User:AchimKoerver

This user is a member of WikiProject Ships.

Wiki: unfriendly, unhelpful, illogic, inconsequent, inefficient.

Finally I found a technical solution for the long discussed citation-style-problems : the quote box. I changed SM U-92: Had I known this feature some weeks before, than all my 110 articles would be in this style now. 80 new articles created by me have been rated as start class or stub for “Military history WikiProject”, “WikiProject Ship”, and “WikiProject Germany”. But I will not spend a 3rd time overworking them all. See, what you make of it. Its enough. Ca suffit. Es reicht. I stop contributing.

Unfriendly and unhelpful: The far greatest part of the users I learnt to know here were purely negative and destructive. They spent hours in repeating time after time their arguments, without listening to mine, or even if they discuss, they do not give a single positive aspect. Some were absolutely impolite, and deleted text from my articles. I asked several times for help or a proposal, but I never got an answer, a short “Look here”, or “Check that article”. Why do these users spent so many time in negativism, why do they not change to positivism, and help save everybody’s time? Me personally I have the impression, that there is a very unconstructive and negative spirit at Wiki. I don’t want to share my ideas and visions with people like that.

Illogic and inconsequent: "Yes, son, you can do what you want here. Its freedom of expression, its real liberty here, you understand?". Yes, as long as you don’t hurt unwritten “rules” of others. You think then, that they only want to press their idea of “truth” on you. If you ask: “Yes, please, show me a link to this new rule, so that I can learn it”, they give no answer. You get the impression, that its more “feeling”, “sympathy”, “good mood” of these others. Its like parents who allow their kids to do everything they want. Its anti-authoritarian education, you know ? But quickly they make a first exception, for which they do not give an explanation: every Friday their rooms must be cleaned up. And some time later they change without explanation: now it has to be every Tuesday evening and Monday morning. And some time later … So, what do you think about this method of education? That is not an education - that is simply nonsense.

Inefficient: Its clear, that all this cacophonic stuff here is not a way to work efficiently. Too much time is spent with bickering and getting angry. Its like a kindergarden with angry childs, when the educator is absent. Sorry, I have better things to do in my adult life.

Only as a joke :-)) - If someone would like to destroy Wiki, he then would only need to hire some 5th column agents, who will register at Wiki, work under often changing names in flexible packs, and will nerve specially Newbies by deleting in their articles without giving a reason and involving them into endless fruitless “discussions”. Until they give up, like me.

One idea, for example: Let simply all users rate each others “help” with 0-5 points. Then sb with 12 ratings and 3 points in total and a contribution of 17 “ands” and “or” added and 23 deletions in others articles, but without a single article of himself, would become more friendly and constructive maybe, if he should have to consider to be locked here. Or better, he leaves. I cannot be the first one, who proposes simple things like this. Their must be a reason why things like user-rating doesn’t exist here. Maybe the believe in badly educated children ? --Hans Joachim Koerver 10:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

---

How many time they take at Wiki to make down Newbies ! And what a joy it is for them - look here - [1]. Even if they have to denounce you behind your back with obvoius lies. --Hans Joachim Koerver 18:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

---

A master of diplomacy

(Laughing) It took me some time reading your comment to AchimKoerver about his photo'ing books to include in Wiki articles[2] to realize you intended to delete the photos. What diplomacy! I must create a Wiki-award for that. (Right after I finish the one I keep promising "Kateshortforbob"). Sometimes it's really hard to slow the momentum of a new editor gracefully. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

("shoddy, illegal, and self-serving") gracefully? I don't think that word means what you think it does. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Shoddy" refers to cut-and-pasting photo captions that largely don't relate to the photo. "Illegal", his use of copyright violation material in Wikipedia. "Self-serving", two external links in each article to his own books.

At the time of my first comment on the submarine edits, I assumed good faith on the part of AchimKoerver. After discussion, and with his abuse of other editors, and especially with his (tongue-in-cheek?) suggestion on his personal page of a method to vandalize Wikipedia, I do not.

A diplomatic approach, and one calculated to limit the interchange, might have been simply to drop matters at the point AchimKoerver agreed to stop adding new articles spamming his books. However, apart from his request to have all his articles deleted, I was struck by another factor. It's the holidays, time to renew acquaintances with family and friends. To share what I've been doing this year. A regular query from my academically-disposed family is whether the information Wikipedia, in words yesterday from someone with an advanced degree from an Ivy League college, "can be trusted". It's all very well wishing that abusive, self-promoting new editors go away — but they carry their experience back to the academic community. In this case, I thought it might be worthwhile noting concrete examples to him where he has not been playing by Wikipedia guidelines, or by international law. In order, perhaps, that his academic peers could review, and discern for themselves. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh Gott, how slimy and false you are, Contre-Bass. You are telling LIES behind my back about me, that you wouldnt dare to repeat on my talk page, where all your subjective and emotional arguments went down with flying flag in discussion with me. I was more than right to stop contributing here, where this kind of spirit rules, its disgusting. Sorry, so many negative spirit, and thats before Christmas :-))) AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 11:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"his (tongue-in-cheek?)" - please forgive me, I am one of the poor 6.000.000.000 human beings on this planet, not beeing an english native speaker. Something I write may have another sense that I wanted to express. And maye reverse. So, please, be kind with me and my possible errors. Always try clear-speach, always tell it directly to me, not behind my back to others in byzantinian style. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 15:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

""Illegal", his use of copyright violation material in Wikipedia." I cite my own book here, on which I have all copyrights. WiKi thought control: War is peace, Peace is War, Copyright is Copyright violation. Nice definition of self-violation, wouldnt you like to try it out, if it works, physically, and then present the public the results here ? "(Laughing)" ;-)) AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 17:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

""Self-serving", two external links in each article to his own books.". Yes, I cite in my articles text passages from my book. To reference this I have to do a book cite link to the 2 volumes of my book. Yes, I know, for you it is a Wiki-crime. For me its scientific style. I know, you personally prefer to cut-paste text from uboat.net here, which after my experience is a solid source, but "only" an Internet page without mentioning any source or any proper source citation. If you would like to create unreferenced texts from unreferenced sites only to end up in Middle Age superstition, ok, say this clearly here. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 17:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"his abuse of other editors,". This I must tell what it is - it is a LIE. Please, a proof. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 17:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"It's all very well wishing that abusive, self-promoting new editors go away — but they carry their experience back to the academic community.", Oh yes, these damned Intellectuals ! Why couldnt one simply make them silent like under Stalin ...

"here he has not been playing by Wikipedia guidelines, or by international law." Oh, now I am also a criminal, only because I wrote articles here ?? Have you already informed ThoughtControl about this? You make me fear, so short before Christmas. All the years I have always managed to escaped undetected, but you, you are too hard for me, really, I must confess this truly! I plea for innocence ... "(Laughing)" AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 18:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

" ... my academically-disposed family ..." I assume, you must be the black sheep there, aaarrgghhh ... "(Laughing)" AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 15:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"that his academic peers could review, and discern for themselves." Your first good idea, I think. Please name me YOUR academic peers first (but no family members please "(Laughing)" ), than we bring them together and let them decide. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 18:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And once again an example of your crude logic: "[3]" First: You propose to keep the crucial content from my article - which is "shoddy, illegal, and self-serving", and a "copyright violation in itself", as you tried to show all the time. Second: You deleted all the references and external links from my last version. What is wrong with the references and the external links (I know, you as "historian" dont like this nasty stuff)? Do you think the Wiki-User has now more or less info available as in the version before ? Isnt that already objective vandalism ? Third: You type in some text from uboat.net. This is an Internet site without any named sources. Conclusion: I think we should "discuss" a little bit more, maybe this could teach you some logic and help you to get something more clear in your head. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 15:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Contre-Bass, soo much time invested in pure negativism, only to try to make down a newbie ? Why didnt you from the beginning try to propose ameliorisations to a Newbie, which you start now a little bit, after I have retired (bad conscience?). In any case its a nice devote byzantian style, in which you try now to justify yourself before the seniors. What a roaring sergent-major fun it must be to make down newbies ! Ha, ha, ha. Such, such were the joys ... You are really a great Des-tributor before the Lord. And an obvious LIER, who denounces others behind their back with non-existing or false proofs. Shame on you. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 14:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Accused as "criminal" : find the crime in SM U-19 (the "criminal" image style - the image has simply been forgotten to be deleted). Compare with SM U-92, text style. Where is the crime hidden ? AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 09:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Accused as "criminal" - a citation from the discussion with Contre-Bass: "'Wikipedia has many detractors.' Yes, I imagine. And if ME would be a software mogul with douzends of billion dollars available, than I woul hire some fifth column agents to register here and disturb any Newbie until desparation, until they retire :-)) Only a joke, no new conspiration theory ;-))" Maybe Contre-Bass felt touched somehow by this tought - could explain the emotional panic ? AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 09:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, oh, pain, pain - no answer from you, piano. So I must be totally wrong, not even worth a response. To make this good I started to bring all my articles in the form proposed by you here "[4] - I reversed all my criminal and illegal contents, references and external links. Now it is conform with YOUR standards. So you see, Piano, you get what you deserve - honni soit, qui mal y pense ;-))) So lets stop our war here and lets live in eternal christmas peace, very distant from each other. Your humble servant AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 11:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unterseebootenjagd

Looking at this, I do think it needs page numbers, & if you've got your book handy, do add them. I also think you might do better to stay off the sub pages with your own work as a source; it's considered conflict of interest. (If it can buy you a block, I don't know, but not a good idea anyhow, IMO.) If you can post a link to the original Room 40 docs, or footnote with a direct link to publicly-accessible copies (which I recall there was, at one point), you can rewrite per U-108 with the website as your source & avoid further complaints & the hazard of COI.

Let me say, if I haven't already, I'm hoping we can navigate the shoals & keep your sources, your talents, & your efforts at WP, even through the evident chaos. WP's not an orderly place all the time (as I'm sure you've noticed!), but it does have its conventions. Best advice I can offer is, take a look at other similar pages before you start something new. (Or do what I did: copy an example into your own sandbox & just change the names!) It'll be fewer headaches. Here's hoping you've not given up on WP, & don't.

That said, thanks for the greetings, & best of the holiday season to you, too, & the new year. Cheers. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC) (post scriptum Pardon my terrible faux German construction... ;D )

PPS. This is what you can do with a sandbox page (& feel free to copy that; it's got all the right fn tricks, after you fix my formatting gaffes. ;p) And FYI, I footnote everything, because I've found there are some boobs who will {{fact}} tag anything that isn't footnoted.... The consolidated format of footnotes in the sandbox page avoid long strings of the same source you get otherwise.

One last thing. Since you're still forgetting (still a bit new?), adding ~~~~ (your signature) makes replying a lot easier.... Call it one of the issues of "wikiquette" (WP etiquette) you'll need to get used to. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

---

hi Trekphiler.

• >signature: I simply used the button "Signature and timestamp". If that should not be enough, than why it is there ? Sorry, another thing here, where it is not enough to work intuitivly like everywhere else in the IT-world (since 20+ years now for me), but where you need to know some more hidden knowledge and secret insider rules ??? Why dont you simply change this button, so that it produces what is seen as required by everyone ???? All this user-unfriendliness, in-efficiency and in-transparency in the most stupid things already costs (too much) additional nerves at WP, and strenghtens the impression of an in-consequent in-professionality here!
• >Conflict of interest: So it would have been better to use for example "NotHansJoachimKoerver" as my username, to do as if I would not be the author/editor of this book, to avoid this suspicion ? I begin to understand now, why the majority of the users here have so cryptic and anonymous usernames - better to swindle a little bit from the beginning (and maybe later also?), than possibly to get a problem because of ones own naivity and believe in the good of human beings :-)) You understand now, what I wanted to say above: that the stupid Wiki rules enforce people here to get deformed ?????
  And you, Trekphiler - you are so frequently citing "Handelskrieg" - can you swear an oath, that you are not a descendent of Admiral Spindler, the editor of this book, or that you do not have shares of Mittler und Sohn Verlag, Berlin, who published "Handelskrieg", or of ThyssenKrupp, the construction company nearly 100 years ago now ?? You see, how easy it is to use this argument - or already to spread suspicions - against anything and anyone you wanted? Then a Catholic wouldnt be allowed to write an article about the Pope in Rome, a British about Irish history, an US-American about British History second half of 18th century etc etc etc. Thought-Control by suspicion. Like this you can try to dis-qualify everybody and everything. So lets forget about this very quickly, its middle-agean inquisition.
  

I cannot say that I like your latest version of the U-92 article - its now a pure "compilation" of my book (Room 40 docs) and the "Handelskrieg" facts. Ok, I understand, thats what you want at Wiki. But:

• > footnotes: I find them absolutely chaotic and un-scientific. They are in a non-sequential desorder, some same footnotes appear multiple times for different meanings etc. A user cannot verify here, what footnote stands exactly for what fact! I would have prefered here ONE single footnote: "This artice is a compilation in the responsabilty of the author aaa, based on xxx, p. nnn., and yyy, p. nnn." But as there is no alone responsible "author" of an article in the usual sense at WP like in the "traditional encyclopaedias" and no "traditional redactional team", this stays like it is now - it is a WP structural problem, its is a cacophonie!
• > clear structure: I find the structure of my latest version of this article much clearer for the reader than your plain narrative style.
• > missing details. I assume, that around 20-30% of the details present in my last version of the article have been dissapered in your version. Why - what is the gain for the reader ?
• But absolutely the main point why I dont agree with your compilation: facts. Only ONE example - "... she had sunk 22,000 tons of shipping ..." Sorry, the original text from Room 40 is " ... claimed 22,000 tons ..." Claimed, because it was U-92 who send this numbers by W/T to the German Admiralty. It was the Captain's ESTIMATION (for whatever reason) of the REAL numbers, telegraphed to his seniors before he could reach his base. This W/T was decyphered by Room 40. Exactly this I mentioned in my last version. And additonally: I mentioned the REAL sunked tons by listing the ships: some 15.000 tons, only 60% of the Captains estimation. A lot of the Room 40 and Handelskrieg is about the different numbers claimed by German (18 Mio tons) and Allied sides (12 Mio tons). It is really a difference to say "U-92 claimed 22.000" (original Room 40 citate), or to say "U-92 claimed 22.000, but sunk in fact only 15.000" (me, compiling Room 40 + Handelskrieg in my latest version), or to say "she had sunk 22.000", like you in your latest version. Thats the danger in compilations: time pressure, no detailled knowledge of the sources, haste, generalisation. I can understand this kind of errors, but I will not accept them. Its only about some numbers in submarine warfare, nearly 100 years ago, 18 Mio or 12 Mio tons sunk. Changes nothing in WWI history and result. But there are, for example only, other indifferences in 20th century history numbers, which could even nowadays bring persons in prison by only "claiming" wrong numbers.

So please, Trekphiler. I really beg you ("Ich bitte dich herzlich") to revert your changings and to re-activate my last version. Even if the author of an article here has (only) the same rights than any other contributor/compilator - I have invested some 10 hours times in mocking up this article, and I would find it absolutely unfair, to find this overwritten with sth so unsatisfactory to me like explained above. If sb else should want to buy my Room 40 book (clear conflict of interest here !:-) and try to get all 5 Vols. of "Handelskrieg" and learn a little bit German, so please : 350 subs, 2-5 hours work to create a compilation for each in average, maybe. Nice project for a passionate pensionist with a lot of time. --Hans Joachim Koerver 22:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)