Talk:Walter Krupinski/Archive 1

Archive 1

Victory tally

I think it should have more than one sentence recounting his victory tally. Royzee 21:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Krupinski und hartmann.jpg

Image:Krupinski und hartmann.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Error detected

Please correct: On the picture where it says "Generalleutnant" in the second half of the article on the right, the rank is not Generalleutnant, but Brigadegeneral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.253.97.180 (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit

The article has been stable since Sept 2016; please discuss restoration of material on Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been stable since you started deleting it, as you've done with so many others. You delete with bias and opinion. Please stop it. Dapi89 (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, please do not engage in edit warring. I consider the edits in July and Sept to be improvements. If you disagree, please see WP:Dispute resolution. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You are destroying and deleting the information in this article. Destructive behaviours like this, which you've perpetuated over countless other articles will not be tolerated.

Stop deleting without discussion. Understand? Dapi89 (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The edit has removed maintenance tags, reintroduced dubious books into the bibliography, and restored much uncited information. Please consider self-reverting. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Der Spiegel is reliable. Anything with Hajo Herrmann, unless it was his personal opinion of Krupinski and is heavily caveated, shouldn't be used.

What else? I'm sensing you think there are Nazi-leaning sources on here? Dapi89 (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Correct; see for example below, published by Pour le Mérite Verlag:

• Schaulen, Fritjof (2004). Eichenlaubträger 1940 – 1945 Zeitgeschichte in Farbe II Ihlefeld - Primozic [Oak Leaves Bearers 1940 – 1945 Contemporary History in Color II Ihlefeld - Primozic] (in German). Selent, Germany: Pour le Mérite. ISBN 978-3-932381-21-8.

Please also address restoration of uncited material and removal of maintenance tags. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: Please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

There was more than one source deleted.

I've looked at the publisher you've mentioned and the German article on it says the Federal Government was asked to classify the publisher "politically" by the Linkspartei Group—itself an extremist party of Marxist persuasion—and the answer from the FG was that it produced books on military history but it doesn't seem clear that they possess extreme right-wing content. I've looked at the co-owner Dietmar Munier (I believe) and there are, according to the German wiki, connections to right organisations and political apologia all over the place. Can we confirm this man is the owner or editor of the publisher presently? Dapi89 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Please also address restoration of uncited material and removal of maintenance tags. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm currently engaged in editing other articles that you've caused issues with. I will revisit when I'm done elsewhere. Dapi89 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If the editor does not have time to address the problematic areas in the article, then I believe my edit should stand (for now). The article history has the content that the editor may wish to review. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Editor has not come back to the discussion despite the ping here and a message left on their Talk page a week ago: diff. I've thus restored the previous version, per WP:BRD. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link; pls see edit summary for rationale. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)