User talk:Dna-webmaster/Archive02

Archived Messages for Dna-Dennis : 2007-2008 Do not post messages here. Do it here, on my active talk page.

Reasons for WW1

hi,could u pls tell me the reasons for WW1 i have come up with some but there snt enough pls help,thks a bunch terence —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Terenceraaj1 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

• Wow, such a short question deserves a short answer... Reasons for WWI: Imperialism, expansionism, arms racing, settling old disputes, complicated alliances, and, of course, the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. So, as you may understand, the reasons are quite complicated (in my opinion more complicated than it was for WW2), so for more and better information check out the article Causes of World War I. My regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 07:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WWII montage

Hi. I've been enjoying your WWII montage for some time, but now someone is monkeying with it. Please help. Haber 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on the changes made to the Image:WW2 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg! I have replaced the old debated Nuremberg pic with a new one, and uploaded a new version of the montage. My Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good choice for the replacement. Thanks for doing all the work. Haber 21:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. Now it looks like the order is flipped, so that Normandy is on the bottom. I tried to fix it myself but I can't figure out how. Was this vandalism? Haber 16:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. Thanks! --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 10:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I just looked again and it's upside down. How is this happening? Haber 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Try clearing the cache in your browser and hit refresh.--Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 09:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Image:WW2 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg

Hi! One of the images that you have used in your montage has been deleted. I marked the montage with a template that will give you 7 to 14 days to replace the image with another one. When you have replaced the image, feel free to remove the "No source since" template. Regards. Samulili 11:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 13:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Asia/Pacific images in WW2 montage

While I admire your great work with the montages, I have to say that I don't think five of the six images and approximately 16% of it in area should be from Europe. It was a truly global struggle. The Pacific War was fought by roughly one third of the total number of people involved in the war (see World War II casualties) and was much bigger in terms of area than the Euopean conflict, stretching from Mongolia to Alaska to Australia. Can I suggest that "Image:1anschluss.gif" is replaced, possibly by one relating to the China-Japan conflict? For example, the image on the right also connects to the unique atrocities committed in Nanjing as well. Thanks.

Grant | Talk 05:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, Grant65! You are not the only one who have commented on the theatre aspect of the montage. The choice of pictures are really the result of a quite long discussion: Talk:World_War_II/Archive_6#The_Picture. The emphasis was to primarily illustrate different aspects of the war (e.g. fighting, politics, civilian impact) rather than the various theaters. We did not want the montage to be too "warcrufty", i.e. we wanted to appeal also to those who weren't particularly interested in WWII. There was a version with the "Iwo Jima flag-rising" but people objected to having TWO flags in the montage. Furthermore, it proved very difficult to find an appropriate image for the Pacific theatre, that is, an image people recognize and/or can distinguish what it is. I am afraid I think the picture you suggest does not help the "Pacific issue" very much, as it isn't obvious to the casual viewer that it is from that theatre. Personally I think a picture from Pearl Harbor (haven't found a good one yet, they are all messy) or the Iwo Jima flag-rising (but two flag-risings???) would be best to cover the Pacific theatre. But however we address it, there will always be a problem of what is being left out. If we care about theatres and try to balance it with adding a Pacific image, we automatically have the problem with other left-out theatres (Africa, Atlantic, Mediterranean and the Eastern Front in Russia etc). Furthermore, if we add one more image, we have to remove another image and thus remove an important aspect which the montage tries to illustrate.

File:The baby setuped by Capra s staff.jpg

My reasons for the current selection of images (to view the image, click Commons:Image:WW2 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg):

1. D-day: Very known & very important multi-national battle. The beginning of the end of the Nazi rule.
2. Nazis marching: Easily recognizable & very important aspect, since they were the supreme main reason the war started. It also symbolizes the psychological factors and the indoctrinations of the totalitarian regimes.
3. Death camp: Easily recognizable & important aspect describing one of the greatest civilian impacts.
4. Atom bomb: Easily recognizable & very important aspect describing the huge development in weapon technology and the start of the Cold War. It also marks the end of the war in the Pacific.
5. Soviet flag in Berlin: Easily recognizable & marks the huge Soviet effort and the end of the war in Europe. It is also a marker of the start of the Soviet influence in East Europe.

As you understand, my intention was to illustrate different aspects of the war, not necessarily warfare, theatres and nations. Nevertheless, I will think about it for a while, and see what other poeple think about this. So, if anyone else is reading this, please write your opinion here below. My regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 08:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's fine the way it is. The existing images are classics. Haber 12:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Physics

• http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Afshar_experiment
• http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Metamaterial (negative refraction)
• http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

--81.225.27.181 18:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not 100% certain

Hi There. I was browsing a article about WW2. I Saw the pie chart you created for that particular article. I figured out that the percentages don't add up to 100% (Image URL, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:WorldWarII-DeathsByAlliance-Piechart.png).

Hope this has been helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doomguy1001 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you very much for your sharp eyes! There was a bug in my Excel sheet, which now is corrected. I have replaced the faulty image (clear cache and hit refresh). My regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

World War 2 image

Hello, Please make the picture of battle of Normandy half of it's size and add a ppicture from the battle of Stalingrad or Kursk. There were more then 20 Million Soviets who died in the, and in fact if not the Soviets the world was lost. It's really not fair to put the soviets in a "shade" on the image. Stalingrad and Kursk each were not less importent then Normandies, so please add one of them. M.V.E.i. 18:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi MVEi! Please also read Talk:World_War_II/Archive_6#The_Picture and User_talk:Dna-webmaster/Archive02#Asia.2FPacific_images_in_WW2_montage above. After this you will understand that there are MANY and DIFFERENT opinions on what to include. Let's face it, everyone really wants it to cover everything, but it is only ONE montage, trying to give a fairly balanced view. As it stands now, I think it is "fairly" balanced. I do however see your point and agree - in part. But nevertheless having TWO images covering the Soviet effort would in my opinion make the montage much less balanced and thus worse - even though it "might" be fair, if we count the military casualties. But the objective of the montage is NOT to display degrees of effort, but to serve as a GENERAL title picture for WW2. My regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 04:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You have Two american images, with Normandie being to big. We can make the Normandy battle image twise of it's size and add another one. you cant have an image without the Battle of Stalingrad. M.V.E.i. 10:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

American images? Please! What do you mean? This is not an ideological fight betweeen USA and the former Soviet Union - it seems you are reading too much into it. The selection of the D-day pic is not American POV. It depicts a multi-national battle between US, UK, Canada, France, Poland, Germany and many more nationalities - even Russians! Consult your history books... And the atom bomb? American POV? No such thing; it depicts (1) the battle between US AND JAPAN, and (2) the culmination of the huge weapons development. Brits and Germans were also involved in the development of the nuclear bomb.

Thats it, changed it. As you could see, now it's far more fairly-split and more material entered, and everything you did in your image remained. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:WW2ArticleImage.jpg#Image_Montage_Information M.V.E.i. 10:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Concensus reached As you could see here, there is a concensus on the fact my image for the World War 2 article fits more then the previous one. Anyway, i kept everything that was on your image, and furthermore, in the details of my image in the "author" i clearly said that it is mostly based on what was done by you. M.V.E.i. 15:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No such consensus. The picture as it stood for years was very good. Haber 02:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Alot of people in the link i gave support what i did. I am not the only one that said that we need a Stalingead picture and that the Normandy picture was overshading. P.S. Everything from the previous picture was kept. M.V.E.i. 12:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I "understand" your reasons but I sincerely think you are wrong.

• Your so-called consensus:

Your so-called "consensus" was formed by User:M.V.E.i., User:Vihljun, User:Kalan, User:Ezhiki, User:TigerK 69, User:Ilya1166, User:Alaexis within 5 days, and each supporter is Russian, each arguing for inclusion of a picture from Stalingrad! Please don't call this a serious consensus against an image selection which have stood stabile for years. I am sorry if I offend you, but this feels more like a Russian coup...hardly NPOV!

• Stalingrad seriously unbalances the picture.

As I said before, the objective was not to cover different theatres of war. Now, the montage is seriously unbalanced with TWO images depicting the Soviet effort. What about those people who want one more Pacific image? Or China? Africa? Mediterranean? Atlantic? Now it is bad, and unfair, in my opinion.

• The Stalingrad image is a bad selection.

A picture of bombed buildings which could be from anywhere in the world is certainly not a good selection. Furthermore, whether Stalingrad was the turning point of the war could certainly be debated (even though I agree it was one significant turning point). But what about Kursk? Invasion of Italy? Allied Strategic Bombing? Hell, even Pearl Harbor was a turning point, as Churchill said: "Now we have won the war".

• The objective of the montage was ASPECTS, not THEATRES.

Yet again, I suggest you read

• Talk:World_War_II/Archive_6#The_Picture
• User_talk:Dna-webmaster/Archive02#Asia.2FPacific_images_in_WW2_montage

and

• Image Selection Reasons

Please consider this, before you enforce your views.

• The layout is in my opinion bad now.

Artistically I think the montage is hurt by 6 equally sized images. Furthermore, you open up a can of worms by your inclusion of Stalingrad. I wouldn't be surprised if it will yield more discussions of other things "left out", and I wouldn't be surprised if the montage will grow into 8 or more pictures, which would be a disaster. I'd suggest you seriously reconsider your views, and seriously consider using the original montage, Image:WW2_TitlePicture_For_Wikipedia_Article.jpg.

--Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 18:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion isn't the deciding

My image was chosen by a majority. The image you uploaded is irrelevant, that was realy rude you re-uploaded it! If you want shure you could take part in the argument on the discussion page but please, everything here is decided by a majority. M.V.E.i. 05:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Rude? Not at all... Your image was "chosen" by a "majority" of Russians. I am still defending the original idea of the montage, as I have on numerous occasions told you before, on behalf of many other opinions. The new montage is clearly debated, as we can see on the template talk page. I will gladly debate the montage, and if we can't agree, I will take it to a REAL majority voting. And, M.V.E.i., please stop insinuating vandalism. --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 16:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not just Russians that approve the new image, the only person that really opposed the new image was Parsecboy, and now he's said "I have no problem with the montage, except for the bombed out buildings from Stalingrad", which a new image was found, and LtWinters has now shown his support. I'm afraid the only one who objects now is you, "On behalf of many others" doesn't mean anything, and you cannot unilaterally prevent majority concensus. I don't understand why you oppose the new montage so much, NONE of the images were removed and your argument is that it 'ruins the balance'. It doesn't as the Eastern Front had more combat than all the other theatres combined. The template will be changed back when it is off protection.--Miyokan 17:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true. I've always liked the old montage. Haber 17:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Miyokan, you say I don't understand why you oppose the new montage so much. Well, have you read my statements on the template talk page at all? Once again: 1. The objectives are aspects, not theaters. 2. Two "Soviet" pics seriously unbalances the montage. What about those people who want one more Pacific image? Or China? Africa? Mediterranean? Atlantic? Two "Soviet" pics is bad, and unfair, in my opinion. We already have a Soviet flag in the montage, for goodness' sake! Your "majority consensus" was formed by a handful of Russians, each supporting an inclusion of another Soviet image - a tyranny of the "majority", opening up a can of worms on what theaters to include, when the objective is aspects, not theaters. If a real majority/dispute resolution votes against the original montage, I will not oppose it. In the meantime, let's keep our discussions civil. Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 18:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you check on something?

There are several IPs who are posting claims on the Administrators' noticeboard that they reperesent some sort of organization which has the right to hear matters concerning Internet disputes. See this post. Do you have any way of calling that telephone number or checking the address to see just what is located there? Corvus cornix 22:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm in communication with User:Davidgothberg‎ who has agreed to look into it. sorry to bother you. Corvus cornix 23:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No probs, I would have helped out. I hope you solve the issue. My regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 19:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's nice

I think the map look really good. And its a NPOV. This is the only strongest solution. I'm glad theres peace now :-) Nice to know it's cool now. M.V.E.i. 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is peace, and it's cool; Don't worry, I haven't taken anything you said personal. That does not however mean I approve of your methods - I still think your language, conduct and methods have been questionable; I don't necessarily accuse you of it, but I want to state firmly that Wikipedia is not a place for political or nationalistic agendas. In the future, to avoid such conflicts, I suggest you read and comply to these Wikipedia guidelines:

1. Wikipedia:Assume good faith - that is, don't automatically assume that other Wikipedians are POV, just because they disagree with you.
2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks - that is, don't accuse others of vandalism, when there is a clear dispute about Wikipedia contents. Don't call other persons "snobs", don't say that others' opinions are irrelevant - your views are not more valuable than others. You will only make enemies, if you continue doing this.
3. Wikipedia:Canvassing - don't campaign among a particular community, in this case, Russians, in order to influence people to support your views. Wikipedia guidelines state that you may inform people about an issue, but shouldn't urge them to support your view in particular. This is disruptive. The honest thing would be to inform as a many people as possible, in a neutral way, by posting information about the issue on regular article talk pages, not only on Russian users' talk pages.

I hope you consider this in the future. My regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 20:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The canvassing thing, i didnt know the law then. But the other things? I dont see anything nationalistic in trying to get an NPOV. I still think that the image you made was Western ethnocentrism (which could be easily called political agenda). We didnt ask to make the big image Soviet (though we had the right for that, 75% of the Axis forces were sent to the eastern front to fight the Soviets and still we won), we wanted to make it nutral. I got mad because i didnt understand how could you oppose to that if i kept everything you had in your image and even write in the image details that most is based on what you did. Nevertheless, now the image is nutral and that's why i decided to support it and re-bring up this suggestion previously offered but ignored by another user. Please notice that my party complitely supported it, which proves that we wanted NPOV. If you'll check the template history you'll see that after we reached a compromise another user who didn't participate in the argument reverted it to mine image again, and Miyokan reverted it back to the map explaining that these was the compromise reached (and if you remember, me and Miyokan were the most active supporters of mine new suggestion). M.V.E.i. 21:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

MVEi, you say "though we had the right for that" - that really feels like a Soviet POV politicial statement. MVEi, you are barking up the wrong tree - I am a Swedish historian, we were neutral in the war. I have previously been defending the Russian effort in WW2, and will continue to do this. But there are limits! I have stated the reasons for the original image montage selection, and you ignored my points, that it was about aspects, not theaters and that your changes was hurting the balance. The only thing you did was pushing for an inclusion of 2 Soviet pics, which I thought would bring imbalance to the montage, which never was about military effort. We apparently disagree, let's leave it at that now! Consider the Wikipedia guidelines in the future. I would appreciate if we stop this discussion now! Please. --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 21:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's just that we see differently what the image represents. Nevertheless, it's over and irrelevant now. P.S. I really didn't know about the convassing laws then, i didnt even know that word. M.V.E.i. 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

re:WWII

Thanks for your comment and your support. It's mostly just M.V.E.i; if he wants to be immature that's fine. It doesn't bother me at all. Sure, his insistence on pushing his Russian/Soviet POV is rather irritating, but I usually relax before I start typing. Thanks again. Parsecboy 13:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sweden WW2 Merchant Marine

We need data on Sweden's merchant marine casualties in WW2. Can you find the figures and a source?--Woogie10w 21:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Framework discussion

Just dropping a note that I appreciate your help with the framework, your feedback is quite helpful to me. Oberiko 05:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures, again

Hi there. I noticed the work you did earlier this month on weeding out the pictures in World War II. I really think you were on the right track there. Unfortunately, things got reverted and re-reverted, and then the article got protected without your changes, and then the whole discussion got archived. Now there are more attempts to add unnecessary pictures to the sections dealing with the USSR. Would you consider raising the discussion again? Or are you thinking that the pictures can wait until the proposed restructure takes place? - Eron ^Talk 21:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

re: WW2 Framework

Hi Dna-Dennis.

Thanks for your comment. I've been following the discussion there in regards to the proposed transformation of the article. I pretty much agree with everything you and Oberiko have stated. If there's anything I see that needs to be address, I'll make sure to make it known. Thanks again. Parsecboy 01:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Howdy Dna. I'm grateful for the offer. I'll probably be awhile expanding on the sections, trying to include everything major while also trimming what I'll be proposing for inclusion in the article. I've added a new section on my user-space framework page for what I'm thinking the paragraphs for the first "course of the war" section should be and what I'll be trying to cram into them. As always, any feedback is much appreciated. Oberiko 02:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My own note; temp link to framespace. --Dna-Dennis 02:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's a really useful page you sent me there, quite a bit that I didn't catch earlier. Thanks! Oberiko —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

re:WWII Pics Asia/Pacific

Hi again, Dna-Dennis

Go right ahead. I don't own the article anymore than anyone else does, afterall. It's just a little irritating that User:Senzangakhona continually inserts the Khatyn massacre image, that doesn't really belong on the WWII article, along with other unhelpful edits he/she keeps making. Parsecboy 22:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on the trimming. I've been looking over the article, and some of the maps and charts seem out of place and/or unnecessary. (I note that the Eastern Front is the only area that has battle maps. Not sure we need those.) You've been carrying the load on pictures, so I was thinking about dealing with those images. Do you agree that they need cutting? - Eron ^Talk 23:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I should probably add that a couple of them are the casualty pie charts that you uploaded; I don't know if you put them in the World War II article or not. They are also in the World War II Casualties article, and I think they belong there. I was going to move that giant casualty-by-country bar graph there as well. - Eron ^Talk 23:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:WW1 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg

commons:Image:Sopwith.Camel_in_flying.jpg was deleted because it didn't have a source. It needs to be replaced in commons:Image:WW1 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg. Edward 15:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And once again, the copyright police puts a dagger into my back... :) Don't worry, I will address this matter ASAP. --Dna-Dennis 16:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've replaced deleted Image:Sopwith.Camel in flying.jpg with Image:AlbatDIII.jpg (German Albatros D.III fighter biplanes). --Dna-Dennis 09:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Howdy Dna.

Thanks for the words. As an FYI, we've posted the "complete" sections up at World War II/temp, though further tweaking will likely be needed. Where I think I'm going to need help will be in determining what's important enough to mention and what isn't. For example, in the last section, I'm omitting Dakar, Gabon, the French-Thai War, and some of the actions in the Battle of the Atlantic. If you think I'm not putting in something that should be there, or vice-versa, I'd appreciative it being pointed out. Oberiko 14:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My own notes:

• Military engagements
• WW2 Template quick links
• Oberiko framespace
• Rewrite - "complete" sections
• Talk WW2 --Dna-Dennis 17:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Attack on carrier USS Franklin

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Attack on carrier USS Franklin 19 March 1945.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 04:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yep, oh yeah! I knew it would pass... A shame if it wouldn't! Regards, --Dna-Dennis 11:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Per you edits to World War II, please consider cmmenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII. -- Jreferee t/c 06:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Dna-Dennis 11:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

How many Ukrainians were killed during the Holocaust?

Hi Dennis According to Soviet sources listed in Erlikman 6,850,000 Ukrainians died in the war including soldiers and civilians. These losses are for the entire territory of the USSR including territories annexed in 1939-40[3,20-21] I have a detailed breakout of the 6,850,000 in the book by Erlikman. I will give you the details when I get home from TaeKwando class this evening. They are in an Excel spreadsheet with the details of Erlikmans figures for each Soviet Republic. The key point to remember that Erlikmans numbers include 3 million dead in the annexed territories including 1.5 million Jews . Ukrainian losses were about 5.3 million in 1939 borders. Total USSR Jewish losses in the 1946-91 borders were about 2.5 million. Total Soviet dead were 26.6 million including 3 million in the annexed territories.--Woogie10w 17:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust deaths

I have an Excel spreadsheet for you--Woogie10w 00:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the kind words about the Franklin pic. A bit of nostalgia there, the original upload goes back to the days before image resizing, so it was actually one of a pair, the other being thumbnail-sized (thus the rationale for adding width to the name). Nice to know we have a hi-res one now! Stan 17:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

CV13

Thanks for relinking this for me. :) Wallie 09:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WWII casualties picture

Howdy Dna, that's a great picture of World War II casualties you made, very clean and concise. Good work! Oberiko 15:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Oberiko! --Dna-Dennis 15:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

image: ww2 deaths by country

it`s mildly insulting that you left Canada, Australia and NZ off your chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.175.66.94 (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, a great chart you have made, but since you already have Latvia and Lithuania on it, why did you leave out Estonia? H2ppyme 17:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello everybody. Every country can not be listed in the image; a line has to be drawn somewhere. If that insults some people, sorry - it's a layout issue. For a complete listing users are easily directed to World War II casualties. Regards, --Dna-Dennis 14:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but the line shouldn't be drawn somewhere between Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. I totally agree when you remove Latvia and Lithuania from the image, after all they were neutral countries. H2ppyme (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought I might as well explain in more detail why the chart looks like it does, and why neither Estonia, Canada, Australia nor New Zealand is present in the chart. Well, the issue is about pure statistics and layout considerations, not about which countries were what and why. If you study the chart you will see that it is designed so that the casualty numbers are sorted; the numbers (green/red) are ascending within the Allies from Latvia to the Soviet Union, and then descending within the Axis from Germany to Italy. Why? Well, the idea was to make the largest casualty numbers (Soviet Union and Germany) "meet" eachother in the chart. Due to the fact that a line has to drawn somewhere on how many countries to list, it just happens that when you sort according to total casualty numbers, the chart will include (for instance) Latvia & Lithuania and exclude (for instance) Estonia, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. If we decide to add more countries, the next one would be Ethiopia and then Netherlands, Philippines, Austria etc, and Estonia would be far down the list, in between Canada and Australia. To verify this, go to World War II casualties and sort the column "Total deaths" by clicking the arrow button in the heading. My regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WW2-Holocaust-Europe.png

This map shows the concentration camps of the 40ies with the state boarders of 2000. Thus it is unhistoric and useless and should be replaced quickly. A historical map should show the state borders of 38 and the range of the German occupation. As it looks now it says that Netherlands, France etc. have sent their Jews to Auschwitz. Darapti (commons) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.217.69 (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unhistoric and useless - I don't think so; it's a matter of taste. You suggest 1938 borders... why 1938 in particular? The Holocaust hadn't started in earnest then. Why not 1942? Nah, it's a matter of taste - I think present borders are fine, as it connects it with the present so viewers may see where the camps actually were located. And your note on Netherlands, France sending Jews. etc. Well, were not Jews deported from these (occupied) countries? My regards, --Dna-Dennis 15:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Führer Headquarters

An article that you have been involved in editing, Führer Headquarters, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Führer Headquarters. Thank you. Gwen Gale 09:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on it. Thanks.--Dna-Dennis 15:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust Cleanup Needed

I would like the editors of the Holocaust page to cooperate with me to clean up the section on non Jewish losses. I believe that the USHMM website should be used as guide to what is posted on that section of the page. The USHMM has credibility as a source and it is available on line for readers to verify.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

New map - some ideas

Thank you for the effort so far. Your map is far superior to what it replaced. The borders issue is a bit tricky. There are 4 sets worth considering, and I think the best options will combine two of them. 1937 borders (pre-Munich). 1942 borders (maximum extent of the 3rd Reich, showing altered borders of satellite states, the General-gouvernement, the reichskomissariats, etc. 1954 borders (post-war, Soviets out of Austria). Today's borders (after fall of wall changes).

Let me throw out my thinking for your consideration. I would recommend using the height of German power in Europe (November 1942), and then modern borders.

1942.

• Spain (neutral)
• UK (unoccupied)
• Sweden (neutral)
• Switzerland (with Lichtenstein) (neutral)
• France, occupied.
• France, Vichy.
• Luxembourg.
• Belgium.
• Netherlands.
• Denmark.
• Germany, including annexed territories: Scheiswig, Alsace-Lorraine, (a bit of Belgium - Malmedy and Eupen), Austria, that northern chunk of Slovenia (Carinthia/Klagenfurt), Sudentenland, a large swath of Poland including the "Warthegau" and the Bialystock district, and a bit of Lithuania around Memel
• Norway
• Protectorate of Bohemia (part of today's Czech Republic)
• Slovakia (without southern areas ceded to Hungary)
• General-gouvernement of Poland
• Serbia (diminished)
• Montenegro
• Greece (without Thrace)
• Rechskomissariat Ostland (Baltics and the parts of Poland east of the Curzon Line)
• Reichskomissarita Ukraine
• Big chunk of occupied Soviet Union beyond those two)
• Finland, including parts of Karelia that are today in Russia

• Croatia (satelite), including most of today's Croatia, without some of the coastal islands, and with today's Bosnia and the part of Serbia between the Sava and Danube Rivers)
• Bulgaria, including much of modern Macedonia (republic), and Western Thrace.
• Romania, shorn of Transylvania, but including Moldova (Bessarabia) and the Odessa district.
• Hungary, including Transylvania, the southern fringe of Slovakia, and all of Ruthenia (Zakarpatsko Ukraine)
• Italy, and under its occupation the remainder of Slovenia, part of Dalmatia, and Albania with borders extended to include part of Kosovo and the north and west parts of today's Macedonia (republic)

Colors with dashed lines could be used for 1942 (maybe one color for Germany, one for satellites/allies, one for occupied areas, one for neutral countries, one for Allies), and dotted boundaries for today? With different fonts for the 1942 and the 2007 names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd2718 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate scanning stuff, but if you are really stuck, I have some quite reasonable base maps. My east German Atlas zur Geschichte II has a reasonable base, but the maps are so busy they may be hard to read. But I can look for more. And then, my Cambridge Modern History Atlas has a similar base, but it's got a tad less detail. And I am sure I can find more. Still, if Europe at the height of Nazi domination is too tough, the borders from after Anschluss and before Munich might do. Those are much easier to find. Thanks for considering the options. Jd2718 (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and sorry for the delay in replying. I thought that 1938 (pre-Munich) borders would be better because they were they indicate the internationally recognised borders of the nations involved in the conflict at the time that events started seriously to unfold, so the viewer gets a sense of the national borders that were being contested. Paul B (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I probably won't send you anything, then. I have quite a few atlases, including both historical atlases and contemporary atlases from decades ago. I don't know if your interest extends to atlases. Perhaps my favorite is a decrepit one that accompanied the Brittanica in 1943. The maps are a mishmash of pre-War and wartime boundaries, internally completely inconsistent. But it does have a coupon allowing me to get a replacement for $1 within one year of the final treaties being signed... ! One prize is a 1938, pre-Munich large folded map (German) on stiff paper. I should take steps to conserve that, but it is in very good condition. You may find The Peace Atlas of Europe (1946, The Foreign Policy Association) of interest. The whole book is there, you can turn the pages. The quality of the maps is not so high, but, well, you'll see. Gilbert's Atlas of the Holocaust has horrible maps. My east German Historical Atlas - if you can find a copy, do. It's textbook how to put too much onto a map. Data overload. But, if you like that stuff, the density of information is incredible. Perhaps I will scan you one from there. Oh, and if you don't have a copy of the New Cambridge Modern History Atlas, and indeed are interested in historical atlases, that's one to get. No text, just 3-400 maps. Jd2718 (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, all, - I am working on a new map, but it will still take some time. It's a little tricky, this stuff...(but I knew it would be). Jd2718's notes above were (and are) a great support. Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The new map does not color the two chunks of 'Prussia' with the rest of Germany. Jd2718 (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Denis, the eastern border of Germany is post war and does reflect the actual stitution in 1942. Sorry to put you to work again!--Woogie10w (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC) (copied here by Dna-Dennis from Talk:The Holocaust).

Also, I noticed that Luxembourg and Belgian Morsent was not in Germany--Woogie10w (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC) (copied here by Dna-Dennis from Talk:The Holocaust).

If you consult the map of Greater Germany, already in the article, you may find some helpful details. Jd2718 (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(Damn it, you did it again, Jd2718! Edit conflict on my talk page - you move with the speed of lightning, man!)

Thanks man, I actually did that before I started the new map. The prob was/is that I consulted other maps of Great Germany as well, and there were geographical (probably unintented "illusionary") differences and some factual differences (due to year used). Nevertheless, errors sneaked into my map, which you've noticed, and I have addressed them. Thanks again! --Dna-Dennis (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Jd2718 and Woogie10w! You were both quite correct on everything you mentioned, and I have updated the map accordingly. Furthermore, I noticed that my (Poland) Generalgouvernement-borders were significantly wrong, and this has been corrected. Also, if anyone has time/opinions; there were more camps in SE Europe, and there is some space on the map for more. Does anyone know if some more camps are worth including in particular? Examples (maps from USHMM):

• Hungary camps (USHMM)
• Romania camps (USHMM)
• S Europe camps (USHMM) (Balkans, Bulgaria etc)

And, of course, further corrections/suggestions are happily received. Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be picky, but the Polish corridor was annexed by Germany. Must run, working on a Tax audit at work--Woogie10w (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if an accountant ain't picky, he's in the wrong business, eh? And I like that you're picky, in fact you probably solved a grave misunderstanding of mine; I started to get seriously confused, since most maps I consulted did not include the Polish corridor. But, alas, my brain had fooled me (since most maps described pre-Sep'39). Therefore I guess I misunderstood Jd2718 before as well, he probably meant to color the entire West Prussia & Wartheland dark green... I will now do so, and upload a new map in approx. 1 hour. Thanks again! --Dna-Dennis (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi could you either change colours to distinguish collaborating countries from occupied ones ? Or at least label countries occupied German name(occupied XXX). It would avoid the impression that they were collaborating.Ah, and also General Gouvernment was always called General Gouvernment by Germans, they avoided the name Poland in documents like fire.--Molobo (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Here are two maps that might be helpfull: [1] [2] --Molobo (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Molobo, thanks for your message! I have downloaded your examples (but I already had similar maps available, but thanks). First of all, which map do you refer to: HC map (1942 borders) or HC map (present 2007 borders)? Furthermore, the question of occupied/collaborating is not an easy one. But I understand your concern, and I did think about it before I started making the map. The problem is that the cases are not clear-cut. Every country had its unique relationship to the Axis. But do you have any suggestions on which regions/countries should be distinguished/colored in another way? Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I actually found a simple yet AFAIK correct solution to this question; why did I use the "cooperating"-label at all? In 1942, as far as I recall, all lightgreen regions were occupied, with the sole exception of Vichy France, to which I've now added the label "(Unoccupied)". Good, or? --Dna-Dennis (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Dna-Dennis, thank you for your message, I'm happy you like my work.
Merry Christmas! --LucaG (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Note

Howdy Dna. No worries, I've been preoccupied with matters outside Wiki for awhile myself as well. Thanks for the assistance thus far already though, it was a large help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 12:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reich Chancellery contribution.

Hello i am an australian student currently studying The Propaganda Ministry of Nazi Germany. In widely searching through Wikipedias files i came across a pictorical contribution of yours- it is a map that details where the ministry is in proximinatey to the Reich Chancellery. I was just wondering if you could please provide me with the details as to where you found this image (Image:FuehrerBunkerBerlinLocation.jpg) as it is very useful to my paper.

Your efforts are much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.70.180 (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello back! Well, I did not find the image; I did it myself. The base map (as described in my image references) is a very small extract from this map: Allied Intelligence Map of Key Buildings in Berlin (3rd edition, 1945), which I only have in real analog format (i.e. paper). But I suppose it can be ordered from somewhere; if you're interested I recommend it - it is a big map - almost a square meter depicting Berlin 1945 with a WEALTH of information on MANY key buildings, incl. the Propaganda Ministry. Current maps are no good here, since the layout of those parts of Berlin looks significantly different today. I guess the map costs about 10 US$. Either go to a really good bookstore and ask them (preferrably one who specifically deals with history), or you can try emailing to "After The Battle" (weblink: After The Battle home), since they have published it (even though I can't find it on their homepage). Hope this helps, if you have more questions, don't be afraid to ask. And remember, you may use my image, as long as you attribute it to me. Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright help needed

Denis, I need your help. Somebody put a tag on the photo "Lamenting the Dead" It is in the public domain according to Wiki Media[3]. How to I fix this? I don't want the photo deleted.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Denis, user Madness 500 put a delete on 2/16/08 tag on the picture( see WW2 Casualties history) I reverted this edit because Wikimedia says this material in in the public domain. My knowledge of Wikimedia is limited--Woogie10w (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Tech is amazing, I remember the days when you had to wait 10 minuets to get a phone line to call Europe. My mom visited Germany in 1938 and it took over a week to cross the ocean(she took a neat photo of Hitler!) In 1980 when she revisited Berlin and could not recognize the city! Cheers, Barney--Woogie10w (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Being selective

I've seen this done, but haven't figured out how, so I'm hoping you can explain. I wanted to link to a particular (past) version of a page edit, to demonstrate exactly what edit I mean. How can I do it? Trekphiler (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, & no worries on the delay. I've been ignorant of this so long, a day or two doesn't matter. A (more) belated Happy Easter right back. Trekphiler (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

image of obliquity

Hi, I tried using this great image you made about earth's obliquity, and someone deleted saying I didn't provide an authors real name. Is Dennis only your first name? Thanks! 24.8.147.6 (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi man! Use the name info under the section "Licensing" on the image page Image:AxialTiltObliquity.png. Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WWI Title picture

Hi,
Is there any particular reason why the WWI title picture does not include a single scene from the Eastern Front?--168.156.89.193 (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no particular reason. And yes - it was not about fronts, theaters or nations. It was about aspects; in this case an anonymous main picture of a devastated landscape, a biplane representing the air warfare, a trench pic which includes the new industrial types of warfare (machineguns and posion gas), a tank representing armored weapons development and, last, a naval pic representing warfare at sea. Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

New Chart WW2 casualties talk page

A user just worked up a new chart for WW2 casualties, take a look and see if it can be uploaded to the page.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, got some problems with my internet connection at the moment (no internet), I can't do much wikistuff at this point, got to get back to this later. Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Earth diagram

Hi,

I'm copying the axial tilt image & making it french!

hope that's cool

cheers mate & thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daelomin (talk • contribs) 13:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No probs, thats froid by me:) --Dna-Dennis (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

about the holocaust Roma deaths

I would like to inform the reader of the previous texts about some serious misinterpretation of data concerning the number of Roma deaths. According to the information given only 2 percent of the holocaust deaths seem to be Roma. It is true that in the official data about Roma deaths in German concentration camps the number of Roma deaths is only 2 percent, however this does not mean that only 2 percent of the deaths of the Holocaust were Roma. The total amount of Roma deaths by holocaust is estimated on 600 000 up to 2 000 000. Especially in Eastern Europe estimations are hard to make, and defer a lot. However most investigators agree that the number of Roma deaths is at least 600 000. (This is 10 percent of the holocaust deaths). Roma were mainly executed by bullets on the place of arrestment (Roma-hunting), and therefore they are not counted in the data of the concentration camps. In the black see Roma were put on ships that were made to sink, in Croati¨they were killed in Concentration camps. Appart of the "total number of deaths" there is also the percentagte of deaths, which (in most research lay higher for Roma than for Judes, although here again estimations are hard to make.

Another Roma related error in the texts above, is the information about the first experiments with Zyklon-B. Those were executed on Roma children, the experiments on Russian adults came just after.

You can find more information about this on many sites and pages, also in wikipedia. When searchiong for information, not that the Roma-holocaust is often refered to as "Porajmos". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.195.61.232 (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Earth diagram

Thank you for this exquisite diagram of the earth with its delicious accompanying information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.90.19 (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for taking time to thank me! --Dna-Dennis (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WWII deaths - Yugoslavia

I think you made a mistake on [4]

You listed Yugoslav allied military deaths at 3%. This is what the source says: 'Military losses of 237,000 Yugoslav partisans and 209,000 Ustaše'. Judging from 3% being higher than the 2% of the United States, you've included the deaths of the Ustase, which are in fact Axis forces. Grey Fox (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That said Yugoslavia can also be added on the Axis Death diagram (The Ustase and the Chetniks), you can find the axis casualties for Yugoslavia here: Yugoslav Front (World War II) Grey Fox (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)