User talk:Denniss/Archive 2

Discussion page archive

• Archive 1

---

Vanessa Williams

Hi Denniss I recently saw you Undid my revision on Vanessa Williams' page. I am still new at this and hope you can teach me how to properly add edits. These are the references to the regarding reference. https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/325119/kings-hawaiian-bows-animated-feature-film-voiced.html

Thank you and all the best. Lildrewzy (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Re: Alfred de Grazia picture which is not his picture at all

You have uploaded a distasteful photograph of a soldier, possibly American, standing in front of a pile of bodies at some location disclosed only by the erroneous label. The man pictured is not my father Alfred de Grazia, though there was a picture of him doing the same thing at a KZ camp I thought might be Buchenwald for a number of reasons. My father was with the 3rd Army, and Patton ordered his staff into Buchenwald, not Auschwitz. I am taking measures to have the mistake corrected across the internet. I will be filing a report with Wikipedia. Please either remove the photograph, entirely, or replace it with an image explaining the mistake. I am also reporting this to anti-hate organizations as a possible violation of Holocaust denial laws, depending on the usage the photograph is put to. John Sebastian deGrazia, 8/9/2015 I Solemnly Swear that the Aforestated is True in its Entirety and Omits Nothing of Importance to the Matter at Hand Sworn and Subscribed this 9nth day of August, 2015{{Jagtig (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)}}

VLC

VLC official page is http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ not http://www.videolan.org/, which is the official page of VideoLAN. I don't understand why you reverted those edits...

REGARDING YOU DELETING MY POSTS

On my Jude Wright posts you have been removing my info because apparently my citations weren't reliable. But the WHOLE article has poor references that are WORSE than mine, so.....? Why are you just deleting mine?

Angora

Could we just change the image in the Turkish Angora article? Because the previous one is not a typical Angora breed. I don't understand why you reloaded the old photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalpan (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Upload Book Cover

Hey, How can I upload an Book Cover to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Little_Things without "no fair use images at Commons"??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaSiMüFi (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Upload it to en wiki. Do not choose "Upload a free image" and go to Commons, select "It is a cover or other page from a book,DVD, " instead. --Denniss (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

User:KosareLjudi

It's got to be VJ-Yugo - I've filed an SPI report -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Cincinnati Enquirer

I am not trying to vandalize wikipedia. I am simply trying to update the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper to a higher resolution, more current image. Can you please inform me as to the correct way to upload this image? Thank you

17:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)~~rtbyrd21 3/3/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtbyrd21 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Using a current image is no problem. But without having a permission from the newspaper to use a free license you need to upload it to the english wikipedia as lowres image under fair use claim. --Denniss (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to upload a fair use image without being autoconfirmed? Thank you

19:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)~ Rtbyrd21 3/1/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtbyrd21 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

SVG Resizing

Just wanted to let you know I removed a {{reduce}} tag you placed on an SVG. SVG images cannot be shrunk like that, they can, however, be rendered in small sizes, as the {{SVG-Logo}} template indicates. Thanks anyways, Sven Manguard Wha? 05:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Lamborghini Gallardo image (re: edit war with HappyLogolover2011)

Hey, if you look closely at the image here you can see that the yellow paint job was added digitally (Photoshop or whatever). The lines are not straight and the yellow is exactly the same throughout (i.e., doesn't change in the shadow or from the glare), and the reflected portion on the ground is different. Even if it somehow passes copyright it looks so bad it doesn't belong on WP anyway. Cheers! SQGibbon (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore it looks like this person used the image taken from here (scroll down or go here for the big version). SQGibbon (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Undoing edits

Hi there. Please do not use the undo-feature to revert valid edits, at least not without specifying a reason why you did so. In your edit here you undid a valid change introduced by an IP editor without explaining why you did so, thus not allowing others to understand your motivation. Regards SoWhy 13:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It was removed because it wasn't a valid edit - no need to add redlinks to infoboxes. --Denniss (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please review our guideline for such links at WP:REDLINK. In cases like this one, it is valid because it was meant to lead (and, here, lead to) the creation of a valid article related to the subject. Red links are not bad per definition, neither in infoboxes nor elsewhere and our guidelines specify this clearly. Also, please remember that even if you think an edit is not valid (no matter if it really isn't), you should always specify your reasons in the edit summary, so that others can understand your motivations without having to ask you. Regards SoWhy 08:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

AMD 3800+

sources: Screenshot http://tweakers.net/pricewatch/122802/amd-athlon-64-x2-3800+.html#tab:info

p.s. I see I failed reading sorry it was listed..

(Basti640 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

Basia Bulat profile picture

Hello. I just noticed you have reverted my edit of Basia Bulat's page citing "non-free file" as the reason. actually, the permission for the file I put is creative commons with attribution (as you can see it linked to and written under the "license" section here) therefore it is free to share and can be used on Wikipedia. I'd appreciate it if you paid more attention next time. thank you. Zeddian (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the chart of what we can use here. --CutOffTies (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, I got it. thanks. it's more complicated than I'd imagined. I also apologize to Denniss. I'm gonna try to sort out the right license and put it in the infobox though!! --Zeddian (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Message on my talk page

See here for the answer to your question. Doh5678 (Talk) 19:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Please

Please stop this reverting and wait for a reply from OTRS. Let's talk about things, not just revert EVERYTHING without discussing first. Batavier2.0 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not force others to use you old, small, low quality and/or misplaced images. Several other users reverted your edits. You do not own these articles. If you further revert the misplaced image removals you'll be in trouble with Administrators (you even undid reverts made by Administrators calling them vandals). And do not outlog and continue this behaviour as an IP as you have already done. --Denniss (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Some images were in place. You just remove them ALL. Without any discussion. Please wait what happens. If others find them misplaced, they will remove them. If not, then not. What we no do is engage in editwarring. Which isn't good. :) Batavier2.0 (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment from an outside observer Denniss, you appear to be removing Batavier's images simply because you do not like them. How about opening a discussion to achieve consensus on the relevant talk pages before simply reverting. You both are dangerously close to receiving a WP:3RR block. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to prevent any of us from getting blocked. Why don't we just log out and leave things the way they are now? I seriously doubt I caused any harm whatsoever and it wasn't my intention to cause any harm or conflict. Batavier2.0 (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

@Batavier2.0: As has been pointed out on your talk page, adding images to article is really only useful if the images actually enhance a reader's understanding of the concept. Adding a bunch of 90 year old images to article that they only marginally relate to doesn't help. However, since you added the images in a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, Denniss should have engaged in a discussion before reverting the edits rather than engaging in an edit war. I think your idea to take a cooling off period is an excellent one. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you like my idea. ;) I'd gladly take your advice in this case, of course I would. It's just that I loved seeing this images on those pages and I really like the results. I believe most of these images were indeed related to the articles. What is wrong with including a picture of a man smoking a cigarette to a page on smoking, or an image of an engaged couple to a page on engagement? Also, in silent film, I added the picture of the most famous living actor from the era. I see no problem with that at all. I can also provide sources if needed. Batavier2.0 (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Have started a WP:SPI here regarding this issue [1] What we have is three user accounts that have made few / no other edits other than to add images of this person to dozens of pages across Wikipedia. These edits have been reverted by many long time user. Per WP:BOLD you add the image. Someone reverts it. Than the person who wishes to add it is supposed to discuss before re adding. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism

Hi there. This change was not vandalism because it actually has talk page consensus. The edit by Woodstone was against the talk page consensus. I have already reverted the change. Fnagaton 11:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Uriel227 at Dylan and Cole Sprouse

Uriel227 has been reported to WP:3RRN for breaching 3RR. The discussion is here. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You might also like to check out the SPI case that I've just started. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Kosare

I was going through various battle articles and saw the edit war with a continuisly blocked editor that you are having at the article Battle of Kosare. I also read the articles discussion page and saw that in previous years heated debates developed over the result of the battle. As it stands, we couldn't just leave the article without a result. But a neutral result should also be found that could satisfy both sides. So I took the liberty and put that both sides are claiming victory. With Yugoslavia on the basis that they repelled almost every KLA attack wave and retainded control of Kosare up until the end of the war, leaving the KLA without fullfilment of their strategic objective. And the KLA on the basis that the Yugoslavs withdrew after the Kumanovo treaty at the end of the war, after which KFOR took control of the border. I did this in an attempt so future edit wars over the article could be avoided since this seems as a good attempt at a neutral stand point and compromise. Hope it helps, cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Sturmtiger

Hi Denniss.
Please visit the Sturmtiger talk page, and give a reasonable explanation for your revert. Megaidler (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Dude...

...have you even read the source? Like, before you assumed right away this was a vandalist action and reverted it? Because that's where the source is about: Stalin's link to Przewalsky. 84.87.138.125 (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Types Of Guns

Hi Denniss.
Please visit Talk:List_of_artillery_by_type and write on this talk page what you think. Megaidler (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of link (to Operation Sea Lion wargame result).

Could you explain (via Adolph Galland Talk page) why you deleted what I would consider, not just a good link, but a perfect one. I intend to replace it unless you can come up with a reasonable argument. --JustinSmith (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

theaviationindex.com

Please see discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

Bismarck sources

Hello Denniss, I got my source about bismark displacement from this page: http://www.kbismarck.com/bsweights.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armada09 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion tagging

Why did you tag this for deletion? The uploader is claiming it as there own work, and I see no reason to doubt that based on image quality and the presence of metadata. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Look at the logs of this user, all of his images with own work claim were deleted as copyvio (except this one). --Denniss (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Decent reasoning, although I would suggest noting why you tagged it in unclear cases like this (or taking it to FFD/PUF instead of DIing it). However, I'm still unsure as to whether or not this particular image is a copyvio; TinEye comes up with some results, but this is twice the resolution of the others so they other images may have been copied from us. If you still want to argue for deletion, I'd recommend taking it to FFD because this doesn't look to me like a completely clear-cut case. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

SMS Preussen (1903)

Hello Denniss. I noticed you moved the article to SMS Preußen (1903) giving the reason that this was how the ship's name was spelled. The problem is, English-language sources almost entirely spell it without the eszett. We must therefore do the same thing, per WP:UE. Therefore, I have reverted your move and spelling changes at that article and on Scharnhorst class battleship. Let me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss this further (I'll be watching your talk so you can just reply here). Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice, a blank revert without noticing the correct spelling anywhere in the article. Even using a wrong german spelling in the infobox. Good work. --Denniss (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not "wrong", it's how the ship is named in English. Even the English translation of Erich Gröner's German Warships 1815-1945 spells it this way. We must follow English usage in accordance with WP:UE (which is established Wikipedia policy). Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm able to live with this dumb policy but not with your blank revert. The lead should notice the proper german spelling and the infobox should not claim Preussen to be the proper german spelling for Prussia. --Denniss (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There is already a note explaining the spelling difference. Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

File tirpitz 004

I asked and granted permission from Michael W. Pocock and MaritimeQuest.com to use that file photo.what should i do for blatant copyright infringement Udisblizbadjoke (talk)

Pocock does not own the copyright, so he can't release it for use. The image is German in origin (almost certainly created by the German Navy), so under German copyright law, the creator of the image has to have died more than 70 years ago (and since the image was taken in 1941, this is unlikely) for the image to be public domain. Unless the image was seized by the United States after the war (as some were), it would not be public domain in the US until copyright expires in Germany (and in some cases, longer than that due to the URAA). Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The picture are in the Public Domain.they are all very well knownUdisblizbadjoke (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC).

No, it is not in the public domain. The photo is most definitely still copyrighted in Germany, and more than likely still in the US as well. You need to demonstrate how the image is public domain for us to be able to use it. Parsecboy (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Is public domain in usa {{PD-US}}{{Do not move to Commons}} Udisblizbadjoke (talk)

No, you have to show how you know that. You can slap those templates on anything you like, but it doesn't make it so. For the image to be public domain in the US, you need to demonstrate that the US Government considers it to be seized Nazi property. Parsecboy (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Frequently_updated

Hi. A quick comment: The "frequently_updated" parameters has a technical function in Wikipedia, not a semantic one. In other words, you do not set it to yes if you think the computer program of the article is frequently updated. You only set it to "yes" when you want infobox to to enter FU mode. Prerequisites must be ready. For more information, see Template:infobox software/doc. Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

WWII informations on Japanese ships

Been trying to update these details and some were incorrect, do i have to keep update them every time you change it??? Sorry i didnt add my profile on wikipedia to give details about myself. Having solid background on WWII ships in Pacific Regions for over twenty-five years of research. Also Working and updating alot of WWII games such as Hearts of Iron Series, Pacific Storm: Allies, War in the Pacific: Admiral Edition, etcs. Just trying to give out correct infos on those WWII ships. There alot of books on the markets and some are hard to come by, some had incorrect informations as well, though you would like to know.

Please cite the sources your changes are based on. Otherwise we have to assume original research or guesswork. If you don't know how the reference tags work please state the source in the edit summary or contact a regular author at WP:Ships, asking for help. --Denniss (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandal at the ATI/AMD articles

It looks like a guy (TheGreatness2, TheGreatness3 etc.) is making new users and doing lots of changes that we have undone several times, but he just makes new users when he is banned and keep vandalizing. What is the solution to this? Jørgen88 (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny

Funny thing is, After I edited the ATi Pages recently. I Recieved a "Thank you for your Contributions" Notice. Now, Isn't that funny?. Because If I was "Vandalising" as you claim, Why would I recieve a "Thank you for your Contributions?".

And so what this means is: is that the Other mods allow my Edits, and in fact, Thanked me for them.

Now why would they do that?, well, because My Edits are Valid. And my Edits are valid because it showcases that, Indeed, AMD is now in Ownership of ATi. But it is ATi Still making the GPUs. And I had Also added in the Detail of "ATi is known Internally as AMD Graphics Products Group".

My Edits are, Perhaps, the Best version of the "ATi GPU" pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatness6 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me of the discussions on Wikipedia when some people just wouldn't give up the fact that Pluto is not a planet, but a dwarf planet. Or the people that just wouldn't accept that the world is in fact round, not flat. ATI does no longer exist, it will never exist either. Jørgen88 (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Frankfurt collage

I'm not really sure how to add the source but i can assure you that i've made the collage myself from these pictures:File:Frankfurt Am Main-Roemerberg 19-27 von Suedosten-20110307.jpg, File:Frankfurt Am Main-Stadtansicht von der Deutschherrnbruecke zu Beginn der Abenddaemmerung.jpg, File:Frankfurt Am Main-Samstagsberg-20070607.jpg, File:Karl der Grosse vor dem Historischen Museum Frankfurt.jpg

You need to link from the image compilation description page back to the original images, state their authors and tag it with a license matching the originals. In case of the Frankfurt compilation this would be GFDL 1.2 (not blank GFDL). You should also link from the source images to the new compilation. --Denniss (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Are the pictures fixed now?Alphasinus (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(Harry potter portal links and pictures)

Why do you go around and undo half of the links that I have put up trying to broaden the Harry potter portal on wikipedia and why do you remove the pictures that I have put up on "Harry potter" characters page when they were stained properly I have gotten them from the wiki which states they are free use anywhere? And so why did you take down the portal links? 04:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonstonecastle77 (talk • contribs)

The images at the wikia page are not free as they are screenshots or taken from other copyrighted material. --Denniss (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Dixie Carter-Salinas

Denniss. While I appreciate your zeal in reverting pictures on Dixie Carter-Salinas' profile, please allow the Commons attribution their time to apply the license we have sent in for the picture. I can personally assure you that the rights are properly allocated and that the picture is a proper picture for the profile. If you wish to discuss this further before reverting for a third time...please do. Thank you for your understanding in advance.

You have to add a proper license and a usage permission or the image(s) will be deleted again. --Denniss (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Appealing to your expertise here on this one...we got the email back from Wiki Commons Permissions stating that the permissions had been added and the image fixed. Does the current image look like it is all good now? Thanks. Wikiuser1254 (talk) WikiUser1254 August 9, 2011 9:23AM CST —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC).

Ciara Bravo Picture

The Ciara Bravo picture is free for use unless we don't help bring activity to their website. --Kamek98

No, the image was not free (no content on this site is free). --Denniss (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

STOP UNDOING VALID EDITS!

I made an edit to the page myTouch 4G regarding the HTC Panache, which is an HTC Glacier variant, so it belongs in that section, if you dont belive me, look here http://www.htc.com/ca/products/panache-mobilicity/ NOW STOP UNDOING PEOPLES VALID EDITS!

Your revert on PCI IDE ISA Xcelerator / PIIX3

Since the PIIX3 shipped in 1996 how can there be a USB 1.1 controller? Any reference? -- 10:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

AMD Phenom II X3 715 Black

You undid my edit to the Phenom Processors page modifying the HT link speed from 2GHz to 1.8GHz. I have a 715 and in stock configuration it sets up a 1.8GHz HT link. See http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Phenom%20II%20X3%20715%20Black%20Edition%20-%20HDZ715WCJ3DGI.html Or straight from AMD: http://shop.amd.com/US/_layouts/shop/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=HDZ715WCJ3DGI&region=us-en (they show it as double actual clock) 64.234.92.60 (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of AMD chipsets

You undid my edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_AMD_chipsets&action=history As you can read there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:82.56.177.251 You can find the source there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_900_chipset_series and there http://www.nordichardware.com/news/69-cpu-chipset/42174-amd-bulldozer-series-9-chipset-detailed.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.16.204 (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Denniss, please read Wikipedia:Vandalism and inform yourself about what is Vandalism.

You have erroneously accused me of conducting vandalism.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVNOJist (talk • contribs) 18:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

00:07, 16 July 2011 Denniss (talk | contribs) m (13,987 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 76.64.226.31 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Denniss. (TW)) (undo)

The vandalism page clearly states that this would not count under the category in the first paragraph. Copied from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_II&action=history

Kimberly Hunt picture

Hello Denniss, This photo is my property. I had to upload it under a new account, because for some reason, I was unable to log-in to my regular account under wikimedia commons. I have reverted the page back to reflect the new picture. Please instruct me, if for some reason, I have not done something correctly. Thank you for your help Kusinews (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Hunt

Please follow the instructions at your Commons user talk page how to send an image usage permission to OTRS. --Denniss (talk) 07:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries

[2] Lufthansa has confirmed the order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millfire (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Board of directors approved purchase of additional aircraft. That's it, nothing more. A firm order is firm once the contract is signed, I'm sure you'll see a press bulletin at both Airbus and LH then. --Denniss (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

8x57 IS

As a German, you should know C.I.P. standardisation; if you are interested in WWII weaponry, you should also know the source Dienstvorschriften as well as the German books on the subject. 7.92x57mm seems to be either a misnomer/a nomenclature mix between "Patrone 7,9mm" (as written in the Dienstvorschriften) and 8x57 IS (C.I.P./SAAMI-designation) OR the BESA machine gun had this official calibre in Great Britain - compared to the 98k, MG-34 and MG-42 weapons rather a curiosity.

The seminal work on German rifle developement seems to be Hans-Dieter Götz, Die deutschen Militärgewehre und Maschinenpistolen, Stuttgart 1974, ISBN 3-87943-550-X - who also talks about "8x57 IS". 7.92 seems to be written especially in popular science books in the USA or translated from the USA.

If you should have new information (and sourcing!!!), please feel free to add it to the sources in Talk:8×57mm_IS#German_military_designation.3F. Given that C.I.P. and SAAMI both agree on the correct nomenclature, you really should have good arguments. --Hornsignal (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

747-400 list

My Cargo (ACT) and Silkway Airlines both operate 744.116.71.7.54 (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Duplicate

Category:Duplicate, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Windows xp market share data

Statcounter has a history of incorrect data, as we all witnessed windows xp slid past the 50% mark in august (includes the mobiles os), but their graph declares its lost the 50% mark in January! Other then them 3 more Os analysis show windows xp currently at 50%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matniky (talk • contribs) 02:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It all depends on who's observing what and where. As said in the comment, feel free to add other stat sources as a scondary opinion regarding market share but do not remove the old one. In gneral usae the XP maketshare should stil be high but the more tchrelated the observed website is, the more Win7 users you'll find. (My computers are one Win7 and three XP, makes 25% Win7 and 75% XP) --Denniss (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this

Hello, you said File:Air_Boom_1.JPG's "description page currently doesn't specify who created the content"? I'm sure it's pretty clear. The file is composed of two pictures from Julian Holtom and Krystal, both of whom I did mention at the "Author" section. I also sourced the pictures to their original link. I myself combined the two pictures to form this picture. So what do I have to do now to make sure the file isn't deleted? Starship.paint (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please check the second link. The license has to be corrected as well (unless the second image is a by-sa image). Be a little more careful when uploading images from Flickr - you have to use the license and creditline given by the author, not a similar more restrictive license. --Denniss (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. It seems that the file has been removed by its author. What should I do now? And what should the appropriate license be if I combine two pictures with different licenses? Starship.paint (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

When combining images from different authors with different licenses the most restrictive license counts, license have to be compatible though (you can't combine a Free-Art with a Creative Commons licensed image). All authors have to be properly attributed. I don't know how the en wiki handles Flickr images that have been removed or their license changed to an incompatible type - we at Commons have a bot and Admins/Trusted users reviewing these images to have a confirmation that they were available under the given license at the time of upload. EDIT: I found the image uploaded and reviewed at Commons. --Denniss (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for settling the matter! To help me out, could you give me a list of Flickr licenses allowed on Wikipedia from the most to the least restrictive? Starship.paint (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Typically Flickr has cc-by-sa-2.0 and the less restrictive cc-by-2.0 as compatible CC licenses. The also have NC and ND variants of the former two but these are not compatible. I don't know if they have CC-PD, plain PD or a similar license. But as always with outside sources - make sure these images do not look like taken from other sites as Flickrwashing (copyrighted content taken from elsewhere but claim own work/free license) seems to be a new hobby for vandals. --Denniss (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Tiger 1 page

You have removed my edit and accused me of vandalism when clearly you know nothing about the subject. The entry claiming 1700 Tiger 1's were lost is a clear misreading of the linked source that says 1700 Tiger 1's and Tiger II's were lost. The Tiger II has a seperate Wiki page. It is adding the 2 losses together and claiming they were all Tiger I losses. You can not loose 1700 tanks when only 1350 were produced. The Tiger II loses have been counted as Tiger I losses. A clear case of factualy incorrect information being allowed into the page.

Talkback

Hello, Denniss. You have new messages at talk:Tiger I.
Message added 17:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(Hohum ^@) 17:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Firefox

Hello Beta 6 is officially released, here is the official FTP link. ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/8.0b6/ and the home page will update around 24 hrs. and it is not a good thing to 1. revert without noticing editor / 2. warn a user without having enough information. Thanks! Nima1024 (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from further editing the page if the software is not officially released through http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/. Just placing it on the FTP is not an official release. --Denniss (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Competition between Airbus and Boeing

Denniss, you keep changing the update I have made to Boeing orders an deliveries. I ONLY make these changes when I see them at www.boeing.com website. I'm not making up numbers. Could you please refrain in "correcting" something it's correct already Alainmoscoso (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC).

While the date may be correct, the information presented in the table is not. You have to update the information which say xxx net orders until <date> and xxx deliveries up to <date>. Currently Boing data shown is until november 1 but according the the table notes Boeing data is up to October 18. Noticed the discrepancy? --Denniss (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I see you already discussed something about this article. Airbus DOES include its tanker in its commercial division as stated by others editors (in its Government, corporate jets account to be precise). If this is not correct, provide proof before undoing any other edit.70.163.28.6 (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent images

The various images I've uploaded on Yui (singer) in this case are impossible to link to. Images are obtained from a slot machine from the site provided, and link directly to the base image. I wish to clarify this issue as soon as possible, thanks. Cooldra01 (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

On a second review, I'm not exactly sure which part you're having a problem with. The album images are properly sourced, and I would like to know what's the problem with them. Cooldra01 (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

So much work though, I'll bet you had to do everything by hand? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Discuss major picture Change?

On November 3rd or 4th, i switched the lead image on the article Airbus A380. On November 4th, you reverted my edit with the reason being: "Please discuss any major image changes first". I have read through pretty much every image use guideline, Manual of style, ETC, and i do not see where it is said that any changes to the lead image must be discussed. I would appreciate if you would let me know either on my talk page or here, where it says that i must discuss any image changes. Dusty777 (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay Denniss, i started a discussion and was able to switch the lead image. I consulted an Administrator and he said that there is no essay, rule, guideline, or manual of style that a user must discuss a lead image change. He recommended a discussion on the grounds that Airbus A380 is a "good article", so that is why i discussed it. Thanks for your time. Dusty777 (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please be a little more considerate to other editors

They way you've responded to my changes to the Fritz X article was uncalled for. I clearly explained why I removed information that seem to come out of thin air, and I did not want to add information to the article since I have no knowledge on the topic. Your last edit shows you did understand why I changed it. There's no need for saying things like "what's your problem?" - you obviously know what the problem with the article was and if I have any problems myself, it is people acting they way you did.

    — SkyLined (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

ORTS delay?

I forwarded various messages to ORTS but only one of the images from Course Setting Bomb Sight appears to have been updated. What sort of timing is typical these days? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Depends on how much work is there and how many volunteers (with matching language ability) are there working through the permissions. I've seen it done within some hours to nearly one month. --Denniss (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll keep going and keep my fingers crossed! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Image disappeared

Hi, The image LDS Baptism Panama.jpg that I uploaded to Commons yesterday disappeared, and I was wondering if you knew where it went since you were the one who fixed the link after it was gone. The other image is fine, but I liked the cropped version better. -- Adjwilley (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything to be done?

Take a look at this.

In spite of the fact that I uploaded ORTS tickets for every single one of these images, they have all been deleted again. They were deleted after a period shorter than the posted ORTS backlog. And again, no one made even the slightest attempt to explain the issue, warn me in any fashion, or do any work whatsoever except click "yes" on some bot script.

Is there any hope for the Commons? Can this be fixed? Or should I just give up on media entirely?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Me 163 first and only rocket powered figher.

The Comet and Me 262 are powered by jets engines that get their thrust from the combustion of oxygen and jet fuel. The ME 163 got it's thrust from a chemical reaction without air from the outside. Making a rocket engine and rocket engine two separate. Modern uses of Rocket engines are missiles and the use in NASA shuttles/rockets.Articseahorse (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

nikos galis

what do you mean vandalizing wikipedia ? i have only changed the picture of Nikos Galis , what is your problem ? the picture i added is with the team he spent 12 years of his career — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3vma24 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio images are not accepted here. --Denniss (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

galis image

this picture is mine , its not copied , it belongs to no one else but ME !!!! stop acting like a fascist — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3vma24 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Merry X'mas~!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®}is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ski images

Actually I think something just got lost in the shuffle. It appears no one contacted William back in May. But they have now so it went through instantly. I'm not so sure the OTRS software is keeping up. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Everyone should really understand

Denniss is what's causing all this problems. So therefore, I will quit editing Wikipedia and he is just reverting everything. This really is annoying. So if someone can block Denniss (at least I tried), that would be a desirable favor. Wikipedia, at least have a talk with Denniss and tell him to stop reverting every edit. But I will try to find a way to block him if I can. Be a Wikipedia citizen, not a bully. TsarSrbinu29 (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I do see a problem here. Denniss, when you revert or undo someone's edits, you need to explain what you're doing. Specifically, when you undo an edit, you will see the following highly appropriate message:

If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only.

Your mass undoing of others' edits without explanations is problematic and disruptive. Please stop.

It's clear you want to help the project but your unilateral and heavy-handed reverts are not necessarily constructive and are clearly not in the spirit of how you should be editing. Toddst1 (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake Apology for you.

I apologize, now eat this cupcake please. TsarSrbinu29 (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize

I apologize dearly for my rude comments. I just worked hard on the Kosovo War page yesterday and now I put on references. Please check them. Please check my new references. Again, I apologize and I'm very remorsefulness. TsarSrbinu29 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

alive Magazine

Denniss, can you please explain in detail as to why you have reverted to the previous edit of the 'alive Magazine' Wiki entry? As a rep of the company I can assure you that the most recent edit (which you reverted) was factual, and not an advert. The previous entry did not reflect our brand or business in any way. We wish to provide the end user with proper and current information - looking forward to connecting with you soon. Thank you. AliveEditor (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on the edit summary Denniss left and the content he removed, it appears he correctly removed promotional material added by the publisher of the magazine, presumably you, with a major WP:COI. Toddst1 (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

airbus a319-100 virtual tour

Hi,

but why did you removed that external link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.79.9.87 (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism with flags?

Hi, I added to some plane list the flag of the Country of the airline who odrered the plane. (SSJ-100 , A350 , B787). I saw you removed my work because it has been classified as "vandalism". Could you please explain me better what is possible to do and what is not, I really don't understand how to add a flag near an Airline could be considered vandalism, in my opinion it's nice to see the flag near the Airline name but maybe I make some mistakes, I'm sure you could explain me better how to add changes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollomz (talk • contribs) 12:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

German tanks in World War II

I understand that it's easier to just do a wholescale rollback when you want to remove something (although since the entire article's uncited, I don't see why you're removing the material), but it's not legitimate to remove a maintenance tag such as asking for clarification. Allens (talk | contribs) 14:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Tirpitz & K-21

Hi!

The discussion about torpedoes' count has been finished month ago (being confirmed by respected historians given by Parsecboy). So, please make undo and restore remarks about 4 torpedoes.

Best regards, --Zh.Mike (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Bombing of Guernica

Hi Denniss, As you have now twice reverted the addition of this article to the Category:Mass murder in 1937, giving in your edit summary "No, mass murder cat is not legitimate, the massacre cat is questionable as well", perhaps you should state your reasons for questioning its legitimacy at Category talk:Mass murder by year. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Iosif Stalin tank

Hi Denniss, could you please care to explain to me how I have "vandalised" the Iosif Stalin tank page? I simply corrected the name of the tank due to historical innacuracy, which I do not regard as "vandalism". I do not wish to engage in an editing war with you, but I feel that your removal of my content has gone unjustified as no explanation on why it was removed was given only that it was classed as "vandalism". I would just simply like to know your reasons as to why you would regard my edits as vandalism, as I can prove that the content that I am posting is legitimate and I am willing to discuss this matter with you. Darlomidge (talk)

Incorrect A320 Family Information

You have been accusing me of changing the A320 family page. Well it shouldn't show China Southern Airlines as a primary user, but instead JetBlue Airways as they are a far bigger user of the A320 family than China Southern. Keevin3201 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

And your data is based on what source ? --Denniss (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

JetBlue A320 Family Fleet numbers and orders. Keevin3201 (talk)

Usage numbers are for active aircraft only, orders are not relevant for user sorting. --Denniss (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If you say so, but still, JetBlue (an American airline) is a far more major user of the A320 than a Chinese airline, so you're misleading people. Keevin3201 (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Jetblue has 122 aircraft of the A320 family operational, China Southern 178. --Denniss (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Numbers aren't everything. The A320 is JetBlue's main aircraft other than the E190, which they don't have a lot of, whereas China Southern operate a range of aircraft so you're incorrect and are misleading people by accusing me with the correct information. Keevin3201 (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the A320 family, that includes A318/319/320/321. The article is not about the single type A320. --Denniss (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well done, Captain Obvious. But JetBlue is a far more important A320 family operator than China Southern. You should be ashamed, giving people false information. You seem to threaten everyone here whenever someone changes stuff to the correct information. Keevin3201 (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to let you know that I will change it back to JetBlue, to provide people with correct information. If you change it back, I will be in contact with Wikipedia, and will let them know of your threats to me and other people for trying to provide correct information. Keevin3201 (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

JetBlue more important than China southern is POV and will be reverted (not only by me) as we keep on facts and not personal opinions. --Denniss (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

An admin how nice

So you threaten to block everyone who dosen't agree with you, how interesting Claimsort11 (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please ask at WP:HELPDESK where people will explain that it is standard operating procedure for normal editors to warn users when they believe some guideline or policy is not being followed. See WP:DR for how to resolved disputes. Johnuniq (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@Denniss: I was going to notify you about a message at WP:AN, but got delayed after noticing that it is now at WP:ANI, as per the following section. Johnuniq (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Need some help. Thank you. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

please refresh your knowledge of WP:VAND and do't apply the term "vandalism" to edit disagreements. Please do not talk exclusively in warning templates with new accounts. Instead, you must explain how to edit correctly. Even if you suspect it is a sock puppet. In this case you have had to advice the user to explain himself in article talk page. - Altenmann >t 08:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Boeing 777

This is a note to let the main editors of Boeing 777 know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 12, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 12, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Boeing 777 is a long-range, wide-body, twin-engine jet airliner manufactured by Boeing Commercial Airplanes. It is the world's largest twinjet and is commonly referred to as the "Triple Seven". The aircraft has seating for over 300 passengers and has a range from 5,235 to 9,380 nautical miles (9,695 to 17,372 km), depending on model. Its distinguishing features include the largest-diameter turbofan engines of any aircraft, six wheels on each main landing gear, a circular fuselage cross-section, and blade-shaped tail cone. Developed in consultation with eight major airlines, the 777 was designed to replace older wide-body airliners and bridge the capacity difference between the 767 and 747. As Boeing's first fly-by-wire airliner, it has computer mediated controls; it is also the first entirely computer-designed commercial aircraft.(more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification: ANI

Notification: please, visit to ANI--Zh.Mike (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Tirpitz

Hello. You might be interested in this joke, since you are involved in the dispute. Why he did not notify you is beyond me. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A380

Can you have a look at Airbus A380. Continued vandalism by 99.250.135.193 after your final warning. Thx. --Wolbo (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Why did the images from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Benward and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_List have been removed? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.109.43.91 (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 number 1. --Denniss (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Boeing 767

Fifteen new Fedex 767 orders are listed on the Boeing website as of June 30, 2012. There was a delay in the listing due to the Independence Day Holiday in the USA. Citations have been added to the page. Please refrain from hasty edits without looking at source material.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans100 (talk • contribs)

I did look at source material and that's the first notice of the deal at Boeing's website. Although somewhat strange that there's no press release yet as they usually appear in tandem. The update at Boeing's order page is somewhat incorrect as they forgot change the effective date - that's a July deal (unless they dated it back somehow for tax or budget reasons). --Denniss (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The deal was announced on June 29th, so it was a June deal. The spreadsheet was not updated until today due to the unusual 5 day holiday with independence day falling on a Wednesday (July 4th) and updates not occurring for end of June until today. Cheers--Hans100

Request

Hello Denniss.

I am waiting (hoping?) for someone to mentor me in Wikipedia.

I am British (native English speaker), educated in engineering and have expertise on WW2 aircraft. Your deletion of my edit on the FW190 was out of order. PS as a unit of power has never existed in the english language. Indeed the EU made it an obsolete unit in 1992.

Whilst I can appreciate that the Nazi engineers used PS in their original design of this engine, for educational/historical purposes we only need two units 1) SI and 2)Imperial.

Wg Cdr Luddite 77.97.181.117 (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

At first, PS was not invented by Nazi engineers and is still in wide use today even if it's deprecated (almost all nations with metric system did not use imperial hp but their own historical hp or something similar to the metric hp). 2) You replaced the correct value in PS by the same value as hp without proper recalculation into hp. For those engines it's preferred to have the original value it was specified with + proper recalculations into imperial hp + kW. This avoids a lot of problems, especially the sadly usual 1:1 PS->hp conversion/translation. --Denniss (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Messerschmitt Bf 109 production

Hi Denniss, I have a copy of the citation Lieferplan B.Nr18/3 Nr.1285 which shows here E-4/BN Mtt.R. 15 WNF 20

Please explain exactly how this means 15 E-4/N and 20 E-4/BN? It specifically shows E-6/N and E-7/N but no E-4/N. Have you got any other evidence showing 109E-4/N being produced seperately from the jagdbomber version? Thanks ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 12:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis,

Thank you for your vigilance in maintaining long-stable and reliable articles from being filled with unverifiable, and for all good intentions I am sure characterizing Minorhistorian's latest additions, wrong information. I have found a very interesting paper, noting that the DB 601N was introduced for a Gruppe of 109 July 1940, in the link kindly provided by Minorhistorian, uploaded by this same "major sharpe" character. This Major Sharpe appears to be very well aware of the /N versions introduction date of July, and as a sidenote, he is also appearantly very much obsessed, perhaps a bit too obsessesed with Spitfires and 109s. The source appears to be Petrick/Mankau's Bf 110/210/410 book. Surely it should not be a problem to properly cite it, after all, we are all good-faith editors here, interested in improving the article, are we all not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.222.180.172 (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Denniss, have you got a scan of the original Leiferplan B.Nr18/3 Nr.1285? I have no idea of where the version quoted in the article is from and, because it came from a book, the book should be cited, not the badly translated document. Thanks ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you ended up getting dragged into the middle of Kurfurst's obsessive interest in my editing in Wikipedia - that was completely unintentional. This editor has been blocked because of numerous incidents of tedious and mendacious behaviour, including accusing other editors of being sockpuppets. That he continues to engage in this type of behaviour is no surprise, it is regrettable that it has spilled over into your discussion page. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 03:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

need template help

the reason for the big image is because I noticed it make the template wider which is needed for text to not overlap, any ideas? Matthew Smith (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Conversion template in MSC Flaminia

Hello. I have thought that the use of the conversion template is always recommended if the conversion at hand is supported by it — it removes the need for checking if the conversions are correct as they are calculated automatically. As for the accuracy, I would rather use the less accurate figure given by the conversion template. The output for the main engine that I've taken from the GL database is quite likely the rated output of 10K98 given by MAN B&W and not the actual measured output of this particular unit. The actual output of the ship's main engine may vary over time depending on fuel quality, ambient temperature of the engine room, time from previous overhaul etc. Thus, the overly accurate rating is likely not correct (or at least more likely incorrect than the less accurate figure). Also, when you're talking about a large diesel engine that produces over 76,000 hp, defining the output with an accuracy of 1 hp is the same as defining a the engine power of a car with two or three decimals, which is never done.
As a side note, personally I'm against using kW-hp conversion for modern ships. Horsepowers are not used in official context and the converted figures are in any case meaningless for most people — both 57,100 kW and 76,600 hp are such big numbers that it's impossible to relate them to anything they are familiar with. Tupsumato (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Image

Re: this edit summary. There really isn't anything wrong with the image, just that it was being included by a banned editor. You are free to add it if you like.

I would point out, however, that if you see an edit that an administrator has reverted twice, you should be certain of what you are doing before reversing it. Reversing it while asking a question with exclamation points in an edit summary can be risky if there is some other policy reason for the removal.—Kww(talk) 12:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing E-100 information

Could you please tell me how my contribution was not constructive as this will help me provide better information in future contributions. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewmeech (talk • contribs) 13:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Because this contribution was not your own work but most probably copied from another website (as your other recent text additions). --Denniss (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Das Boot

You seem to be involved in a slow edit war on this page. A change was made by an IP user, with the explanation “minor translation error”; you reverted this change, though without explaining why, or starting a dialogue.
It would be better to resolve the matter by discussion; I have opened one here. I have also requested page protection, until the matter is resolved. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

---

How to Add an Image for Artist's Profile or Replace?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRiderT-Rex (talk • contribs) 02:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Find a freely licensed image that doesn't come from a doubtful source and upload it. --Denniss (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Luftwaffe changes

I have reverted your deletions of my image in the war crimes section since the picture is fully referenced by the section itself as well as in the article from which it came. I have also reverted your unexplained deletion of my changes on the civilian bombing section. I hope you are not denying that the Luftwaffe bombed Warsaw in 1939, and numerous other towns and cities during WW2: they are clear and unambiguous proof that the Luftwaffe bombed civilian areas as a matter of deliberate policy before and during the last war. 81.156.48.77 (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Your report at AIV

Hi, Denniss. Contrary to the non-admin comment at AIV, I believe the 4im warning was necessary. The reported user has stopped after the warning so I will not be blocking them. However, they now have a final warning and their past contributions are concerning. Should they resume their disruption please re-report. Thanks Tiderolls 04:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

DB605

What, exactly, is your problem with the power figures quoted by Smith and Creek for the DB610? They have spent 20+ years examining the relevant records - if, as you claim, they have somehow mixed up ps v hp please provide some proper evidence instead of simply swapping figures around. have a good Christmas :) ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 19:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly becaus they swapped their figures: Please do the math yourself: 2x1475 PS = 2950 PS. The 1:1 translation of PS into hp and the conversion back to PS/kW based on these wrong values is a huge problem in english-language books. This is a problem with all values described as metric horsepower. --Denniss (talk)

You are making these allegations but you have not proved any of it! Just because 2 DB605s put out x horsepower it does not follow that the DB610 generated exactly twice the horsepower - where is your primary documentation showing that Smith and Creek, two highly experienced authors, have got PS and hp mixed up? Please prove that their power figures are not PS translated into hp. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 00:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever seen an engine with that strange power figures you cited? 2909 and 2788 PS are a "bit" off standard practice to use multiples of 5 or 10. Also 2950 hp is not 2909 PS, this may either be an error on your side or from these "experienced" authors. --Denniss (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you or have you not got any evidence to prove any of this? If not, you are engaging in Original Research and reverting properly cited material. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 03:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have enough evidence but currently no time to include this. --Denniss (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, you have the gall to use the edit summaries to lecture me on using "proper sources" etc; you then revert properly cited information several times without giving any evidence or proper sources, resulting in a moderator protecting the article for a week, and now say "I have the evidence but no time to include"? Well done buddy, you've been a great help. Note, too: do not use material from the Kurfurst website, that is completely out of bounds. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 07:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Please don't reduce images that don't need reducing.

Thanks. Film Fan (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOURCE

This is WP:POINT. A revert simply to annoy another user. I removed unsourced material, and you reinstated it because you claim that 'one person can't speak for the whole of Belgium and the Netherlands'. Well, apart from the fact that that wasn't my intention, you (and the person who originally added it) did exactly that yourself. Speaking for the whole of two countries. In your case, two countries of which you aren't even native (even though if that would be the case it still wouldn't gives you any authority) ... verbeter de wereld en begin bij jezelf. Without sources these kind of statements are removed. Now it is clear you followed my edits, which is fine by me as long as you edit based on Wikipedia rules, if I ever get the feeling you revert an edit of me, because of me instead of what I do ... I'll report you for harassment. I hope that's clear. Kleinsma80 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You reporting ME for harassment - that's the joke of the day ....... --Denniss (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Just set up the joke, and I'll provide the punch line. I dare you. Kleinsma80 (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As the new member of the editor warring/content dispute I am watching I am leaving this message as a curtsey to inform you of the planned course of action. Having observed the situation Between D and K for the last 24 hours I have seen some attempt at dialogue, so I am going to wait another 24 hours and see if they can't have a civilized conversation on the talk pages for the articles they disagree on. This is being done in accordance with WP:AGF, since I am seeing a little good faith, I'm going to wait a little longer to see if it will grow into something useful. If this does not happen, then 24 hours from now I'm gonna start protecting the contested pages, and if the contested issues do not move toward a resolution in that time then I will make a move to start blocking editor(s) for civility issues. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

your revert of "Bundeswehr"

Denniss, I sort of cannot follow your line of arguments. But, then, perhaps I don't understand what you're trying to say. By "does not relate here", do you mean that there's no relationship between the Bundeswehr and the NVA? Maybe (disputable); but most definitely the NVA is a former German Armed Force. However, if your revert aims at the NVA being in existence at the same time as the Bundeswehr, it's merely a question of the wording to take that into consideration. But I do think that the NVA should be mentioned here. Could you please elaborate on the issue? Regards, Lost Boy (talk)

There are no traditions the Bundeswehr took over from the NVA in the timeframe of their co-existence as opposing forces. The section is merely to draw a line from early german military orgs to the Bundeswehr. In the context of this section the NVA is not a former military org as it didn't (officially) exist at the time of Bundeswehr creation. The NVA is covered in a later section and also has a separate article. --Denniss (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ to all except your first sentence. To me, it's quite clear that the NVA is indeed a former Armed Force and is to be mentioned here. May I suggest that we discuss this in public to get some more opinions? Rest regards, Lost Boy (talk)

A question of superlatives

Hello, Denniss,

I note that you have reverted my edit to Hans-Ulrich Rudel. I also note you have added the conditional phrase "a record score at that time". I further note that when looking for a cite, I find "cite needed" instead, so that I am unable to check the veracity of the claim. In short, you seem to have reverted an unsourced statement in the face of an attempt at achieving accuracy. I hope you have not also committed the WP sin of Original Research with that added phrase.

Please be so kind as to supply a source for your assertions, as I have done for my claims on Rudel's Talk Page. Perhaps you may also want to modify the superlative claim to something like, "flew the most combat missions in World War II", or something similar.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No cn tag there, missions reffed in the lead. And I just reverted your unjustified removal of that part for which a modification would have been more than enough. --Denniss (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Hello again, Denniss,

We seem to be on the verge of incivility here, which was not my intent. I hope it is also not yours. While my edit summaries were in good faith, and even backed by Talk page notes, your latest was just a bit snippy. Especially when I took such pains to explain my edits. I corrected your edits in good faith, with no intention of spitefulness, and my deletion of an inaccuracy carries no obligation to replace the false claim.

I am an admirer of Rudel; any military man with his drive and courage draws high respect from his fellow combat veterans. However, we are writing an encyclopedia here, so accuracy is paramount. Quite frankly, I have no idea who flew the most combat missions in history, and I doubt we shall ever know. Besides the Lao and Hmong pilots of the RLAF, there were the pilots of the South Vietnamese Air Force. If some of them who began flying combat in 1962 lasted until war's end in 1975, there must be some incredible totals of combat missions. However, that speculation may be as close as we can come to the truth of the matter.

Lastly, for clarity's sake, how about duplicating that cite in the first para, and placing it exactly where it belongs down below that claim about Rudel's combat missions? For the sake of future readers.

Thanks.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverted Radeon Pages

there was a continuous theme that was broken, and I fixed it, they should all be listed as Radeon Rxxx... please revert back to my latest revisions. Matthew Smith (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Move the articles to the new location to preserve the article history, request a move if that's not possible due to existing target pages. Copy&Paste moves are not permitted. --Denniss (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

ok that makes sense, and doesn't make sense, it makes sense that you had to do what you had to do.. however... why the hell is that a rule in the first place... what I did would result in the exact same results.... Matthew Smith (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

We have to preserve the article history, we can't hide it somewhere in the redirects. License condition. --Denniss (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

can you help me get this done correctly? because those pages are already created and they redirect to the name that doesn't follow any continuous theme of generation. Matthew Smith (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my picture of Georg Bogislaus Staël von Holstein

Hi Denniss, I have written to you before regarding my picture of the painting of Georg Bogislaus in the swedish wikipedia. You seem to not understand english. The picture is taken by me in the private home of a relative of my at the estate wapnö in Halmstad. I do not understand why you can not understand that and stop treaten to take away the article. As you understand the copyright of the picture is mine and a creative Commen. That meen that ANYBODY can use it without asking me. The people who want to use the picture in other places then wikipedia I would like that they contact me. I have I webbsaight about the family on the net that goess back to 1189 that has a mailbox so they can get in contact with me. stael.dinstudio.se. I do not think that you are the right one to help with wikipeda seems you do not understand english and do not lissen to what the athors of the articles writes you.

Yours sincerely Charlotte Staël von Holstein charlotte.brodin92@gmail.com

I am born Staël von Holstein but I am some married called Brodin Staël von Holstein seen it is easier to spell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodin92 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Argus As 10

I am curious as to why you have reverted my addition of the As 10E2 to the variants section. I added it after finding that the variant was proposed as the powerplanr for the Pilatus P-1, I have re-instated it with refrerence.--Petebutt (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A380 and Dreamliner

Hi - You just reverted my edits to the A380 article using Twinkle. My edits are not vandalism, I removed some information because I noticed it was wrong (see references included in my change comment). Could you please reinstate the edit? Mark cummins (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, since I didn't hear back I have reinstated the edit myself. For reference the line I removed stated that "A380 is pressurised to the equivalent of 5000ft up to 41000ft". This is not correct. Two citations were provided for this information. The first one was: http://www.hamiltonsundstrand.com/StaticFiles/HS/Communications/General/Documents/A380%20Fact%20Sheet_June%202011.pdf If you actually read that reference, it says: "outflow valves regulate the cabin altitude to no more than 7,000 feet while flying up to 41,000 feet."

The second reference (http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/airbus_a380.pl) does claim 5000ft, but it does not seem like a very authoritative source and is contradicted by better information elsewhere.

The most authoritative source I can find is a scientific article discussing the impact of air travel on patients with lung disease. The article reports actual measurements of cabin pressure on different aircraft. This shows clearly that the A380 cabin altitude is no better (and in fact slightly worse) than older aircraft such as the 747: https://www.ersnetsecure.org/public/prg_congres.abstract?ww_i_presentation=46081 http://www.ersnet.org/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&id=4106:airlines-are-cu

If you convert the hPa measurements in that article they correspond to a cabin altitude of about 7300ft when flying at 40,000ft. Mark cummins (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

As for the Dreamliner - the information removed is out of date and irrelevant now. Wikipedia is not a newspaper citation.

Northbridge (computing)

Why was the edit reverted? The Northbridge is now an integral part of any modern processor, all its functions are managed by the system agent (as noted by AnandTech). It is inaccurate to say that it's still being used as a separate chip on a motherboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yowanvista (talk • contribs) 12:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Your edits in my sandbox

Why are you editing things in my sandbox??? [3] Not cool. Seriously. People get blocked for that. Don't do it again. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Automatic image replacement after movement, nothing wrong with it. --Denniss (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I found something wrong with it and I think it presumptuous. Don't do it again.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for replacing a deleted image in my userspaces, Much Appreciated :) Thanks - →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi friend, I would want to tell you that Manuel Schmiedebach will play to the Venezuela selection, so by this I think that would was best that use the flag of his new country, Thanks (that only is my opinion) BYE, Good Luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.85.56.10 (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

He was not born in Venezuela but in Berlin, Germany so has the german citizenship, he may play for Venezuela (due to his mother being venezuelan) in the future but that's not finalyized yet. --Denniss (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There have been three examples:

• First example
• Second example
• Third example
• Fourth example.

Perhaps you'd like to fix this? --Pete (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Monte Cassino. General Wladyslaw Anders.

Hi Dennis. I'm Mark. I wrote General Anders because Polish soldiers won the first hill of Monte Cassino. At Monte Cassino was the first Polish flag. British flag hung on the orders of General Anders, a few hours later. Do not write the names of the commanders General Anders Wikipedia is a fundamental mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sieciowiec652 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Athlon 64 X2 Edits

I am not sure how I managed to delete the Infobox, but I only recall deleting the invalid external link, [4]. Thanks for keeping tabs. MadenssContinued (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Just what is a "RüstSTAND" on a WW II German aircraft, anyway?

Dear Denniss:

The PIPE Here - I edited the "Rüststand" term in the Biff (Bf 109) article on the English language Wikipedia due to it likely being a bit of a misunderstanding relating to a term in Luftwaffe aviation I do know something about, the Rüstsatz field conversion packages that DID add the /R suffix to a Luftwaffe aircraft's designation, and NOT this so-called "Rüststand" entity you've asserted, that's most likely to be nothing more than a slight misspelling of the "Rüstsatz" term. There is also the "Umrüst-Bausatz" variety — often contracted to Umbau in WW II aviation history works — of more extensive upgrades that usually needed more than just front-line facilities to install, and did get its own "/U" suffix.

A quick Googling for the term "rüststand" revealed it to also be a term in the Dutch language, with that exact spelling - potentially making use of such a term in an article about German WW II aircraft also "out-of-place".

Please enlighten me about what the "Rüststand" term means, as a word im Deutsch, bitte schoen...I have never heard of it spelled precisely "that way" before, unless it could honestly be a misspelling of "Rüstsatz", in which case your edit might have actually preserved a possible misspelling...!

Thank you in advance, and Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A Rüstsatz is equipment you may quickly add or remove in field conditions like R VI on the Bf 109 G (20mm gondolas) or the various Bomb/DT equipment. Rüststand (also Rüstzustand) is a standard aircraft modified with special equipment either at the factory or specialized facilities, these are intended for specific mission profiles. Examples here are the various Bf 109 recons like G-6/R2 with cams or the G-6/R3 with cams + underwing drop tank option. Bf 109 F-4/R1 with preparations for underwing MG 151 gondolas is another Rüst(zu)stand example. Same with Bf 110, the /R designations are Rüststand, Rüstsatz designations were B or M if I remember right. A Rüstsatz never changed the designation on Mtt aircraft, a Rüststand/Rüstzustand did. There's probably a lot of confusion on Fw 190 aircraft which one of the R numbers was actually a Rüstsatz and which one a Rüststand, production data shows only A-8, A-8/R2 and A-8/R11 as production versions (Standard, Sturmbock, all/bad weather version). --Denniss (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Don McGregor image

Not a prob! I've contacted the owner and asked him to send an e-mail. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

boeing 787 orders and deliveries

Hi,

Why did you change my changes back?

Thanks

boeing 787 orders and deliveries

Hi,

Why did you change my changes back?

Thanks Jh1102 (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Black Dog Whisky

The images in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Dog_(whisky)contains images that we are now moving to appropriate Commons terms as suggested by you. Please check: http://toolserver.org/~bryan/flickr/upload?username=Sumathkarnad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumathkarnad (talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sinking of the Bismarck

Hi Denniss, I wish to know your reasoning in reverting my edit of adding the Canadian and Polish flags to the list of belligerents in the Last Battle of the Bismarck. I included these countries as belligerents due to their assistance in locating and engaging the Bismarck after the Battle of the Denmark Strait. I addition if you have an issue with a revision it would be appreciated if you placed the reason down when you do undo one.

                                              Thanks J.Mieszała (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see the page history and the discussion page of the article. Also only RN ships participated in the battle (or ships under RN command). --Denniss (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for the reply Denniss,

I do concede that the Canadian navy although providing naval resources in the operation to locate Bismarck and helping overall in the search its ships were never fully engaged in the battle.

Regarding the Polish destroyer ORP Piorun, it was involved in the actions proceeding the sinking of the Bismarck. It was helped in retaining contact with the Bismarck during the night, as well as exchanging gunfire, and supporting the destroyer Flotilla (carrying out diversionary movements and torpedo attacks).

Although it was under Royal Navy command during the war, the Polish Navy was still a Polish force. This is similar to Polish army units, that although raised in Britain and the Middle East and under British/Allied Command throughout their actions during the war such as Monte Casino, Operation Totalise and Market Garden. They are still recognised as Polish Units and a Polish contribution in continuing the war against Germany (as Poland did not surrender). Would their be an objection to placing Poland in the belligerents section as the commanders section already shows its under Royal Navy command.

                                             J.Mieszała (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from these copy&paste moves. Not preserving the article history is a license violation. Thank you.

Sorry I didn't see a way to move them any other way. How can I edit the title without losing the edit history? --Trifler (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I just found it. I'll redo those using Move. Sorry for the mistake. --Trifler (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Crud... Now it won't let me Move any of them because the name already exists as a result of my previous copy/pasting. Are you able to help? --Trifler (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Marenco SwissHelicopter SKYe SH09

Denniss, have you read or heard anything about the de:Marenco SwissHelicopter SKYe SH09? There's also an article on the Russian wiki. I am thinking of creatng an article for it on En.wp, but many of the sources are in German. Do you know anything about it, if it's really a viable project? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like an interesting vehicle. German wiki has many english sources, manufacturer page and Flight Global at least. Found [5] and [6]--Denniss (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at all those and see if I can put something together in the next few weeks. One question I had about the German wiki article was why tge German flag was included in the Infobox there. The company that makes it Swiss, not German, as far as I can tell, and its factory appears to be in Switzerland. Does the article text elaborate on a German connection? - BilCat (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beleiutz

Hi, Denniss, in evaluating this SPI, I'm trying to connect two dots. I can see on Commons that you deleted File:Jorge- romania.jpg, but because I don't have administrative privileges on Commons, I can't see whether User:Mirciulescu is the one who uploaded the image. There may be some other way for me to figure it out, but I don't know what it is. Can you confirm that Mirciulescu uploaded the image? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed, he was the uploader. --Denniss (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you!

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

These warnings?

where exactly?  Giano  10:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Come along; I am still waiting - where are the diffs for these warnings that you claim to know about?  Giano  15:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Windows 2000

Hello, Dennis

I hope I am not catching you in busy time but would you please elucidate on this revert #594498134 in Windows 2000 article? I read you edit summary but I cannot understand what you are getting at.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. I had a chat with another Wikipedian over IM. He suggests solving the issue at template level. He talks sense. Going WP:BOLD. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

convential PCI

Please see Talk:Conventional_PCI#revert_of_edit NE Ent 22:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Egyptair's A340

Hi Denniss,
Why did you undo twice a modification that is correct and sourced? 94.143.7.25 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Umm al-Qaiwain

Hello Denniss,

I noticed that you have reverted the file to version as of 04:40, 7 October 2011, which is not the correct Umm al-Qaiwain Flag according to the government of Umm al-Qaiwain, as I am in irect contact with them and got my version direct;y from the governor court, so kindly revert the file to 5 March 2014 as it should be.

--Hassen.Houssein (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted commons file Bianca Ryan headshot.jpg

 Question: This file was deleted from Wikimedia Commons since Bianca's assistant only gave permission to use the file on Wikipedia (my bad; I failed to be sufficiently specific). Sunni has yet to get back to me with respect to a Commons permission. If I uploaded the same file to Wikipedia, would it supersede the free image already within Bianca Ryan and, if so, to whom (if necessary) would I forward the e-mail permission? TIA. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Please forward permissions to Commons:OTRS.--Denniss (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Porsche SE and Porsche AG

Dennis, could you look at Talk:Porsche#Porsche SE and Porsche AG confusion, and see if you can help to address the question regarding the content of the de.wiki articles m entioned? Thanks, - BilCat (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leichter Panzerspähwagen 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:

• } (Ausf. A chassis); from 1942 on 3.8 Litre with {{convert|90|PS|kW hp|0|abbr=on}} Ausf. B chassis), giving it a road speed of {{convert|80|km/h|0|abbr=on}} and a cross-country speed of {{convert|40|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply

There is nothing controversial about my edits on Skandar keyes. Your edit claims pashto to be an "Afghan language" when that is NOT it's family classification on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Kindly correct it. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverted my changes on: List of AMD Athlon 64 - Grouped by Socket

I recently grouped the Socket 754 together, separate from the Socket 939 CPU's in the List of AMD Athlon 64 microprocessors article, and you have simply reverted my changes without seeing if that was what the majority wanted.

From my point of view it is better to have those chips for the same socket grouped together, as people looking to upgrade will not be able to switch from a Socket 754 CPU to a 939 CPU.

Start a discussion before you revert changes please.

Commons

You blocked me on WikiCommons for my alleged "pro-Russian agenda". In what way have I taken a pro-Russian side in my edits to the maps??? By fixing the shape of Crimea??? Crimea has been over exaggerated in its physical borders with Ukraine, it is not that closely connected! The newer maps have already made edits to represent Crimea more appropriately, I didn't simply make it up. As for the Russian relations edits I have made, you absolutely have to include Crimea since it is a de-facto part of Russia and it is also recognized by some states as a de-jure part of Russia. That fact can't be ignored! I am very surprised that a user who has been on Wikipedia for over 9 years can make such a rushed block without fully discussing the issue! I demand you unblock me and revert back to all of my edits! --WhyHellWhy (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the reasoning you have given, I would never suggest that you say "I demand". People don't like hearing that. I just thought I should say that; the actual response is up to Denniss obviously. Dustin (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for my harsh wording but this made me really mad, you have to discuss before blocking any user. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Denniss, If you choose not to co-operate and discuss this with me I have no option but to reach for higher involvement regarding this issue. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Pak 40 Edit

Why did you undo my edits for the Pak 40? In the performance section there clearly is quite a bit of confusion about the differences between the Kwk 40 and the Pak 40. Most of the content I deleted was in regards to the Kwk 40 NOT the Pak 40. They are different guns! The breech isn't even the same size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.255.251.172 (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Akashkumarkushwah/Akash Kumar Kushwah

Hi Denniss,

I declined to delete this page under G1, because the page is in the user's namespace. G1 specifically excludes pages that are in the user namespace. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Mikaey, Devil's advocate 15:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Orbit Downloader

So I saw your revert, care to expound a bit? A look at the domain itself is clean. https://www.virustotal.com/en/url/2dcbaa1980aedd46b0a815af1376ded904406148577cbea6a7aa5ee306aa56d6/analysis/

Assuming this is the legit file: https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/18756d11b3c62654e2409d1340a8114fbd471f114420e5ba7735a7363cf23ec6/analysis/

A few of the detections are for OpenCandy, which is not malicious, rather it is ad supported. The other detections are for gush unleashed/orbitnet. There has been, to my knowledge, no third party confirmation of this module, just reposting of the ESET analysis. I'm also not aware of any site that has claimed to be a victim of this so called syn flood. Until we get additional confirmation, I think it poor practice to give this more than a passing mention. Sephiroth storm (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Eset is a reputable source so please don't discount this analysis. Several others AVs, including Kaspersky, still detect it as DDoS module. I neither see an official announcement nor a forum post to repulse the DDoS module claim by ESET (nor confirmation of an infection and its removal). --Denniss (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disputing it persay, but first it's not a virus as mentioned in the article. Secondly we've seen before where vendors will replecate the findings of another vendor without analysis. We don't have independant analysis. It can certainly stay in the article, as reported malicious activity, but IIRC, its in the opening of the article, and stated as a fact. I'm concerned there is an undue weight issue. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

DirectX

The link you keep deleting has been there for years. Someone removed it because the page was dead while I was switching ISPs. That link is as relevant as many of the other sources quoted. I wrote the majority of the first version of DX, and managed the development of the next 4 versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgeisler42 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

please add thai airways in too,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Boeing_787_orders_and_deliveries

Thanks, i am not that great in editing this part.

(27.55.68.145 (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC))

Will be added once it's showing up in Boeing's monthly update. --Denniss (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello letter

Hello denniss I m new to wikipedia from nepal. Would u ssy me about wikipedia. Where r u from??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genius Niraula (talk • contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello letter

Hello denniss I m new to wikipedia from nepal. Would u say me about wikipedia. Where r u from??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genius Niraula (talk • contribs) 06:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

7,5 cm Pak 40

While I appreciate your revert to my last edit, to prevent an edit war, I've moved a discussion I had with the other editor to the talk page, on which you may wish to join: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:7.5_cm_Pak_40#Production_Number Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Dreamliner deliveries

Hi Denniss, these informations are from Boeing 787 Dreamliner Production List from Planespotters.net (http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/787?p=1). I think that website is more actual than official Boeing website, which is updated only every month.

Jakub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.175.125.158 (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stick to the official data which is considered reliable. We are not a newspaper here, requiring daily updates. One update per month from the official Boeing O&D website is more than sufficient, it also help to keep the article data in sync with official data. --Denniss (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Dora Designation?

The entry states that there were two different guns, with Dora being cited separately at the bottom. Other sources on the web show these as two separate weapons. Can this be clarified to indicate whether 1) they were both called Dora, 2) only one was called Dora, or 3) that the Dora cited in the text had its own designation? Just trying to make this clear. Thanks. Andreldritch (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Andreldritch.

Tiger II Königstiger translation

Simply put, it's an argument of semantics. I am not claiming that "Königstiger" does not mean "Bengal Tiger". What I am saying is that "Königstiger" DOES mean "King Tiger" or "Royal tiger" (I won't use "or "Royal Tiger"" for the duration of the argument for the sake of brevity. Assume it is implied following every time I say "King Tiger")

Yes, Königstiger translates to "Bengal Tiger" because the name for "Panthera Tigris Tigris" which we refer to as "Bengal Tiger" in English is referred to as "Königstiger" in German.

So yes, Saying "Königstiger" translates to "Bengal Tiger" is in fact accurate. It's also accurate to say that "Bald Eagle" translates to "Weißkopfseeadler", because they both refer to "Haliaeetus leucocephalus". However it is also accurate to say that "Bald Eagle" translates to "Glatze Adler" or "Eagle that is Bald" In that same way it is accurate to say that "Königstiger" to "King Tiger" or "Tiger that is king". Your example earlier of "König Tiger" or "King named Tiger" was so very close to getting the point.

Simply put, König means "King", "Tiger" means "Tiger". "Königstiger" means "King Tiger". "Panthera Tigris Tigris" is called "Königstiger" in German, and "Bengal Tiger" in English. It's also called "Bengalische Tiger" or even "Bengal Tiger" in German, too.

"Königstiger" Translates to "King Tiger" but MEANS "Bengal Tiger".

In summary: To say that translating "Königstiger" as "King Tiger" is in error is false. "Königstiger" does indeed mean "Bengal Tiger", but to say that the PzKpfw VI Ausf. B was nicknamed "Königstiger" because it was being compared to the tiger from India is silly. PzKpfw VI Ausf. B was very clearly nicknamed "Königstiger" because it was the "King" of the tiger tanks. To be blunt, John Buckley (the author you cite) was a fool who got a bit of trivia and wrote it in a book without logically considering the source of his information. At least in the aspect of that condescending "correction" on the translation of "Königstiger".

"Königstiger" translates to "tiger that is king" but refers to "panthera tigris tigris" (Bengal Tiger) just like "bald eagle" translates to "Glatze Adler" (Eagle that is bald) but refers to "haliaeetus leucocephalus"(Weißkopfseeadler) .

I have never said that "Königstiger" does not mean "Bengal tiger". I have merely said it ALSO means "King tiger"

You are not getting the point, you can't cut a word into multiple parts, translate these parts and expect an accurate translation. The germans hardly nicknamed the Tiger II as King of the Tiger tanks, rather a bigger/larger Tiger tank (such an animal is named Königstiger). Even 'Royal Tiger' would be more correct than King Tiger as this was an old/alternative name for the Bengal Tiger. BTW 'bald' is an adjective and would be translated as 'haarloser' or 'glatzköpfiger' Adler in this context (incorrect anyway as it has to be treated as a name so two words in english happen to become one word in german). --Denniss (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Upon delving into the deeper etymology of the German word Königstiger, I will conceded that "Royal Tiger" would be a more appropriate translation, as would "King's Tiger" or "Kingly Tiger", which can easily be shortened to "King Tiger" for conversational purposes, but it would not be proper. However, once more, to say that Königstiger translates to "Bengal Tiger" ONLY is not true.

If you want to know what the Germans mean by the word "Königstiger" just go to the de.wiki artical for Königstiger, where the mass german conciousness very clearly states that the origin of the word "Königstiger" is "Royal Tiger". https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6nigstiger#Etymologie

Very clearly, any actual German you talk to will tell you that Königstiger does in fact mean "Royal Tiger" but yes, it refers to Panthera tigris tigris. It is because panthera tigris tigris is called "Bengal Tiger" in English that Königstiger translates to Bengal Tiger.

Königshaus means "King's house" but translates to "Royal Family", Königswasser means "King's water" but translates to "Aqua Regia" (Interestingly enough we refer to it in the latin in english. Latin Translation is "royal water") Königskerze means "King's Candle" but translates to "Verbascum", a plant. Königskobra means "King's Cobra" and translates to "King Cobra". Königstiger means "King's Tiger" but translates to "Bengal Tiger".

And thank you for the additional information on "Bald" in German. The phrase "Bald Eagle" translates to Both as "Haarloser adler" and "Weißkopfseeadler" Both are accurate translations. One translation is referring to the literal "eagle that is bald" and the other translation is referring to the understood "haliaeetus leucocephalus".

"Königstiger" translates to both "Royal tiger" and "Bengal tiger". One translation referring to "Tiger that is king" the other referring to "Panthera tigris tigris"

Daripuff (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Macchi C.202

Hi, here is the list of the Military Marking (MM) of Macchi C.202, built as reported from the web site Ali e uomini [Macchi C.202 Folgore].

MM. 445 - prototipo (costruzione Macchi)

MM.91974 – versione con cannoni alari Mauser da 20 mm.

MM.7768 – C.202D

MM. 7859-7958 - n. 100 (luglio 1941- aprile 1942, Breda) I serie

MM. 7709-7718 - n. 10 (maggio-giugno 1941, Macchi) II serie

MM. 7719-7858 - n. 140 (giugno 1941-aprile 1942, Macchi) III serie

MM. 7409-7458 - n. 50 ( settembre1942-giugno 1943, SAI) IV serie

MM. 7959-8008 - n. 50 (giugno-agosto 1943, SAI) V serie (*)

MM. 8339-8388 - n. 50 (marzo-maggio1942, Breda) VI serie

MM. 9023-9122 - n. 100 (aprile-settembre 1942, Macchi) VII serie

MM. 8081-8130 - n. 50 (maggio-luglio 1942, Breda) VIII serie

MM. 9389-9486 - n. 50 (settembre 1942-marzo1943, Macchi) IX serie

MM. 9500-9599 - n. 100 (luglio-novembre 1942, Breda) X serie

MM. 9602-9751/6560-6609 - n. 200 (novembre 1942-maggio 1943, Breda) XI serie

MM. 91803-91951 – n.150 (maggio-settembre 1943, Breda) XII serie (**)

MM. 91953-91993 - n. 55 (aprile-agosto 1943, Macchi) XIII serie

MM. 92053-92152 – n.100 (in lavorazione, Breda) XV serie

MM. 95950-96099 – n.150 (non prodotta, Breda) XVI serie

Chesipiero (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

non prodotta = not produced. That's already -150. Of Serie V only (or possibly only) 17 were produced by SAI, of Serie XIII only 41 were produced by Macchi (I assume they switched to C.205). Breda seems a bit more complicated, by Armistice they had built/delivered 588 C.202 (up to MM91891 of Series XII, minus MM91880), further 61 of 82 expected Series XII were built until April? 44. Breda Series XV stated as in production but no? deliveries. A similar production table with proper explanations is printed in Ali d'Italia 22 on page 54. --Denniss (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

KC-46 First Flight

The aircraft that took flight today is a 767-2C (a model made specially for the KC-46 program) that will have the military systems added soon. What part of this aircraft having its first flight isn't right? It's only not a KC-46 in name and a couple of sub-systems. GeekforChrist95 (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not a true KC-46. --Denniss (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Volkswagen Beetle

Not sure how the Brasilia is irrelevant; it was intended to replace the Beetle, uses the Beetle engine and modified chassis? 842U (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Denniss,
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").

Wrong tag

On images - you cannot put a banner that clearly says "It is attributed to someone other than the uploader, or to an external site" - when it clearly doesn't! It says "self-made" and "I, the copyright holder" - there may be another reason for delete but it's clearly not WP:CSD#F11 as it stands. It might be WP:CSD#F9 if you can trace the original - other wise it will have to go though WP:FfD - speedies are only for obvious cases. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy, do you really value buerocratic problems higher than obvious copyvios? If they end up at Commons they'll be speedied there. --Denniss (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Panther tank revert

Hello,

Could you please explain why you have undone my recent edit?

The given source as reference: 1 2 does only contain a 30° obliquity within a limited range up to 2000m. There's simple no cogency of proof that you can draw the conclusion from it, that 1) Battle encounters exceeding 2000 m and 2) that the performance of the gun had much grater divergence than A) any other contemporary gun at time of similar caliber or B) significant more loss of perforation than the KwK 36. In fact, if you compare the performances of each both at 90° (page 61) from "WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery" you can see the diffrence is virtually nothing. So please don't lay on assumptions and assertions of such kind from third party sites without any handfest proofs. Thanks 79.141.163.7 (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I did now another edit to the article and removed that mentioned reference. The Wa Pruef 1 enumeration is already mentioned in the "The Allied response" section, so I decided it to remove it from the "Turret" section, since it does anyway not belong there. Thanks. 79.141.163.7 (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Mentorship from You for Wikipedia pages creation.

Hello Denniss,

I would like to request you to provide me some insights and mentorship based on your availability to help me grow in creating pages for wikipedia. I would also like to know the work flow of the pages and how to manage user related pages. Please email me your email address and I would like to get in touch with you for the remaining details. My email address is : vviivv33kk@gmail.com

Thank you in advance for the help and inputs.

Regards,

Vivek Nayee. Believe in yourself, follow what you LOVE. 10:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivek H Nayee (talk • contribs)

REGARDING YOU DELETING MY POSTS

On my Jude Wright posts you have been removing my info because apparently my citations weren't reliable. But the WHOLE article has poor references that are WORSE than mine, so.....? Why are you just deleting mine?

Tiger II page language clarification

Dear User Denniss. I'm glad you caught that; all I did was restore the page to the way it had been. Hopefully identifying the potential problem there as confusion resulting from the missing (but critical) "mis-" will settle things down there. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

So what does Wikipedia have against facts?

Why is my addition to the A320neo article being continually deleted? It is fact. It is widely known and published in many articles easily available online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymeonce (talk • contribs) 16:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No one is "vandalizing" anything.

No one is "vandalizing" anything. I am adding FACT to a vague and misleading article. I have cited a source that provides a VERBATIM affirmation of what I said in my addition. It is a RE-ENGINE PROGRAM. Is there a conflict of interest between Wikipedia editors and Airbus? I notice the article reads a lot like an Airbus commercial. Maybe I should consider deleting the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymeonce (talk • contribs) 16:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hauerwas image

Hi Deniss, I carefully checked the flickr image of Hauerwas regards the public usability. The creator of the image granted cc as long as his authorship is mentioned. Any reason why you reverted it? I don't want to repeat a mistake.. Thanks.
Inawe 22:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Noncommercial or nonderivative restrictions are not permitted at Commons. --Denniss (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Inawe 13:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Me 210

Denniss, can you check this edit? The user is trying to reduce the "redundancy",but it might be the wrong way to translate it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

regarding deleted posts

Hi Denniss,

I've been trying to add to Paul Pape's article. I sourced IMBD as my reference. Is IMBD a good source to cite? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0660407/

Thank you for your help.

jackie Jackiefalcon45 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Imdb is like another wiki, not a reliable source. --Denniss (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edit in "List of AMD Opteron microprocessors"

What is the rationale behind an empty column? --188.105.118.172 (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Leopard 2

Hi Denniss, as you can see below, the "Turkish Army vehicles" category includes the Leopard 2, as well as dozens of other foreign-sourced vehicles. The category is not military vehicles produced by Turkey, but vehicles used by the Turkish Army. You can either add that category to the Leopard 2 page, or remove all those vehicles from that category.

Best, UCaetano (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Arindam Dey

The Arindam Dey article is autobiographical and self-promoting. Deletion is the proper course, and I support your effort.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"vandalism" is a baseless accusation

The casualty list I purported is one that was issued by the US military, the entire period referred to as the battle of the bulge was the period when those casualties were issued, however in the pursuit of fairness, I added it back to the casualty list with a modification — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.73.72.189 (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Focke-Wulf Fw 189

I noticed your revert of my edit on Focke-Wulf Fw 189. I corrected a spelling error which you have put back. If you insist on using British English it should be spelt manoeuvrability not manoeuverability. Perhaps you would like to correct the error yourself and not just revert without explanation. Jodosma (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I see you fixed it. Well done. Jodosma (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Phenom II HT

Hello,

why did you revert my edit? --188.105.118.172 (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin

Hello. Can you please tell me why you reverted this edit of mine? Karl Dönitz was Hitler's successor as head of state of Germany, so I don't understand why including him is controversial. When you go to revert an edit, it says "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only". You didn't leave an edit summary when you reverted my edit, implying that my edit was vandalism, which it wasn't. --64.132.0.201 (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

AMD Socket 754 wiki page shows inaccurate information

I was trying to research evidence of what I've been doing for more than 10 years with decoding memory fail addresses and found the Socket 754 page to have inaccurate information. To confirm the correct information I was providing, I found that the functional data sheet is not readily available from AMD's website, but I have an archive of documents, some of which are marked NDA. If the screen capture link worked, then you'll see for yourself that AMD documented the Socket 754 actually does support up to four registered DIMMs (RDIMMs).

As I am writing this response, I have open the AMD Functional Data Sheet 754 Pin Package, revision 3.18, October 2004. On page 35 of this document, and noted in my edits, pins E5, C4, E6, D6, E7, E8, C8, and D8 are labeled, respectively, MEMCS_L[0], MEMCS_L[1], MEMCS_L[2], MEMCS_L[3], MEMCS_L[4], MEMCS_L[5], MEMCS_L[6], and MEMCS_L[7]. These are the eight chip select pins. With each DIMM slot having two chip selects at that point in time, Socket 754 can support four DIMM slots. This same list of pins is shown on page 45 of the document.

Granted, most of the boards I had access to back in the day had only two DIMM slots, with the lower pair of chip selects assigned to channel A and the upper pair of chip selects assigned to channel B. The ability to buy motherboards with only two or three DIMM slots is not proof that this socket only supported three DIMMs. The proof of support for four DIMMs is in the document.

AMD Functional Data Sheet 754 Pin Package, page 15, section 2.4.2 "Memory Controller", document revision 3.18, October 2004

If you have questions, please send an email to me at chip.programmer@att.net.

Chip

Chip.programmer (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Four DIMM slot support is not dual-channel, there are simply insufficient external data lines to be connected to two separate channels (there's a reason for the socket 939/940 to be named as such due to increased pins and external data lines). Three or four DIMMS are supported in single channel mode. With 3x unbuffered DIMMS you typically see boards reduce memclock to lowest value of 100 MHz to compensate for high load and signal degradation on the memory signal lines.--Denniss (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Fix, don't revert

My GF edits to Marder II were clearly improvements, adding a LEDE that actually summarized the content. If there are minor mistakes in the content, fix it, don't revert wholesale. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent Edit at List of Boeing 737 MAX orders

Hello,

I'd like to let you know that the edit you made to List of Boeing 737 MAX orders has been reinstated. I have looked on Wikipedia and found no consensus leading to your claim. And also for an FYI, whenever an airline committed to purchasing some Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, their commitments were stated in the article. The table below is only for firm orders. So please do not revert the changes because the information that is currently is correct. If you choose to revert it to the incorrect edit, this can lead to a possible edit war. So I warn you once again, please do not revert the changes. And also like I said in the edit summary, "There was no consensus. Please do not state false claims."

--PilotJaguar1996 (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Revert on Airbus A380

Do you have a reason for this rollback at Airbus A380? It appeared to be a constructive edit, and you didn't provide a reason for reverting. Conifer (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The referenced data is still of March 2015, has not been updated to April yet. So this change was unsourced. --Denniss (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

But unsourced content is not one of the reasons to use rollback (WP:ROLLBACK). Conifer (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Airbus A330neo 14% weniger ...

hi dennis, can you please somehow explain how 14% less fuel can be different for the plane and per passenger? i understood the size of the plane stays the same. the sentence "most cost efficient blabla on the market" copied off a vendors webpage does not sound NPOV imo as well. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ever heard of aircraft equipped with different seat density? This figure is calculated for an aircraft with a specific amount of seats and may change with more or less seats installed. Plus it's a common term in manufacturer's marketing blablurb and airline's calculations. --Denniss (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

regarding INS Arihant at launch.jpg usage.

hello, i came here clear a doubt that i have about this picture File:INS Arihant at launch.jpg as i have very little knowledge about copyright and commons rules and guidelines, so if possible can you please explain me why this picture cannot be added on Future of the Indian Navy Submarines-Nuclear powered-Arihant class- picture section but allowed only on Arihant-class submarine and INS Arihant. what makes this picuture different from others and is it in anyway possible to add this picture in any other related page? thank you :) Nicky mathew (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You need to add a fair use rationale to the image page for the article you want to used this image in.--Denniss (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by Tirgil34 on Commons

Hi, Denniss, I've noticed that you've done a great job blocking sockpuppets of Tirgil34 at Wikimedia Commons. Some of his CheckUser-blocked accounts are however still unblocked on Commons, even accounts that have made edits. I have listed these at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34. On Wikipedia, article creations by sockpuppets of blocked users qualify for speedy deletion in accordance with WP:G5. Are you aware of the policy of Commons regarding creations by sockpuppets of blocked users? Krakkos (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Airbus A400M Crash

You reverted my amendment concerning the crash of the A400M although the source was clearly documented. It could hardly be considered a totally unreliable source and I did use the word "apparently". It seems to me that it is better for readers of Wikipedia to look at the reference and judge for themselves than to be denied the information altogether - which would be a form of censorship. TriodeFollower (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

1 RR Violation

This edit of yours - [7] violates the 1RR restriction on all articles related to the Arab -Israeli conflict. You should revert it. All Rows4 (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please message the user that started the war and shows to be immune to arguments. --Denniss (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The faults of other users do not excuse your violation. Please revert your edit, or you will likely be blocked for this violation. All Rows4 (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by All Rows4 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff

Hi Denniss. The reason why I'm writing to you is because you said here: "Do not include any form of one-sided/biased form of this allegation. I believe the variant before revert and protection presented both sides and was rather neutral, in this form I would support inclusion." As far as I understand from your message, what you meant is that you would support an inclusion of that information in the lead as it was before this edit. If that's the case, I ask you to please change that comment to say "include" instead of "Do not include" at the beginning of the sentence, since you are saying that basically you support including the accusations of antisemitism in the lead (as well as Latuff's denial). Some people may get confused because of the "Do not include" bold in the beginning. If that's not the case and I misunderstood your point, I extend my sincerest apologies.--Averysoda (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

8.8 cm KwK 36 Tiger I details

Regarding the 8.8 cm KwK 36 page: as I mentioned in my edit explanation, details about the Tiger I's armor and power should be written on its own article, not on the article of its cannon. If you insist to add such details, at least explain your point when undoing my edit. You already seemed to have an edit war with Covenater over the neutrality of the Performance section, please don't drag me into one as well. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

why do you keep deleting the link of Representative Sewell's former marriage?

why do you keep deleting the link of Representative Sewell's former marriage? Can you not handle facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2513:9319:2C5E:6E45:E74:16E (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits on page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neeraj_Mehta

Hi Denniss, I noticed that the new entries on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neeraj_Mehta have been reverted by you, whereas the information was from a Valid Source;The Hindu is a leading newspaper. I seek your suggestions in order to make the page more informative. Please advise. Eve099 (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

On copyright and release notes

Regarding your recent revert of my edit to PlayStation 3 system software, please see my recent reply on the Talk page of same. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio T-34

You have reverted a sentence which is clearly a copyvio. As my edit with a word by word quote from Zaloga got reverted twice: 1, 2 the other sentence should not be in place aswell, as mine was a genuine Zaloga quote. Please remove it. CobhamLaine (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You do not appear to grasp what Zaloga is saying, that the T-34 usage in 1941 was a "dismal failure" in terms of how it was used. He is not saying at all that the T-34 was a "dismal failure" in subsequent years, which is what you appear to be attempting to assert. Please be more careful in the use of sources. Irondome (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry what? You don't appear to understand, the "dismal failure" is meant for its overall battlefield performance, which is true for the entire War. Or how could you explain such dreadful overall performance and high casualty rate among the T-34? The poor training quality remained, the poor strategic use in command remained and this is highlighted in multiple passages in the Book.

Also the sentence: "Although its armour and armament were surpassed later in the war, it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient, and influential tank design of World War II" is clearly a copyvio and should be removed. CobhamLaine (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the other sentence, see talk. Do not revert again! CobhamLaine (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it means 1941. I do not give a toss about a quote from a book that ripped off a Wiki article, but do not attempt to reinsert a misleading Zaloga quote. Take this to the relevant talk page, please do not litter a user's talk page. Irondome (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You left me a message on my talk to discuss it; you refused!! I left a message on Denniss to discuss another issues. Take your own snooty advise and move along. CobhamLaine (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I sense you and the WP community will fall out rather dramatically. Pip pip! Irondome (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Denniss, I feel like something needs to be cleared up here, based on the subjects of this section and the previous one: When directly quoting a source, a citation isn’t enough. Without quotation marks (or <blockquote> etc.) around the quotation, it’s plagiarism, and quite possibly copyright infringement. Neither of these things is okay—at all, let alone on Wikipedia. So when restoring text copied from elsewhere, please add quotation marks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

J. Leahy

1993 till 2003. Since 2003 many things happen. Normaly this has to be deleted also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airz456+ (talk • contribs) 14:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Please help me delete my Khloe Kardashian & Yousef Erakat files!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by D M WELL (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Kwk 36 Accuracy

Please join us on Talk:8.8 cm KwK 36 --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Avast (software company) & Avast (security softwares)

Hi Denniss, I see that you are involved since long in the redaction of this Avast article.

Also, please read my comment on : Talk:Avast_(software_company)#Disambiguation_.28again.29

We have to solve this interwiki problem.
I really suggest to create two different pages, like we have on the french wiki, about Avast. Only then we could adjust the links between the various languages.
--Millot (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

FSB fuer Itanium 2!

Der Itanium 2 Prozessor habt 128-bit Datei Bus und 44-bit Addresses Bus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.210.137.218 (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi, thanks for verify/check my last edits on "List of Airbus A320neo Family Orders" Page . But i have question why you revert my edits ? Thanks. Albert Ong 11:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

This edits is based on another Wikipedia Page . Albert Ong 11:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

And the order/delivery data in this page is referenced to official Airbus data. Imagine which is more reliable. --Denniss (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Gavin MacIntosh

Hello,

His ancestry was confirmed on imdb.com.

Zane Nariman

That's not a valid source, just like another wiki. --Denniss (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Deniss. I found tweets from Gavin confirming that his family members are Portuguese and German. Would that be considered reliable? I know self-published sources aren't the best. [8] [9] Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

8,8 cm Pak. 43 German anti-tank gun.

Hi! Why you reverted my edits?! The official German military designation for 8,8 cm Pak. 43 was 8,8 cm Panzerjägerkanone 43. Not the 8,8 cm Panzerabwehrkanone 43, it is wrong!

Look for official document Gerätliste D97/1+ (July 1, 1943): "Gerätliste 1943 - s.45".

Panzerabwehrkanone - the usual German word for anti-tank gun, it does not in this case (Pak. 43) related to the name. But 2 German guns were in the name of Panzerabwehrkanone (Pak.): 3.7 cm Pak. (it is renamed in 1936 the 3,7 cm Tak. = 3,7 cm Tankabwehrkanone) and 5 cm Pak. 38. Because in 1940 German anti-tank troops change the name from Panzerabwehrabteilung to Panzerjägerabteilung both these anti-tank guns later in some documents were renamed to Panzerjägerkanone. All new anti-tank guns adopted from 1941 were designated as the Panzerjägerkanone (Pak.) only! Exceptions: some casemate and foreign captured guns used Panzerabwehrkanone in designation all the ww2. Costas-1963 (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Name went through different incarnations and Panzerabwehrkanone was the most common name. The excerpt you linked to looks like a naming scheme for vehicle-mounted guns which may indeed had been named so. --Denniss (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• There were not any incarnations. There were only the official German designation for the towed and self-propelled/vehicle-mounted guns! As you can see in 1943's Gerätliste and they both had the same name: Panzerjägerkanone. And I believe you can not show me any German document of the ww2 with another Pak.43 full gun name! Some incarnations were after war in author's heads only. ;) Costas-1963 (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to set up a company page. Can you please let me know what other information you need in order to verify the content. I plan on adding additional information and sources over the next few days.

Thank You

• Take a look at the latest version of an official Gerätliste D97/1+ (April 12, 1945): "Gerätliste 1945 - Waffen-Revue-84".

As we can see from the German documents from 1943 to 1945, 88 mm towed anti-tank guns were called Panzerjägerkanone (Pak)! Costas-1963 (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

speedily deleted from Wikipedia.

Dear Denniss,

As the changes done to my page on January 12/2016 were in my best knowledge. So what are the reasons behind putting my page under speedily deleted category..

Regards

Eastern Front Artikel

Hallo Denniss,

Der Nihlus1 schreibt Unsinn. Angefangen mit diesen edit: 1 Nicht nur das die Seitenzahl falsch angeben wurde, nein, er gibt auch noch falsche Zahlen für die Waffen-SS an, entgegen was Burkhart Muller-Hillebrand schreibt. Da er weder die Ausgabe nennt, und daher zweifelhafte Seitenangaben gemacht, hat habe ich diese zweimal entfernt. Beim dritten Mal, gibt er jedoch zu, Fehler gemacht zu haben: 2 Okay, geklärt.

Nun behauptet er ständig, dass die Zahlen, die Glantz präsentiert, ohne Luftwaffe noch Kriegsmarine gezählt sind. Das ist aber Schwachsinn. Bitte unternehme was, danke! 185.45.13.152 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

A320neo

What's wrong with Gulf Air order? Михаило Јовановић (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That page is updated monthly, based on official Airbus O&D data. Press releases are not sufficiently reliable even if on their own website. --Denniss (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a link where that was agreed on? I doubt by the way pretty much that press releases are in any way less reliable than O&D data. --Rabenkind (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

We had it often that press releases were too early (order not finalized or options instead of real orders, converted options, etc), incorrect or incomplete. The only really reliable information source is the monthly updated O&D file. Press releases are made by marketing guys, O&D data by the finance guys so who's more reliable? --Denniss (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

So you are saying you made this rule up yourself? Do you have links supporting what you are claiming? --Rabenkind (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't made it. But the order table is referenced to reliable O&D data and has to stay so. --Denniss (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind showing me the relevant discussion where it was agreed on to only rely on the O&D data? I believe referencing the O&D data for a certain point in time and also referencing a press release for an update makes perfect sense. And so far I don't see any argument invalidating that. --Rabenkind (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Relevant policy is WP:NOTNEWS. Order data must have a reliable reference which the press release isn't. Press releases could be added later if confirmed via O&D data.--Denniss (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please help me out. What statement exactly do you refer to in WP:NOTNEWS. And please don't only claim statements like Order data must have a reliable reference which the press release isn't. Where is the according rule? Where was that agreed on? Without that it's nothing but your personal opinion. --Rabenkind (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

My uploads are been removed

Hey why did you remove my uploads Tvstar21 (talk) 13:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Why you think is Wikipedia your property? If someone is contributing and improving the quality why do u have problem with it? Please dont Tvstar21 (talk) 13:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

And my media uploads are been exclusive. No copy right issues.. and even you have edited my updating.. please when you not in India please have an idea about our based shows and updates. Before you try to delete or remove them. Thanks. Wikipedia is for all Tvstar21 (talk) 13:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

All your upload were copyright violatiosn and have been deleted. Please only upload what you entirely create yourself. Taking a copy from elsewhere and uploading it to Wiki does not magically become your own creation. --Denniss (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Denniss

Hi Denniss. You can change photo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rita_Sargsyan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshavir1993 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleted files

Alexandrosbouguereau (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Hello Denniss, Why did you delete my files? I got permision from the artist to use them! If you want i'll send you a picture of my chat with him to prove it! Next time atleat send me an alert, dont just delete them!.

I provided an email with permission from the creator and subject of the photo I posted. Why did you delete it?

This inquiry has to do with a photo I posted in the Wikimedia Commons for Amanda C. Miller's Wikipedia page. I provided all the information requested and sent an email granting me permission to use the photo to the email address Wikipedia provided me. What more do I have to do to prove that I am authorized to use this photo? My daughter is not versed in the use of Wikipedia, and she asked me to change the photo, and she gave me the photographer's permission to do so as long as the photo credit was included. What good are your procedures if you don't follow them and make decisions on a whim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmiller1959 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If the permission is deemed sufficient the file will be undeleted. But this may take some time. --Denniss (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not trying to be difficult, but Wikipedia makes it hard to make even the most innocuous changes. I'm not trying to deceive anyone, which is why I sent the email from the photo subject and the photographer, both granting me permission to post the photo. How do I know if my permission request is even being considered? Rmiller1959 (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You will likely get an Email response by the OTRS agent handling your issue. --Denniss (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thank you for your work cleaning up Graduateandyou's edit spree. I'll be watching that account in the future. Jeh (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Air-France KLM 787 deliveries

5 B787-9's were delivered to KLM, so please don't revoke my edits!

Tram2 (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Arjen Mulder (Tram2) May 1st 2016

Please wait for an update to the official Boeing reference confirming this. Wiki is not your local newspaper. --Denniss (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/customers/klm-royal-dutch-airlines/klm-celebrate-the-delivery-of-the-airlines-first-787-9-dreamliner.page

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/displaystandardreport.cfm?cboCurrentModel=787&optReportType=AllModels&cboAllModel=787&ViewReportF=View+Report

stop being rude Tram2 (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Turøy helicopter crash

Hello Denniss

Please note I am the copyright holder of the image of the Bond helicopter you uploaded to the page 2016 Turøy helicopter crash. Please don't re-post it. Also, you should be aware that it was not a Bond aircraft involved in this incident, so including this image on this page is potentially misleading and confusing.Flerg (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Flerg (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't revert my article its true with proper sources links added too A320 neo operation problems

Qatar airways was the launch customer tor the A320 neo scheduled to enter into service in November 2015. However Qatar Airways backed oft the delivery as there were engine problems with the A320 neo. Lufthansa came up and took the Delivery Out also reported problems with the engines.. It seems that Airbus has hurried up with the A320neo and is neglecting safety over schedule. A recent video released by CNN with CEO of Qatar Airways Mr. Al Baker says that there are further issues with Airbus themselves. He further stated that me A320neo has issues with software problems, engine issues, APU issue and Hydraulics issue which were been quite about says Qatar Airways CEO. Airbus and the plane's engine maker, United Technologies Corp. unit Pratt & Whitney have struggled to get the A320neo up to performance standards, resulting in considerable delays. However Qatar Airways is prepared to was away from Airbus The safely of the Airbus A320neo seems compromised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyDreamliner (talk • contribs)

References

(talk page stalker) Your protests would have more weight if you hadn't made this massive deletion of properly sourced content on the 787 article. That, combined with your username, gives the impression of biased editing on your part. Rather than continue to edit war on the A320neo page, please use the article's talk page to build a consensus to add your material first. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Help, urgent

	Help, urgent
	Can you help me delete the images i upload, please? OZiefOx (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Denniss. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unsourced claims of "False advertisement". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Wehrmachtbericht

Wehrmachtbericht references have been systematically deleted from text throughout English language Wikipedia. Parsecboy himself deleted at least one that I noticed, why don't you ask him about it?

Wehrmachtbericht references are non-notable, and basically just spam introduced by MrBee, who apparently could not talk the German language Wiki editors into accepting it. Why don't you check with them too?

I don't feel like signing on at the moment, but I am Wiki user USNorseman if you want to say anything on my talk page.

I hope you will recognize the reasonableness of the deletion, and revert to my edit which made the deletion.

Thanks, USN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CEAB:9930:7950:F820:356E:31A0 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Puma - SdKfz 234

revision in reference Why is it that all over the internet it says that a Puma is a SdKfz 234 german armored car? I'm inclined to note that it is a Puma, unless a reference says otherwise. WinterSpw (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No reliable author/historian calls the 234/2 'Puma'. No german document shows this usage anywhere. Just a common postwar myth. --Denniss (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Revert on Gavin MacIntosh

Hi! I noticed you reverted my edit to Gavin MacIntosh. I have redone the edit because its primary purpose was to remove the "imagesize" parameter, which had been incorrectly formatted so that the page appeared in Category:Articles using infobox person with unsupported parameters. The image_size parameter is also deprecated/discouraged (see Template:Infobox person).

As requested, I have left the image parameter in, although I would be grateful if you could point me towards the guidance that says this parameter should remain in articles where no image currently exists. I've been working from the guidance on the infobox page, which says that unused parameters should be removed; there is no specific info on images, other than to say that a placeholder image should not be used. I'm working on cleaning up infobox errors using the category above, so any guidance related to that task would be very helpful. Marianna251TALK 13:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The image parameter is likely thee most used parameter, keeping it without image is not like using a placeholder image instead. To prevent formatting errors upon including images the parameter should be kept even if no image is currently present (at some time there will be a free image). If image_size is deprecated it's OK to remove. Please never remove birth date and location even if it's currently unused, this is just another high-use/to-be-filled parameter. --Denniss (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you point me towards the actual guidance on this? Marianna251TALK 14:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This is just Commons sense which should have told you this yourself + there's no real guidance to remove any unused parameter (just the 'please remove'). --Denniss (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, please remember to be civil and assume good faith when discussing an issue with other editors. I'm looking for some evidence that what you've said is the result of a consensus discussion or official guidance/policy, but it appears that there isn't any, so that means the infobox documentation (aka the template's instructions) are what I should be going by. Thanks for your time. Marianna251TALK 16:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Panzer IV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hummel. 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) 09:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you please explain your edits on the B-70?

I am wondering what you meant by your comment "improper use of sigfig for large values" on the B-70 article. Can you please explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfox88 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

31 August 2016

At least you can you tell me why have you reverted my edits according to Windows 95? Because you haven't notified me that this is not the right way to edit, or something is wrong with any of my edits, then I have the right to undo your revision. Ramy5077 (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Again its you? I really don't understand what is with you. Why don't you tell me what I have done to Airbus A330? I don't understand why are you reverting my edits without any valid reason? I am not doing anything adding or removing contents without reliable sources, I am just editing the content, fixing it basically, is that wrong? Because you haven't notified me that this is not the right way to edit, or something is wrong with any of my edits, then I have the right to undo your revision. --Ramy5077 (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Liberators and Privateers

Thank you for reverting my edit on the Blohm & Voss BV 222 article. It was, of course, very enlightening to me. The point is that, after googling the matter, I found some sources naming "Privateer" the PB4Y-1 model, not only the PB4Y-2 model (thus, as if the proper name was not "PB4Y-1 Liberator" but "PB4Y-1 Privateer", like in the "PB4Y-2 Privateer"). I look forward now to your views... Cheers! Kintaro (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Privateer was only used for the -2 variant, not for the B-24s used as -1. --Denniss (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, fine. Thank you... Kintaro (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Denniss. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Cultural reference to Yamato in Star Trek

Please explain why the reference to USS Yamato in Star Trek was removed from the cultural reference section. The name of the star fleet ship came from the Yamato — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayonpradhan (talk • contribs) 16:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That may be relevant to the Star Trek article series (if properly sourced) but not to articles of the real ships. Plus nobody knows that they were named after the real ships and not simply after the province.--Denniss (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

I would respectfully like to raise an issue regarding your last edit on the Nazi Germany page, and the note you left which stated "If cited source says so it has to stay"—before reverting pls actually check the source, Also, I'm the person who wrote the entire 'Oppression of ethnic Poles' section, and based on sources I wrote "killed by the Nazis" not "killed by Axis Powers" there is no reference to Axis Power in the doc. --E-960 (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

A thread has been started regarding you at ANI (on behalf of another user) -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 10:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

German language, I think

Denniss, any clue what this means? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Apart from Anti-Trump that's Gibberish, nonsense.--Denniss (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Regards

Thank you for reverting the edits made by an unregistered user in the article "Invasion of Poland". Best Regards :) Oliszydlowski (TALK) 18:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Origin's On the House games‎

Syberia II is still available in the US as well. I have Origin so I logged in and looked. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 12:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Denniss. You have new messages at Talk:Airbus A320 family/GA2.
Message added 20:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The GA Nom-editor has only edited this article once - I am just trying to make sure that there are other editors/major contributors who are willing to work with me on this GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Vietnam war weapons

hi i added a number of links that had more information and images to back up clans of the weapons beaning in vietnam but you removed them all. i know non-English reliable source WP:NOENG but i did not remove over peoples information and links and say its seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia

First this is a non-english site, second this could hardly be considered a reliable source. Plus you spammed the link on many pages which already had reliable sources for specific weapon use in Vietnam. --Denniss (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

there are no reliable sources on some of them like the DShK. but yes i know there were and i was added to them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man74 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

there is no disruptive editing and I do not appreciate being threatened

The purpose of any knowledge compendium is the advancement of knowledge and understanding. Period. Not the advancement of a political idea or theory. In this instance, I have removed a politicizing pejorative that has no place attached to an inanimate noun.

I was a solider in the US Army from 2003. I was a military policeman. Would you describe my company as a Republican military police company? Would you refer to my M1026 HUMMWV as a Republican vehicle? Would you refer to the Army as a Republican army? Of course not - the idea that we were all associated with the leader at the time is ludicrious.

My great grandfather was a Leutnant in the Heer. He was an apolitical officer and served his country. The Nazis were horrible, but you will not tarnish the whole Army with that brush. Nor their equipment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.68.219 (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Nazi Germany is the standard phrase for referring to Germany between 1933 and 1945 (including on Wikipedia), in the same way as Weimar Germany refers to Germany between 1919 and 1933, and Vichy France refers to unoccupied France from 1940 to 1944. It is also a convenient description. You can request that all instances of Nazi Germany be changed to Germany, but this require that you get consensus first. As they are done now, your edits are indeed disruptive.Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. To refer to everything in Germany as Nazi disparages those who were not, and unnecessarily politicizes an issue. As stated above, I served in the army under a republican leader. Do you refer to the US during the Bush years as Republican America and everything after as Democractic america? You do not.

If you wish to persist on being unduly truculent, please advise your supervisor and escalate this matter.

Painting a whole country with that brush is unfair and unrealistic.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. Nazi Germany is the almost universally accepted way to refer to Germany from 1933 to 1945. If you want to change that on Wikipedia, you will need consensus. Just changing it when there's a consensus agaist you is by definition vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Ankerstjerne (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not universally accepted as proper. Is it Wiki's position that all Germans who served were Nazis? If that is the case, as a direct descendant thereof, we will dispute this another way.

You are inflamming content and intentionally politicizing an issue, perhaps due to Germanophobia, or simply anti-German bias. I do not know. Please stop politicizing content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.190.5.226 (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

LOL - have you ever bothered to read my userpage? I am German, I lost one grandfather in 1945 and the other was seriously wounded in Africa. --Denniss (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

1. A search on Amazon for the phrase "Nazi Germany" returns about 3500 books. A Google Ngram search shows that the phrase has been used ever since Hitler took power. Finally, the phrase is used at least 19 000 times on US government websites. This proves that it's a very common phrase, with a long history of use.
2. The phrase Nazi Germany does not imply that everyone in Nazi Germany was a Nazi, in the same way that everyone in Soviet Russia wasn't a socialist or that everyone in Imperial Japan was not an imperialist.
3. The phrase is not politically motivated. It is a convenient and disambiguous phrase for providing an historical context. Your accusation of Germanophobia and anti-German bias is absurd considering that Denniss is a German.Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Otto von Bismarck

Whether there is a formal numbering system for German chancellors or not is irrelevant. Bismarck was the Chancellor of Germany. If there were no Chancellors before him, then he was the first. Not #1, but the first. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Witch one PanzerTracks?

Because ther is: Panzer Tracts No.5-1 Panther D Panzer Tracts No.5-2 Ausf A Panzer Tracts No.5-3 Ausf G. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szolnok95 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

sales pages

hi you are systematically undoing my removal of links to sales pages can you explain why? thanksDomdeparis (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed them in compliance with WP:ELNO and notably Wikipedia:External_links#cite_note-6. Domdeparis (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

the paradox plaza website is solely dedicated to selling their products. Even on their home page [10] there are buttons everywhere to buy or pre-order their products. It is a choice but I believe linking to their site is close to spam. Domdeparis (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

And just to finish the links are not necessary if there is sufficient sources for the article from independent reliable sources as per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Vendor_and_e-commerce_sources Domdeparis (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Competition between Airbus and Boeing

Explain please, why you reverted my edit in Competition between Airbus and Boeing. Anton n (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Lewis gun

FYI: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_10#Template:Lewis_derivatives Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact

Please discuss the reasons for reverting my changes to the article about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in the talk-page for that article. Please discuss the topic first before reverting things without even a comment. Best regards Martin Wiss (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

German Chancellors

I've been informed that a consensus has been reached that German chancellors should not be numbered sequentially so I won't dispute that here. With that being said, I still am concerned as to why you took the liberty of deleting all my contributions to German chancellors' pages without any explanation. Consequently, I was hoping you could give me one now so we could try and reach some kind of compromise. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Emiya1980

Battle Of Kursk and German casulties issue

Hello, Dennis. This is about the casualties section I've recently edited, about which you stated in a message that it didn't appear constructive. The problem is with this source that claims Germans had about 89,833 killed or missing and 215,732 wounded:

"Heeresarzt 10-Day Casualty Reports per Army/Army Group, 1943" Archived 25 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine.. World War II Stats. Retrieved 4 July 2015.

The link this source provides (http://ww2stats.com) simply doesn't work.

I did the following in the German losses section: Karl-Heinz Frieser, who reviewed the German archive record, calculated that during Operation Citadel 54,182 casualties were suffered. Of these, 9,036 were killed, 1,960 were reported missing and 43,159 were wounded. The 9th Army suffered 23,345 casualties, while Army Group South suffered 30,837 casualties. Throughout the Soviet offensives, 86,064 casualties were suffered. In facing Operation Kutuzov, 14,215 men were killed, 11,300 were reported missing (presumed killed or captured) and 60,549 were wounded. During Polkovodets Rumyantsev, 25,068 casualties were incurred, including 8,933 killed and missing. Combined casualties for the three battles previously mentioned and covered by Karl-Heinz Freiser were about 44,544 killed or missing and 119,843 wounded.

I calculated the combined casualties of the battles provided by Freiser and got those numbers. In the casualties tables, I added the numbers and references from this section. Maybe I've done this clumsily and may have missed something, but the fact remains that on the one hand we have Karl-Heinz Freiser, and on the other, the source for the previous extremely higher casualties that is very dubious.

Thanks and cheers.

@Grondorn: this link is still working (https://web.archive.org/web/20130525020822/http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec43.html). And I calculated the combined casualties in this link (1/7 - 30/8/1943), 89,833 kill is correctTranminhtan (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tranminhtan Thanks to you, I can finally access this link. And I also see where did you make your mistake, you calculated the combined casualties for the period (1/7 - 30/8/1943) for all of the Army Group Center and Army Group South, but not all of the formations of mentioned army groups participated in the Kursk battles. For the Army Group South, you need to count only the 4th Panzer Army and Army detachment Kempff, and for the Army Group Center the 9th Army and 2nd Panzer Army (2nd Army was also present, but KIA/MIA were marginal, around 1000). Plus, You can't really cite the 21.08 to 30.8 period since the Battle Of Kursk officially ended 23.08.1943. I've done my own calculation, and got around 50,000 killed and missing throughout that period. Grondorn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grondorn (talk • contribs) 20:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Not Vandalism

Hi, Denniss. My edit on the GeForce 900 series was not vandalism. I was only making the text more concise without cutting out any important information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.140.208.59 (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Category removal

See WP:GHETTO. Please stop reverting/undoing me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

As you can see on Category:American male comedians, it is non-diffusing and the parent Category:American comedians is not marked with {{diffuse}}. Do you understand the implications of WP:GHETTO in this case? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

M36 and Danbury museum

The fellow may have had a point; with the museum indefinitely closed, is it actually "on display?" Anmccaff (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Image depicts the TD on display at the museum. --Denniss (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Nahh, it depicts the M36 which -was- on display at the museum, a noteworthy difference. "Then on display," "once on display," "formerly on display" would all work, but it is not currently on display, and I don't think had been since the shooting. Anmccaff (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Reșița

Hello Denniss,

Please be so kind and google [resita eiffel] or read the romanian wikipedia page about the eiffel tower . The story about the tower being made of Resita iron is just a hoax with a large popularity in romania.

Don't believe everything just because it was writen in a paper.

Best Regards

Nostradamix

Nostradamix (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 211.9 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Skandar Keynes

Could you please explain why you reverted my edit? Rusted AutoParts 02:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Source for your edit ? --Denniss (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

What? It was already in the article.

"Skandar Keynes is now a parliamentary adviser to Crispin Blunt, MP." Rusted AutoParts 15:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Wehrmacht

How about if I state it as some sources consider the Wehrmacht...................?Fury 1991 (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991

This obscure statement is POV by this author of which I was not really able to find information. Such a statement may be included if backed up by multiple reknown authors (I doubt they would have given such a statement). --Denniss (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

US Strategic Bombing Survey

Re: US Strategic Bombing Survey. I see that you prefer style over substance (either that or your grasp of the English language is tenuous).

Worldbeater2002 (talk)

My edit of Bismark sinking

Please let me know why you deleted my edit of the Bismark sinking?Horace100 (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Rollback

Your use of rollback is a cause of concern. Please explain how any of these following reverts are valid uses of rollback, specifically how "obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear" applies: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. I am sure there are more, but it didn't take me long to find these examples. Additionally, your use of rollback to edit war with Gdcox on German battleship Bismarck was particularly worrisome. This has been brought to your attention before, so there seems to be a pattern here. Nihlus 05:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I've removed your rollback access as you've continued to use it inappropriately. [21] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Denniss. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's hear your arguments then

On both aricles' talk pages. ---- 91.10.5.170 (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like your input in a discussion

Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Question for sources

Dear Denniss,

First of all, this isn't meant as an attack or me getting back at you for reverting my changes. In fact, I find it comforting that Wikipedia articles are being actively monitored and all.

I do have a question though, regarding the Bf 110, specifically the presence of a three-crew night fighter variant for the Bf 110E. I have multiple sources (more below) which claim that such a subvariant exists in the form of the Bf 110E-1/U2. This contradicts your statement that no such subvariant existed. This leaves two possibilities, either your sources are mistaken or mine are and the error has been perpetuated multiple times. Therefore, I would like to share you the sources which made me believe that the E-1/U2 existed and I hope you would share your sources too for proofreading's sake.

Thank you for reading this. Sorry for the maybe strange wording and keep up the good work.

Sincerely,

Hardtofindausername

Sources:
-airvectors.net (http://www.airvectors.net/avbf110.html) A secondary source which so far seems quite reliable. Its sources for this article includes "Warplanes of the Third Reich" by William Greene and "Warplanes of the Luftwaffe" by David Donald.

-historyofwar.org (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_bf_110E.html) Not quite sure about the reliability of this website as I have had one contradiction before (ammunition capacity for the nose-mounted MK 108 on the Bf 110G) but it does state its source, which is "Messerschmitt Bf 110 Zerstörer Aces of World War 2"by John Weal.

-http://en.valka.cz/topic/view/76813/Messerschmitt-Bf-110-E-1
A Czech thread that I stumbled upon with four separate books listed as sources

-http://www.go2war2.nl/artikel/921/Bf-110-Messerschmitt.htm?page=6
Dutch page which seems to focus on World War II. Doesn't seem to state its sources so I'd take it with a grain of salt.

-http://www.ww2warbirds.net/ww2htmls/messbf110.html
Similarly doesn't state its sources as the site above

PS: As for the Bf 110F's 30mm armament, I have to concede as further digging reveal sources that seem unreliable, including one that mentions underwing 30mm cannon on the Bf 110F, which seems highly implausible.
Hardtofindausername (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

AMD security bugs...

Do you have a reliable source saying that the research was fake, I have no horse in this race and I have looked for walk backs on the story, all I can find is some folks taking to their blogs to criticize the research done, and unknown individuals questioning the motives of the source, but from what I can see this is a legitimate issue with these chips.Jasonanaggie (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

There are issues/bugs but these require root/admin access to the computer and/or even flashing a modified Bios/firmware. If one has/needs physical access then it's all lost already. Similar problems are in Intels management engine but some of those don't even require root/admin access, working from userspace. BTW search for viceroy research, CTS-labs and comments from anandtech and others. Nice article about this: [22]--Denniss (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Torpedo Ausland

Perhaps you could share why you think these ships have a space between the TA and the number? Every German source does not including the Rohwer book in the references and the German navy source given in the cites and external link Lyndaship (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Having checked all the sources, references and external links given in the article they all list thee name of these ships as TA followed by a number without an intervening space. I have therefore reverted you Lyndaship (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverted contribution to PAK 36r

I noticed my addition (with relevant citation to a work that's current and relevant) to the article that strongly implies the 76mm PAK36r - itself converted from captured Russian 76mm Divisional Guns) was reverted. The addition, which notes some examples of German 76mm (3inch) vertical-breach semi-automatic quick-firing anti-tank guns captured by the British in 1942 were found to be re-manufactured 3inch (76mm) Quick Firing 20cwt vertical-breach semi-automatic anti-aircraft guns before being once again adapted as German anti-tank guns I couldn't help wondering why.

I assume it's not because Doherty (a respected author of many military histories) is telling porkies, so I have to assume it was reverted because such detail like a gun being the son of several, if not many fathers is held to be entirely irrelevant. This raises the question whether there is, or is not, proof of a connection.

While it is obviously easy to ignore similarities (on the basis no Russian sources will claim their gun was based on the 3 inch 20cwt) it is harder to establish that there is no connection whatever when some of them were created using the breech and barrel of the British weapon, some five hundred of which were supplied to Russia by Britain prior to the creation of the 76mm divisional Gun.

To say the vertical breech semi-automatic mechanism is unique would be wrong but it's not commonplace, and the timing and transfer of weapons is at least highly suggestive. Given the conclusions of British experts examining the captured German version the marked similarity between the essential working parts of the British 3 inch (76mm) Quick-Firing 20cwt AA gun and the Russian 76mm Divisional Gun (and consequently the German 76mm PAK36r) are surely worth a mention?

Admittedly the context is real-life examples examined by real-life soldiers in a real-life battle but IMHO that actually trumps the kind of self-serving official histories compiled in the context of a pair of bloodthirsty dictators.

In closing I'm curious: do you actually have a copy of Docherty's book? If so did you read the quoted passage before you reverted? I note the Kindle edition isn't out yet but the timing it took only a half hour to check it out before reverting my contribution, which implies a searchable edition... assuming it wasn't just a reflex, knee-jerk reaction to a complicating factor in a neat (but significantly incomplete) narrative: the reaction of British artillery specialists who were, quote, 'surprised' when they discovered captured German anti-tank guns were once British anti-aircraft guns was probably unprintable. I was surprised and I have no connection with the subject matter, but I don't think the implied disenchantment invalidates the insight.

Given the evolution of PAK 36r is already convoluted, I'd say such accounts make sense of what is otherwise a dry technical article that is almost entirely devoid of context: great in a technical manual, lousy in an encyclopedia, and damaging when facts are consciously omitted on the grounds whatever doesn't precisely fit into a sterile silo as 'too much information'.

Guns with similar conversions are not relevant to the articles of german/soviet guns, only to the article of the 3in gun. Plus its questionable these were guns given to soviet as they may have been captured in Dunkirk. And many artillery guns had very similar working princibles and mechanisms. --Denniss (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Macchi C.202

Hello may I ask you why you deleted "Draeger" in my contribute, thanks...--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Company name is Dräger, see Drägerwerk. --Denniss (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hanover&oldid=prev&diff=630353343?

They are in the current version so correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondonia9 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A rant

Listen deniss im telling right now the reason i edited the Thundermans wikipedia is Becuase there ending on May 25 so stop editng the wikipedia page the day the thundermans end. Is the day im editng THERE wikipedia and putting there final episode as may 25 Tupac214 (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read and respect the hidden note you simply removed/replaced, not adhering to this standard practice is considered vandalism. --Denniss (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

VLC Logo

Hi! I'm here to say that the icon File:VLC Icon.svg has become too old and File:VLC Icon (New).svg is the latest one as found in VLC media player 3.0.2. The only thing is that the new one needs better resolution. Can you please edit the image and upload it with higher resolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.65.44 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I've recently contacted the user who uploaded that and he said he will upload a higher resolution image shortly. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.65.44 (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

There was no reent change in the VLC logo + the "new" Logo does not even closely match the quality of the old one. So stop wikis using a far inferior quality logo. --Denniss (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Suicide

Not sure what you're referring to when you say 'not constructive'. The current thinking about suicide is not reflected properly in the article, hence the change (as reflected in the Wikipedia page on suicide). If you want to contest it, then do so, but please in future, unless you don't understand the language being used (I see it is not your first) do not use a stock vandalism template to belittle a contribution. It's important that contributors and editors to Wikipedia remain informed on such sensitive issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwagstaff (talk • contribs) 10:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

No idea what you are referring to but committing suicide is commonly used, performing suicide not. --Denniss (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's your chance to get up to speed: ["commit"_and_"committed" Suicide terminology]. I see someone else has fixed the reference. Always better on sensitive issues like this to read up and educate yourself before jumping into reverting edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwagstaff (talk • contribs) 12:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

May I ask you why you reverted my changes despite they were completely correct? The given designation was the officially Weapon's designation back then. Smartcom5 ^(Talk ?) 19:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

My manuals just show MG 42 or its longer form but not the version you used. --Denniss (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Maxwell Jenkins

I assume that you must know the actual birthdate of Maxwell Jenkins because everytime someone attempts to enter it into the entry you remove it. His actual birthday is May 5, 2005 as Maxwell will tell you himself at 5:25 in the video https://thexvid.com/video/KMHASzHbhTE/maxwell-jenkins-instagram-live-stream-5-may-2018.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.27.123 (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The "not reliable" source that caused you to undo my edit was from an Instagram video https://thexvid.com/video/KMHASzHbhTE/maxwell-jenkins-instagram-live-stream-5-may-2018.html where at 5:25 Maxwell Jenkins himself states that his birthday is May 5th. I would have to believe that he knows when he was born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.27.123 (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Maxwell Jenkins DOB

I assume that you must know the actual birthdate of Maxwell Jenkins because everytime someone attempts to enter it into the entry you remove it. His actual birthday is May 5, 2005 as Maxwell will tell you himself at 5:25 in the video https://thexvid.com/video/KMHASzHbhTE/maxwell-jenkins-instagram-live-stream-5-may-2018.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.27.123 (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I admit that I have been wrong. Even though I watched the video twice and hearing Maxwell say May 5th, upon viewing it a third time, this time listening thru headphones, he definitely says May 3rd. There is also a Chicago Suntimes newspaper article from April 11, 2018 https://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/chicago-kid-journeys-to-another-world-vancouver-as-the-new-will-robinson/ where the birthday is given as May 3. Would one of these two sources now be considered reliable? 98.212.27.123 (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)technorh

Bombing of Wieluń

Do you suggest that Poles destroyed the town to accuse good Germans?Xx236 (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Why should I do that? one image is properly dated as september 1 by several sources, the other just as 1939. Nobody knows if the visible damage was caused by bombings and resulting fires or by later (combat) actions. --Denniss (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Why?

Why would the Chicago Suntimes (circulation 120,00) article regarding Maxwell Jenkins https://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/chicago-kid-journeys-to-another-world-vancouver-as-the-new-will-robinson/ where it states that his birthday is May 3 not be acceptable or "Not supported by source"? Do you have proof that it is another date, if so, why don't you supply the proof? Technorh (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)technorh Thank you for accepting the date. If you would, could you please fix the reference section for me or point me to the instructions on how to do so for myself. Thanks again Technorh (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)technorh

Reverted update regarding A350 orders and deliveries

I have recently updated to page with new information sourced from other wiki page. The ‘orders and deliveries’ section from A350XWB main page is more updated than the ‘A350 orders and deliveries’ page that i’ve Edited and reverted. I also double checked the individual airlines’ article for the updated information. So I am not aware of the reasoning for ‘unlikely to be sourced’. StephenPongPong (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Page is sourced to monthly updated data from airbus, anything else will be discarded. --Denniss (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Accuracy enhancement reversion

Hi, I'm new to this "talk" capability, so forgive any faux-pas.

I made an edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing&direction=prev&oldid=853665066, yesterday, which you've reverted without any indication as to why. I believe my edit was an obvious enhancement of the page, making apparent an otherwise misleading reference. The referenced article is clear that it is about two specific Airbus twin aisles pitted against two specific Boeing twin aisles, and not about their respective full twin aisle offerings. It's clear that this section needs modification by one of 1) finding a reference to stats that are appropriate (the ideal option, but I couldn't find one), 2) adding a qualifier that let's the reader know that the stat is not actually representing what the sentence is claiming to represent (the option I'd chosen in the absence of the first option), or 3) removing the sentence and reference altogether (and missing the opportunity to give at least some indication of the state of affairs, even if not wholly accurate). Do you not agree?

Thanks.

Das Boot

The source provided clearly describes the film as a "reboot" or "remake", so calling it a sequel appears inaccurate. You're welcome to discuss this at the article's Talk page or provide an alternate source though! Thanks! DonIago (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Questions re: reversion by you of edit of the Heinkel He 111H-3 Variants section (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_111#Variants) as shown in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heinkel_He_111&action=history as “(cur | prev) 08:57, 10 September 2018‎ Denniss (talk | contribs)‎ . . (90,371 bytes) (-303)‎ . . (rv, too much detail for variants list + they learned it the hard way only during the british campaign + flex positions were always MG 15 not 17) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)”

While I agree that there may have been a bit too much information, what I added to the description of the H-3 aircraft in the Variants section (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_111#Variants) was “[E]xperiences during the Polish Campaign led to an increase in defensive armament[.] MG 17s were fitted whenever possible and the number of machine guns was increased to seven[.] [T]he two waist positions received an additional MG 15 or 17, and on some variants a belt-fed MG 17 was even installed in the tail[.]” were direct quotes (supported by citation) from the “He 111 H-1 to H-10” subsection of the “He 111H and its variants” section of the article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_111#He_111_H-1_to_H-10).

You stated, “they learned it the hard way only during the british campaign + flex positions were always MG 15 not 17”... but doesn’t this conflict with the text in the subsection from which I directly quoted, specially as to the POLISH (not “english”) campaign and MG 15/17? (1) If so, isn’t your statement incorrect and the information in the “He 111 H-1 to H-10” subsection correct or, (2) if not, should the information in the “He 111 H-1 to H-10” subsection be corrected by you? (3) As an aside, didn’t the H-3 initially have six MG 15s - nose, dorsal, port and starboard beam, front and back ventral gondola? Thanks for your input. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

In the future I need you apply a edit summary as you failed to do on your first revert. You've been at this long enough to know better. FOX 52 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

And you know better not to change lead images without getting consensus first. Yet it doesn't stop you doing so. --Denniss (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually your the first mention this guideline to me - It was done in good faith to improve the article Wikipedia:You can't follow all the rules, all the time - FOX 52 (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Military production during World War II

You state that Soviet Armored fighting vehicles produced before the Soviets “became involved” in WWII on June 22 1941 (ridiculous considering the invasion of Poland and Winter War are both considered part of WWII, and the Soviets fought in both) can’t be included yet the American production figures used include numbers from 1940 and the first 10 months of 1941 before the USA became involved. Please explain your logic. -- Roddy the roadkill (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Panzershreck

If you're going to claim the test were against different armor types, you could at least source the claim and not outright contradict the one paper that states armor type used.--MandolinMagi (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

List of modern armoured fighting vehicles

Why to hell did you reverted edits on List of modern armoured fighting vehicles, if you want to fill up List of armoured fighting vehicles by country go ahead, the list of "modern" vehicles can't contain WW2 actives.

Ilias48rus (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Kursk

Unfortunately, I had to revert you. The data from the blog could be right or wrong, but it is a self-published source, and this link is dead. In addition, these figures seemed to be extracted from a primary source (Bundesarchiv is a primary source, and we are allowed to use primary sources with great cautions). What is even worse, since German health reports didn't consider battle of Kursk as a separate battle, a person who used this primary source had to extract the figures of losses from this report and calculate the losses by themselves, which is an original research (which is strictly prohibited). The worst thing (and that is a danger of original research) that these calculations are wrong: the total losses of 50k imply the Germans sustained no losses during the second phase of the battle of Kursk, which is a pure nonsense. Please, do not attempt to revert my revert, and try to find a better source that supports these figures.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Denniss. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Denniss. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wehrmachtbericht reversions

I've been removing primary-sourced Wehrmachtbericht mentions per this RfC. I'm not sure if you were aware of the decision when you reverted me [23][24]. Also, could you please use edit summaries when you revert? –dlthewave ☎ 14:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker

Well, well. Twinkle got confused as to how to notify. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

What problem do you see at MG 151 cannon?

Hello Denniss. Please see the question from User:MSGJ at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:203.63.255.208 reported by User:Greyjoy (Result: ). Can you say what the issue is about the content of the IP's change? You are one of the editors on the other side of the argument. So far nobody has left an edit summary to explain their thinking or used the talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Take care with rollback/twinkle

Hi. Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive383 please do take care not to revert any good faith edits without leaving a suitable edit summary. There is more detail at WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Thank you for your continued efforts — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverted Edit (A320 family a319cj) Josephshlee (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear Denniss, the updated variant name of the a319cj is acj319, would you mind if I undo this revert? Thx. Josephshlee (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The original designation was used for a long time, the redesignation is presented in text. --Denniss (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

About the cypriot leopard 2

Well I've read only in Greek and I don't know how to upload sources , if you want go check out about cypriot leopard 2 plans El Greco 45 (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Dylan Sprouse

Hello Denniss. Is there a reason you reverted my addition of a 'personal life' section on Dylan Sprouse? The info was appropriately sourced. --Kbabej (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Let me get this straight

Greetings. I seek no conflict over the Hetzer article, I just wish to make sure I understand your approach, which seems a bit contradictory to me. Once, I posted on the IAR 80 a source about the numbers produced, but then you posted another source, and stated it was better. This encouraged me to use the certain source as a reference, which I did in the Hetzer heading. What I'm getting from this is: Axworthy is authoritative on Romania-related stuff from WW2, but not that much on general Axis stuff, extending into the German field for instance, which require sources that are more general or at least oriented towards Axis armor overall. Correct? Prefectul (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how authoritative Axworthy is but if respectable specialist in Axis tanks make no such claim it should be considered disputed and therefore should not be presented as one-sided view in the intro. It's currently properly weighted in the text. --Denniss (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of the text, isn't Zaloga a tank expert overall, and thus an Axis tank expert implicitly? Prefectul (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: Further more, if these tank experts go over only the AFV of the big 3 in the Axis, and say nothing at all about Hungarian and/or Romanian AFV, then I strongly believe they do not deserve the title you are bestowing upon them. The Axis means more than the big 3, in the aspect of AFVs and largely in every other aspect. Overlooking Romania and Hungary cuts of pages-worth of information on Axis AFV, and thus one like this shouldn't be considered an expert. Prefectul (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Fuller House deletion

Then, don't you think you need to do the same at Lori_Loughlin#Bribery_scandal? It has the same source (which is where I got it from). -Musdan77 (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Please remove it there, that "source" is a non-source based on rumors. --Denniss (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Mean

Why did the entire American continent (except Canada) follow America's declaration of war against Axis forces, even though all countries in America did not have a problem with the axis state, but only the United States had a problem with its base which was attacked by Pearl Harbor. by the Japanese imperial air force.

Why did the entire American continent immediately follow the steps of the United States by declaring the same war against Axis Power

example

Panama declared war against the power of the axis, even though he had no problems with German Japan, and Italy.

the question is

1. What is the reason for Panama declaring war?

2. Is there coercion from the United States?

3. and why did the declaration of war on shaft power also occur throughout the American continent?

sorry, if my english is not good, because i am from indonesia.

May god bless you.

Rhodok Sergeant (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Bf 109 variants

Greetings:

I PREVIOUSLY SENT THIS MESSAGE TO THE WRONG PAGE ON WIKI. THE NEWER PART OF MY MESSAGE (THE ONE THAT I AM HOPEFULLY SENDING TO THE RIGHT PAGE ON WIKI) APPEARS IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. PLEASE READ THE NEW PART AND THE ORIGINAL PART OF MY MESSAGE BECAUSE I STILL HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE “BF 109 VARIANTS” PAGE. THANK YOU.

I HAVE DISCOVERED SOMETHING THAT I SHOULD HAVE PREVIOUSLY VERIFIED. I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING DONE SO EARLIER! WHEN I ORIGINALLY VIEWED THE WIKI BF 109 VARIANTS PAGE, I DID SO FROM MY KINDLE READER. I ALSO PERFORMED CHANGES FROM THAT SAME DEVICE BASED ON HOW IT APPEARED VIA KINDLE’S OUT-OF-DATE WWW BROWSER. (IT STILL LOOKS WEIRD ON MY KINDLE.) I HAVE NOW VIEWED THE WIKI ARTICLE FROM MY I-PAD AND NOW SEE THAT THE WIKI ARTICLE APPEARS CORRECTLY LAID-OUT TO 99.999% (OR MORE) OF THE WWW & WIKIPEDIA’S USERS! FROM NOW ON, I WILL BE MORE CAREFUL! THEREFORE, YOU CAN IGNORE THE 1ST PART OF MY MESSAGE (SHOWN BELOW).

HOWEVER, PLEASE READ AND REVIEW THE CONCERN THAT I LISTED IN THE 2ND PART OF MY MESSAGE (SHOWN BELOW). THE FILE NAMES AND THE SHORT TITLES THAT APPEAR DIRECTLY BELOW THEM ON THE WIKI PAGE STILL DON’T MATCH. ARE THE FILE NAMES AND/OR THE SHORT TITLES BELOW THEM (AS THEY APPEAR ON THE WIKI PAGE) INCORRECT?

Thank you for correcting my boneheaded mistake regarding the deleted image file. I apologize. What I had intended to correct was the hideous way that this Wiki article appears on my handheld device. I don't know if this applies to larger laptops, but on my viewer, everything beginning with the Rall quote is listed on the left side of the page with blank space on the right side of the page - the appearance is a 15%/85% split betwen the quote (which is broken up into little segments) and a blank area. Does this occur on larger laptops and desktops? If not, then I would not have entered all of the <br> HTML tags. By entering the "break" tags, the Wiki page looked normal - at least on my viewer. Please let me know if the Wiki page looks abnormal the way it is now (which to me still looks weird), or if the page looks okay on larger viewers.

One other thing, the image files have names that are different than what they indicate is portrayed. When I first attempted to correct the way this page appeared, I deleted the image tags and re-typed them after the Rall guote. In doing so I stupidly forgot the image file names and had to make a bunch of mistakes trying to enter the image file names correctly - after an hour of failure, I gave up. Since the text on the page makes it sound as if the plane shown in the second image wasn't even produced, I eliminated the file. I realize that this wasn't the correct thing to do. Again, I apologize. However, can you please compare the image file names and the titles that appear directly below them? In both instances the file names do not match what they purport to show. Thank you.

All The Best, Rtmorphine (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC) rtmorphine Robert Ternes Rtmorphine (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Fw 190

If you want specs for the Dora, write a new article. Possibly combined with Ta 152? The Dora could warrant a stand-alone article.--Petebutt (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

• See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#ANI_Report_Denniss:_Abusive_Behavior

Regice2020 (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Panzerkampfwagen I

Im Deutschen Panzermuseum steht vor dem Panzer I ein Schild mit der Aufschrift „Der Panzer war nicht, wie oft angenommen wird, nur als reines übangsgerät gedacht. Natürlich sollte auf dem Panzer auch geübt werden, dass bereits schwerere Panzer in der Planung waren. Aber dennoch war er auch ein praktisches Kriegsgerät: Leichte, gepanzerte Maschinengewehr-Träger waren in den 1930er Jahren in vielen Armeen verbreitet. “ JDankers (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Der war als reines Trainingsfahrzeug gedacht und sollte (in Kampfeinheiten) schnellstmöglich durch Panzer II-IV ersetzt werden. Massive Verzögerungen bei den neuen Fahrzeugen führten aber zur Nutzung bis ca 1940-41. MG-Träger mit Dosenblech als Panzerung waren bereits im Polenfeldzug nutzlos außer gegen Infanterie ohne schwere Waffen. --Denniss (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

My broken portal fixes

Thanks for the reverts. However, I have an AWB run underway to fix them, so please can you stop reverting?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

FG 42 is a automatic rifle or not

FG 42 is not an automatic rifle but it is a light machine gun.

Sturmgewehr 44 is a first automatic rifle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jku456 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The STG 44 article

Good day Denniss, You stated that my changes to the STG 44 page were not constructive. Well I would beg to differ, the STG was no where near the first assault rifle and to say so would be simply untrue. Commiekaze (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Classification of 10.5 cm K gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette as Assault Gun, not Tank Destroyer

1. This vehicle, according to the article itself, "was originally designed as a Schartenbrecher ("bunker buster") for use against the French Maginot Line defences, following the defeat of France it was evaluated [emphasis added] for use as a tank destroyer on the Eastern Front."

2. The 10.5 cm schwere Kanone 18 it utilized was a field gun, not an anti-tank gun.

3. The term field gun "has been applied to long-range artillery pieces that fire at a relatively low angle, as opposed to howitzers.... Field guns also lack a specialized purpose, such as anti-tank.... By the later stages of World War II the majority of artillery in use was either in the form of howitzers of 105 mm to 155 mm, or in form of hybrid anti-tank/field guns that had high enough muzzle velocity to be used in both roles."

4. Since field guns have a secondary role as anti-tank guns, that is not their primary role.

5. The vehicle terminology, Selbstfahrlafette, literally means "self-propelled gun carriage." It was NOT classified as Panzerjäger or Panzerzerstörer, "tank destroyer."

6. The vehicle was evaluated for a number of roles, one of which was the anti-tank role.

7. Since its design rationale was as an infantry-support weapon (i.e. an assault gun), its primary successful use as as an assault gun, and its evaluation as a anti-tank vehicle was deemed wanting, it makes no sense to call this unit a tank destroyer. The best description is as an assault gun.

Brucelucier (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Western front

Hello! I received a message from you regarding the Western Front. In it, you stated that my edits did not appear constructive. I would like to ask, what exactly seemed so Un-constructive about them? What I added was already previously accepted by moderators (I was even thanked by one of them about one of the edits) so I would like to know. Thank you! TheBritishVampire (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

your editing

it's unacceptable to overwrite someone without any argumentation. You can't justify your text so you violate the basic rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirosias (talk • contribs) 15:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Eastern Front (World War II)

Hi

I know that it's a really old edit from september, but I only saw it now because I forgot to follow the page :) I see that you reverted this edit with the reason mentioned being : "no official support". Well, Spain did send a division called División Azul, the Blue division. Isn't that a form of official support? Would they send an expeditionary force to support the Axis at the Eastern Front if they didn't support their war efforts? --Spafky (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Official support is entering a war or sending own military units. Blue division was manned by spanish volunteers but not under command of spanish government. --Denniss (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Italian Social Republic troops in the Eastern Front of World War 2

Hello, I would like to know why you undid my revision, stating that RSI troops were "not active on the Eastern front". Few thousands RSI troops were present in the Eastern front, both medical/support troops and actual soldiers. According to RSI documents, they amounted to 3000 in August 1944. The most famous and "active" division was the Battallion "IX Settembre", which fought in East Prussia alongside the German Brandenburg Division. They fought against the Red Army in the defence of Angerburg (today's Węgorzewo). I don't see reasons why they shouldn't be included among the belligerents, so could you please clarify or undo your revision if this satisfies you? (Also sorry if I'm doing something wrong here, but I'm not used to Wikipedia talk page) Regards 87.20.125.36 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

why?

why the Panther 2 revert? looking at your talk page, it seems like you've reverted other people's fixed info too. why? what's the fun in this? stop please. LuckyBlockYoshi (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Provide sources to backup your claims. --Denniss (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

done. happy now? LuckyBlockYoshi (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

but why are you doing this? you gonna go delete the hundreds of articles with terrible sources and no citations etc or something? you delete the things added but nothing else that is obviously wrong though... strange LuckyBlockYoshi (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• See Talk:Panther II tank#Schmalturm I suggest we adjourn this to there. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Gabriel Bateman

Nothing on the page is sourced. It says on his page he's in the movie.Vincelord (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

TY SIMPKINS

Hey Dennis! Hey there, I recently made edits on the wikipedia page on child-actor Ty Simpkins. Now, I wouldn't consider myself a fan of Ty's, however I've experienced much of his history in theater. And I know, that the part of "Gaston" was an important staple of his theater career, and I just felt, even though it was cancelled, in the spirit of these uncertain times, I should add it to his repertoire. It is entirely accurate, and if you need proof, well gosh! I can get that for you, Dennis, ask and you will receive. Alright Dennis, it's been real, and I'm gonna go back and make those edits, because I feel that is right. Now, you have a wonderful day. Stay safe. Wash your hands. Don't touch your face. Maintain 6 feet from other people. And love thy neighbor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:141C:CA93:7487:69CD:A6F2:9016 (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

mG 151

Please show "{StL 151/10 manual of 7/44 calls them 151/15 and 151/20". I have seen some original German manuals and only MG.151 stands for the 15 mm version!Costas-1963 (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

see here --Denniss (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)