My question, so how does the 2009 amendment, which according to your statement amended the NS-Aufhebungsgesetz to include sentences by the military courts, impact the decisions of a civil court? Do you have a reference which echoes your stated interpretation of the court rulings? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's confusing. In 1998 some Conservatives were afraid that actual "traitors" might be pardoned, thus they insisted on a case-by-case evaluation in cases regarding "Kriegsverrat". By 2009, they had changed their mind, because research had shown that there weren't any cases to corroborate that view.

With regard to Scherzer and the State Attorney in Berlin, the problem seems to be, that Scherzer - as I did - assumed that most of the 20 July plotters had not had their convictions vacated before 1998. However, in West Germany legislation to that effect had been passed early-on after the war. E.g. Witzleben was rehabilitated in 1946[1]. So the reply by Zuppke makes sense, as nobody needed to be rehabilitated under the 1998 law. BTW, are Fellgiebel etc. elaborate on that? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you could create an article on the evolution of the NS-Aufhebungsgesetz, referenced, so that the layman can follow your thinking. At least, I would expect a note in each article indicating something like: until the amendment of 2009 the presentation of Knight's Cross had been considered judicially revoked. Thoughts MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I re-read the entire chapter again, including the 2006 ruling of the Landesgericht and also the assessment of the Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt) regarding the Döntz-decree. Both assessments contain similarities in thinking. Dönitz had declared that "All nominations for the bestowal of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and their higher grades which have been received by the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht — staff of the Wehrmacht high command — until the capitulation becomes effective are approved, under the premise that all nominations are formally and correctly approved by the nominating authorities of the Wehrmacht, Heer including the Waffen-SS, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe all the way to the level of the army and army group leadership." The WASt concluded that this decree is unlawful because it is not in line with the law governing the bestowal of the Knight's Cross which explicitly requires a case by case decision. The Landesgericht presented similar arguments as it pertains to reinstating the Knight's Cross. The arguments presented were, the award was individually bestowed, and it was individually revoked and can only be reinstated individually. Do you have references of the interpretation of NS-Aufhebungsgesetz which explicitly address the reinstating of the Knight's Cross? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sort of. The only law relating the Knight's Cross still in effect after 1945, is the 1957 "Ordensgesetz", which basically says, anyone who can prove they had been awarded a certain decoration before 8 May 1945 were allowed to wear it in public. A good overview on the debates leading to the law is Hans Rothfels' 1969 article in VfZ.

If I recall correctly, there were only a handful of Knight's Cross recipients who had their decoration revoked — and only two or so cases were the person in question survived the war. Helmut Kramer states the case of Edgar Feuchtinger[2] for a Knight's Cross recipient rehabilitated under the 1998 law. Although it seems his death sentence had already been vacated under the 1946 law in the British zone. Combined with the case of Walther von Seydlitz-Kurzbach, rehabilitation by the LG Verden in 1957 included all his awards, and he is not marked with a quotation mark in the relevant lists. Although I doubt, neither of them was ever welcomed to an AKCR event. The same would have been true for the 20 July plotters had they lived.

This means, that Hitler — as commander-in-chief — was able to award the Knight's Cross, but that any revocation would be regarded NS-Unrecht today. Especially, as the loss was a direct consequence of a sentencing or a prerequisite for it. And with no case-by-case review, one would have to find prove that the conviction of a Knight's Cross recipient was based in something that is still regarded as a criminal offence in German law today, e.g. murder or theft. Of which I don't see any evidence. Anything else would be politically motivated justice, and hence "NS-Unrecht". ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

FGS

Hi, I am not of the opinion, that the (non-existing) prefix "FGS" is used "commonly" on the English wikipedia, see List of active German Navy ships. Some years ago, Jane's defence started to give every ship of any navy a prefix, like "FS" for "French Ship". Do you know any Frenchmen using an English prefix for a French naval vessel?!? Besides "SMS" (up to 1918), there does not exist any prefix for any German naval ship. Besides, if it would have been used, it would have been used only until 1995. The German Navy was officially only named "Marine" (Navy) and colloquially "Bundesmarine" (Federal Navy) and since 1995 it is "Deutsche Marine" (German Navy) in international contexts, see German Navy. So, since 1995 it should be "GS" instead of "FGS". Also, "SMS" is also not translated into "HMS" and the Peruvian prefix "BAP" is also not translated. On German wikipedia, nobody would try to translate "USS" in "SdVS". So why use something that does not exist and makes no sense? Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

FGS is not a national prefix, like HMS or USS, but a NATO abbreviation used well before 1994. Jane's picked it up after the Bundesmarine officially became the German Navy, I guess. We use it in comms when operating in a multinational context. In German comms there is no need for a prefix, since "die Augsburg" or "Fregatte Augsburg"[3] is clear enough, but if SHAPE is hearing "Augsburg", they think of the place, rather than the ship. No point sending ships to Bavaria, is there? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Werner Freers

The article Werner Freers has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no reliable references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 01:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Convert enhancement

We discussed {{convert}} here. You might like to know that convert can now use an input unit, but not display it in the result. For example:

• {{convert|10000|PS|ihp kW|abbr=on|order=out}} → 9,900 ihp (7,400 kW)

Using order=out specifies that the result should use the output from the conversion, in the order given. There is a little more at Template talk:Convert#Module version 15. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will see if I can use that on some of the articles. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Replacement of German with English source

Hi, I saw your changes on Operation Arctic Fox and I have two questions:

• You changed the source (Germany and the Second World War) from the German version to the English version in Operation Arctic Fox. Did you look the pages up and can I be certain that they are correct? I dont have access to the English version of the book and I have the article up for GAN. ;)
• Is there a reason to use the sfn template, is it preferable? I then would have to change the other citations too, as they look different now. Dead Mary (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I checked the German against the English version, since I got both at hand, so rest assured. As to the sfn template, I find it preferable, but that's a personal choice. I also changed the sfn for the snfp template, so there is now a parenthesis around the year. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I guess everything is fine then. Dead Mary (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

GAR: Joachim Helbig

Since you are being quoted in the above discussion, I thought I would let you know about it. This concerns relate to sourcing and POV. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ÄDA - DÄP. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Joachim Helbig

As you might remember, I've been (slowly) rewriting the Helbig article and I'm hoping that you can add a complete cite for that Greek source that you linked to saying that Ellenis was sunk in Patras on the 21st. I need to add a note explaining that Shores, et al. say the ship was sunk in Piraeus on the 20th and that Taghon and Shores mention no missions near Patras on either date.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Closer readings of Taghon and Shores only mention I. Gruppe attacking Athens while II. Gruppe was flying anti-shipping missions around Crete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Beutelsbach consensus copyright concern

Hi ÄDA - DÄP. I can't find any indication on the source web page http://www.confusingconversations.de/mediawiki/index.php/Beutelsbach_Consensus that indicates the prose is public domain or released under a compatible license. Can you please clarify? Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Federal Agency for Civic Education publications are public domain unless they are published under licence agreements. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The Great Unassessed-Article Avalanche of 2017

Hey hi hello, I first want to thank you for taking the time out of your day to tag literally a couple hundred articles with Template:WPG, but just wanted to ask you to try your hand at assessing them by hand (like me, but I don't want to toot my own horn here) instead of dumping 250+ articles to assess into the pile. Gott mit Uns, –Vami_IV✠ 04:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

One step at a time, please. First identifying those articles that fall into the scope of the project, then sorting out the ones that are already assessed, and then dealing with the rest. That's my plan. WYT ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright; I'll keep assessing articles and you keep throwing them in. Sounds like a plan. –Vami_IV✠ 04:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW These articles have all been assessed already for MILHIST, which in general works for WPG too. So there is no need to re-assess them, except for the biographical articles that have been turned into redirects recently. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Text insertion with AWB

I see you have been able to insert text into lists with AWB. I can't figure that out. AWB is ok for replacing text, but how would I insert two lines into a list? Specifically the problem I am having is creating the new lines using find/replace.

Find: "*1 × 8.8 cm (3.46 in) deck gun (220 rounds)"

Replace: "*1 × 8.8 cm (3.46 in) deck gun (220 rounds) *1 x 3.7 cm (1.5 in) Flak M42 AA gun *2 x 2 cm (0.79 in) C/30 AA guns" How do I make AWB create a new line before each *? Thank You Snowdawg (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

If you programme the AWB to replace the old text (above) with the new one, including the breaks, it should do the trick [4]. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I make AWB insert breaks after each line though? What does your replace string look like so I can compare it to mine? (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I figured it out. I was doing all of my edits within AWB from the edit box and then copying the text if it looked right into the filter section and saving it. However for some reason while it looked right there it was wrong once committed to the page. So I edited the page first and copied and pasted what looks right on the page into the filters section and saved it. They look nearly identical but somehow the breaks are now in there. Thanks! Snowdawg (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, ÄDA - DÄP. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ÄDA - DÄP. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A question for you

Hey, I've started working Alexander von Monts and I wondered exactly what material does this cover? Parsecboy (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

"This" is a four-volume biographical dictionary of all German admirals up to 1945. If need be I could send you a copy of the relevant pages. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That would be great - I'd like to hammer the article in shape for GA, if possible. Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we've emailed in the past, but I just sent you one in the (likely) event that you don't have my email address. Oh, and I've done a little tinkering with Ludwig von Henk and I have my eyes on writing up Carl Ferdinand Batsch at some point, so if you could send scans of their pages too, that'd be great. Parsecboy (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, ÄDA - DÄP. AfC submissions Random submission 3+ months 2,624 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the clasp to the Iron Cross, 1st class has been nominated for discussion

Category:Recipients of the clasp to the Iron Cross, 1st class, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Catrìona (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, ÄDA - DÄP. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, ÄDA - DÄP. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello ÄDA - DÄP! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:U-Boats of the High Seas Fleet has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:U-Boats of the High Seas Fleet. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)