User talk:Gunbirddriver

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia that even idiots can edit.

Cycling (road) pictogram.svg This user is a member of
WikiProject Cycling
Symbol support vote.svg This user helped promote the article Greg LeMond to good article status.
Symbol support vote.svg This user helped promote the article Battle of Prokhorovka‎ to good article status.
Symbol support vote.svg This user helped promote the article Battle of Kursk to good article status.
Waricon.svg This user is a member of
WikiProject Military History.
FA-22 Raptor cropped.jpg This user is a member of the
Military aviation task force
of the Military history WikiProject.
Symbol support vote.svg This user helped promote 3 good articles on Wikipedia.

Enewetak Castle Nectar video discussion[edit]

Lew Sheen (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Gunbird - Thanks for your recent wise words for me - I sincerely appreciate them. Please visit the Enewetak Atoll page for an in-depth response.

I tried drilling down on this one to get to an answer, but it is more difficult than I thought. What assurance do we have that the image we are looking at is the nuclear test explosion that it is labeled? Should be straight forward, but these were all classified for some time and it seems the identifiers had become somewhat muddled by the time of the image release. I'd like to get it identified correctly. The intermediate sources from whence the images were loaded up onto wikipedia are sometimes conflicted. It would be best to find the original image from the national archives. That should provide us with the expositive identification.Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

On another note, I see you are a military aviation history buff. You may be interested to know that my father, Lewis B. "Mike" Sheen was a pilot in the ETO during WWII - flying the infamous B-26 Martin Marauder from England and then forward bases in western France from shortly after D-Day. His aircraft - tail no. 41-31647 - was called the 'Secksma Sheen' and flew many missions before being totalled in a landing accident late in the war. You can find much info on this aircraft on the web, if you'd like I can do some research and send you some links.

Hey, thanks for pointing that out. I looked over the images and read a story or two. 'Secksma Sheen'. My own father flew primarily as a tail gunner in a B-29 off Tinian in the Pacific. I've got a photo of Dad and his crew, and a few stories of adventures in far away places. Perhaps my Dad's strongest memory was the long voyage home. He would have much preferred flying in their plane back, but the wisdom of the Army Airforce was to bring my Dad back stateside in the veritable slow boat from China, stacked six high in shallow bunks so tight he could not roll over. Though he had means, he would never take a cruise. Said after that he never wanted to travel by sea again. Take care. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...[edit]

Bolas navideñas.jpg FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and Merry Christmas to you, Bzuk! Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge & War Dept Film Bulletin 184[edit]

Hello -

Can you recommend both a good book about the Battle of the Bulge that tells some personal stories of the men involved on the American side, but also contextualizes it in the greater scope of the war (and overviews the campaign); and also a good documentary of any length (prefer 20min or longer) in English on the Ardennes Offensive?

You might find this video of interest, by the way - but be prepared, it does not pull-punches.

War Dept Film Bulletin 184: Psychiatric Procedures In The Combat Area (1944)

Disturbing WWII PTSD film. Graphic.

Description from National Archives: "Reel 1 stresses the emotional strain of combat, showing battle scenes. Psychoneurotics await evacuation; a psychiatrist interviews a soldier; and men exercise at a rehabilitation center. Reel 2, combat fatigue cases are reconditioned by battle training. A psychiatrist interviews a Corporal suffering from reactive depression. A chronic anxiety case is interviewed and then sent to a clearing station. Men await further psychiatric interviews. Reel 3, the corporal is re-interviewed; he shows improvement and is encouraged. Men engage in sports and listen to records at the center. Reel 4, an injection trances a hysterical amnesia patient. A doctor recreates the battle situation that caused the amnesia. The patient answers incoherently but begins to remember the repressed events. Reel 5, on awaking, the patient is led to repeat his recollections. Another hysteria patient tries to talk but cannot. A disturbed pseudopsychotic, imagining himself on the battlefield, grovels on the floor to protect himself from shells. Recovered patients assemble at a neural-psychiatric clearing station."

National Archives Identifier: 24564

Thank you for your time. HZ4w0uYd{©hat} 07:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! I have not made much of a study of the Battle of the Bulge, and so I am afraid I cannot help you. Editor Sturmvogel 66 (talk) is an excellent editor with broad experience. He might be a good resource on this one. Either that or look at the relevant article's history and find who the major contributors are. You can find them at the top of the article history page under the link for "Contributors". One of those editors would probably be able to point you to a good source. W.B. Wilson or Binksternet might be good bets. Best of luck! Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

7th Panzer division[edit]

Christwelfwww (talk) 29 March 2014 Hi, looks like we are both editing 7pd page, very happy for your support, German unit pages are often a bit niche. I agree with moving materiel out of the intro, I got allot of the French fighting from the Rommel page. I would like to change this statement Through 1944 and 1945 the division was decimated in a series of defensive battles across the eastern front To say the division was decimated I think simplifies too much its condition during this time. In fact the division was rated combat worth I, the top rating in the summer of 44 and again in the winter. I have therefore changed decimated to continuously engaged.

Okay. I appreciate you giving me a heads up. One source I was looking at spoke of how the division's strength kept dropping through 1944, until it was little more than three battalions in combat effectives. This is consistent with Hitler's desire to keep adding new units to give the appearance of greater strength for political purposes and to "deceive" the Soviets, which did not work and is commented upon by Hermann Balck and Heinz Guderian. Thus line units, instead of getting their needed replacements to maintain their combat effectiveness, kept getting weaker and weaker, while the replacements were thrown into combat without the benefit of experienced troops around them, such as what happened with the 25th Panzer Division. Anyway, those were all good additions you made, I just thought the lede should be brief relative to the article so I tried to shift that material you added down. We're getting closer. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive comments, its been a pleasure to edit a page in a co operation, so much more momentum!
My descriptions are based on research, but I think sometimes my prose can be a bit clunky, so happy for revisions.
The mk IV image near Viazma has a tactical marking from anther unit, as we have lots of images I think that one should live on its own unit page. Do you agree?
Thanks Christwelfwww (talk) 04 April 2014

Greg LeMond strange statement requiring review of experienced editor[edit]

Hello. Would you please review the first subsection of business interests of Greg LeMond and note this:

"In 1990, LeMond founded LeMond Bicycles to develop robotic machines for himself that would also be marketed and sold to the public. The following year, searching for an equipment edge for Team Z at the 1991 Tour de France, LeMond concluded an exclusive licensing agreement between his company and Carbonframes, Inc., to access the latter's advanced composites technology"

Surely that must be an error, no? JDanek007Talk 00:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think somebody vandalized the page and we just didn't catch it. It is corrected now. Thanks for the heads up. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

To you and yours


FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear Gunbirddriver,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Thanks so much Bzuk! Same to you and your family!! Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Group Notes[edit]

Hello GBD,

I finally made an account, formerly 79 :) If you don't mind, I have a question concerning Group Notes; I'll tried to add it here but it doesn't seem to work, at least, the Note doesn't show up. Could you please drop an eye over there to give me some hints how to fix it? Many thanks, regards Bouquey (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I've observed that the same happend here too, unfortunately. I'm sorry to disturb you with that kind of request. Thanks in advance Bouquey (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Problem solved, I've done it myself via ReferenceBot. Regards Bouquey (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that! All the notes had to use the same identifier. Your fix came in just as I was completing mine, so there was an edit conflict. I over-road yours because I had buffed the wording slightly, moved the notation to the end of the sentence(preferred), and changed the format for the references to one I am more familiar with. None of the changes I made were all that important. If people like the reference section in the other format that is fine with me. So you basically worked it out on your own. Excellent! Anyway, drop by for questions or what have you any time. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, no worries! I hope I could describe the discrepancy. I don't mean to cast doubt or harm Mr. Zalogas research and reputation, but it seems that he made an error and comparing the Panther's range, which seems measured at 30° to the penetration data of 90° from the IS-2. If we take same equation, the Panther's gun could according to (WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery p.61 with KwK 42 and KwK 36 in comparison) have the possiblity to take out the early IS-2 aswell from 1000 m at 90° when aiming at the upper driver front of 120 mm, scheme showing early IS-2 and late IS-2 (~138 mm effective armor). So that comparison by Mr. Zaloga is unfavorable, thats I why I wanted to make that note. Thanks Bouquey (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
According to the table, he could have said it. Apparently when commenting in the narrative he was just comparing the two heavy tanks. Looking at the table I was surprised to see the penetration on the Panther's 75 - it really was slightly better able to punch through armour than the 88 at all except the most distant ranges. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi GBD, I have exactly the same thoughts when I read his narration. The german intelligence document I've found, gives the range of approx. 500 m (at 30°) for the 7,5 KwK 42, 8,8 KwK 36 and Pak 43 at once. However, if you want to read more on the subject I recommend to have a look into WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, which is freely aviable on the digital liberary platform Regards Bouquey (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your additions to Evacuation of East Prussia[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to give you my thanks for adding relevant information regarding the crimes perpetrated against German civilians in the Soviet occupation of East Prussia. Your work is appreciated by all of those who, whether through familial relationship or plain historical curiosity, seek information about this dark topic. (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

227th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)[edit]

Hi there. Could you please look at the following words which, if I'm correct, were added by you? As part of the X Army Corps of the 18th Army, it participated in the advance through Enschede and Deventer, and helped to capture the fort at Pannerden and the break through the Grebbe line. After the crossing of the Leie the division advanced through Ghent, Zwolle and Amersfoort. Shortly thereafter came the capitulation Holland.

I already took the liberty of replacing "Holland" with "the Netherlands" as the first is incorrect. I'm puzzled by the route this division took, as described in your text; Enschede - Deventer is logical, Pannerden next is possible. But did they advance to Ghent, Belgium next only to return way up North to Zwolle, which is not that far from the already "visited" Deventer? Did they really cross the Leie near Ghent, or was it possibly one of the waters near Gendt (close to Pannerden) instead? I have no sources to look this all up, but perhaps you have. Fnorp (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's see here now, that was when I was doing work on Alfred Becker and Edgar Feuchtinger, and I believe the information came from Samuel Mitcham's "German Order of Battle Volume One: 1st thru 290th Infantry Divisions in WWII", Mechanicsburg, PA : Stackpole Books (1985). I believe I found a link to it off either the Russian Wiki or the German Wiki, more likely Russian, but it is all a bit hazy now. The division's movements and battles fought filled out the picture and gave background for why Becker would be trying to get the men from his artillery regiment transferred from Lake Ladoga to work with him at the Hotchkiss works near Paris. Anyway, I did not have the book in hand but was reading it on line. I will poke around and see if I can find that link. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, here it is. A link to a German web unit description titled "Lexicon of the German Military" was found on the Ukrainian wiki page on the 227th Infantry Division. The link brought me to this page in German, which was translated with Google Translate.Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, that was part of it anyway. Two years ago I was gathering information on the unit from a number of locations, some of which were in foriegn languages, but reading through the translation of the page listed above I realize now that it was only one of the information sources. I should have cited them all, but this wasn't really what I was working on, so I just filled in what I had learned and left it at that.Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! It's really a complicated puzzle. I presume that Leie is actually an error, the division cannot have possible crossed it first and then reach Amersfoort just before the capitulation of the Netherlands. To complicate things more; M39 Pantserwagen says the division was in South Holland at that time, while Alfred Becker says it was still in Amersfoort. For a division that lacked vehicles, it can't have moved that fast. Fnorp (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I found this route: Hengelo (near Enschede), Zutphen, Lunteren, Scherpenzeel, Amersfoort, Rotterdam-Delft area, Gent, Le Havre. That makes much more sense. See this link in Dutch. Fnorp (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I had the wrong Ghent (should have been Gent). You have it correct now. Very good! Gunbirddriver (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

French invasion of Russia[edit]

I am trying to clean up the citations in the article French invasion of Russia.

In September 2013 you made an edit to the article in which you cited "Caulaincourt p. 112", was the edition you were using the same as the 1935 edition in the long citations? If so please add 1935 to the short citations or if it was to a different edition please add the edition to the References section and add the year to the short citations. -- PBS (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I will pull it from where it is stored and fix that. Should be done by Tuesday. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. -- PBS (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe my edits are sourced correctly now. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


Million award logo.svg The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Battle of Kursk (estimated annual readership: 500,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 08:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Nice Work![edit]

Bundesarchiv Bild 101III-Zschaeckel-206-35, Schlacht um Kursk, Panzer VI (Tiger I).jpg Kursk Barnstar
For your invaluable work in getting Battle of Kursk to GA. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You've been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gunbirddriver reported by User:EyeTruth (Result: ). Please consider responding there. An admin who considers your overall pattern of edits may get the impression that Battle of Prokhorovka will never get to FA status so long as you are participating. Of course, the other editor's claims about you may not be correct, so your response would help. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I hope that the discussion at AN3 will clear the air. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Call to Battle of Prokhorovka[edit]

I've started a discussion on the talkpage. EyeTruth (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Request your attention[edit]


May I gather your attention on the topic to the Equipment losses in World War II?

User Thaiduong123 persisting with disruptive edits for an edit-war. The editor is also enganging on revisionism to a cited content: 1, 2, 3, 4 - while the source for the tank exchange ratio is unambiguous: Zaloga, Ness: The Red Army Handbook 1939-1945 p. 118 (see image) Also, the additional table the editor have provided, seem to be very inadequate and incomplete.

Need your support, thanks. Regards Jérôme. Bouquey (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thaiduong123 appears to have withdrawn the revision to the cited content, apparently after my request to you and Irondome: 1 However, the point to the disruptive edits still stands, how should I proceed? Thanks, regards Bouquey (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the back and forth on the page, you acted correctly. Bold edit reverted, then when added back you reverted again and requested the discussion be taken to the talk page. The other editor appears to be somewhat new to the process, and kept re-reverting. In point of fact he broke the three revert rule and you could ask for a sanction on the AN/3RR Noticeboard, but it seems the other editor realized finally what your criticism was and corrected it? If so I would leave it go, as no Administrator would want to be involved if the issue is resolved, 3RR or no. It might be useful to go to his user talk page and say something to the effect of "I saw your additions to the Equipment losses in WWII page. What I was trying to point out was there was a problem with the information you were adding. I see you caught the gist of what I was saying and the page looks fine now, but in the future if another editor reverts your editions it is best to discuss it on the talk page rather than revert back and forth. This helps to avoid conflicts between editors" or something like. We want to encourage other editors to contribute and guide them toward helpful interactions. From what I can see you pretty much have already done this. I have placed this same response on your talk page. Best regards.Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello GBD, thank you for your valuable and sincerely advice, I'd really appreciate that. It bothered me a bit that the other editor refused to talk. Either way, I'm glad that the conflict has resolved itself, somewhat. However, what do you think about the additional table? For me, those are too low and incomplete, as the editor himself acknowledge with a clear footnote below it. Anyway, I'll let it go. Thanks again, best regards Bouquey (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Random act of kindness. Pass it on! GABHello! 21:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

MilHist FA/GA discussion[edit]

HI, just a quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that you may be interested in. K.e.coffman (talk)

1961 New York Yankees season[edit]

Your edit here[1] added to the article that Andy Carey was sent by the Yankees to the Angels in May 1961. That's totally untrue. Carey by then was playing for the Kansas City A's. In fact lower down the article reads- May 8, 1961: Lee Thomas, Ryne Duren, and Johnny James was traded by the Yankees to the Los Angeles Angels for Bob Cerv and Tex Clevenger....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Gunbirddriver. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Greg LeMond!![edit]

Hey dude, not sure if you're still around, but wondering if you'd be interested in resuming work on Greg LeMond in pursuit of FA-status? I suspect I'll have a lot of time over the next 6 weeks or so and would love to pair up on it, since we seemed to work well on it before. Let me know, either way, when you have a chance. Cheers. joepaT 02:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey, joepa! Good to hear from you. I have been pretty busy at work and have not been working much on Wikipedia for the past several months, but am willing to try to help with the time I have available. Since the revelation of the involvement of Lance Armstrong, US Postal and professional cycling teams in general in doping in the 90's and 00's, it has become apparent that those things Greg LeMond had to say about the problems of doping in cycling were exactly on the mark.
As to the article, as I recall there was a lot of resistance to making it a FA article. What all would we have to do? I am willing to work on it with you. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)