User talk:ÄDA - DÄP/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Jan to Mar 14 Military History reviews

 Military history service award 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2014, I am delighted to award you the Military history WikiProject One-Stripe award. During this period you undertook 2 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Siberian intervention

Hey, if you have source available here [1], then you should add that citation directly into article. Nobody checks edit commentaries in article history for citations.--Staberinde (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The challenge

Just to be sure that we are aligned. When I wrote the Hartgenstein articles (and others), I was often confronted with the feedback to avoid using German words. I fully understand the correct usage of Kaiserlichemarine, Reichsmarrine, Kriegsmarine, Bundesmarine and Deutsche Marine. However, so the feedback, none can be used in the lead because none are German loan words. So the challenge was to find a wording which acknowledges the demands for a purely English lead and a semantic correct representation. The wording as it stood redlected this challenge. Your propsed wording, which I approve, comtradicts the request for English. Please try your luck with an article of your own at FAC . MisterBee1966 (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration. It seems this is an on-going discussion, and it does not help, that English is not exactly the purest of languages. The challenge a while back was to find a phrasing that is historically accurate, academically supported, and proper English. I found the one I am using now in Showalter's essay in Hattendorf's Doing Naval History. Essays Toward Improvement (p132), one of the few English-language texts that deal with German naval history outside the scope of World War II. Now, Kriegsmarine is common enough to need no translation, but if it must have an English name, "German navy" might be a possibility (that's what OUP's Germany and the Second World War uses).
With regard to FAC, I am not overwhelmed with the quality of these articles. I am more than willing to help reviewing them, but rather than putting my efforts into writing a few above average articles, I will try to improve some of the existing sub-standard ones, and maybe fill some gaps here and there. BTW I do most of my editing when on alert or standby, and it somehow impedes my deep involvement in thought processes if I know I may have to scramble on a moment's notice.
Now, enjoy your holiday. I am looking forward hearing from you later. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naval Historical Team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Director of Naval Intelligence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German submarine U-53 (1939), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MAN (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

German submarine U-71 (1940)

Hi, ÄDA - DÄP. When you recently added a reference to this page it caused a citation error, as the page had no {{reflist}} template. I've now added one. Using Preview before saving, if you didn't use it, may have allowed you to see this. Just FYI. --220 of Borg 04:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Source

On second look, I'm afraid to say that reference is pretty useless. You may know what book was written that has info about this submarine, but just saying "Busch, Röl" is far from informative without the actual book's title, with publisher, ISBN, etc being put in a source, bibliography or similar section. I've searched for a book under that author and found nothing. :-\ --220 of Borg 04:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems likely this is the source you meant:
Busch, Rainer & Röll, Hans-Joachim (2003). Der U-Boot-Krieg 1939-1945 - Die Ritterkreuzträger der U-Boot-Waffe von September 1939 bis Mai 1945 (German) Hamburg, Berlin, Bonn, Germany: Verlag E.S. Mittler & Sohn. ISBN 3-8132-0515-0.
No wonder I couldn't find it, it's two people, not the surname/first name of one author. :-o --220 of Borg 04:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. I only edited the sub-heading, so preview did not show any problems with references. Plus I forgot to add the book to the bibliography, which did not exist then of course because I only added it just now. BTW Would you rather use a & then a colon in the reference then? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Usually only a colon (;) to separate different authors, which if you use the cite template, as you did, is how it appears. I found the ref above somewhere on WP and it is a bit non-MOS in that area. Having a comma is what made me think it was surname, firstname. All good now! :-) --220 of Borg 05:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Öland FAC

Since you provided helpful comments and/or reviewing in related quality assessments, I'm dropping a notice that battle of Öland is now an FAC. Please feel free to drop by with more input!

sincerely,
Peter Isotalo 05:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

April to June 2014 MILHIST reviews

 Military history reviewers' award 
By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your work on the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period April to June 2014, I am delighted to award you this Wikistripe. During this period you undertook three reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hansjürgen Reinicke

I recently expanded the article. I value your feedback. Please let me know what I got wrong. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I left some comments on the talk page. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

German Navy (Kriegsmarine) 2.0

We've discussed the topic at length before about a year and a half ago. Here's some of what was said then:

First, let me say that I have no sympathy whatever, in any way, for Nazism.
However, please note that:
 • There was never any organization officially called the "Nazi German Kriegsmarine," which is the way it is styled in numerous entries related to vessels of the WWII German Navy.
 • There is no accepted word in English called Kriegsmarine — which of course is German for, literally, "war navy" or more loosely, "military naval force."
 • No branch of the German armed forces in WWII officially included the word "Nazi" in their names, and officially there was never any country called "Nazi Germany," although the latter has become a convenient shorthand term among historians and journalists for Germany as it was in 1933-45.
 • The word "Nazi" itself was a slang contraction for National Sozialistische, in English, National Socialist — taken from the National Socialist German Workers Party (German: National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei), which was the only 'legal' (in Nazi terms) political party in Germany after mid-1933. (The true Socialists, similarly, had been known as Sozis.)
I think the terminology used to designate the German Navy in WWII should be changed in all cases to simply "the German Navy" out of historical verity, to avoid broad-brushing all members of the German Navy as "Nazis," and as a matter of linguistic equity. (Hitler himself is quoted in several biographies I've read as saying, supposedly humorously, "I have a Nazi air force, a Christian navy and an imperial army," or words to that effect.) This would be in line with references to "the U.S. Navy," "the British Navy," "the Italian Navy," "the Japanese Navy," etc. Everyone knows that during World War II Germany was run by Hitler and the Nazi Party, and I don't see any value in designating all vessels in the German Navy of that war as politically "Nazi."
Because of the extreme opprobrium rightly attached to the (originally slang) word Nazi — a result of the colossal scale and horrific character of Nazi crimes — Nazi is not a neutral term. Thus, to label the Germany Navy in WWII as "Nazi" does convey an extremely negative political judgment on a military organization that was not per se political, and whose tens of thousands of members included people of various political views.
Linguistic note: In the phrase Nazi German Kriegsmarine, the word "Nazi" is an adjective modifying "Kriegsmarine." It does not modify "Germany," and the word "German" also is an adjective modifying "Kriegsmarine." Thus, in grammatical terms, this phrase says that the "Kriegsmarine" was a specifically Nazi organization, which it was not. It was a military organization, termed in German die deutrsche Kriegsmarine — "the German (War) Navy."
It's possible to argue that "Nazi German" is a adjectival phrase. As such, one school of editing would hyphenate it as a compound modifier. But that doesn't eliminate the problem. The import of "Nazi German Kriegsmarine" remains to label the entire Germany Navy and everyone in it as perforce "Nazi." Which notion is false.
That said, I don't object to the phrase "Nazi Germany" because Germany in 1933-45 was run politically by Hitler and his psychopathic Nazi hierarchy — in the German phrase, the NS-Diktatur — which claimed and enforced exclusive power in the political realm. The phrase is well known in English historiography and elsewhere, for example in German as Nazideutschland. Not so "Nazi German Kriegsmarine."
I have never seen the phrase "Nazi German Kriegsmarine" used anywhere other than on Wikipedia. It is not one employed in Western historiography so far as have seen in 40-some years of reading. Here are a few examples from books I happen to have on hand:
Churchill, Winston S. Their Finest Hour. Houghton Mifflin, 1949, p. 594. "… paralyzed for the time being the Germany Navy in home waters."
Churchill, Winston S. The Grand Alliance. Houghton Mifflin, 1950, p. 42. "The German Navy was instructed to concentrate …."
Bullock, Alan. Hitler; A Study in Tyranny. Bantam (paperback), 1961, p. 532. "An acrimonious debate was conducted between the [German] Army and Navy…."
Ibid, p. 611. "Meanwhile, the [German] Navy had to be content with what it could scratch together…."
Ibid, p. 612. “Which neither the German Navy nor the Luftwaffe….”
Payne, Robert. The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler. Barnes & Noble, 1973, p. 374. "…the Graf Spee, one of the pocket battleships of the German Navy…."
Ibid, p. 375. "[Hitler] spoke about the incompetence of the German Navy…."
Ibid, p. 404. "The German Navy remained locked up…."
Ibid, p. 405. "… both the German Army and the German Navy begged…."
Kershaw, Ian. Hitler; 1936-1945 Nemesis. W.W. Norton, 2000, p. 58. "The [German] Navy was left alone."
Ibid, p. 276-77. "While there was express praise for the [German] navy…."
Ibid, p. 278. "… scarcely veiled criticism of army leaders set against praise for the Luftwaffe and the navy…."
Kershaw, Ian. The End; The Defiance and Destruction of Hitler’s Germany., 1944-1945. Penguin, 2011, p. 179 "The German navy sent help in rescue effort…. and, "… the German navy used an ice-breaker…."
Roberts, Andrew. The Storm of War. Harper-Collins, 2011, pp. 353-54. "When it actually began five years too early, the German Navy did not yet have…."
Ibid, p. 538. "The German invasion of Norway in April 1940 cost the German Navy dear…."
None of the above authors, from Churchill to Kershaw and Roberts, ever uses the phrase, "Nazi German Kriegsmarine" — althought Kershaw does refer simply to "the Kriegsmarine" in a couple of places.

Sca (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi again
  1. the term is "Nazi Germany's Kriegsmarine" (note the difference)
  2. this term is used by academics and experts in the subject e.g. Dennis E. Showalter in Doing Naval History.p.132
  3. an alternative version is "German navy", e.g. used in Germany and the Second World War
  4. since 1994, "German Navy" has been the official English name of the "Deutsche Marine" previously known as "Bundesmarine"
  5. Whatever your intentions, you are not saying what you want to say using the phrase "German Navy" (Kriegsmarine) the way you do.
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Gröner

When using {{sfn|Gröner|1985|p=67}} don't forget that sfn references are intended to link to a complete citation.

In the complete citation, don't forget |ref=harv or the link won't be made. {{cite book |last=Gröner |first=Erich |title=U-Boote, Hilfskreuzer, Minenschiffe, Netzleger, Sperrbrecher |work=Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815-1945 |volume=III |publisher=[[Bernard & Graefe]] |location=Koblenz |year=1985 |isbn=3-7637-4802-4 |language=German |ref=harv }}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, will do that later with the AWB. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm curious ...

... why is it better to use {{br}} which renders as <br/> than to simply use <br /> as you have done with this edit? Where you've used these templates inside an infobox isn't between two floating elements so the benefits escape me.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

No excuse, really. I am sure I had a good reason in the beginning, though. Since I was taking this cold remedy earlier I suppose this is a case of 'editing under the influence'. I turned it of a while ago, because it was conflicting with some other stuff. I shall but it back <br />, then. Thanks for the heads up. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Submarine articles.

You made edits to several submarine articles that broke the infobox. I reverted two, but there are many more. Also, as mentioned above, don't use {{br}} and a replacement for <br>. I found several articles with those too. Bgwhite (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 

German submarine U-275
German submarine U-276
German submarine U-279
German submarine U-280
German submarine U-283
German submarine U-284
German submarine U-291
German submarine U-292
German submarine U-293
German submarine U-294
German submarine U-295
German submarine U-296
German submarine U-303
German submarine U-304
German submarine U-306
German submarine U-307
German submarine U-309
On it ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
You just destroyed submarine articles again. German submarine U-196 is an example. You really need to be careful and preview before saving the changes. Will you please go thru them again and fix them. Bgwhite (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
German submarine U-153 (1941) is still messed up.

July to September 2014 MilHist reviews

 Military history reviewers' award 
By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your work on the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period July to September 2014, I am delighted to award you this Wikistripe. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Convert flip

In this edit at German submarine U-104 (1940), many of the {{convert}} units were flipped. No doubt there is a good reason for that, but may I suggest that another method be used.

As an example, "Ship range" in the infobox was changed from the left to the right in the following: 

{{convert|41000|km|nmi|abbr=on}} at           {{convert|12000|nmi|km|abbr=on}} at
{{convert|19|km/h|kn}} surfaced               {{convert|10|kn|km/h}} surfaced
{{convert|219|km|nmi|abbr=on}} at             {{convert|64|nmi|km|abbr=on}} at
{{convert|7.4|km/h|kn|abbr=on}} submerged     {{convert|4|kn|km/h|abbr=on}} submerged

Presumably the sources give the values on the left? If so, it is highly desirable to keep those values rather than substitue a lot of hard-to-check manual conversions. To do that, use |order=flip (which used to be the now deprecated |disp=flip).

Here are the original converts, and the flipped converts:

  • {{convert|41000|km|nmi|abbr=on}} → 41,000 km (22,000 nmi)
  • {{convert|41000|km|nmi|abbr=on|order=flip}} → 22,000 nmi (41,000 km)
  • {{convert|19|km/h|kn}} → 19 kilometres per hour (10 kn)
  • {{convert|19|km/h|kn|order=flip}} → 10 knots (19 km/h)
  • {{convert|219|km|nmi|abbr=on}} → 219 km (118 nmi)
  • {{convert|219|km|nmi|abbr=on|order=flip}} → 118 nmi (219 km)
  • {{convert|7.4|km/h|kn|abbr=on}} → 7.4 km/h (4.0 kn)
  • {{convert|7.4|km/h|kn|abbr=on|order=flip}} → 4.0 kn (7.4 km/h)

If the last should use "4" rather than "4.0", use:

  • {{convert|7.4|km/h|kn|0|abbr=on|order=flip}} → 4 kn (7.4 km/h)

The first convert shows a discrepancy with your edit because 41,000 km = 22,000 nmi while the edit used 12,000 nmi. I'm mentioning this in case the article needs to be fixed, but more importantly, for future editing in case you need to flip units in other articles. I noticed this because one of the converts is broken (which can be seen in the article by searching for "convert:"). The problem is that in {{convert|4|kn|km|abbr=on}} the "km" should be "km/h". Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I will check for coding mistakes, it seems I missed quite a few. The underlying problem is that somebody got numbers and units wrong in the first place. The range and speed of ships is commonly given in nautical miles and knots (aka nmi/h), and that is what the sources use. The conversion into km or mi is being made in the WP article via the conversion template mostly. Thus 12,000 nmi are 22,000 km which then become 22,000 nmi which are converted into 41,000 km. So unfortunately a simple flip doesn't solve the problem, as you would have to flip twice. And then there is the whole question of rounding errors. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't follow that. If a source says 12,000 nmi the convert should be {{convert|12,000|nmi|km|abbr=on}} except that if wanted, you could use {{convert|12,000|nmi|km|abbr=on|order=flip}} in order to show km first. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
That's interesting, but I don't think it is necessary to flip nmi for km on ship-articles. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German submarine U-801, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baltic. 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) 09:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

German submarine U-804
added a link pointing to Herbert Meyer
German submarine U-854
added a link pointing to Hela

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Brauchtisch

As I have now addressed all your points and edit according them, would mind changing your "oppose" vote to "support" maybe? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German submarine U-1222, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunderland. 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) 13:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German submarine U-1231, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Libau. 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) 09:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German submarine U-350, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SSW. 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) 09:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

October–December 2014 Milhist reviewing award

 Military history reviewers' award 
For completing 3 reviews during October–December 2014, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Military history reviewers' award. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Your recent edits

Note that {{sfn}} is free-standing, and has no <ref> before it -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 00:44, wikitime= 16:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of that. An oversight when programming the AWB. I am on it. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Crête-à-Pierrot References

Hi, in this edit you assessed Crête-à-Pierrot for compliance with standards for 2 wikiprojects, and you gave it a red mark for referencing. I'm a little confused by that, as virtually every sentence in the article is supported by an in-line citation. What are you looking for in references that you aren't finding in that article? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • My mistake, I mixed up B1 and B2. The problems are with accuracy and coverage rather than references. Sorry, ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC) PS: If you feel the article has improved substantially, you can request a reassessment here.
Thanks. That makes more sense; as the article isn't very developed and lacks comprehensive coverage at the moment. Thanks for fixing it. :) ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Friedrich Lützow

I just created the stub article Friedrich Lützow. Maybe you are interested in expanding it? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

MP 40

Thanks a bunch on removing the novels from the article. I don't know have I could have missed the novel mention in a title like that "Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway: A Brothers in Arms Novel". In any case, I will do some further improvements before the GA-review starts. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 01:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

Hi ÄDA - DÄP. I noticed your recent edit to the info box of Nazi Germany, adding some material to the info box. What you may nor realize is that there's currently a discussion underway at the talk page to decide what-all should be listed under "Succeded by" and "Now part of" in this info box. Your comments on the topic are welcome. Talk:Nazi Germany#Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2015. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I had some technical problems earlier, so I was not able to contribute earlier. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

January-March 2015 Milhist reviewing award

 Military history reviewers' award 
For completing 2 reviews during January-March 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Wikistripe. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

WikiProject assessment

Please be very careful how you add parameters to WikiProject banners on talk pages. I am coming across quite a number where you have broken the banner by omitting a necessary pipe (and so turning the whole banner into a redlink), or broken another template on the page by removing necessary closing braces, or have added extra braces where none were needed. Examples include the following edits: Talk:German submarine U-3509; Talk:German submarine U-3037; Talk:MV Doña Paz; Talk:Rabelo Boat; Talk:USS Marcellus (1879). I've fixed these five, but I don't have time to check all your edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Mary B Mitchell

I note that you added WPMILHIST to Mary B Mitchell (Q-ship). It might be useful to review Mary B Mitchell (schooner) at the same time? Lugnad (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

HMS Hawk

Hi. HMS Hawk is too short to be B-class, but I'm puzzled why you flagged it as failing the referencing criteria, as all relevant points seem fully referenced. It's no big deal, just curious re the criteria applied. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Length is not such a limiting factor, especially with smaller craft. The main source, however, seems to be on the class, rather than the ship itself. And the rest is just on marginal issues. Not enough for B-Class - or so I guess. But feel free to ask for a reassessment on one of the projects involved. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair point. Thanks. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

von Stockhausen

Do you know if the brother (or other relation) of Hans-Gerrit von Stockhausen is de:Hans Gottfried von Stockhausen? MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Hans-Gottfried and Hans-Ludwig are his brothers from the marriage of Generalmajor Hans-Abalbert v. Stockhausen to Eleonore v. Baumbach. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ship endurance

Please check your edit at SM U-132 which seems to have broken {{endurance}}. I would fix it, but it looks like you are doing lots of these and should examine the issue. The visible problem is that the infobox currently displays "[convert: invalid number]" (twice). Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, but perhaps I did not explain the situation clearly because similar breakages occurred during your other recent edits, and there are 20 broken articles:

SM U-53 • SM U-55 • SM U-61 • SM UB-2 • SM UB-3 • SM UB-4 • SM UB-5 • SM UB-6 • SM UB-7 • SM UB-8 • SM UB-9 • SM UB-10 • SM UB-11 • SM UB-12 • SM UB-13 • SM UB-14 • SM UB-16 • SM UB-17 • SM UB-43 • SM UC-56

Johnuniq (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pest, but things are not getting any better. Please see SM UC-27 where the infobox is completely broken, and Category:Convert invalid units which lists 33 pages with invalid converts, starting from SM UC-1. It seems that nearly all your edits, at least in the last month, have been with automated tools, and I see a post from Redrose64 above saying there were at least some other problems. I'm sure you are aware that when making automated edits, it is important to carefully check at least some of the resulting articles to see that no systematic errors have been introduced. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits to German ship articles

I don't know why you're making the changes you are - PD is never used in the context of ships, IHP/SHP is the standard measure for marine propulsion systems. Also, why are you adding commas to convert templates? They already render appropriately. Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And whats worse is your edits have introduced errors - take Brandenburg-class battleship for example: you changed 10,000 ihp (7,500 kW) to 10,000 PS (9,900 ihp). These will all need to be fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Yep, that's true, except that we have the metric system here in Europe (A "Quarterpounder with Cheese" pops to mind). That is why I am converting PS into ihp/shp/bhp as appropriate. The problem is, that some genius simply translated "Pferdestärken" (735.49875 W) into "horse power" (745.699881448 W) without making the necessary adjustments, leaving us 10 W short on the base unit. Now the obvious way is to convert PS into kW and then to ihp etc.

Thanks for waiting BTW ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said, PS is never used in the context of marine engines - it might well be appropriate for an article on a Volkswagen, but it's not here. IHP is the standard measure for reciprocating engines, and SHP is the standard for turbines. And PS isn't even the metric unit for power anymore. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It is, however, the unit used in Gröner etc. And following the instructions of the convert template for non-SI units commonly used in Germany, the logical solution is to convert Pferdestärken into kW and then into shp, which is what I intended to do in any case. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The English translation uses IHP/SHP (and NHP in some of the older ships). Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If this is all backed up by sources, then fine. But when you make these changes, please don't mark them as minor edits with log entries like "Copyedit (minor)" and "clean up using AWB." Then people like me have to run around trying to figure out what you're up to. I suggest describing what you're doing and why, maybe on your user page or an appropriate project page, and leaving a link in the edit summary.

As for the units, I don't think PS is all that useful. If that's what is given in the source, it should be used as the input to the convert template. But I would suppress display of PS in favor of shp and kW. I think the template can do this, but I'm not sure. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Didn't think it would be such a big deal. Will try to give more thought to what other people might make of it.
  • {{convert|10000|PS|ihp kW|disp=out|0}} should do the trick.
  • Gröner (1982), p.11 gives PSi, PSw, PSe, and PSno for steam engines, turbines, and diesel/electric engines. On page 17, 1 PS is defined as 75 kgm/s (i.e. 735.49875 W) but irritatingly translated as HP (745.699881448 W). In smaller engines this doesn't matter so much, but once you reach MW, there is a significant difference.
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It is a big deal. You are making hundreds of what appear to be automated edits and do not notice some problems as I indicated above. Some changes at articles like Brandenburg-class battleship are very hard to check because they alter numbers used in convert—that means errors can escape attention such as this edit which changed the ship's length from 379.58 ft to 115,7 m. Convert strips all commas from input numbers and "115,7" is ten times too big. Parsecboy fixed that, but who is going to check the many other similar changes where the error might not be so noticeable? I think I saw several other articles with similar edits when I looked earlier.
In general, whatever the source says should be the number used in convert—if it said 379.58 ft that is what should be used because others can then readily verify the value. Use |order=flip if needed, although that is a bit tricky for this example if feet/inches is wanted.
Using a value of PS as the input but not showing PS in the result is not directly supported by convert, and unfortunately the workarounds are ugly:
  • {{convert|10000|PS|ihp kW|disp=out|0}} → 9,863 ihp; 7,355 kW
  • {{convert|{{convert|10000|PS|ihp|0|disp=number}}|ihp|kW|abbr=on}} → 9,863 ihp (7,355 kW)
Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I am perfectly capable of making my own mistakes, so the AWB has nothing to do with it. And I tend to tidy up afterwards (thanks for pointing out those categories BTW). This is a simply a case of GIGO. Anyway, I am working on a very limited scope here, a couple of thousand articles on German warships, mostly submarines. The measurements of these vessels are metric (Why any source would say "379.58 ft" is beyond me. And what is the point of using decimals on "ft"?), however, a bunch of sources used for the articles have translated (rather than converted) the information into imperial/US measurements.
The underlying problem seems to be that people used to the imperial/US system, are trying to handle metric data and vice versa (e.g. in Germany the comma is used as a separator where a dot is used in the template and the other way round - actually what I accidentally typed was exactly what is in the German source, I just did not make the cultural adaption!).
As to the template, I can live with the second one, as long as we are agreed that they indeed used PS rather than ihp back in the day. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we can agree that all sources used PS "back in the day." They would have to be examined individually. In the case of an English translation from a WWII German source, you may have to go back to the German to discover what the original units were (as you apparently did with Gröner). That's why I'm uncomfortable with these changes being done automatically on hundreds of articles with no discussion ahead of time. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I may be terrible at coding, but I usually do my homework before I start to alter thousands of articles (cf.Coluumn 9); and when in doubt, I don't. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Karl-Friedrich Merten

Hi, do you have insight on his post World War II trial by the French? It might be worth some more context. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, the only place I can think of where to find more information would be his autobiography. I may have a chance on laying my hands on one in a couple of weeks. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for checking MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I made some additions (up to the section "U-boat commander"). May I ask you to check translations? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
WGP ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Question, I intended to write the article in US English. I think the ranks should therefore translate to the US equivalent not the Royal Navy equivalent. Example Oberleutnant zur See should be Lieutenant (junior grade) not Sub-Lieutenant. Are you okay with this? MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. What do you know of Merten and his difference of opinions with Lothar-Günther Buchheim? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Not to worry. The "Buchheim wave" was a bit before my time, but Hadley seems to have a pretty good account of their differences of opinion here. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

False precision in power ratings

Please stop putting the "0" parameter in your ship power conversions. This amounts to false precision. The convert template automatically chooses the correct precision in these cases. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to discuss that with User:Johnuniq (see above), as the template was provided by him. However, I don't see what else could be done to avoid significant rounding errors. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Your name is on the edits, not John's.
I can think of two ways to avoid the rounding error. One would be to use the first form suggested by John, but drop the "0":
  • {{convert|10000|PS|ihp kW|disp=out}} → 9,900 ihp; 7,400 kW
Another would be to forget about suppressing the PS output, which I guess I could go along with. I don't see any way to avoid both false precision and rounding errors using John's second form. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
My original solution was to convert PS or metric hp into kW and then convert that figure into hp. We can adjust the rounding to whatever level we feel appropriate. The problem here is that the original figure from the sources is not "on record" to be verified. Thus we need the original rating in "PS" for any conversion in order to avoid compromising the data. A nice round figure in PS, however, doesn't mean we get nice round figures for either kW nor hp. It wouldn't matter in a Volkswagen, but it does in a battleship. In your proposal we can only adjust the outcome of the latter unit by any degree, whereas the former will be overly precise.
So my second solution was to use PS and convert it to both, hp and kW at the same time. This however prompted the reaction that outside Germany PS aren't used for information marine propulsion. Which is true. Although many standard reference books on naval vessels, e.g. Conway. simply translate PS as hp or tonnes as tons. The difference is insignificant as such, but then there is no need for a convert template.
The problem you're describing is one of the intrinsic logic of the template itself. A true conversion of the PS figure will almost never result in a nice round hp figure thus the displayed values are overly precise.
In your suggested solution, the rounding leads to two very different values. In fact, the template is suggesting that 37 indicated horsepower (28 kW) are the same as 45 kilowatts (60 ihp). That difference would matter even in a Volkswagen.
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what you mean. Can you provide the template source code that illustrates the 28==45 problem? Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes please—also, an example of the "false precision" problem mentioned above would be good. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Your example of converting 10000 PS to "9,863 ihp; 7,355 kW" exhibits false precision. This would normally be converted to "9,900 ihp; 7,400 kW" if you leave off the "0" parameter. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, that needs something like |adj=ri0 but with negative precision. I've put it on my list to look at but some major syntax enhancement might be needed and I guess convert won't be able to help with the current issue soon. Johnuniq (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with accurate figures. They may look awkward, but they are correct. False precision is what we get now, when PS is simply translated as hp which is then converted in kW: 10,000 ihp (10,000 PS; 7,500 kW). ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll try not to post here for a while unless asked as I don't have anything useful to say. However, it occurred to me that the sigfig option might sometimes be useful, for example:
  • {{convert|{{convert|10000|PS|ihp|sigfig=2|disp=number}}|ihp|kW|abbr=on}} → 9,900 ihp (7,400 kW)
  • {{convert|{{convert|10000|PS|ihp|sigfig=3|disp=number}}|ihp|kW|abbr=on}} → 9,860 ihp (7,350 kW)
Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't work, because it results in rounding error. In general you can't do further calculation on a rounded number, you must only round at the end for display. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
"10,000 ihp (10,000 PS; 7,500 kW)" isn't false precision, it's just wrong. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German submarine U-675, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunderland. 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) 09:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Gröner tonnages

So Gröner is using long tons? It's not clear in my English translation which type he's using.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, my copy gives power in shp, not kW or PS, so where are your higher figures coming from? Trials?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
In the German edition, Gröner differentiates between MT and LT. LT are used for standard tonnage (i.e. Washington tons), which is the case with the 1936 destroyers. The engines are rated in PS (735.5 W) rather than imperial horsepower (745.6 W), the value for Z17 was indeed achieved during trials. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I prefer rated power and speed for use in infoboxes over trials data as the latter are often performed in totally unrealistic circumstances and the ship cannot reach them once in service. I do like to give trials performance in the main body, though. For the benefit of the French, Italians and Japanese, Washington definitions are given in metric tons as well as long tons, so I'm not sure that we really need to use long tons for ships of nations that use metric, but it's not a big deal for me either way. Thanks for catching the extra length on Z19-22, I'd missed that when copy-pasting the description from Z18.
As part of the stub contest, I'm planning on adding a couple of paragraphs of description for the rest of the destroyers up through Z39, but I think that we should come to some sort of agreement about how deal with this sort of stuff before I proceed. I have a copy of the German edition, but didn't think that it was much different from the English one, so I can use PS, and add trials performance to the main body, etc. if you're agreeable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the English-language edition, so I check data against the German one. As far as I know, the "Washington ton" is identical with the long ton, so no sweat there. As for PS and hp, they are used synonymously, while they aren't, which causes some confusion. They should be converted rather than translated, I'd say. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, so let me add the description to Z17, using PS and including the trials data (which is apparently only available for her) and then we can discuss whatever changes you think should be made. And I'll make the necessary changes to her infobox as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, done. See how it looks. Since I reworded the first para, I'll paste it over the existing text in the articles I've already expanded once you approve, and then apply it to the other ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Cheers, ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

U-210

I just clean up the infobox and restored the |Ship power and |Ship propulsion entries. I deleted some info as too detailed for the infobox which is only supposed to be a summary of the information in the main body, like rpm, supercharged, etc. as all that is best covered there. One minor point is that the non-breaking space is only a requirement between measurements and their unit, like 12 cm, so you needn't bother adding it so liberally elsewhere.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Right now, I am trying to do just that. Moving the information from the infobox to the main body. One of the next steps will be removing the other nick-nack. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ján Gerthofer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Front. 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) 12:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maximilian von Spee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Port Arthur. 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) 15:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Z5 Paul Jakobi or Jacobi

Gröner (English and German editions), Koop & Schmolke, and Whitley all spell the name with a c rather than a k as in the current article. Do you know any reason why I shouldn't move it to the c spelling?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Most certainly "Jakobi" is a spelling error/overcorrection (see here for confirmation). So go ahead by all means. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Jacobi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posen. 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) 09:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

German weather ship articles

What are you doing? You're ruining the infoboxes. Also, please do not alter conversions of knots==>km/h only. Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing DISPLAYTITLE-templates - and a bit more. What exactly is the rational of only converting kn -> km/h? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Knots = nautical miles per hour. There is no need to convert to mph, which is not used for nautical purposes, but a measure of land speed. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The usage guide for the infobox, however, says: When using {{convert}}, do not specify an "out" value for the conversion (use {{convert|15|kn}} instead of {{convert|15|kn|km/h}}) or any other parameters except unit linking (see above). The template will provide conversions for both kilometres per hour and statute miles per hour. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
It is wrong then. We don't convert mph to knots in rail and road articles, do we? You wouldn't see "the train was travelling at 48 miles per hour (42 kn; 77 km/h) when it derailed", would you? Mjroots (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Us benighted Americans don't understand km/h or knots; so let the default triple conversion stand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll raise the issue of conversions at WP level, but not just yet. Dealing with some issues off-Wiki which are taking much of my time atm.
As for the edits to the German weather ship articles which I reverted, feel free to try again, but please ensure that the infobox is not broken by doing so. It was for that reason I reverted. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I very much disagree with the conversion to both knots and mph. Those wacky Americans only deserve one non-standard unit, in my opinion. (and yes I know this isn't the place to discuss this) Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

more borked articles.

If listed twice, they have more than one bracket issue:

Bgwhite (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Also German submarine U-505. Can you fix this? I can't quite figure out what's going on. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I just fixed all of the bad edits to the following articles (or got the infobox to display correctly, anyway):

All caused by the user deleting closing "}}" that are needed to end a template, except for the last one which attempted to replace links with a template shorthand, but didn't do it right. Since it doesn't seem to be responding, do we report it? StressOverStrain (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What did you mean here?

Hi ÄDA - DÄP. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German submarine U-2506, when you said "There are plenty of sources available, although they won't show when looking for the WP-article title.", what did you mean? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 14:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The template will look for the exact title, ie "German submarine U-2506", not for any versions or different spellings. If you broaden your search, you would find more sources on the boat, as Andrew did. You are right, however, that this information should be included in the article. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't use the template, I just searched for "U-2506" as it's pretty much the only U-2506 out there. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 5th Guards Grenadiers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wilhelm Reinhard. 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) 09:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ÄDA_-_DÄP/Archive_2&oldid=803566824"