User talk:Dapi89

Happy New Year

MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Belated Very Merry Happy New Year!

I don't know how I missed !Belated Happy New Year !

Perseus71 (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dornier Do 17

It looks like there's something funny going on with the page or the server- it gave me an edit conflict with myself!Nigel Ish (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

re:Battle of Drøbak Sound

Hi there. Happy New Year. This battle was a disaster for the Germans, as their plan had been to knock out the Norwegian government on 9 April. They failed in this and Norwegian resistance continued for two more months, not one. Also, this task force never captured Oslo, that was done by German airborne forces. That's why the battle is listed the way it is listed. This is an extremely common mistake people make, to assume that "Norway was occupied by the Germans on 9 April 1940", which of course is nonsense, there was still a 2-month Norwegian Campaign to be fought before the Norwegian mainland (excluding distant Norwegian islands in the Arctic) capitulated and the Norwegian Royal Family and government evacuated to the UK. Manxruler (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Not just the Royals escaped due to this battle, but also the entire Norwegian cabinet, the Norwegian Parliament and the national gold reserves. Hence, "decisive". Manxruler (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:He1112KG26.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:He1112KG26.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Helmut Rosenbaum

Are you referring to the error in the info box? If yes, than I fixed this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Do 17 & He 111

First quick scan:

1. no Wiki linking of dates anymore.
2. timeframes such as 1941-42 must use the – resulting in 1941–42
3. Every first occurance of an abreviated term such as RAF, KG 76 must be converted to Royal Air Force (RAF), Kampfgeschwader 76 (KG 76)
4. I would like to see more emphasis on production. Maybe you have information about factory output per year, conditions such as forced labor, etc.
5. there is a mix of units. Sometimes the article uses the metric units first and the imperial units in brackets and then again vice versa.
6. Personal opinion: Too much emphasis on combat performance. The article is about the plane not individual missions or campaigns. Use this information only to illustrate that the plane was well suited/not suited at all.
7. I find the picture of the He 111 in Africa misplaced in the subsection about the Battle of Britain. Can this be moved?

MisterBee1966 (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I am not saying that combat performance is irrelevant. It just should be in the right proportion, I think. I feel (again this is my personal preference) that if I would want to look up an airplane on Wiki I would be interested in performance, design, comparison to compatible types of the era, production, influential factors and people, customers, and costs. I think this information should stick out and should not be hidden behind its combat performance. Have a look at the F-4 Phantom II article. I think this article does a good job on balance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ju 87

Sure I will have a look later. Gee, you make it sound like that my opinion is the law. It is just my opinion and no more and no less and not black and white. It is up to you what you make of it. So please don't get upset when I think an article may be leaning a bit into one direction. I am not citicising you. If you think that I have a point than go with it and make the the changes you deem necessary, if not, ignore it. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a question/remark regarding the expanded Production subsection: You wrote "By the 1 September 1939, 360 Ju 87As and Bs had been built by the Junkers factories at Dessau and Bremen" - I know of Junkers factories in the Dessau area but not in Bremen, should be Weserflug there. "The Weser plant at Dessau experienced production shortfalls" - Now it's the other way round - I never heard of a Weserflug factory at Dessau - should be only Junkers there. Weserflug was in Bremen, later also in Berlin Tempelhof airport. Please verify with your sources.--Denniss (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Very nice article, a few comments

1. no Wiki linking of dates anymore.
2. Every first occurrence of an abbreviated term such as RAF, USAAF, StG, etc. must be converted to Royal Air Force (RAF) …
3. Diving procedure should not be a subsection of Ju 87 Variants
4. I always thought that the principle idea of dive bombing was derived from the Curtis Hawk that Udet tested. This might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article
5. It's Berlin-Tempelhof not Berlin-Templehof
6. I believe linking of headers like “Invasion of Poland” should be avoided. Better to use the template:main instead
7. I find the subsection about the Eastern front quite large. Can it be broken up into further subsections?
8. I'm not sure if this is a valid questions to ask. Do you know anything about the total number of combat missions flown by the Ju 87? It may be indicative of the combat performance. Just a thought I had. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Heinkel Knight Cross recipients

Not directly! The archives list a Knight's Cross recipient in conjunction to rank, function and unit the award was earned in. From this information one could derive those pilots and airmen that flew the Heinkel, Junkers or any other type. But I don't have a direct mapping to aircraft type. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Sources

Thanks for the link. My problem is that currently I am on the road a lot of times. I could buy the books but I'll be forced to leave them home which won't help. This is why I am relying online sources more. Hope that clarifies a bit. Perseus71 (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How did you manage this?

Over the last couple of weeks I have been consistantly seeing a Peugeot 407 with the mumberplate "DAP189" - when did you move to this side of the world? :) Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Walter Nowotny

I am not attracting much attention on my review request. May I ask you to have a look at the article? Thanks. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

honors

		The WikiChevrons
		To honor your effort on all the hard work that went into the Ju 87 article MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Josef Priller

Are you sure about your last changes to the article? Berger states that Priller and his wingman flew the only two missions against the Normandie beach head on 6 June 1944. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Goring-hermann.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Goring-hermann.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

aviation expert?

the battle of kursk has absurd figures of aircraft downed for both sides. is it possible that u cite bergstrom or somethingelse ? i changed the figures with german write offs but this was changed again. i ask u cause it seems that u are speacialist on aviation

hi dapi, i can read! english "very" good . i noticed already why they wrote 3000 aircraft downed . but to cite an overclaimed source in WIKIPEDIA is in my opinion totally absurd . Russian claims of this time are LIES and PROPAGANDA and 60 years after this they have a board : WIKIPEDIA . this is absurd for me .... when u want to show how overclaiming works then an article about this would be a good idea.

The reader checks the infobox , cause it should be a fast overview , and sees the numbers and he will think this is correct. accidentally everyone who wants this absurd numbers comes from "sovietarea" . interesting ... .

not everyone will play the game : "lets check if this numbers are serious or overclaimed" , they want to see numbers ...

can i go to prokhorovka articel and can write there 600 Tigers destroyed and 400 Phanters , cause soviet claimed this for nearly 50 years ?

when i want to show examples for overclaiming the red army is a good place for research but i think there is no place in infoboxes for propaganda... . with respect thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by HROThomas (talk • contribs) 17:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

i will stop editing english articles, most people only want to show their side in a good light. its the same with articles about western front. on western front english guys cite books written by soldiers!! from 47!!! . the write on the normandy page that 1 million germans fought in this area this is absurd everyone with knowledge knows this.

if russian sources are normaly wrong then they should not be cited .... they should not even been mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HROThomas (talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

yes the english wiki is the wiki with 3000 german aircraft downed at kursk and the english wiki is the wiki where 1 million germans fought at the normandy. the english wiki is the wiki with propaganda figures "to show overclaiming" . German wiki articles about second world war are most based on sources of german history research ministery. Look the article of the batte of the bulge , the infobox is total bullshit ... . Look battle of seelow heights this are the soviet propaganda figures of casualties . everyone knows but some russian will always change it. i can show dozen of examples ... .

only 1200 aircraft soviet aircraft destroyed on soviet kursk ^^ . thats history...

on english wiki the 60 years old russian propaganda becomes fact against... —Preceding unsigned comment added by HROThomas (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Help Identify Image

Hi Dapi,

Can you identify

emblem for me ? Its obviously a bomber Geschwader on Eastern front in 1941. I pretty much know all the Jagdgeschwader emblems but not bombers. See if you could at least make a guess. Or else I go back to my favorite haunts of the Internet for help.

Cheers

Perseus

I knew you'd get it right. I knew I was going to the right Person! Thanks a lot ! Perseus71 (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

File:Yellow warning.png

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

PhilKnight (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)