User talk:Capt Jim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Baxil 02:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

BAXIL TELLS IT LIKE IT IS YEAAAAAAAAAHCapt Jim 22:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Franklin Delano Roosevelt on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Gdo01 04:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

WHY DID YOU DELETE THAT

THAT WAS A SOLID FACT Capt Jim 04:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop hand.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Gdo01 05:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


HEY

DUDE

HEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Capt Jim 23:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

break stuff?[edit]

did you really break things when you noticed no name tags on the bdu? maybe you should switch to decaf. there are a lot of flubs like that in movies. Keltik31 22:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Harold Saunders (actor)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Harold Saunders (actor) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Harold Saunders (actor)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Harold Saunders (actor), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Saunders (actor). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam War in film[edit]

I am now converting the list into a table.
You are more than welcome to participate in doing so.
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Mokra[edit]

Yes, I believe the neutrality check was there mostly because there was a one-time editor involved. As to English-language literature (I assume you don't read Polish, do you), I'm not sure. The best general source on Polish defence in 1939 is "Polskie siły zbrojne w II wojnie światowej", a monumental monograph on Polish armed forces in WWII published after some 50 years of research by the Sikorski Institute of London. Vol. I part II (did I mention it's that monumental?) covers all battles fought between September 1 and September 8. There's also a couple of decent monographs on Pomorze Army, among them "Armia Pomorze 1939" by Ciechanowski is perhaps the best known (alas not flawless). As to general English-language books, I'd recomend Steven Zaloga's "Poland 1939: The Birth of Blitzkrieg". It's nowhere near as detailed as Polish-language monographs, but it's a good read and gives a pretty good overview of what was happening. And the author did consult Polish sources, which actually helps :)

As to Montcornet, I remember there's a mention of it in Guderian's memoirs, and of course there's plenty of info in De Gaulle's own memoirs (vol. I if memory serves me). If you read French I might be able to find more sources, though I can't say I read them (my French is far from perfect). //Halibutt 09:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

August 2011[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Cognate247 (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Monsanto / Blackwater[edit]

Hi, I found the orginal source on the Monsanto's ownning Blackwater - Jeremy Scahill's article in The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/article/154739/blackwaters-black-ops?page=full), there's much more interesting information about both companies (for example: "Blackwater [...] offering to provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm"), but I'm not the english native speaker, so I don't want to edit article by myself. Could you please write there something more about this problem? Thank you in advance. 195.150.129.185 (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert E. Lee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Pope (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Lenino may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Nikolayevka[edit]

Hello. You have changed the result of Battle of Nikolayevka to Tactical Axis victory. Can you explain your reasoning? Because having 2 divisions wiped out and the third one losing over 70% of its strength in an encirclement is hardly a tactical victory. It's a total defeat. D2306 (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Reading the article I'm under the impression that most of the losses are from the second phase of Operation Saturn, and the actual battle of Nikolayevka did not begin til 26 January despite what the infobox says. So the overwhelming majority of the Axis losses would have been suffered during Operation Saturn, not in the battle for Nikolayevka. Nikolayevka is the site of one of the few successful Axis breakthroughs during the Soviet encirclement. Thus it may be viewed as a minor tactical victory in a campaign that was overwhelmingly a Soviet success otherwise. As you say, two divisions were wiped out and another lost 70% but the overwhelming majority of this would have occurred in the previous 13 days and not just at Nikolayevka. There, a breakout allowed the remaining 30% or so of the Italian alpini, plus some German and Hungarian stragglers, to escape. Of course, in light of their previous horrible losses this does not constitute much more than a local victory in the midst of defeat on the rest of that front; it saved them from annihilation, but by then there wasn't a whole lot left to annihilate. The Italian wiki page supports this reading, and also the conclusion that it's a tactical victory for the Axis. Let me know what you think about this. Capt Jim (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I get the opposite info from reading the article. The battle began on January 13. The article states "The Italian 8th Army's Alpini Corps [...] were at this point largely unaffected by the Soviet offensive". The "Battle of Nikolayevka" basically being a name made by the Italian commanders after the war for the part of operation soviet offensive that concerned the last Aplini corps. The Soviets themselves referred to this operation (inc. the destruction of the Hungarian 2nd Army) as Ostrogozhsk-Rossosh offensive. We could narrow down the artcile to just the single small engagement near Nikolayevka, but then most of the article will become irrelevant. And even then, "tactical victory" is really stretching it, as even the massive 1941 encirclements had engagements where a few thousand men would escape, but they don't get called "tactical victories".

The net result of the battle was the destruction in just 2 weeks of the Alpini Corps (and the Hungarian 2nd Army if we look at the wider operation).D2306 (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that sentence, sorry about that. Your view definitely makes more sense, and I suppose I was a bit biased in my conclusion that it was a tactical victory because every other language wiki's got the same result.

Another thought about the article: shouldn't the Soviet forces infobox then be changed or at least altered to say that 6000 men was the number of forces present on 26 January and not the entire two weeks? Capt Jim (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, we cannot not use other wiki pages as sources. Besides, there are only 3 other language wiki pages: the Portuguese article is a stub, the Japanese article calls it "Tactical victory of the Italians, strategic victory of the Soviets", the Italian wiki limits to the 1 day engagement and calls it "success of the remaining Axis forces, who manage to [... ]escape the encirclement and annihilation"
As I said earlier, we could narrow down the article to just the single small engagement near Nikolayevka, but then most of the article will become irrelevant. We would also struggle to find sources about the details of this smaller battle, besides the 1960-s memoirs of Italian commanders there (which not reliable sources). The Soviets did not view the 26 January engagement as worth mentioning, focusing on the wider offensive. They could be biased, but Glantz too does not even mention it in his book on "After Stalingrad", only talking about the larger offensive. If anything I feel the article should be expanded, so we cover the wider operation in more detail and get to use more reliable sources.D2306 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I know we can't, it was a regrettable lapse of judgement on my part. I'd agree that we should expand it to cover the rest of the fighting, and if you know of any decent sources on the wider operation (unfortunately I've read none that come to mind that go in-depth on this particular operation) then by all means go ahead and get started on it - and let me know about them too and I'd be glad to help. Plus, I could use some interesting reading anyway. Capt Jim (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Axis powers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Habbaniya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Adrián Woll may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Category:Mexican generals]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Franklin Pierce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Seward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 19:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mladen Delić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Croatian Home Guard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paramilitary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hans von Luck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siege of Warsaw (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 394th Infantry Regiment (United States), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Presidential Unit Citation and Distinguished Service Cross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward A. Carter, Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distinguished Service Cross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Herman Bottcher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Aitape (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kurmuk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East African Campaign. 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) 09:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Royal Italian Army may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [[Mahdist War|Mahdist War (1881-1899]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Polish September Campaign[edit]

Thanks for letting me know. As I noted on the talk page, the Northern and Southern Front sections are pretty much arbitrary. In 1939 the situation was so chaotic that while most forces were in theory assigned to either front, in practice a large part never took part in coordinated war effort with this or that front. That said, battle of Lwów definitely falls into the Southern Front (that's where the Southern Front was trying to break through to before it was stopped at Tomaszów). Good spotting :)

The case of Kock is a tad more complicated. The Independent Operational Group Polesie was initially part of the Northern Front and was tasked with screening it from the east. However, after Brześć, the fall of Warsaw and the Soviet invasion, the unit fought pretty much in isolation, outside of the command structure. I'll add it to the Northern Front, even though the battle of Kock took place in the area that was part of the Southern Front's theatre soon before that. It's arbitrary though and we could go either way I believe. We could even create another sub-section, though I believe the template is long enough as it is. //Halibutt 10:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

American Expeditionary Forces
added a link pointing to Battle of Cambrai
Asian and Pacific theatre of World War I
added a link pointing to Kingdom of Siam

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Buna Capt. Bottcher[edit]

hello...esteban here, I have done most of the research and compilation of original material for Hermann Bottcher project. drop me a line. Love to chat. i m not good at wiki world and have trouble contacting folks out here.

missionpurisima@gmail.com

Belgium?[edit]

What does Belgium or the Belgian Congo have to do with the Burma campaign, the Madagascar campaign, or the East Africa Campaign? --Yaush (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Belgian and Congolese troops fought in East Africa. A medical unit, 10th (Belgian Congo) Casualty Clearing Station, served under British command in Madagascar and Burma. For more info take a glance at Belgian Congo in World War II under the Military Involvement section. Capt Jim (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I believe this is significant enough to include these articles in the categories you've placed them in. --Yaush (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I can see what you mean for Madagascar and Burma, it is pedantic in retrospect now that I look at the other categories so I will revert those two. However, I would say that for East Africa it is definitely significant enough considering there were several thousand Congolese troops fighting there. Capt Jim (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)