User talk:Parsecboy

Welcome!

Hello, Parsecboy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank for your comment

[1] You're invited to keep discussing the issue as the category being discussed - I feel too it should be included obviously. Amoruso 03:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey

I removed your comment as unhelpful. Do you really think it was helping to achieve consensus on this issue? - FrancisTyers · 13:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Bismarck

Hi, for the second time I have reverted your change of the expression "try and rescue". Your edits to strandardise this page are appreciated but this change is not necessary bigpad 18:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

517th PIR versus 517th PRCT

Thanks for your addition of some historical details to the 517th PIR page. However, when I initially created the page, I purposely left it short, with a link to the 517th PRCT page, since during their combat time, this was a combined unit. The members of the 460th PFAB and 596th PCEC were also in Italy, southern France, the Bulge, and Germany. Some of the items you added, which were copied from the 517PRCT page, do not really apply here, such as some notable soldiers who were in the 460th. The 460th was only part of the combined PRCT, not the 517 PIR.

Therefore, wouldn't it make more sense to add the history to the PRCT page only, and not with each separate group?

Also, on the "official" 517prct web site, there is a "Short History" of the 517prct, the 460th, and the 596th, each of which could be chopped up and added to the wikipedia pages. But is that too much detail?

Question, Obviously, you have some knowledge and interest of the 517th. I am curious to your relationship to them? Do you have a relative?

Bob Barrett Rbarrett3776 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

517th PIR versus 517th PRCT

Nate, I got your feedback about PIR versus PRCT. Minor differences in the history, which not many readers will appreciate, save for the members of the attached 460th and 596th. But they are probably used to the confusion.

Some day, I might copy parts of the 517 history into Wikipedia, but those histories need some rewrite to be impartial and detached.

My connection to the 517th is through my Dad who was part of H Company. For him, and his 517th friends, I set up the 517th web site (517prct.org) a few years ago. I haven't seen your name mentioned in any of the Guestbook or MailCall entries. (I can do a search on that website and its MailCall.) Who is your fiance's grandfather? Is he still alive? Does he, did he, get to any reunions?

email me directly -- webmaster@NOSPAM517prct.org -- if you want to take this conversation offline. Take out the "NOSPAM"

Bob Barrett Rbarrett3776 02:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: vandalism

Thanks for the comment. I wasn't sure if I got all of it or not; I'll check harder next time. Leebo⁸⁶ 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer

My dear Poland Had fourth army of world during World War II. I advise you supplement education about World War II :) It except you all know it. You have been compromised by your ignorance. Mahal11

• Hey Parsecboy. I invite you for conversation on my user page :)--Mahal11 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

China Hi, I wrote an answer on my page about this question. --Flying tiger 20:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Defintions

The slavs are not an ethnic group, they are an lingustic group. By your defintion we could classify all indo-europeans as one single people (ethnic group), which is about as wrong as thinking of all blacks as one nation. Second, I don't mind if you enter your text on alleged killings of slavs in china or somewhere, I'm just trying to make a point here (many groups are seldomly mentioned) and note that I've dropped the statement on Bosniaks being the second most killed group (although this is true I will not mention it, to calm your nervs somehow). Ancient Land of Bosoni

Don't get me wrong, I'm a proponent of the friendship and brotherhood of all indo-european peoples and for that matter the whole humanity. But we have to be serious and logical in conclusions about the good-hearted capacity of the humankind. By writing "alleged" I didn't mean to sound doubting, even if it did come out that way. I just haven't ever heard about any nazi killing of slavs in china, but then it crossed it my mind that you perhaps view the japanese as nazis as well (which is very strange to me). Regarding the slavs article, I don't let wikipedia tell me what's wrong and right, the article in its current shape should be immediately written - but I don't have the time neither the will to do so. Ancient Land of Bosoni

World War two

I do not see why the communist forces in China should not be mentioned and the Nationalist koumintang forces can. Please explain why it "does not belong to the list".Matt. P 20:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll agree that their forces were secondry to the Kuomintang forces, but I've noticed that the CCP doesn't appear in the general Allies list at all, which cannot be argued against when compaired to such members as Brazil or El Salvador, who are present. Matt. P 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article World War II

Hello, Parsecboy. As a prominent contributor to World War II, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:World War II, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Krellis 01:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

T-72

I edited my own comments,not somone else's. Dudtz 2/18/07 4:08 PM ET

Japanese fleet - perfect vs. relatively intact

I think I found our screw up. My source (Keegan) was talking about the beginning of May, before Coral Sea. Let's leave it your way because I think it flows better and all we have to do is keep the word "relatively".

By the way, thanks for your recent efforts on the body of the article. Haber 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

RAN in WW2

Thanks for your support. Because of the emphasis on land and air forces in the S.W. Pacific, and the limited ship-building industry in Australia at the time, the RAN was decidedly the poorest of the Australian services, although it suffered very heavy losses in proportion. It only operated three heavy cruisers during the war: Australia (survived hits by no less than six kamikazes or pieces of them), Canberra (sunk), Shropshire and; four light cruisers Sydney (sunk), Perth (sunk), Hobart (heavily damaged in 1943 and out of action for 18 months) and Adelaide (obsolete and used only for domestic patrol duties). Grant | Talk 02:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy to be of help. Most if not all of the Australian ships during the war were originally British, correct? If I recall correctly, the Australia was the first ship targeted by the kamikazes off the Phillipines in '44 during the invasion. Parsecboy 02:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"British" in the sense that the initial order had usually been made by the UK, but they were paid for by Australia before being commissioned. Shropshire was different in that it was already a commissioned RN ship, which was a gift from the UK folloing the loss of Canberra (also the inspiration for the naming of USS Canberra). Yes, Australia is the first ship known to have taken a kamikaze hit, although there were earlier attempts on US ships. There is a theory that The Aussie was so often a target because its length (630ft), if not its other features, made it look like a battleship. Cheers, Grant | Talk 03:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

France and the Holocaust

Hi Parsecboy. Just to clarify my earlier comment, which is bound to be taken out of context: French participation in the Holocaust—while thoroughly reprehensible and inexcusable—is not a clear case of the Vichy government advancing the interests and objectives of a foreign power, since the (perverse) desire to "cleanse" France of "alien parasites" was one that had taken root in the 19th century and which held wide currency in French society. In other words, the Vichy regime was itself viciously racist and anti-semitic as a product of a long tradition of French, not German, political thought. The internment and deportation of Jews can therefore be seen as the culmination of domestic desires and aspirations, not slavish obedience to the Nazi cause. Again, it's important not to confuse analysis with apology—there can be no defending the actions of the Vichy government on moral grounds. I'm simply clearing up confusion (dare I say ignorance?) regarding their ideas and motivations. But in any event, I still don't see what it has to do with the political tendencies of the French army, which are well documented. Albrecht 18:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the influence of German posturing and pressure can't be disregarded, but one revealing distinction, as I alluded to in the article, was that Laval (again, not to excuse what he did) fought tooth and nail to secure the exemption of French-born Jews. Just to highlight the fact that when French interests and beliefs ran contrary to those of the Nazis, the Vichy diplomats usually resisted to the last. This is more characteristic of a sovereign state, not a satellite or puppet state (which identifies its own interests with that of the more powerful state, i.e. Communist Poland). Albrecht 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You may want to climb down from your high horse, before your nose starts bleeding. I never said that the French don't have a history of virulent anti-semitism. My point was that the Gestapo in effect said "Go arrest those 8000-some Jews, and help us deport them to Auschwitz" and the French police came back with an extra 4000 kids, which to me (and perhaps I'm still France-bashing) seems like "doing the master's bidding". Parsecboy 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

("You may want to climb down from your high horse, before your nose starts bleeding." Excuse me?) Well, we can discuss our gut reactions to a horrible incident like this all we want, but no one's denying the culpability of those involved, so why bother? If our aim is instead to draw conclusions (for instance, on the political loyalties of French army units), then we'd better be prepared to advance arguments that are in harmony with the body of historical knowledge that's available to us. Bringing up isolated facts like these—which is what you do constantly—to make blanket statements on the immensely well-documented subject of Franco-German relations is not only bashing France, it's irresponsible. Throwing in personal threats doesn't help either. Albrecht 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Who made a threat? I'm not the one insinuating bias and ignorance with everyone who disagrees with me. Cease and desist with the ad hominems. Drawing conclusions? I thought that's what we were doing. The Vichy government's willingness to round up Jews at the Gestapo's request sounds (here's where the conclusion drawing takes place) like a master state making policy for the subservient country. These are not "isolated facts". 80,000+ French Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, at the behest of the Nazis. You casually brush off anyone who doesn't subscribe to your warped POV as a France-basher. That, if nothing else, is the height of irresponsibility. Parsecboy 20:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, in regards to the Holocaust and Vichy participation, do you think the Vichyists would have rounded up Jews had the Gestapo not been in their ear telling them to do it? Parsecboy 20:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

World War II Mediation Case

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

—Krellis (Talk) 21:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignorant propaganda?

How can a poster concerning a valid fact be ignorant? --WelshDoctor 14:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know, because it's one-sided propaganda? It has no place in Wiki. Parsecboy 14:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The article itself is one sided propaganda, are you a republican? or possible a fascist? --WelshDoctor 14:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read my user page, you'd see that I don't support the war. I guess that's too hard to do. Stop making your ignorant personal attacks, or you'll be reported to an admin.Parsecboy 14:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you remove the statement

Would you remove the statement that "Japan and not China was the true heir of classical Chinese civilization" in Pacific War if no citation is provided for a certain period of time. I seriously doubt you can find objective source to back this up. Redcloud822 20:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the statement. It just states that many Japanese at the time regarded Japan to be the cultural heir of classical China, not that it actually was or was not. I'll clarify it on the page a little more, to make it clear it was a popular conception, not fact or anything. Parsecboy 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be very helpful. Redcloud822 21:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How does the current sentence look? Does that sound more neutral? Parsecboy 21:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

re List of countries by military expenditures

The EU initially took part of the Chart by Nation section and nobody has the right to move it until the discussion on the talk page is over. Am I wrong?? Eurocopter tigre 12:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

on max headroom

Thanks for your input. I have a question under your comment at Talk:Max Headroom pirating incident, if you could elaborate a bit. — coelacan — 18:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:World War Two

First, I think this discussion would be better placed on Talk:World War II where others can give input. While whether British could or couldn't do it is an interesting matter, it is a fact that they did promise their Polish ally they would start air raids against German industry and military ASAP. See Western_betrayal#The_Phony_War (unfortunatly missing inline cits, I know - but so does your assertion that they couldn't do it at all due to lack of planes). Note also that a significant portion of Luftwaffe was tied in Poland, and assuming French would move their forces the RAF wouldn't be fighting alone. A few refs to read through: several pages, note that it stress the lack of political will over lack of military resources, same here, few sentences, this ref confirms that RAF was weaker than Luftwaffe but also notes that in Sept almost all of L. fores were in Poland and RAF had a temporary advantage it never utilised (and than there was the French Air Force, too...). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

You're English or American, right? Anyway can you help me please? Does "Probably" means like "maybe"? I must know, you see I'm Finnish and English language is not always too easy. PeTeRsòòN 17:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove

Hey, do not remove my own page text! Don't you know that? The rules of Wikipedia says this. PeTeRsòòN 18:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

List of countries by military expenditures

I need your help getting the E.U. removed from the List of countries by military expenditures since it is not a country. I see what Eurocopter tigre and giandrea are trying to do, first they put the E.U. under supernational military organizations as a compromise in order to add some legitimacy for the E.U. being on that page and then after a few weeks they just flat out list it with actual countries and gettting their little E.U. buddies to gang up on all other users so you can keep the E.U. in. The E.U. is not a country and adding it to every single list that has to do with countries is a biased NPOV. Wikipedia is not a place for people from the E.U. to air their inferiority complexes by carefully editing articles to make the E.U. seem like a country.

Europeans also have a huge inferiority complex against Americans, as they slowely discover that:

• Americans brush their teeth more than once a year.

• American women shave, do not look like men, and have vertical teeth.

• The E.U. will never be recognized as a united sovereign state, and therefore it will never be able to compete with the U.S. for superpower status.

User:Daniel_Chiswick 17 April, 2007.

Also they act like they own the article and that nobody can edit without their consent. I really need your help because they like to gang up on other members so their needs to be a group effort in order to get the E.U. deleted from the list.User:Daniel_Chiswick 17 April, 2007.