User talk:Dapi89

Dapi89 is very busy in real life and may not respond quickly

Blitzkrieg FAR

I have nominated Blitzkrieg for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Peter Andersen (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hallo again

Thanks for pulling back those carefully considered Kurfurst edits; the article is still rated as a stub and I can't see it improving to a reasonable standard any time soon. My workload at uni has risen exponentially and I begrudge the enormous waste of time taken up with Kurfurst's ridiculous mindset. I hope your work is going well? Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Re He111

Thanks for your request. Unfortunately I'm pretty busy at the moment, though the article looks interesting and it's something I'd enjoy reviewing. I will certainly try to make time for it, but I can't guarantee when that'll be (and it's possible it will have been reviewed by the time I get to it). However, I'll do my best... Sorry I can't be more accommodating. EyeSerene^talk 13:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem - I've fulfilled requests before (and made them myself). I'm just short on time at the mo ;) EyeSerene^talk 16:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Offline review of Do 17

Hi, I don't consider my English good enough to do the formal review of the article but here some feedback on what I found:

1. Wrk Nr: provide an English translation and put Werknummer in italics
2. 3,850 m ( ft): The value for feet is missing
3. link those Kampfgeschwader for which we have articles on Wiki
4. the citations contain a mixture of dashes like -, – and —
5. Kampffliegershule 3 -> Kampffliegerschule 3
6. Kampfgruppes: remove the trailing s
7. Spanner: put in italics. Spanner is a peeping tom (voyeur). Maybe it is an amusing side note
8. 1941—1942 change to 1941–1942
9. litres: maybe provide a value in gallons too
10. How about using the {{convert}} template for the unit conversion?
11. Footnotes: 9.III./KG 76 I have never seen such a unit designation. Do you mean 9th Staffel in the 3rd Gruppe of KG 76?
12. Dornier Do 17 page -Aircraft of the Luftwaffe [battleofbritain.net] is dead

I keep looking. Hope this helps MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

check the citation "Wrobel 2008, page not numbered after p. 93. Schematic drawing in Appendices: "Sheet 1" the book is not listed. Strike that, the reference is listed but not in alphabetical order MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Offline review of He 111

Hi again, great article! I started reviewing here the issues I found with the article

1. link to BattleOfBritain.Net He 111 [battleofbritain.net] is dead
2. 1939-1945 change to 1939–1945
3. indentical -> identical?
4. Tha last major production -> The last major production?
5. A batch of 10 were -> A batch of 10 was?
6. Jume 210Gas -> Jume 210G as?

I continue looking. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You have two citiations called "National Archives 2000, p. 109." and "National Archives 2000, p. 112." but what do they refer to? MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on GA! Well done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Do 217 pictures

Have you tried contacting user http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duesentrieb on wikimedia? He seems to be the person responsible for uploading all the Bundesarchiv pictures. I have no clue on how to access them. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You may also want to post your question on the talk page of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bundesarchiv. Just an idea. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Belgium

Hi, yes do submit! You may want to check the dashing. I found a number of instances where the - should be a – (between dates). You may want to add a section summarizing the aftermaths of the Battle of Belgium more clearly, allied defeat in the Battle of France and German occupation of Belgium. Where there atrocities committed by the Germany as they did in World War I (Schrecklichkeit)? What type of government was instituted by the Germany and when was Belgium liberated again? MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Messerschmitt

Hi Dapi89, Talk:Messerschmitt Bf 109/GA1 has been open for 7 months. The article has 7 cleanup categories so should be delisted, please can you close the reassessement, thanks Tom B (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

de Havilland Mosquito operational history

Hi Dapi. Question regarding Alfred Schreiber's claim over a Mosquito. According to Morgan, Hugh & Weal, John (1998). German Jet Aces of World War 2. London: Orsprey Publishing Limited. ISBN 1-85532-634-5 page 16, Alfred Schreiber claimed the destruction of a No. 540 Sqn Mosquito and not over a No. 544 Sqn Mosquito. Are we sure that 544 is correct? What puzzels me is that user:Dellant changed Alfred Schreiber's article without introducing new references and now your article uses 544 Sqn. Since you reference the same sources I have done (Radinger and Schick 1996, p. 51. and Morgan and Weal 1998, pp. 16–17) you should come to the same conclusion that No. 540 is correct. At least these sources never mention a No. 544 Sqn Mosquito. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 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) 19:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Schmid

Hi again, it seems that Joseph Schmid in his position as head of intelligence of the German Luftwaffe was largely responsible for the failures of the German Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. He underestimated the capabilities of the RAF as well as the Soviet Air Force. He was also commanding officer of Luftwaffenkommando West, which was responsible for Operation Bodenplatte. Do you happen to have more material that supports this view of Schmid. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

G-1s

huh? =O Check the 109 article if they existed(its referenced to Prien). Even better, you can check the actual strenght reports for 11/JG 26 at [1]. Initially 3 Western Front Geschwadern got a seperate Hohenjagd unit with these pressurized, GM-1 109G-1s, to supplements the medium altitude 190s. Note: /R2s were lightened variants. Kurfürst (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Heligoland Bight

Question: On page 74 of Cajus Bekker's The Luftwaffe War Diaries it states that 44 British bombers were involved in the attack. It also speaks of discrepancies in reports of different sources. Do you know the background? It also states that Falck's plane was damaged forcing him to disengage. According to Bekker he did land the aircraft. Bekker also claims that of the 4 claims submitted by German pilots 7 were not confirmed. It also reads that the British lost 12 plus a further 3 were so badly damaged that they had to make a forced landing breaking up. Do your sources concur in this? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay that explains the 22/44 issue. Do you mind if I add that the RLM did not confirm 7 claims? As well as adding the bit of information regarding Falck? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That I cannot prove. At least the story about Falck sounds honest. He goes into much detail on how he had to manually lower the landing gear due to the extend of damage the aircraft had sustained. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Staffelführer

Remember that a while ago I had asked you what the difference between a Staffelführer and a Staffelkapitän was? I found a source that explained it, see Staffelkapitän. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

FAC review Werner Mölders

Can I motivate you to review the article? I believe it is a very well researched article and recently I received some help one prose. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Again about the Do-17

Dapi89, I'm currently working on the edit of the Bulgarian AF section for the Do-17 article - it's going to take a few days, as I want to cross-check every dates and numbers, and provide accurate references from the volumes I used. Mind if I send you the edit once I finish it - I'm not sure how to insert the references inthe article, and my English isn't great, so there may be spelling errors.

Could I sent it through email?

Best regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.91.146.198 (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You can leave it here if you like. Dapi89 (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long, and I wish I could have referenced it better, but I'm really lacking free time. I hope this helps and you'll manage to edit it into the Do-17 article.

Royal Yugoslav Air Force *(addittional to the existing YugoAF section)

During the Balkan campaign of 1941 Yugoslav bombers also targeted Bulgarian civilian targets, without formal declaration of war between the two states. On the morning April 6th four Do-17Kas bombed the town of Kyustendil, killing 68 civilians and ten soldiers (other sources claim 47 civilians dead), and bombed the capital Sofia twice during the afternoon and the evening, killing 28 more civilians [1, 2].

Bulgarian Air Force *(just replace the entire existing VnVV section).

In 1940 Bulgaria purchased 11 Do-17M/P-1s [3] to modernize its Vazdushni Voyski (VnVV). These were second-hand refurbished ex-Luftwaffe aircraft. They were assigned to 3/5 bombardyrovachen orlyak (3rd bomber yato, 5th bomber polk) stationed at Krumovo airfield. In the VnVV the Do-17 was given the official name „Ураган” (“Uragan”, eng. “Hurricane”). After the end of the Balkans campaigns against Yugoslavia and Greece, the Bulgarians took 15[4] ex-Yugoslav Do-17Ka/Kb-1s. These included spare parts, engines, and landing gears. The Dorniers were assigned to 1/5 bombardirovachen orlyak.[5] The Yugoslav Dorniers were used primarily for crew training.[6] In may 1942 73 yato za dalechno razuznavane (long range reconnaissance) was formed and assigned three Do-17P-1 equipped with RB-50 cameras (planes 1, 2 and 24). Later Dorniers 22 (from 3/5 orlak) and 19 (from 1/5 orlyak) were given to 73rd yato. [7] As the Do-17 was the most modern bomber in the Bulgarian arsenal both the bomber polk and the recon yato were trained in all-weather and night flying. During the summer of 1943 a further 6 Do-17M/Ps were delivered to Bulgaria, boosting the total numbers of Dorniers (including trophy ex-Yuogoslav Ka/Kb’s) to 32.

In late June 1941 a yato of 9 Do-17M was transferred to Kavala airfield and until early 1942 it performed over 300 reconnaissance flights over the Aegean Sea.[8] In the Bulgarian occupation zones of Yugoslavia, the Do 17s carried out missions against Yugoslav partisans in.[9] In November 1943 nine Bulgarian Dorniers and their crews were transferred to Kralevo airfield in Serbia in support of the German occupational forces, where they performed anti-partisan recon and bombing mission using 50kg bombs.[10] Bulgarian Dorniers were targets of communist insurgents and frequently sabotaged. Such sabotage resulted in the crash of a Do-17 during a night training mission on July 31st 1944, with the entire crew perishing. [11, 12] 73rd yato performed its first combat sortie on September 8th 1944 when Dornier № 24 performed a recon flight against positions of the Greek partisans.

In September 1944, the Bulgarians switched sides and declared war on their former ally, Germany. 1st bomber yato and 73rd long range recon yato were transferred to Vrazhdebna airfield, close to the Serbian border to support the advance of the Bulgarian and Soviet armies against the Axis forces in the Balkan peninsula. 1st bomber yato had only 14 airworthy Do-17M/Kas and 73rd yato only five Do-17P. Poor weather, low cloud cover and the mountainous terrain often forced the Do-17s to perform their objectives at very low altitudes, exposing them to heavy ground anti-aircraft fire. One Do-17M was heavily managed by RAF Mustangs, but managed to return to Bulgaria before belly landing. [13] Until November 24th the Bulgarian Dornier crews performed 362 combat sorties, the bomber pilots claimed 173 lorries and motor vehicles, 42 railroad cars, seven armoured vehicles and 10 aircraft destroyed or damaged. According to some sources the damage inflicted to the German ground forces was far less [14]. After Yugoslavia prohibited VnVV combat missions over its airspace in November, 73rd yato continued to perform courier, medical evacuation and supply missions with four Dorniers, between Bulgaria and the 1st Bulgarian Army, which had reached Hungary in December 1944. Poor weather during the winter resulted in several crashes involving Dorniers, which were recovered.[15] On Match 9th a Do-17P was shot down by Soviet La-7 fighter near Pec. After the German 1945 spring offensive in Hungary which attempted to break 1st Bulgarian Army and split the Soviet front, the old Dorniers of 73rd yato performed several more reconnaissance missions after March 11th. After that, until the end of the war, the yato continued its duties in carrying mail and army personnel.

As part of their war reparations to Yugoslavia, four Do 17Ka/Kbs were delivered by Bulgaria after the war. The machines' subsequent fate remains unknown.[16] The remaining, battle-weary Do-17s served until late 1947 when the communist government decided, as with all the other VnVV planes produced in Axis countries, the planes to be dismantled and recycled to kitchenware.[17]

[1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 17] Pelev, Yordan. Далечните полети на 73-то ято. “Air Group 2000”, Sofia, 2005. ISBN 954-752-078-4.

[2, 3, 4, 8] Nedyalkov, Dimitar. Air Power of the Kingdom of Bulgaria Part IV. FARK OOD, Sofia, 2001. ISBN 978-9549669794.

[5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16] Ciglic, Boris and Dragan Savic. Dornier Do 17 - The Yugoslav Story: Operational Record 1937-1947. Belgrade: Jeroplan Books, 2007. ISBN 978-8-69097270-8.

Operators Bulgaria Bulgarian Air Force received 17 Do-17M/Ps in 1940-1943 and acquired 15 more Yugoslav Do-17Ka/Kbs. They remained in service until 1947. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.90.234 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats a massive amount of information. I will have to sift through and select the major parts. Much of this it minute detail and cannot be included, owing to article size limitations. Unless in the future I statr a Dornier operational history article. Thanks for this, I will move on it soon. Dapi89 (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Are the bracket numbers page numbers? Dapi89 (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding bracketed numbers - No, I've included them to point the source I've used for each claim in the article above. So for example [1, 2] shows that I've used sources [1] and [2] listed below for the claim. I didn't know how to reference them in any other way using Wiki, apologies! I have another source that not listed ( "Крила на Родината"), a 1950s aviation history volume, but it's pretty much impossible to find today and it's heavily censored according to communist views, so it's not a suitable source for a Western reader and not included in the sources list.

I understand the information may be much, I even tried to keep it to a minimum - as I said, the original article was extremely inaccurate - after all, these plane were used by the VnVV for four years of warfare. Thanks for adding this to the Do-17 article!Best regards:: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.90.234 (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. What I really need is this:

• Number of Bulgarian machines (and any other Axis nations) that saw service. The book name/author/page number
• Any sort of major operation involving Do 17s from the above, again, providing book name/author/page number

If I may, it would be good if you could set up an account, that way you will have more options/tools and it will be easier to communicate! Dapi89 (talk) 11:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Time Zones

When you compare British losses against German claims do you also compare time zones? I'm wondering if a German claim between 3 and 4 PM should be compared against a British loss from 2 to 3 PM. I'm not sure if this makes a difference. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that was not exactly my point but it answers the question nevertheless. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, understood! How is your thesis progressing?

Invasion of Poland (1939)

I have nominated Invasion of Poland (1939) for Featured article review due to a number of, hopefully, resolvable issues that exist in the article. --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Marseille

Wow, that sounds interesting. Good luck MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Your reversion

Hi, I see you reverted my de-linking of the German wikipedia from within the Junkers Ju 87 article. Interwiki linking is usually only done from the left handside toolbar and interwiki linking within the article is not common practice as this is English wikipedia and links in general should point to the same language article. Also reverting a good faith edit without prior discussion is not considered good manners and is how edit wars start. If it is important that this is linked, what I will do is start the article Wilhelm Neuenhofen in English Wikipedia as a stub, with a template requesting translation form the German Wikipedia. Regards ^Khukri 17:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 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) 19:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Going offline for three weeks

Just wanted to let you know that I'll be offline for about three weeks beginning the 19th of September. If the GA review for the Do 17 isn't done by then I'll put it on hold until I get back. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet deep ops

I just reverted your revert of my edit. I'm not claiming the Soviet doctrine was based on German tactics ("Blitzkrieg"), but if someone else is, that should be sourced (not "popular belief") and the counter-argument should also be present in the article and sourced. Also, the debate over the meaning and applicability of "Blitzkrieg" is too complex to be summed up with "nebulous, so-called" -- as I'm sure you know from your extensive edits to the Blitzkrieg article. --Chronodm (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of trashing the Blitzkrieg article, how about we have an enlightening debate here instead of on the talk pages. There is no issue with that article. Everything is supported (well supported). The position that Blitzkrieg is a myth is the dominant position in military history circles. Infact the German historians are noted in their critic of 'Blitzkrieg' than anyone else. Unfortunately I only have one book written by a German author on the subject. Nevertheless, this is the way it is. Dapi89 (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you on the facts -- you're clearly much more well-read than I am on the subject. What I am taking issue with is the phrasing and level of detail. If the section in question had been written along the lines of:

Western military historians such as John, Paul, George and Ringo (ref) have claimed that the deep operations doctrine was based on the German "Blitzkrieg". For instance, in Commies: I just don't like 'em (1967) Ringo wrote:

Blah blah blah Blitzkrieg I like Nazis. (ref)

However, Soviet documents made public in recent decades make it clear that doctrine, which was codified as early as 1929 (see below), has its roots in the mobile campaigns of the 1917-1923 Russian civil war(ref), and that there are significant differences from the tactics used by the Wehrmacht in WW2, such as A, B, and C vs. the German X, Y and Z. Furthermore, the consensus among military historians is now that the Blizkrieg concept, as such, was a construction of later Western observers rather than a genuine unified doctrine. (See: What is Blitzkrieg?.)

then I would have had no complaint. As it stands, though, it is disputing an argument that hasn't (here) been made. --Chronodm (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hans-Arnold Stahlschmidt

Could you check the citations please? The citations for Shores are somewhat incomplete and I don't have the books. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

game image for He-111 section

A gaggle (not quite an orderly formation) of 111's from a game seems worthy for the topic (try to find any game image with more then one He-111). Something about image not to your liking? Cheers! Flightsoffancy (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going to replace it with a shot of a 111 from IL2. I was also thinking of using a screen shot from IL2 to demonstrate the layout of the cockpit. I'll have to check if ths is okay. Dapi89 (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A CGI cockpit image is nice, but no better then a real He-111 cockpit image. That is why I think an image showing a formation of CGI 111's would better communicate the ability to recreate the experience of being in a formation of He-111's. IN this example show the dark green camo patterns overs terrain (although not a good terrain). S! Flightsoffancy (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've commented out the above non free image. Non-free images are not allowed to be used on User talk pages.--Rockfang (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

belgium

sorry, i was going by the same sources that the original edit used (look at the excerpts at the bottom of the page), i just forgot to put the citations back in after i made my changes. sorry if it appeared that i was just adding random stuff. 98.185.138.93 (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 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) 23:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

SS Empire Beaumont

I note that you've done a lot of work on the Kampfgeschwader 26 article. Empire Beaumont was sunk by He 111s (or He 115s? according to official WWII report) from KG26. Can you use any of your sources to expand the article? Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

HMS Avenger was a member of Convoy PQ 18. This is the source that states He 115s were involved. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've corrected the article based on what you say and the KG26 article. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Do 17 GA

I've added all the information I have on the Bulgarian and Croatian use, but the page numbers from Ciglic need to be validated since I moved a lot of the older text around. Do that and I'll promote the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:KG 3 Blitz.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:KG 3 Blitz.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:KG 4 General Wever Badge.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:KG 4 General Wever Badge.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Historiography Split from Blitzkrieg Article

You have it backwards -- the historiography is to be split off. Edit your vote if you wish. Dduff442 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:109043.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:109043.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 01:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Heinkel He 111

Your response is invited on the above page following your summary removal of a valid request for citation. Thank you. Redheylin (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a "summary removal" of a ridiculous request. Perhaps you should read the artcile properly. Dapi89 (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

north africa campaing

hi, do u have a source for allied aircraft losses for the tunisia campaign ? i think u very much about aircombat so maybe u have a source. the article now says only 155 allied aircraft lost in a half year.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to both you Dapi, however the above Anon user has a habbit of overblowing things before they can be sorted. I sorted out the Allied losses around an hour before he bothered you, leaving him with plenty of time to review the new changes.

If you do have alternative figures providing lower, the same, or higher Allied or Axis losses i welcome you to add them to article but i do ask that you do add a source if you do.

Thanks for your time, Cheers.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil

Your post [[2]] violates Wikipedia's civility policy. Also the air campaign may have started before the land campaign, but as it was of less consequence it should appear later. The fate of Soviet POWs is a material effect of the Blitz.