User talk:Kurfürst/Archive 1

Archive 1

Supermarine Spitfire operational history

For your information, I have raised this comment on Talk:Supermarine Spitfire operational history at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_Legal_threat_on_Talk:Supermarine_Spitfire_operational_history as a possible WP:Legal issue.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks and King George V class battleship (1939)

I don't think personal attacks are helpful. In connection with this article a personal attack was placed on my talk page, and the following was given as the reason for a recent reversion:

17:03, 14 June 2009 Kurfürst (talk | contribs) (26,305 bytes) (Undid revision 296379790 by 24.108.224.96 (talk)
Its curious that this anonym editor makes the same edits as Damwiki1)

Let us not do them. Both Kurfürst and Damwiki1 have made useful contributions to the article. It is not a competition. All win when the article is better.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted a reply on your talk page. They all make the same edits, and Damwiki already had a suspected sockpuppet from the same city, and ISP, editing the same articles, and making the same edits, but being other than that, completely inactive. Kurfürst (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Tan | 39 16:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I should add that, having reviewed your history of combative interaction with other editors and endless arguments over article minutiae because they don't fit in with your personal notions, if there is any more disruption from this account when the current block expires I will block you indefinitely. Seek consensus and abide by it even if it doesn't go your way, avoid disruption, and if necessary follow our dispute resolution procedures. EyeSerene^talk 17:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not so easily intimidated by this mock process. I'd happily endure a week block if that would finally convince Dapi89 of the error of his ways, as well as I recognize my role in it, and I do not protest against the decision of the other administrators, who, as opposed to your single opinion, recognize me as a valuable editor. I see you have a background with the British military, which is probably why you sympathize with an editor who's edits were tendentiously anti-German, quite clear about having set out to 'defend wikipedia's NPOV intergrity from User:Kurfurst's Germanophile editing agenda' - i.e. enthusiastically removing referenced statements showing the German POV or declare them 'falsehoods' - ie. stalking other editors who they don't agree with.

You were quick to give hints to ask for amnesty despite the extremely uncivil behavior this editor has shown over an extended period of time, and moreover, offering your support to block me, and encouraging the stalking editor to contact you for 'help', effectively giving green light for his future confrontations. Coincidentally this happened at the time when the other administrator went on holiday, when you rollbacked his - IMHO fair and even - decision...

You have a tendency to describe this dispute in black and white terms, where the poor 'victim' was 'forced' to engage in constant harassment, 'forced' to openly declare that he will 'monitor' the other editor's contributions, or attempt to demote a Good article I have put a lot of work into by littering it with fact and verification tags, and then asking for re-assessment - see Talk:Messerschmitt Bf 109/GA1.

Naturally this kind of extreme bias - rolling back other admin's decision without consulting them, letting extreme, protracted incivility getting away when there's clearly no intention of avoiding future confrontations (see: User_talk:EyeSerene#Me), while threatening the one subject to this incivility, clearly intended to back up a POV buddy - is unacceptable.

Moreover on one hand you seem to make conflicting demands: on one hand you criticize 'endless arguments over article minutiae' - i.e. the dispute resolution via discussion itself - while on the other hand you demand dispute resolution in the future... it probably doesn't bother you that the so-called 'endless arguments over article minutiae' were the very thing - of course not very successfull when other editors refuse to take part in the process this.. This sounds like very much like you are saying 'give me an excuse so I can get rid of you and your POV'.

It is certainly in your administrative power to issue indef blocks for editors based on your personal dislike of their POV. But then of course, I don't think any other admins will support you, none agreed with you when you made you revised other admins decision, and tried to place all blame on one party. There are checks and balances in the system for exactly that reasons.

As for Dapi89, I am certain, with the wealth of past experience with him, that he will soon return to his previous confrontative behavior he had shown vs just about anybody who did not agreed with him, and which led to his topical ban for certain wiki articles - needless to say, he keeps his talk page 'clean' of these notifications... I certainly do not seek a confrontation with him, as I did not seek such in the past, but knowing him, the first edit he disapproves as 'falsehood' will make him go ballistic again. Kurfürst (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kurfürst (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is a mock process, and I am filing this report to bring the attention of other administrators this threat of misusing admin powers by User:EyeSerene. I do not contest the original decision by the admin User:Tanthalas39, nor do I deny that I may have contributed for the disruption caused, in hope that this will make User:Dapi89 realize the error of his behaviour as well. OTOH, considering the details - please see the in my response to User:EyeSerene above - of this mock process, when a POV-sympathizing admin unblocks a grossly uncivil and confrontative editor (see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_and_stalking who is open and proud of about this stalking other editors because of content disputes (see: User_talk:Dapi89#July_2009), without consulting with other admins, and then issues threats to the editor being stalked and re-assures the stalker on his talk page about his future assistance, showing green light for the very behavior the block was issued for, such threats are unjustified and unacceptable.

Decline reason:

No reason given for unblocking. You may create a report at the Administrators' noticeboard when this block expires. Nakon 04:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Honestly, I have no idea what you are getting at in your rant above. It seems to me that given your history of many blocks, EyeSerene was giving you a well-deserved warning that the community is losing patience with you. I haven't even looked into the dispute you were blocked over since you didn't ask for it but if you felt it was preferable to disrupt Wikipedia until blocked in order to make your point then you need to learn a new approach, and soon. If for some reason you have a personal conflict with EyeSerene, so be it. You can take this as a warning from me, separately. Mangojuice^talk 04:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you haven't even looked into it... its quite simple. I have filed a report on an editor who has been blocked several times for personal attacks and incivility against me, and which practice he re-started and continued over a month, in forms of gross incivility (calling me liar etc. many times), trying to agitate other editors against me, and trying to demote a GA I have largely brought up to that status. The admins, in their infinite wisdom, decided to bang our heads against each other, issuing a week block to both parties. It seems Eyeserene was symphatizing with the other editor, or perhaps moved by his justification of his relentless personal attacks by the reasoning given that he was just 'defending wikipedia's NPOV intergrity from User:Kurfurst's Germanophile editing agenda', and, without consulting with the admins about it, unblocked the user and started to threaten me on my talk page.

Personally, I think its an abuse of adminship and grossly not kosher. Kurfürst (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't intend to debate this at length here because it's not the most suitable venue; if you want a wider review of my actions, as Nakon notes you can open a thread at ANI when your block expires. However, in my post above I was noting that your behaviour has been combative and disruptive, and contesting with other editors (note the plural - this is not about Dapi89 alone) over so many edits is the very definition of tendentious editing: "repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors". If you dislike this characterisation, change the behaviour that's led to it. Dapi89 agrees that his block for disruption was deserved, my subsequent unblock was conducted transparently and in line with Wikipedia practice, and if other editors or admins disagreed I'm sure I would have heard about it. Disruption from any party in this dispute will lead to further blocks, which as I informed Dapi89 will be applied without favour. I sincerely urge you to take on board Mangojuice's advice - even though you have done some good article work, the time is approaching where a cost/benefit decision will be taken on your presence here at Wikipedia, and on current form I fear the outcome will not be to your liking. EyeSerene^talk 10:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User Kurfürst I believe you haven't done any fatal mistake or misconduct in your answers..... It is clearly the style of user Dapi89 and his colleagues who always attack and stimulate any member who oppose their POV and their sources with stronger and wider sources. User Dapi89 is always use personnel attack to other’s POV ( fallacy , distorted , falsehood and suddenly outrages words like stupid , Liar ) and he always find other user (colleague) to show up in the discussion and write him some compliments and denounce the other .. …  !!! and I congratulate you Kurfürst that you kept calm and never attacked him personally .

It is up to the administrator to allow Dapi89 and others to misuse the freedom and luxury of Wikipedia. I don’t know or even spoke to you before but if the Administrator of Wiki organized the controversial issues and grouped the POV then the impact will be positive on improving the article ... this is what the Administrators should do instead of ignoring mistakes of users and suddenly not using blocking as a tool and end up with threatening and blocking users of demonstrated power and authority.--78.89.32.3 (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for you kind words, I see these things in a relatively similiar fashion. As some of my buddies have agreed recently, the wiki principles are kind of a joke, a hollow shell without content. There is really no proper answer to tag teams, and simply fanatic editors, who have far too much time on their hand for wiki-politics and supporting their POV-buddies in their edit wars. I have seen many good articles getting ruined by a few, who always know better, who understand that hitting the revert button is a more powerful tool then this discussion, and crying out 'False!' 'lies!' is a much better arguement than actually spending some time reviewing sources, and producing quality articles. I guess age comes into play as well - young hatchlings always try to prove to the world their world, and how much knowledge they have sucked into themselves in their few years - probably more maturity would be more respected though. In any case, wiki seems to me like an ancient community where the mob and numbers rule, regardless of any noble principle declared. I guess that's why wiki articles have the reputation they have - pity, as there are pretty good, and I would risk, better than many printed sources articles around here, sharing the same poor reputation for reliability because of a few fanatics and POV-partisans.

In any case, the issue is minor - I rather have a life than a narcissistic user page on wiki and various awards from POV-buddies for supporting them in their edit wars. ;) Its all pitiful if you ask me. :) Kurfürst (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Bf-109's interesting issues (IMHO)

Hi. I write to you because i already know your site. I would recommend to not been in too deep questioning here, because they could really block you and this would be an undue ending, while we on the contrary, need a lot about stuff of the Axis aviation. Even if not all the folks agrees with your sources .. I would say about some consideration with the Bf-109. It seems that his main weakness were : undercarriage gear; 2-short range and 3-lack of enough armament. It was so even planned to replace the aircraft with G.55, that had all that. But one thing is not clear to me: had Germans considered to implement in the Bf-109 design that futures? G.55 failed because it was too costly and too slow to enstablish the production, but there were plans to upgrade the Bf-109 designs? What wonder me, it's the size: Bf-109G was almost as big that MC.205V, but this latter had 2 MG151 with 500 rds and two 40 lts tanks. Had Bf-109 had that wings, he could solve all of his problems (or almost all, at least). FW-190 was just a little bigger, but it had 4 MG150 with 750 rds. But what wonder me more, is that Bf-109 with bigger wings existend really, the T version. And even more, the sum of the modiphics need for the Bf-109 to be an updated fighter already existed in 1941: the Ki-61 Hien, from 1943 with 20 mm guns (as soon they were available). This fighter had a sort of DB-601, but despite his weight, he handled well and was faster than Bf-109E (except in a climb, after all it weighted around 7.500 lbs). So i wonder if for the Bf-109 was ever planned to adopt this solutions, just logical to match the needs. Instead, neither G.55/55LW/56 was produced, nor Bf-109G had the necessary modiphics (it seems that the undercarriage gear is the less touchable part of an aircraft..)

Second issue: why Bf-109G became so heavy? Bf-109G was far heavier than Bf-109F, but it had only 150 hp more, and even less if it was restricted to 2.600 RPM. What's caused that weight increase? I would add, if Gustav was so heavily re-engeneered, then it would had been a lost occasion to make bigger modiphics (the ones above: wide U/C, additional tanks and internal wing guns).

Third: about internal wing guns: it sound bizarre to me, that Bf-109G hadn't space for MG151 (that yes, affected the handling in their pod, but only slightly the max speed), while HA 1112 Buchon had 20 HS 404 in the wings, just that Gustav needed. It sounds bizarre to me, also because HS were bigger than MG.

Excuse me, but since more and more these issues are raised about Bf-109 evolution (the Gustav was the first one that wasn't liked, too heavy for the original layout), it would be interesting to know if there are explaination for that above.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hinchliffe, 2000

with this edit to Strategic bombing during World War II you introduced a short citation for an author called "Hinchliffe, 2000", but unfortunately you did not add the full book source to the Biography section. Please could you do so. --PBS (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If you used the German translation then put in the German translation as the long source. See Evacuation of East Prussia for a similar example where Beevor is used in two versions. (as he is for two versions in the Battle of Berlin, as is Taylor in the Bombing of Dresden). --PBS (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks

Because you have continued to engage in disruptive editing by removing sourced material from a contested article while it was under discussion (and despite your previous blocks and my warning), I have blocked this account for two weeks. The entire talk-page on that article, and the associated archive, is you arguing with other editors - this must stop. I was very tempted to block indefinitely because I doubt one more block will encourage you to rethink the way you contribute, but I really hope you can prove me wrong. When you return you might find the following advice useful:

• Discuss major edits, especially where a subject is under dispute, on the talk page. Get consensus for them before you write them into the article. If necessary, file an WP:RFC or pursue other WP:DR steps.
• Civil POV-pushing is still POV-pushing. Wikipedia's purpose is not to write the truth (or even to discover the truth); if there is more than one interpretation in the sources, we should include them all (with appropriate weight).
• Don't be a fanatic. Sometimes it's best just to walk away from an article, instead of creating a long-term dispute that poisons the atmosphere for other contributors.

If I run into further disruption from your account in the future, I will indefinitely block it. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. EyeSerene^talk 12:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kurfürst (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This admin (Eyeserene) has issued a two-week block on the ground of 'removing sourced material from a contested article' (Aircraft of the Battle of Britain) which he calls 'disruptive editing' and 'POV-pushing'. As a matter of fact a long contentious issue (you might say a pet theory of another editor which he tendentiously adds to the article, even if reliable sources do not support it) was being discussed on the discussion page and WP:DR steps were being followed as much as possible. The block has absolutely no valid grounds and its has only have to do side with an editor with a sympathetic POV in a content dispute, using whatever excuse possible to get rid of the other parties. Anyone who takes a look at the disputed article can see I was trying to contact the other editor to work out the differences. The editor first refused to provide a quote. I added a verification tag to the source Minorhistorian (the other editor in content dispute) has added to notify that the source is being verified, and restored a properly referenced sentence which Minorhistorian has removed (and which contradicted his source). Minorhistorian then removed the verification tag and removed the said referenced sentence again as well (speaking about 'removing sourced material from a contested article'..) Having seen he is simply unwilling to cooperate, even when asked nicely, I rewrote the part (which needs a trimming anyway, being grown out of proportion to the weight of the issue - this was also attempted discussed on the talk page) and removed the sentence for which he refused to provide a cite (and as later turned out when he finally provide cites, his source was not supporting his edits, and there was a lot of wishful interpretation involved). Then I also contacted him on his talk page, noting - politely - that I have no objection to the inclusion of the challenged content if he can provide direct cites. He removed that from his talk page without any reply as well with the comment 'not interested in Kurfurst's sudden polite invitation to discuss material he has already stripped out of article.' Following that, Minorhistorian turned to Eyeserene on his talk page, hoping to resolve the content dispute by getting his opponent blocked, and accusing me of 'disruptive editing', and assuming bad faith. He knew that Eyeserene will favour him, as Eyeserene had already reverted another Admin's decision that blocked another editor for disruptive editing/stalking and engaging in some very repulsive series of personal attacks on my person, and started to threaten me on my talk page (see above). This earlier event is revealing. The unblocked editor argued that he was 'along with quite a few others have done a lot to defend wikipedia's NPOV intergrity from User:Kurfurst's Germanophile editing agenda'. Eyeserene was very understanding to this open admittance of confrontational behaviour, made it clear he will overrule the other admin's decision (who was on vacation at the time) and unblock that editor. He also suggested to him that the so-called NPOV can be maintained if 'the three of you working on those articles it should be enough to maintain NPOV' and suggested to solve the issue 'in-house' on the mihist talk page, adding that he is one of the coordinators over there. As can be clearly seen, this block has nothing to do with editorial behavior, but the content of an article. I very seriously doubt that asking am editor to provide a direct cite for a long contentious issue (which he tendentiously tried to add to an article several times without proper supporting sources) is inappropriate, or that removing that statement from the article after several attempts had failed to clear the issue has been aggressively rejected (ie. removing of verification tags, refusal to give a cite, removing note that I have no objection including the material if quotes could be provided). What Eyeserene provides a rubber argument - if the challanged content is removed from the article, when the adding editor refuses to provide quotes etc. under the burden of evidence (which is what Wiki guidelines suggest), its disruptive editing. If the other editor refuses to discuss it and simply pushes his edit repeatedly, any objection is disruptive editing. If the disputed content is attempted to be discussed on the article talk page, that politely asking for source (n.b. - its a long disputed addition to article which so far gained no support amongst other editors, a single editor, Minorhistorian is pushing it) it is suddenly 'civil POV-pushing') and its best to 'walk away from the article'. At the same time, I am supposed to 'get consensus' (a bit problematic if the other editor flatly refuses to engage in discussion, isn't it?), but if this is attempted, suddenly I am accused of 'civil POV pushing', and a weird argument how much annoying that the subject is being 'argued' on the discussion page.. I guess the last 'advice' is the root of the agenda here, tries to harass away unsymphatetic-POV editors so the 'proper', 'neutral' POV can be added, regardless of wiki policies like verifiability and reliable sources. Eyeserene already made that clear in his previous comments - my only guess the reason is Eyeserene's background in the British military, and the contested edit is about the extent of high octane fuel use by the British military in World War II. In short, Eyeserene is taking sides in content discussion, and IMHO he tries to control the content by opposing blocking POV editors. I strongly believe that this block is completely unjustified (two weeks of block for what, attempting to discuss an issue with a tendentious editor, and rewriting a section on an article..?), and request an unblock.Kurfürst (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm tempted to listen, but the above is far too long to read meaningfully (linebreaks don't work inside the template) and you're not assuming good faith on the parts of other users. I suggest riding your block out, whether you like it or not, and getting back to working on articles in peace. lifebaka++ 17:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

... In addition, I take note that Eyeserene is also using similiar tactics to silence other editors with 'inproper' POV, removing their discussion on the talk page and threatening with a block if they do not stop their 'disruptive' behaviour. See [1] and [2]. Appearantly, my case is not a single case, and in each case there is a pattern to support editors with a pro-British historical POV by threatening other editors. Kurfürst (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you seek some dispute resolution, then. lifebaka++ 17:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

With whom...? It was tried to discuss it on the talk page (both article, and the other editor's), to no avail. Oddly Eyeserene's commented on it above, that discussion on the discussion page 'must stop'. Yet he rationalized my blocking with 'removing sourced material from a contested article while it was under discussion'. I guess if I try discussion again he will block me then for not stopping discussion, LOL. Its self-contradictory, apart from the fact the other party was not attempting discussion at all on its inclusion in the first place, refused meritful discussion and resorted to bad faith comments and ad hominem attacks, I guess I am damned if I try dispute resolution because I am 'civil POV pushing' and I am damned if I edit an article because I am suddenly 'tendentious'.

This is simply an admin misusing his administrative powers to give weight behind a certain POV. I find it very hard to rationalize a two week block for rewring a section, and asking another editor politely to support his edit. The wiki policy on this is quite clear, and I have abided it, the other editor did not, but appearantly this doesn't matter as some admins care very little or nothing about these pillars of wiki and only seeks an excuse to control content by blocking/threatening editors. Kurfürst (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Let us move on

I think it is not helpful to continue debating with the Admin in this point. I already tried couple of days ago .. [3] I think at one time I admired one WP Admin who answered fairly to calm down the users especially in a controversial point! and that was in Battle of Dunkirk or Battle of Britian! somehow I can not find his lines!!!
I believe Wiki is very valuable tool and very useful to all levels of scholars and intellectuals, and that's why I hope some much more fairness of Administrators to rightfully control and manage the hot discussion pages. let us move on and improve the article about BoB as I see a lot of work need to be done. --Hiens (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. At this point, it would be utterly naiive to think that Eyeserene has the very slightest interest in the quality of those articles. All of his mockery of wiki's pillars is about finding a suitable excuse to get some of the most tendentious editors with 'proper' views into a position to own these articles, by intimidating and chasing away other editors, while turning a a blind eye the repeated violations and bad faith edits of their POV-buddies.

I have read your talk page with mild disgust where he openly admitted that he will not apply the same rules to all, moreover that they simply do not apply to som, so-called 'frustrated' editors (what a flexible term, eh?) - well I guess there's no point of trying to convince a guy who openly admits misusing his administrative tools. I agree that most WP Admins are helpful, and truely great and above all, very patient and selfless guys, who try to get the parties towards working together and finding common points. And of course, there are a couple who are merely a more dangerous version of the common POV warriors, merely acting as big bullies to support their archetypes, siding with one party, wheel warring with other admins to unblock their POV-buddies, and try to muddy the water when they refuse again to follow even basic requirements of civility, and providing verifiable sources and refuse to work out consensus with others, and get caught in the process. Both in your case and my case, Eyeserene started threatening us and sticking the 'disruptive' tag as soon as we started to provide verifiable, reliable sources demonstrating a POV, something that the opposing view editor could not. I guess we shouldn't take this whole joke very seriously - this kind of behaviour, while circumvents wiki policies, for this very reason only results in a couple of low quality articles, stinking from a mile for the partisan views pushed in them, though I guess it gets a bit of joy into the life of some people who sit afront of their computers 24/7, getting the satisfaction and building their own image they could not get from their lives otherwise.. ;)

I agree about the BoB article. Frankly, I don't think much concern should be made because of a few tendentious, nationalist and rude editors who keep re-fighting the battles their grandaddies failed to win.. I've checked the edits of this tendentious editor you have problems with in the BoB article, and from what I can see, he had put a fair amount of work to show that contrary to popular opinion and even common sense, the Goodwood and all the other British Army operations in Normandy that blatantly failed to reach their objectives were really a series of stunning and gravely misunderstood strategical victories. :D There's no need to engage debates like this. To quote one of my favourites, which I find fitting for these situations: 'Those who wrestle with shite, wheter they triumph over shite, or shite triumphes over you, you will be covered in shite anyways. ' The proper course seems to be to simply to cover each point with well referenced sources.

As far as the BoB article go, IMHO its more or less correct, perhaps a bit of work should be done on the effects of attacking airfields and the strenghts of the opposing sides and losses which are pretty lamely covered, esp. strenghts, comparing apples and oranges.

In any case, such sorry episodes from trolls, both small and big, should not interfere with our efforts to improve articles. As far as I go, I will pick up my work just where I stopped it. I am currently working on getting the Messerschmitt 109 article into a featured article, any suggestions you may have are welcome. Kurfürst (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Very good Kurfürst it is clear that you have deep knowledge
You read my mind when you speak about the poor quality of "attacking airfields and the strengths of the opposing sides and losses "I guess a lot of work need to be done here! Let us mentioned the sources; direct comment "the shorter the better”, and hopefully Dapi89 will cooperate; I am sure she possess strong knowledge as Historian and very attentive to Luftwaffe History. I would gladly joining you in making the BF 109 featured article .. although I was heading toward the FW 190 :-) --Hiens (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW I visited your web page .. great work I worte to you thanks note. I am sure you can promote the article about Me 109 to be featured article. --Hiens (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you liked it - unfortunately I had much less time lately to add new materials to it, though I plan to add some FW 190 stuff, too. Cheers, Kurfürst (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst I added some modifications to the table in BF 109
Unfortunately I don't have enough time these days to participate in any Article but i hope you will collporate with others to fine tune the BF 109 . --Hiens (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for warning me about the "troll" in Me 109 page, but I dont have the books to check if his quote are correct or not... and I think that all of us sooner or later are distructive maybe without the intention to be that...

regards from Roma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs) 13:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI

A note to let you know that you have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kurf.C3.BCrst. Syrthiss (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

overlong Bf 109 article

Is there a limit to the size of an article? Is there a reason why some sections (Variants in Psrticular) couldn't be hived off to sub articles? I have moved the Spanish variants table to the HA-1112 article which was lacking.Petebutt (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no isse over sources. All the sources I have say the G-1 existed. When I first created the G-1 section some years back, I was reverted by USER:Dennis on the grounds the sources were wrong and the Messerchmitt documents mentioned no use of or production G-1 variant. This reversion was done around spring, 2007. I think he gave a source - although I can't find a link for the conversation. You might ask him. Dapi89 (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wielun

It's annoying to see Jacurek use his strident rhetoric again to turn his removing your edit into you popping up to remove his work. On the subject: you quoted the en passant sentence by historian Jerzy B. Cynk, yet especially en passant sentences are very often poorly researched (a 670-page book and the source is from 1998 and might be outdated) and I doubt that there was indeed Polish cavalry in the town, at least not according to this source. It could be argued that reliable sources should be kept and all but I don't think Cynk is right on this one, sorry. Sciurinæ (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Your dispute with Loosmark

Hello, I've received a message concerning you. If you would like to reply to it, you are welcome to do so at User talk:Sandstein#Problem with user:Kurfürst? Thanks,  Sandstein  06:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1