User talk:Kurt Leyman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take a look at Image:Tirpitz.jpg, Image:Bismarck.jpg and Image:Bastico.jpg, and please provide the license for those pics. Also, if you add a new pic to an article, there's no need to delete the previous ones (just take a note on how the article on German battleship Tirpitz looks now and how it did after your edits. Finally, why did you delete the description for the Image:Schlezwig after skirmish with Hel.jpg and deleted the interwiki link from the respective article?

Please reply on my talk page. Thank you. Halibutt 11:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Loss of HMS Hood 2 Images on Wikipedia 3 Talk:Gneisenau class battlecruiser 4 German battlecruiser Scharnhorst 5 Image:Schleswig-Holstein..jpg 6 Battle of the Denmark Strait 7 Tirpitz 8 Tin-Foil Hat Brigade 9 Italian involvement in Battle of France 10 Peru v Kriegsmarine 11 Three Reverts in Operation Barbarossa on March 29 2006 11.1 Sicily 12 page name 13 Battle of Königsberg editing 14 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination) 15 Soviet partisans in Finland 16 Greetings 17 Actually 18 Panther edits 19 Deng 20 Gneisenau 21 You have been blocked for 132 hours 22 Block evasion? 23 Your edit to Winter War 24 Hi Kurt 25 Battle of Taranto 26 What is this? 27 Advice 28 Mussolini edits 29 3RR 30 Am I being stalked and is this personal? 31 Rex and the Poles 32 3RR 33 Ok then 34 Kriegsmarine strength in summer 1940 35 Image copyright problem with Image:Soviet_child_soldier.jpg

[edit] Loss of HMS Hood

Kurt,

You seem to have very strong views about what caused the loss of HMS Hood. I recently corrected a false rendering of the 2nd Board of Enquiry's conclusion on the loss, replacing it with a verbatim quotation from the transcript at [1]. You then changed it back to a reading just as spurious as the one I changed. Why are you doing this?? If you don't agree with the Board's conclusion - and many people don't - then by all means add a paragraph explaining why it's wrong; but please, please. please do not misrepresent a primary source.

I would be very grateful if you would put a message, either on the Hood talk page or on mine, explaining the reason for your changes.

Regards,

John Moore London, UK John Moore 309 18:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images on Wikipedia

I see you are new here so you might not be familiar with Wikipedia policies. In general, Wikipedia is very strict about images, and allows the inclusion only of those images which have precise license information that releases them into public use.

For example, this page appears to be copyrighted (look at the bottom), so you cannot just use the images without permission.

Personally, I find this policy a bit silly when applied to images over 60 years old, but it is what it is. Balcer 17:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Gneisenau class battlecruiser

I have moved the debate about class to a central page which did not exist when the debate started. Perhapse you would like to comment further. Philip Baird Shearer 09:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW on talk pages you can sign you comments with ~~~~. Wikipedia will automagically put in your user name and a time stamp when you save it. Philip Baird Shearer 09:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] German battlecruiser Scharnhorst

Please can you add a source for the quote you added. Philip Baird Shearer 30 June 2005 10:10 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Schleswig-Holstein..jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Schleswig-Holstein..jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

[edit] Battle of the Denmark Strait

You deleted some small parts of this article as "irrelevant". I don't agree. The reasons for the PoW not being pursued, if true, seem relevant. The other bits about the fate of the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen are more debatable, but a thumbnail of the aftermath puts the rest into perspective, IMHO. Your comments? Folks at 137 18:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tirpitz

Please explain your deletion of info from this article. Do you regard it as untrue or as irrelevant? An answer to my query, above, about your deletions from Battle of the Denmark Strait would be courteous. Folks at 137 23:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your response. I assume we’re talking only about Operation Catechism on 12th November 1944. I’ve been chasing and comparing sources on the net. The following is based upon them. There are some differences (always will be) but what is not disputed is that no RAF bomber was attacked by any Luftwaffe fighter. That sounds correct as the Lancasters were significantly dis-armed (one turret and some armour removed) and, against FW190s, casualties should have been far greater than one, with damage to surviving aircraft. Sources then disagree: some say all aircraft returned safely, some say one was brought down by flak. I would tend to accept the latter as there are also details of a bomber crashing in Sweden. The failure of JG5 at Bardufoss to protect Tirpitz is indisputable: Tirpitz sank. But, why? It appears that the fighter wing had only just been transferred to Bardufoss, as a response to the previous attack on 29th October and crews were still training for their new FW190 aircraft. They were restricted to local defence and emergencies. Again sources differ. Some say that JG5 was not informed in time. Others say that Bardufoss claimed that it was under attack, which would support your source’s claim of a planned diversion. (No sources that I’ve seen say that this was an planned diversion – just misinterpretation.) What then confuses is the statement I’ve seen of Bardufoss' report that there were planes overhead. Another site points to weaknesses in the German air defence system in the area, so this probably contributed. I’ve also seen, but cannot reference, a statement that Luftwaffe commander(s) were court-martialled.

In summary, I still hold to the view that the Luftwaffe failed to protect the Tirpitz – it sank! Given that the sources for no fighter “kills” come from RAF and veteran sources, I would accept them – after all they would know who did and didn’t return. This can only be due to the Luftwaffe not being ready, probably due to their recent arrival in the area and their new aircraft, coupled with the wish to defend their own base (but why not airborne?). One source states that the fighters were scambled, but too late.

Here are the main on-line sources I've used:

• http://groups.msn.com/BritishNavy/sinkingofthetirpitz.msnw
• http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/history/tiropercatechism.html
• http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/tirpitz.html
• http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/tirpitz.html
• http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/overlander/attack.htm

Last point: it would have helped if you had left a reason for your deletion at the time. I think that there will be enough common ground to reinstate a version of the deleted text. I’ll continue looking for info. Regards, Folks at 137 11:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tin-Foil Hat Brigade

Saw your comment about conspiracy theories -- lurk around those pages for awhile, you won't believe how many people actually believe that crud. Morton devonshire 10:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italian involvement in Battle of France

Hi, Kurt! You have of course been correct in adding the Italian involvement in the battle; however mentioning the entire theoretical strength of Army Group West is very deceptive as most of these divisions weren't fully mobilised, let alone deployed. Besides Gruppo d'Armate Ovest had only 22 divisions, six of them with a reserve status: so am I correct in assuming you added the entire strategic reserve, the ten divisions of 6th Army? Also the number of 500,000 you gave, matches the theoretical strength of the 22 divisions (including supply and support forces), not the 32; on the other hand less then 100,000 Italian troops were really at the frontline. So we might even enlarge the number of troops to be consistent; or we could be more realistic and give the numbers of 16 divisions and 300,000 troops. What do you think? Greetings, --MWAK 18:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peru v Kriegsmarine

If you look at the article on Peru, the history section states that the Peruvians destroyed a German submarine and a German "battleship": In 1943 the Peruvian navy destroyed a German submarine that had arrived to the port of Callao to get supplies. Peru also sunk another German battleship in 1944. I've found NO evidence for anything like this, even allowing that "battleship" might mean "warship". Have you any evidence? Folks at 137 10:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three Reverts in Operation Barbarossa on March 29 2006

You have reverted the Operation Barbarossa page three times today. Please note there is an ongoing discussion of the very point you are reverting on the discussion page. Please join in the discussion, since we have no really good solution to the problem yet. Reverting against consensus will not help us solve the problem. Thanks. DMorpheus 17:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sicily

May I ask why you made the changes to outcome of the battle, major participants, and ranks of commanders?Bridesmill 22:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] page name

please discontinue with changing the name to the article Littorio class battleship. See it's talk page.--TheFEARgod 14:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Königsberg editing

Hello,

It would seem you keep on editing Battle of Königsberg and removing mention of "Nazi Germany". I strongly recommend you read the article's talk page where this point is explained before performing any other attempt of removing it. Thanks for attention. -- Grafikm_fr 18:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 21:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet partisans in Finland

It would be great if you can provide a source for this. Without that, it is much more likely that you will be reverted. Some users at that page seem way to willing to erase any mentions of misconduct on the part of Soviet partisants, however they can be stopped with the use of proper, academic references - see Soviet partisans in Poland. I'd strongly recommend that using references is the best way to ensure your information stays in the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Oletko suomalainen? Meillä näyttää olevan samoja mielenkiinnon kohteita, ja eräät täällä näyttävät muokkaavan asioita aina Neuvostoliiton hyödyksi. Soviet partisans lisäsin niitä lähteitä, ja nyt se näyttää olevan jo niskan päällä. Laitoin sen hautakiven kuvan Commonsiin ja lisäsin artikkeliin. --Pudeo 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actually

I just blocked both of you for 72 hours. I know that will disappoint you, but I'm trying to find some way to get you 2 to discuss this in email or an off site bulletin board or something. You cannot keep doing this here. If this continues, the blocks will increase. I don't condone what Deng is doing, but I don't condone what you are doing either. Edit warring is not allowed here. You 2 have to find a way to discuss these things civilly or else neither of you will be welcome here. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panther edits

Kurt, the photo captions you edited - please see the discussion page. The Panther ausf D never had the cast cupola, so the photo of the single tank is an ausf A. Consult any of Tom Jentz's books on the Panther if you doubt me. Explanation on the talk page.

Also, I doubt the photo of the tanks on the train was taken during the Ardennes offensive, although I too have seen it with that caption elsewhere. There are definitely early ausf Ds, without zimmerit, meaning they were manufactured no later than Sept 1943. That is why I think the Ardennes caption must be wrong. Regardless of *where* the photo was taken, the tanks are ausf Ds. DMorpheus 15:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deng

I blocked him for a week. Not only was he stalking you, he committed a 3RR vio on Second Battle of the Atlantic. Your edits on that article are not vandalism. In fact, I think they are just as good as what Deng is reverting to. Now, please don't take this to mean that you can do what you want. I'll be monitoring the situation. But I just wanted to let you know. And thanks for the heads up on it. I usually don't watch user's edits, so I wouldn't have known that he was back to what he was doing with you. So. Be good. Please. For me. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, please don't "discuss" via edit summaries. That's what talk pages are for. --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gneisenau

You asked: The only sources that I have seen to say anything about the claim of the ships being built to carry 15 inch guns from the beginning are internet sources. Can you provide books?

The stuff I have at home is lightweight but supports the belief that this class were designed for up-gunning. My copy of the Collins Warships of World War II which is an extract from Jane's says they were quite capable of up-gunning to 15-in mountings. Why the down on web sources? Some are just as reliable as some books. Hard copy doesn't guarantee hard fact. Folks at 137 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have been blocked for 132 hours

For a 3RR vio on Second Battle of the Atlantic. 132 hours is appx. 5 1/2 days. At first I thought you only had 3 reverts but it's actually 4. There is a difference of one word between 2 of the reverts, but Deng had that as well and I blocked him. Besides, it still violates the spirit of 3RR. I really wish you 2 would stop. I'm not messing around here. The next time this happens, it's going to be for a month. The thing is, Kurt, go find something else to edit for awhile when you come back. If Deng reverts you, come to me or another admin and have one of us take care of it. You know better than to get into a war with Deng. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block evasion?

If you edit Wikipedia as 193.185.55.253, you should be aware that your block may be prolonged to one month for block evasion. Take care, Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have reset the 132 h block abakharev 23:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Winter War

Your recent edit to Winter War was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 09:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Kurt

I am very interested in these ships like you. I was just wondering why you removed the images of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau? Do you think there are to many, or you just didn't like them. I think personally that the more pictures the better. Wallie 22:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Taranto

Kurt, you keep changing the terms "tropedo bomber" to "plane". You logicv appears to be that the term "plane" (which is really a contraction "aeroplane") becuse it was used in the Peral Harbour page. Two wrongs to not make a right. if your logic was to be followed consistently then we should change the term "light cruiser" to "ship". I notice tthat you did not choose to make that change. Given that even in those relatively early early days aircraft carriers embarked more than one aircraft type, it is entirely appropriate that the correct descriptive term for the type of aeroplane involved should be used.

[edit] What is this?

Why am I being blocked? What have I done to deserve this? I have served more than the time that Wohookitty gave me. I am confused and a bit frustrated. Kurt.

It was shown to be likely that you used a sockpuppet to get around the block. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I deny such claims like I did earlier http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_War&action=history. "They look like his work". Perhaps they do, but that proves little. Kurt.

Not sure you understand CheckUser. It means that one of the 15 or so people that can check IPs compared your IP and the IP of the suspected sock and found that the IPs were similar enough that it was likely that the 2 are related. They usually just say likely (in opposition to confirmed) when it's the same bank of IPs but the IPs don't exactly match. So either there is someone in the exact geographical area you are in that are making posts similar to yours (which is highly unlikely) or it's you. --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

These accusitions are very sceptic. Kurt.

[edit] Advice

Hello Kurt. Just some advice. I think you would be much better off by using talk pages to discuss controversial changes you want to make instead of using edit summaries. Talk pages are to discuss changes such as the ones you made to Battle of Königsberg and Kronstadt. The changes themselves I have no problem with. The problem I have is that it's your usual pattern. You make the change, it's reverted...instead of then opening up a discussion on the talk page, you make the change again. That kind of behavior leads to edit wars. Do others have the same obligation you do? Sure. But what's bothersome with you is that you never do it. Instead you get into revert or edit wars with people with very little discussion about it. It doesn't hurt anything to say "hey, why do you object to this change?" --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you *please* start using talk pages? --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mussolini edits

My edits are being lost in your Mussolini edit war. Please stop and let's discuss the changes where appropriate. Aaрон Кинни (t) 06:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

. I have blocked you for one month, since you have a history of violating the rules of wikipedia, including 3RR abakharev 22:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

abrakharev, you seemed to forgot the other 3RR violators. User:Irpen and User:Fisenko, and those are the ones who put biased content (see talk page). But that's because they're Russian like you? --Pudeo 18:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Blatant and disgusting personal attack... <_<

Anyway, Irpen was only at three reverts just as you are btw, so there was no 3RR violation. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Am I being stalked and is this personal?

Why is it that I get one month block and some people get something like one week? Is this supposed to be democratic? I have my own feelings about this. And are the moderators 100% neutral, I ask.

....

Becaue you have previously violated the 3RR rule and have been blocked for this (at least two times according your block log). The more often you violate this rule the longer you'll be banned. --Denniss 12:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kurt, the block was for cumulative activies. Honestly, Alex was being nice. I would've blocked you indefinitely just like I blocked SuperDeng indefinitely before it was shortened by agreement. You have shown absolutely no inkling to reform. You have been warned and blocked many times. You are not a new user so you have no excuse for your behavior. You generally refuse to use talk pages despite several warnings. You went way way way beyond 3RR. If you had just gone to 4, you probably would've gotten a lessor punishment. And in many ways, you are just like Deng. You seem to exist only to revert other people's work. I just don't see the good that you do here. And I don't see an impulse to change. --Woohookitty^(meow) 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"You have shown absolutely no inkling to reform." I beg to differ. "you have no excuse for your behavior." What "behaviour"? I don't consider my behaviour to be anything strange. I don't stalk people and I don't consider my recent acts to be anything like vandalism. "You generally refuse to use talk pages despite several warnings." No, I don't "refuse" to use talk pages. It's not that I don't want to use them, it's that I don't think that using them is always nessecary. I nearly always put something in the edit message. I use talk pages when I think that using them is nessecary. "You went way way way beyond 3RR." I belive that some other people did so also. "And in many ways, you are just like Deng." That's where I disagree with you. "I just don't see the good that you do here." Then how can I explain it to you? Kurt.

[edit] Rex and the Poles

If he reverts again, just let him. I am up to 2 reverts. I'll change it back later. I do get the feeling that some people think that Poland and Canada were the only participants in WW2. Very strange. Wallie 22:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

. I have blocked you for one months for the 3RR violations on Benito Mussolini, Battle of Berlin as well as sterile edit warring on number of other articles. When you return please seek compromise with other editors ruther then edit war. abakharev 03:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ok then

....right. I have one request, though. Say what you will, but in my opinion the behaviour of user Lalacool is very similiar to SuperDeng. Could you at least check the possibility that they would be same person? --Kurt Leyman 12:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kriegsmarine strength in summer 1940

Hi there. I have one fairly credible source (Robinson's 'Invasion 1940') saying the German destroyer strength availalbe for Sealion was eight ships. This probably refers to a single point in time rather tha nthe whole summer - do you have other sources which might give a fuller picture? Thanks! The Land 15:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Soviet_child_soldier.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Soviet_child_soldier.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)