User talk:GeneralPatton/Archive1

NASA images

I like the space images you are adding. Do you think you could copy over the NASA descriptive text onto the image description pages, however? It makes it much easier to use the images more correctly (like setting correct captions, or finding more similar images). Also, the vast majority of NASA images are public domain, so it would be nice if you would put the {{msg:PD}} mark on the description pages as well, so there is no chance of someone deleting the image because they don't know its copyright status.

Again, thanks for all the NIX searching!

Audin 19:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Could you say where images come from as well as just saying that they are public domain? Thanks Secretlondon 03:05, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

All the copyright stuff has been added to all the NASA images.

--GeneralPatton 05:56, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyright info about the nasa linedrawings. Now I don't have to deal with trying to email the nasa pr people. :) Audin 08:16, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rome-related images

Hi and welcome! The Roman-related images especially need some attribution and sources, without those we'll have to assume their license does not allow for use in Wikipedia. Stan 23:01, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course, I’ll add those in soon, i first wanted to upload the stuff, a lot of it was made by photoshoping old, beginning of the century photo plates, like this one http://www.phil.uni-erlangen.de/~p1altar/photo_html/portraet/roemisch/kaiserzeit/benannt/claudius/claud6.JPG , cleaning them up (both the photos and the statues), slightly coloring, and in the end making them look like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Claud_1.jpg .

Another great example of this technique are thease two : http://www.phil.uni-erlangen.de/~p1altar/photo_html/portraet/roemisch/kaiserzeit/soldatenkaiser/soldat4.JPG (Original, beginning of the century plate); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Max_thrax.jpg (cleaned up, colored and cropped).

--GeneralPatton 05:56, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This Pictures are not Public Domain. See here: [1] "Bitte beachten Sie, dass keines dieser Bilder ohne unser Einverstaendnis als Druckvorlage verwendet, vervielfaeltigt oder in sonst irgendeiner Weise kommerziell genutzt werden darf !" - It is not permitted to use them as setting copy, to duplicate them or to use them commercially. --de:Benutzer:RobertLechner

Name-calling by an unknown user

I noticed that your name was added to the page Wikipedia:Ustasha_wikipedians by someone other than yourself. After looking at the ustasha article, it seems likely that this was an act of name-calling, which I thought you might want to be aware of. --AaronW 22:48, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making me aware of this, im always amazed at the lengths some people will go just to discredit others. --GeneralPatton 01:16, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

German General Staff

Why did you take out the political causes of the German General staff being forced into an earlier war than what was logical and planned for? It kmakes the rest of the paragraph absurd. Have you read Goerlitz and Dupuy? Do you dispute their analysis? AlainV 01:31, 2004 May 12 (UTC)

I agreee, just i think it wasn't really well writen. --GeneralPatton 04:11, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Avala RfC

I've started a RfC page on User:Avala. Since you've been involved in disputes with her, you might want to head over and certify it. Thanks. Snowspinner 19:12, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen and signed it, great work. --GeneralPatton 22:20, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

links

I like the thing you added to the Rommel page where it links to others like Rommel; I want to do the same on a page for chessplayers; can you point me out to material that would help me learn how its done? - ChessPlayer 02:08, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It's called media Wiki, see more here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wilhelm_Keitel --GeneralPatton 04:13, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I've recently been nominated for administrator status over at RfA. Since you're more familiar than most users with my work on Wikipedia, particularly through the conflict with Avala (Which seems particularly relevent to any admin nomination), I thought you might want to offer an opinion on the matter. I'd appreciate any vote you can offer, either for or against the nomination. Thanks very much. Snowspinner 14:21, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for informing me. I think you'll make a great admin. --GeneralPatton 18:12, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

World War II German jet aircraft

May I ask why you've linked to this category? Considering all their jets were fighters, I think the World War II German jet fighter aircraft that is in place is more suitable. - Oberiko

All the German jets where not fighters, in fact even Me-262 was intended to be a close support bomber instead of a fighter interceptor, Arado Ar-234 Blitz, one of the main projects of 1944 along with the Me-262, was a bomber as where numerous prototypes like the near-supersonic Junkers Ju-287 bomber,... Google it up and you’ll see what I mean.

In December 1943 Göring issues oders that Me-262 was “only to be regarded as a jet bomber” and the first use of Me-262 was during the bombardment of Allied positions around Nijmegen where it did some impressive damage to the ground forces.. And due to its speed and payload capability modified Ar-234's equipped with reconnaissance cameras, played a massive role collecting data on the Allied forces during the preparations before the Battle of the Bulge. --GeneralPatton 19:10, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alright. Think you could update the Me-262 page then? That lists it as strictly a fighter.

Sure, im working on it. --GeneralPatton 19:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking about removing jet fighter from all nations and keeping just jet aircraft. Considering there were only about 3-4 (maximum) for each nation during World War II, I don't think it makes much sense to break it down into jet fighter, jet fighter-bomber, jet night-fighter, jet reconnaissance... etc.. I originally only thought that jet fighters were created and made it a sub-catagory of general fighters for just that reason. With a small number of models, but a fairly large number of catagories, you might (especially if there are multi-purpose jet aircraft) end up with more catagories then articles with them. Oberiko 22:29, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree 100%.--GeneralPatton 22:55, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

DKM

I don't know if you're aware of this, but the reason we've been saying German battleship Bismarck rather than DKM Bismarck is that the evidence is that "DKM" is not a valid ship prefix in the way that HMS and USS are, and so it's not correct to use it as if it were. (Ditto for IJN.) This is recorded in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships some time ago. If you have new evidence for the usage's correctness, we'd all like to see it! Stan 05:06, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hitler

After reviewing your info, I agree regarding the image, and disagree regarding the external link. Sam [Spade] 22:39, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Redoubt map

I don't remember where I got it from. It's a 60-year-old US Army map so I'd be surprised if it's copyright. If it is I can make a new version of it fairly easily. Adam 06:37, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

German army in WW II

Hello! You are using a very dated tech manual as a source for your foreword. All of the professional historians (Calvocoressi, Dupuy, Keegan, Wint, etc) of WW II and the German army give a more balanced or even a contradictory view of the rendition in that manual. The reality of the German army in 1939 is much more complex. I have added nuances within the foreword instead of deleting it completely, which would have been much more simpler. In 1939 the German army was an extremely odd mix of new and ancient. Most of its artillery was still drawn by horses!! At the same time, it had superb, versatile cannons like the 88mm!!! In 1939 most of the troops were still armed with WW I vintage rifles. The impressive tiger tanks were still on drawing boards or in prototype form, leaving Rommel and Guderian with tanks which were in fact inferior to many French ones. Unluckily for the French, the Germans had vastly superior tactics and their GGS or Great General Staff knew how to adapt new strategies and tactics much faster. AlainV 22:29, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello again!

I have not read the tech manual, just your reporting of its summary of the German army in WWII. However, if it is a recently re-edited government publication of the US government I would trust it for reporting the straight facts about the order of battle and other aspects of the organization of the German army. I would be wary of any evaluation of tactics howver. If you want something close to an official US evaluation of WWII German army tactics you might want to look instead at some of the writings of colonel Trevor N. Dupuy. AlainV 23:32, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tesla

Your additions to the Tesla article are overthetop POV. You have to tame it down, you can't tell us what wonderful people these people are unless you back it up with facts. Rick K 05:25, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

I was just restoring text removed by Serb ultra- nationalists. But yeah, it needs work. --GeneralPatton 05:29, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Right, just like you were restoring the nonsense in List of Vlachs. Please, if you think that is going to stand you're really going to need to review NPOV. Rick K 05:35, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Well sir, why do you think its nonsense?--GeneralPatton 05:37, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Because the "genius" and "persecution" material is nonsense for a list of names, and would only stand in the article itself if you can justify them. Rick K 05:42, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

I do agree, but as I’ve said I was just restoring what Serb nationalist have been removing, I didn’t write it, In any case looks like user Nikola Simolenski reverted the whole thing yet again without any explanation, and since I don’t intend to go into any revert wars, I guess the whole thing is over, until someone comes with more hard facts and the will to prove it.--GeneralPatton 05:45, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Arthur Rudolph

Hi, GP, I'd like to call your attention to the new article "Arthur Rudolph". I think you'll be interested in the article and perhaps have some edits in mind upon the first reading ;-) I look forward to your contributions. -- ke4roh 16:17, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good article, great work! --GeneralPatton 16:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hitler painting

Hi. I'm sorry that I didn't notify you at the time that I listed the Hitler painting as a possible copyright violation. I don't know what copyrights cover material produced by the third reich, but wether it is propaganda or not shouldn't matter?

If you contend it to be fair use, you should note so on the description page. For public domain works, it is also very useful if the fact is noted on the desc page. - David Remahl 20:10, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is a good question, which I am intending to look further into, I do think however that the majority of propaganda and official state items (i.e. propaganda posters, propaganda postcards, official photos, state commissioned paintings…) are in public domain, while the private items, not related to government and Nazi party such as personal photos are still under copyright. --GeneralPatton 21:03, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Autobahn

Hi, I answered on my talkpage --Kpalion 09:44, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Taking the Berghof

Can you tell me which force got there first? This page: http://www.dday-overlord.com/Bepi10eng.htm says

The French soldiers were the first to be penetrated in the Eagle's Nest of Hitler at the top of the Kehlstein mountain, followed by the company C and of the members of 321st GFA battalion.

Several other sources credit the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division. No British are mentioned. -- The Anome 23:34, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re: Category:Field Marshals of Nazi Germany

Hi, see my response at User talk:IZAK. Thanks. IZAK 07:32, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Hi there! Just a short note to thank you for your vote of faith in me in the recent sysop election. My heart and soul is in the Wikipedia project, and I feel honoured to be able to play a role in its development. Again, thank you for supporting me. David Cannon 09:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, GeneralPatton, I too am honored to receive your nomination for admin. Many thanks. I'll have to respectfully decline today, but after a little more time, I think I'll be sufficiently ripe. Thanks agaian. -- ke4roh 12:53, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Nixon (movie)

Thank you for making edits regarding Reagan attending the Nixon funeral... On rewatching the end title sequence it is evident that both Nancy and the former President Reagan are there in attendance. --Acedian

GP, I wasn't aware Avala is a Serb nationalist, I thought he was just a general loony. Is there in fact a process for nominating someone for banning? Adam 03:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I would make a very good administrator. I have very strong views on a number of subjects, I get in fights with people, and I don't tolerate fools very well. I would probably abuse my administator powers very soon. Also I have serious reservations about the way Wikipedia is structured and I don't feel I should hold a position that makes me part of that structure. Adam 18:02, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page at the time, what was "Serb nationalist" about the material you reverted on Ustase? Ambivalenthysteria 09:01, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Heh, you're telling me. I've had my fair share of clashes with them as well. I've just looked at that edit - was it the links you were reverting? I'm just wondering, because you took out the attempt I made at NPOVing a paragraph. Ambivalenthysteria 00:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Caption project comments

Hi, GeneralPatton, I was wondering if you might be so kind as to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions before I link to it from all the usual places. I'd welcome your feedback. (And by all means join if you're interested.) Thanks! -- ke4roh 04:59, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. -- ke4roh 06:34, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

General Patton, I must suggest that I have not been reverting captions on all articles. Rather, in an article that I have written, the captions were lengthened to seven or eight lines. I presume that I am not bound not to remove such extensive captions. One may note that I have yet to revert the current captions on Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I have added my comments on Wikipedia_talk:Captions. -- Emsworth 23:04, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Titan Rockets

General Patton: Yes, I intend to create articles about the entire Titan rocket family. I've been working on fleshing out Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Shuttle sections. Rusty 03:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia now has articles for Titan II, Titan 23B, Titan III and Titan IV rockets. Rusty 22:08, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Avala

I know that he's being a prat on RfA, but what does this have to do with me? *scratches head*. And by the way, I'm a she, thank you "sir". ;) Ambivalenthysteria 23:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Image licenses

Hi. Could you please include sources for images that you upload and apply the appropriate copyright tag. For example if something is your photo you can add "my own photo {{GFDL}}" or if an image is from NASA add "from NASA {{PD-USGov}}". Wikipedia:Image copyright tags has more information. Thanks, Maximus Rex 17:32, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Richard Strauss

Thank you for removing Richard Strauss from the "list of fascists" page--you beat me to it! I had to laugh. I was just starting to write up my reasons for the talk page when I saw the deed had been done. Be well! Antandrus 15:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment: you're right. Now I'm waiting for Carl Orff to show up in the list too. Also, I'm busy fattening up the Strauss article right now. Some of the things he did in the 1930s were incredibly brave. I think he played the game just right to keep his daughter-in-law and her family out of the gas chambers. Peace, Antandrus 16:53, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Reubenbarton

Reuben Barton has declined adminship. :-( Bother. I'm wondering if you discussed nominating with the user before placing a nomination on RfA?

It's ok if you didn't mind you, there's nothing actually wrong with what you did. Even so, it's a really good idea to do check with a user first, since it saves a bit of trouble from a person declining, and it also gives you a chance to doublecheck whether someone is really suited. :-) I like your choice in people you nominate, and I'll very likely support a 2nd nomination of Reubenbarton in future.

have a great day! Kim Bruning 22:29, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I see. That's an admirable way of working. I would like to point out that user talk pages are generally public and do actually get read, so that's likely not a form of backdoor dealing. :-) Kim Bruning 16:55, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

World War II Wikireader

General Patton - I've started work on a World War II Wiki-reader. You can read about it at Wikipedia:World War II wikireader. Basically, a Wiki-reader is print-version of Wikipedia about a certain one topic. I notice you edit a lot in that topic, so I thought I'd let you know about it personally. Also, if you know anyone else around here who edits in that topic and might be interested, I'd be grateful if you le them know. →Raul654 22:24, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Grossdeutschland

It looks like you moved the existing article to Greater Germany, so that the Wehrmacht division could have the article to itself. As, even in English, one tends to talk about Grossdeutschland using the German name (in order to contrast with Kleindeutschland), is there any particular reason you'd rather not have both articles on the same page, with Greater Germany redirecting to Grossdeutschland? — OwenBlacker 02:11, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Hello.

Hi, GeneralPatton. i was wondering if you'd do me a great favor and support my nomination for adminship. If you can do that, I'd be forever grateful. :) Neutrality 00:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Eastern Front

Dear General Patton,

thank you for invitation to the World_War_II_wikireader, I will participate! Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 06:01, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you again for the invitation. I'm jumping in slowly. There's much work to do yet, as I see... Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 21:30, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

link

Hvala za onaj link. U svakom slucaju to vazi za Ameriku. U Srbiji zakon o tome izricito ne postoji koliko ja znam. Ali posto je grb iz 19.veka a i sve i da nije uradila ga je vlada. Samim tim taj rad postaje zvanican cime gubi status zasticenog autorskim pravima. Grb koji je vazio do pre neki dan je uradjen u komunisticko doba i stvarno ne znam kako su neki ovde ocekivali da je to zasticen rad (oni koji su mi na to skrenuli paznju su iz bivsih republika Jugoslavije).

[[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 11:46, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re:Translation

Agree with the translation? What is there to agree with? People made edits that you didn't like and then you bitched at them in the log. What possible reason could I have to condone your obvious vulgarity? --Joy [shallot] 23:46, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well it’s Vulgar if you intentionally misinterpret it. Everything can be mistranslated and manipulated with in the process. I have a feeling that’s just what Nikola is doing and I really don’t see why you play along with him and his in this case and use his apparently deliberate distortions. You know I still give him the benefit of a doubt that he doesn’t know Croatian that good. GeneralPatton 23:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ma, odjebi s tim olinjalim tuljanima i nek se gone u krasni qratz (baš me zanima kako će ovo prevesti). Mir Harven 21:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, it's vulgar any way you interpret it, at least as far as my knowledge of the Croatian language is concerned. And I'm really not a prude who has an inherent dislike of profanity -- I swear in real life and on Wikipedia too. Regardless of whether I think an instance of vulgarity is appropriate or not, it's still a plain fact that it's vulgar.

I've already written on that page that I don't think much of this whole let's-expound-on-the-trash-talk discussion. --Joy [shallot] 00:16, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm keeping an eye on them. I can't do anything with Kaiser because nobody bothered to warn him on his Talk page, and Guanaco will unblock him, no matter how much of a vandal he is, if he hasn't gotten a warning. Especially if I'm the one to block him. The anon will get blocked with the next edit. Rick K 05:49, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, General: Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. As a sysop, I will dilligently do my soldierly duties, sir. (Sorry!) No, but seriously, I take your support and that of everyone else seriously, and would strive to exercise my adminship privileges judiciously and conservatively. BTW, so far it seems as if all my supporters are interested in either 20th century history (like yourself) or Asian topics.... --Sewing 01:38, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

adminship

Dear GeneralPatton,

Yes, I will treat the "keys to the mop closet" well. :-)
Thank you very much for your vote in support of my nomination for adminship.

-- PFHLai 03:44, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Adminship

You've been a valuable contributor to Wikipedia for a while now. Would you like me to nominate you for adminship? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I nominated you. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:23, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)