98.113.209.140

March 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to Hamarhus because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@Materialscientist:, yes, I did not pay enough attention and over-linked, as the same link was already there in the appropriate place. Next time, I will try to be more careful. It is good that you are watching.--98.113.209.140 (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Kurt Knispel

Your contributions to the Kurt Knispel page to support the claim that he was an ace that had 168 kills, but in making that edit, you misrepresent the Franz Kurowski source. His second volume of Panzer Aces is not a source for disputing the validity of the claim, but instead is the original source of the claim. Kurowski is a noted historical fiction writer who invented fabulous claims of heroism for many Wehrmacht members, but he has been extensively referenced by numerous hobbyist historians (like George Forty, in this case). Until there is a source that doesn't lead back to Kurowski, the claim of Knispel being an ubermensch tank boy will be rightfully reverted. This issue has been discussed a few times already on the Kurt Knispel talk page. Mewnst (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mewnst:, George Forty was a respected expert. Like Forthy, Kurowski is not a primary source, as his writing, incl. the 2007 book on Knispel, is based on original German war documents describing Knispel's achievements in detail, as is of Forty. Questioning Kurowski's accuracy in this matter only, because he also writes fiction, is ridiculous. Do you know German?--98.113.209.140 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what credibility is added if the claim comes directly from Wehrmacht propaganda. Mewnst (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mewnst: What kind of propaganda was by Wehrmacht as a whole, when it was ministerial by Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW), Nazi ministry of defense or Ger. die Wehr (Ministry of the Reichswehr)? It was not by strictly military component of Wehrmacht, but above German military. So propaganda by OKW was strictly Nazi regime/government one. Kurt Knispel was not liked by the Nazis, kept only a sergeant at his highest rank, barely awarded in comparison to others, and likely anti-Nazi? What are you talking about? Please, explain.--98.113.209.140 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Not original person, but please refer to Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, which is perpetrated by people like Kurowski. 86.121.160.98 (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@86.121.160.98: You are mixing apples and oranges. Facts (the number of tank kills by Kurt Knispel or anybody else) have nothing to do with morality (the crude propaganda to hide atrocities). Your notion that because Wehrmacht committed atrocities we should not talk about their military achievements is unfounded, arbitrary, and simplistic. Why not? Double standard one for us and another for them (hypocrisy)? Totalitarian, communist, Nazi, Iranian, etc.? Have you ever heart about freedom of information (FOIL), as one of foundations of democracy in the civilized world? Do you not like FOIL? Too bad. North Korea, Cuba, China, Iran, etc. will welcome your attitude. Good luck there.--98.113.209.140 (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

What's with your aggression?

I am just stating that taking propaganda at face value or from sources that base their information on propaganda at face value isn't good when sourcing for Wikipedia. 2A02:2F00:2309:F800:551A:BB56:311C:8EFE (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@86.121.160.98: You accused Kurowski of something he did not do, as a fiction writer who thus can write anything he wants, as fiction can represent anything by its definition, like showing U.S. M4 Sherman tank winning a battle against a German Tiger I tank in an open field that was unrealistic mildly speaking, but O.K. in a feature film. Myth of the clean Wehrmacht was perpetrated by Gen. Franz Halder, Erich von Manstein, etc. and not even by Wehrmachtbericht, as they did not talk about atrocities, as not a subject for propaganda. Accusing people of wrongdoing for nothing is unethical.

And now you feed the discussion with platitudes. Platitudes do not advance discussions.--98.113.209.140 (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Time to chill over the Kurt Knispel page

You've been clear about your desires to improve the Kurt Knispel page. That's commendable in a vacuum, but talk page discussion clearly indicates your desires to push the ahistorical perspective of a clean Wehrmacht, up to and including referencing the Wehrmachtbericht as a reliable primary source ("There was never an issue of accuracy of Wehrmachtberichte") and defending the historiography of Franz Kurowski. In pushing this perspective, you've accused editors like myself of operating off of "gut feelings," not being "diligent," that I "did not researched" the matter, you accused the user Zawed of "trivializing" and "discussing in bad faith," declared that the "doubt of 2 American historians" concerning Kurowski's work is "unsubstantiated" and declared that "there is no evidence that Kurowski is skewed," you also personally reached out to the children of the Tank Museum curator George Forty in order to enlist completely unaffiliated people to push your perspective in a wiki talk page, and additionally made an unwarranted dismissal of my talk page contributions by stating that "Opinions and feelings are irrelevant, including yours," with similar statements being made against Zawed. I am asking you to cease this pointless hostility or I will consult an administrator to resolve the edit warring dispute. Mewnst (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mewnst: again, you argue using bad tricks. You referred to WP's rule in general and not where it says about pushing. The correct one is on Wikipedia:NPOV dispute#POV pushing and pertains to "denot[ing] the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas". I want to remaind you that you are pushing the major idea and not a minor or fringe one the rule refers to, namely of myth of the clean Wehrmacht to discredit the fact of 168 tank kills using the vague consideration of a myth or an opinion where opinions simply do not apply, as they have nothing to do with facts. So where is your good faith when skewing what the WP rule says on pushing done by you to push your unsubstantiated opinion inconsistently with the actual application of the rule? Please, explain.

A fact is a truth and, or you have evidence to prove it wrong, or you have nothing to disprove it. Considering myths or no myths does not apply to facts, as per formal logic, to which you need to adhere to in an inteligent discussion. Opinions do not count, including mine. To discredit an alleged fact you need another fact to contradict it. A fact and not opinion, gut feeling, etc. You need facts only and you have none. You just repeat the same unsubstantiated opinion again and again and the same though truth, but unrelated to the matter at hand.

I translated from German what German expert on Wehrmachtberichte (plural of Wehrmachtbericht) had to say. According to a relevant study by Erich Murawski, the former head of a section of a group in the propaganda Department of Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW) or Eng. Nazi "Armed Forces High Command", later archivist at West German Federal Archives, and an author on the subject from 1962, a total of 2,080 Wehrmacht reports are a mixture of sober military report and political propaganda and a secondary source that is as valuable as it is questionable. He clearly separated "sober military report" from "political propaganda". What evidence can you offer to counter that expertise that is anything, but gut feeling or opinion, and whose?

Those are solid sources good enough to be published in 1962 and 1987. You just repeat after Smelser & Davis that because Kurowski wrote fiction that his data must be unreliable. Not only without evidence in support of that opinion, but all evidence indicates that Kurowski data was accurate. And then the notion of myth of the clean Wehrmacht, though true, but having nothing to do with the matter at hand of the fact, so completely irrelevant to the discussion. You have next to nothing for a reasonable argument when everything else contradicts your position thus indefensible. And be my guest and do report me. No problem.--98.113.209.140 (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Again with this, please stop. It's your opinion that the Wehrmachtberichte is a reliable source. It really isn't. It's your opinion that Kurowski is a historian. He really isn't. Stop chanting "logic" and "expertise" and "fact" and "truth" as if it brings you any closer to a "reasonable argument." Your rudeness is unsettling. Mewnst (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mewnst: Wehrmachtbericht, as a source, and not Wehrmachtberichte, which is a plural and means Eng. "reports". It is not just my opinion, but historic conclusion based on expertise of Erich Murawski who participated in making Wehrmachtberichte and clearly stated in his published respected analysis that "a total of 2,080 Wehrmacht reports are a mixture of sober military report and political propaganda". So military reports are sober or reliable. Do you have a better expertise on Wehrmachtbericht than Murawski to discredit him? No, you do not. So, please, do stop repeating your mantra unsupported by evidence, as it became just boring.

I have never said that Kurowski is a historian, but only that there is no evidence to question the numer of 168 tank kills by Knispel mentioned by him, Forty, and Guinness. Please, do not skew my words to support your notions w/o evidence (opinions).

Nazi regime was evil, but their Wehrmachtbericht propaganda was not worse than British, American, French, etc. during wars. Such propaganda takes accurate military data and spins them as needed. That is needed when loosing. When winning there is no need to spin and such propaganda is not only based on accurate data, but also presents the situation accurately. E.g. when loosing, but a small advance is made in the morning, e.g. 100 yards or meters, and a big withdraw is forced later, e.g. 1-2 km (miles), so loosing overall, though both facts are provided by military reports, but a propaganda may announce only small morning advance and not the later withdrawal. So it did not misrepresent the facts (data), but only not reported accurately the overall situation, though without lying.

It happened during the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, and, now, Ukraine. Everybody does it to this day and that is the reality of propaganda. But communists, e.g. the Soviets, were falsifying also data and not a single word from them has been credible to this day, e.g. from Cuba, China, or North Korea. So approaching Wehrmachtbericht requires sophistication, knowledge, and neutrality. Your notions w/o evidence (opinions) are way insufficient. You cannot fix a watch using a sledgehammer also from Smelser & Davis or unrelated Myth of the clean Wehrmacht.

Actually, it is your (the IP's) position that is indefensible. The Wehrmachtbericht cannot be considered a reliable and creditable source given the regime under which it was produced. Your reasoning regarding the use of Kurowski (found that bibliography in Panzer Aces yet? Funnily enough, Smelser and Davis have an extensive bibliography in their book) is akin to a broken analog clock: just because it is right twice a day, it is OK to use it to tell the time. That is not how sourcing on Wikipedia works. Zawed (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Zawed: Your notion that [t]he Wehrmachtbericht cannot be considered a reliable and creditable source given the regime under which it was produced is so "limited" and simplistic that I will mot dignify your notions by anything else to say... ever (see above). Are you extremely not neutral, e.g. as Jewish? I will ask WP's administrators to bar you from anything pertaining to Wehrmacht.--98.113.209.140 (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

ANI Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mewnst (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Courcelles (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

UTRS appeal #76671...

was declined due to block evasion from an indefinitely blocked user. Until the block on your account is successfully contested, you personally are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Checkuser block

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this IP address or network has been used (not necessarily by you) to disrupt Wikipedia. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse.

Wikipedia tries to be open, but we sometimes must block IP addresses to prevent editing by abusers, vandals, or block evaders. These blocks can affect users who have done nothing wrong. If you are a legitimate user, follow the instructions below to edit despite the block. Users who are the intended target of a range block may still appeal the block.

IP users (without an account): If you do not have an account and wish to bypass this block, an account can be created to allow you to edit. In general, these blocks only prevent users who are not logged in from editing; once you are logged in, the block will no longer affect you in any way. Please request an account under your preferred username. It is important that you use an e-mail address issued to you by your ISP, school, or organisation, so we may verify that you are a legitimate user. If using the form, please refer to this block under "comments". If e-mailing, please refer to this block in your message.

Registered users (with an account): Please make sure you are logged in to your account. If you are unable to edit while logged in, you may request IP block exemption to bypass blocks unconnected with you that affect your editing. Post an unblock request to your user talk page.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Yamla (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

---