User talk:Udisblizbadjoke

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convoy SC 7

Hello
I noticed your comments on the conclusion, and have replied here; also your edit to the result (reply here).
I've also taken the liberty of indenting your comments, to make them easier to read; can I suggest you look at the Talk Page guidelines, and also that you sign your posts. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced edit and removal of sourced content

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Operation Zitronella. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Manxruler (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Operation Zitronella, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Manxruler (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced edits

Dear Udisblizbadjoke,

One of the foundations of Wikipedia is that the information on the project is supposed to be verifiable. It matter nothing at all if your intention is to add correct content, as long as you don't, at the same time, add a reliable source for said content. So, please, stop adding unsourced information. "German documents", you say, which German documents? Manxruler (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. This is in no way intended as abuse. All I would like you to do is follow the rules of Wikipedia, and a supply a source when you add content. It's that basic. Content without a reliable reference has no place on Wikipedia. As for the book I used as a source, it's an important work on the history of the islands, and this happened in the history of the islands. Manxruler (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convoy SC 7, again

I see you’ve deleted the entire Conclusion section of this article.
The statements in the conclusion are backed by the sources; if you object to them, explain, in the discussion. Do not simply delete stuff you don’t like.
As for the statement labelled dubious, about this being the second wolf-pack attack; if you don’t agree, change it, with a source, to something else. And I've replied to your comments, here. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits at Axis occupation of Greece during World War II

Please be advised that your last revision was pure tendentious editing. I provided links to the articles of the people who did this in the caption, there are citations there. In future, please take the time to read an article before making changes, their names are clearly mentioned at Axis occupation of Greece during World War II#Resistance. Constantine ✍ 20:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tirpitz 004.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Tirpitz 004.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Denniss (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bismarck photo

Please stop reverting the caption in the article. The photo caption, which comes from the Bundesarchiv, clearly states "vor dem Gefecht." If you look at photos of the ship shortly after the battle (such as this one) you can see the ship is clearly down by the bows. That is not the case in the Bundesarchiv photo. Moreover, you need a reliable source to contradict what the Bundesarchiv states. Parsecboy (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS to see what qualifies as a reliable source. Also please read WP:EW on why you should not edit-war. If you continue to do so, you may end up being blocked from editing. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is original research, which we cannot do. We must cite verifiable, reliable sources for any information. Unless you have a reliable source supporting your claim, we cannot say that the Bundesarchiv is wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course free to report the situation at the Bundesarchiv error reporting page - they may agree with you, which would solve the problem. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not listing to me. We cannot interpret the images, we must use the captions provided by the Bundesarchiv unless a reliable source says otherwise. This much is core policy on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what you or I can tell from looking at the picture. Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, Wikipedia is not a reliable source; we cannot cite ourselves. Parsecboy (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Bulge map

The map was created from a work of US military personnel, on whose record I am basing it, whose knowledge I respect, and whose judgement I accept. If you have some reliable source that give an accurate description, please let me know. The US military isn't infalliable. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. My map doesn't identify German divisions (the original didn't) but only the Corps (of which they formed part). I will use your map and add the divisions. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm struggling to follow your English.

You mention Monschau. This map shows an attack on Monschau, which isn't in this one. It wasn't on the map I used either (here).

You mention something about the Sixth SS Panzer. You can see their general advance here is indeed shown on my map. The area of the 99 Infantry Division seems consistent between the maps - all the maps show that division holding their ground, i.e. the Germans not advancing there.

Could you possibly make your comments clearer? I'm not sure if you mean "right" in the sense of "right or left" or what. What language do you speak natively? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. I haven't got a chance at the moment to update the file, but I will. Thanks for the links. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]