User talk:Pfifer11

Copyright problem: Action of 6 February 1945

Big unnecessary notice removed Yoenit (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Action of 8 June 1945 is basically a full copy of http://home.cogeco.ca/~gchalcraft/sm/trenchant.html. You really can't do things like this. Yoenit (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please check in on my talkpage. Yoenit (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pfifer11. You have new messages at Yoenit's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Action of 6 February 1945, again

I was trying to track what was going on with this, (it turns out the other site copied from us; Yoenit will explain) and I came across this statement of yours:
"If you read the discussions you will find that editors wanted to merge German submarine U-864 Operation Caesar HMS Venturer (P68) Jimmy Launders..."
Now, there isn’t anything on the talk pages of any of these articles to say "editors wanted to" do any such thing; there is a statement from you on the Launders talk page stating you will be merging it (which is a bit presumptuous) I would recommend you read WP:MERGE, put in some merge proposal tags and give a rationale somewhere, before pursuing that line.
It is a good idea to write an "Action of.." page by breaking out the "Sinking of U-864" section of Jimmy Launders (in which case you should leave a summary there: see WP:SPLIT) but Launders is himself notable enough for an article. I would suggest U-864, HMS Venturer and Operation Caesar are also all notable, so the appropriate thing to do would be slim down the relevant sections to a summary and to put in a main article tag.
I also notice you’ve named the article "Action of 6 February 1945", but the other articles give the date of the engagement as 9 February; was there a reason for that? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it looks like I misread the dates I will sort all this out tomorrow and thank you for you info Pfifer11 (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I've done a bit of fixing on the Venturer and Caesar pages, separating out "action of..." sections (U-864 and Jimmy Launders already have sections for it) I don't know if you had a plan in mind for summarizing them; it's only really the Launders page that needs a drastic trim, the others don't look too bad, but see what you think... Xyl 54 (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes great stuff thanks. I am now going transfer Action of 6th to 9th Feb and also add links to Ceasar and Venturer Pfifer11 (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation of Arnhem

Hello Pfifer and welcome to Wikipedia! I just thought I'd drop you a note about a revert I made to the Liberation of Arnhem. Although Delaforce does indeed give the stats you submitted (my paperback says page 232, perhaps you have the hardback version?), there's quite a big gap between that and other sources. In the interests of fairness to all the sources it seems safer to put all the estimates in the article text (in the aftermath section) with a link from the infobox. This isn't such a big problem with allied casualties, which are far better recorded, but there is a general problem with accurately recording German casualties in the latter years of the war. I hope you weren't offended by my revert, for that wasn't my intent. I'm still open to other suggestions on how to present the information as well.

I thought I'd give you a few links to some pages designed for new editors. They're kind of text heavy and probably not that enthralling, but if you skim them you'll get the idea. Personally I've never read any of them all the way through in one sitting, but refer to them when I need to; they're fairly common sense guidelines.

The five pillars of Wikipedia. These are the sort of golden rules for contributing.
Tutorial. How to go about creating articles and that sort of thing.
How to edit a page and How to develop articles.
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish).
Manual of Style. How Wikipedia does things, especially when there's a hundred different ways of writing something.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question.

Finally let me welcome you to Wikipedia once more and I hope you enjoy yourself. Ranger Steve ^Talk 17:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I thought Delaforce was counting the total ie Canadians and Polar Bears combined. My book is softback and it definitly is that page; 210 (out of 234 pages). He states Operation Anger and not Operation Destroyer which was polar Bears code name operation. I hope this makes my understanding more clear. Pfifer11 (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 8 June 1945, finishing up

Hi. The article Action of 8 June 1945 has come due for administrator closure, and I have had to remove some of the content that remained. While I appreciate very much that you worked towards addressing the content, I'm afraid that there are good reasons that this is supposed to be done in the "temporary" space linked from the article's face, as the directions say, including the risk that if you simply modify the content you will create a derivative work, as was the case here.

For instance, your article at last edit said:

making it impossible to carry out a damage assessment for some minutes.[5] When she became visible again it was possible to see she was stopped dead in the water and on fire with a heavy list, some of her crew already abandoning ship.

The source says:

making it impossible to carry out a damage assessment for some minutes. When she became visible again it was possible to see she was stopped dead in the water and on fire with a heavy list, some of her crew already abandoning ship.

This is the longest unbroken run of copying that my duplication detector tool found, but there were other passages that also followed closely. For another example, which combined duplication with close paraphrasing, the source says:

As it was night Trenchant was running on the surface to recharge her batteries, it was while on the surface that the Ashigara’s escort destroyer was first sighted. Trenchant remained on the surface as Cmdr Hezlet did not want to risk losing contact by submerging....Trenchant finally submerged at dawn and proceeded to lay in wait for the Ashigara.

After you corrected copyright issues, the article said:

As it was night Trenchant was running on the surface to recharge her batteries, and while Trenchant was on the surface Ashigara’s escort destroyer Kamikaze was sighted.[3] Trenchant remained on the surface as Hezlet did not want to risk losing contact by submerging. Trenchant finally submerged at dawn and proceeded to lay in wait for the Ashigara.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. In order to remain in line with our copyright policies, information derived from copyrighted sources must be written from scratch, except for brief, clearly marked quotations. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for writing that may help avoid these issues in the future. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". Meanwhile, Wikipedia:Copy-paste has a useful brief overview of Wikipedia's approach to duplicating previously published content.

Please let me know if you have questions about any of this. I'll be watching your talk page for a time, but you are always welcome to come by mine. I appreciate the work you're doing to help expand our coverage of these issues and want to be sure that we don't run into issues in the future that might challenge our retention of this content. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there thanks for clearing things up. Pfifer11 (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. –MuZemike 21:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

As Confirmed by CheckUser as a sock of User:ChristiaandeWet. –MuZemike 21:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]