User talk:MWAK

94.30.47.170 (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Welcome!

hello, i noticed you changed back my changes i made to the pantserwagen m39 page. may i ask why? i received historic file's stating the facts as i added them so i dont see what's wrong. Revenger2111 (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, using archive data counts as a forbidden WP:OR. So, you're not supposed to insert those data unless they have been mentioned in some independent book or articles. These secondary sources in this case happen to contradict each other sometimes, probably because they based themselves on differing data or judged them differently. This is at times reflected by the footnotes. Your changes therefore also caused some inconsistency.

By the way , you're also supposed to put such questions at the end of this page, so in the near future I'll move it there :o).

Greetings, MWAK (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, MWAK, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Alai 00:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I've been here quite a while as an anonymous.

--MWAK 05:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your help on Oil pastel it looks and sounds a lot better, I was going to get to it but I was busy for a while so thanks! Also if you know of any of the places where the information was used from that would help out the article a lot also! Thanks again. Graxe 21:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm honoured by your praise. Some useful links might be: http://www.art.hyogo-u.ac.jp/fukumo/InSEAinJapan/History%20JAE.html for some background about Japanese art education; http://www.gellyroll.com/company/craypas_history.html for what Sakura itself has to say about it; http://www.michaels.com/art/online/displayArticle?articleNum=ae0051 for a slightly different account; http://www.sennelier.fr/fr/08visiteguidee/visite43.htm for some production pictures and http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/waac/wn/wn19/wn19-3/wn19-308.html for a very useful overview of waxy media. --MWAK 09:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey MWAK if you could tell me how to get a copy of the second reference you put on Oil pastel itd be cool becuase Id like to read it, it sounds interesting. Also 2 other things 1) if you want you should join the wikipedia IRC channel at #wikipedia on freenode so we can talk sometime and 2) If you want I should show you some of my paintings sometime in Oil pastel though really Im still learning a lot and am hoping to get a lot better. TTYL Graxe 22:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Graxe! Sorry for answering so late; somehow I didn't notice your questions until now. As regards the book, I think it's no longer in print; but it's quite possible the Institute for Fine Arts has still some copies in store, so contacting them might, with some luck, still get you one. I must admit I hadn't activated my e-mail connection and I will do so soon. I think contributing with his own artwork is the best thing any Wikipedian can do to improve the number of images. At least that way there are no copyright problems ;o). So I'm looking forward to them. And you don't merely have to hope to get better: you can ensure it by investing thirty minutes to intense pastel drawing twice a week. Practice makes perfect! :o)--MWAK 06:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units)

Hi. My watchlist shows that you were interested enough to work on a military-topic article, so I wanted to make sure you were aware of the new Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units) project, in case you didn't see any of the announcements. — B.Bryant 22:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I in fact wasn't aware of the project, but having read the guidelines I believe I've probably always applied them. I hope :o).

--MWAK 06:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Limburgish language

You added to the article: "As Limburgish gradually fades into more eastern dialects, it's in Germany typically combined with these in a so-called Limburgisch-Bergisch group, from which then most often the dialects spoken in The Netherlands and Belgium are again excluded." I don't understand the second part of the sentence (from which ... excluded); it seems to say that Limburgisch-Bergisch contains only the dialects speaken in Germany, in which case it should be called Bergisch, shouldn't it? Or is there also a part of Germany called Limburg? Thanks, and sorry for my ignorance (I had to look up where das Bergisches Land is, even though I'm originally from quite nearby). Jitse Niesen 14:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I was ignorant too, for I said to user Sarcelles that the town of Limburg (the origin of the name for the region) was in Germany, while it's in fact located south of Dutch Limburg in Belgium. However, the original duchy of Limburg extended into present Germany. So, yes, there is a German Limburg. The deeper reason for the German usage is a lack of consistency though: they first construct a higher level group including the "Dutch" dialects and then limit their scope to the "German" part only, while keeping the more inclusive name, using history as a pretext to avoid difficult questions about the relationship between the two standard languages, like: Why are there two standard languages for the same dialect continuum in the first place?; Are the Dutch really German?; Are Germans really Dutch? and If I don't like the way German culture has developed in the past centuries, can I switch sides and become Dutch? (The Dutch in 1945 seriously proposed to the Allies to "dutchify" large parts of Germany this way!) etc. ;o)--MWAK 07:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are so right, I ll update it as soon as I have time, but did not know all the borders for other languages then Limburgisch. i.e. the border between West and East-Flanders is not the language border Jorgenpfhartogs 13:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Calais

I'm afraid I do not. In the common language, Calais is a Channel port. You note the Chunnel, but also the Channel Ferries use Calais.

This is because the Strait of Dover is considered part of the Channel. Read our article, which correctly notes this. The Channel is the entire waterway that joins the North Sea to the Atlantic. Note if you will the list of ports we give in that article. Grace Note 02:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not a question of judgement whether the spider is an insect. The definition of insect precludes it. The definition of insect is also what is commonly used. When the two clash, one must prevail. It is still the common parlance that we use, not some particularly restricted or specialised idea of spider.

However, it is a question of judgement whether Calais lies on the Channel or it does not. Why can the whole of the strait not be included in the Channel? Certainly that is what is commonly done. The Channel Tunnel goes under it; the Channel ferries cross it. They have never felt they must divert to the other side of Cap Gris Nez to avoid a solecism in their name.

Do you have a source for your contention that the North Sea stretches to Cap Gris Nez? Do you have one for your belief that seaways must be one thing or another and cannot overlap? If you will provide good sources for your belief, I'll join you in correcting the articles for the English Channel, Strait of Dover and others.

We'll need to correct the erroneous beliefs about Channel crossings (some firsts were made between Dover and Calais), the erroneous notion of the Channel ferries, the Channel Tunnel will need to mention that it doesn't go under the Channel at all and should be called the, erm, North Sea Tunnel because Sangatte is also east of Cap Gris Nez.Grace Note 08:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, all North Sea Treaties since 1908 used the line Cape Gris-Nez - South Foreland as boundary. :o) But that's beside the point. It's a simple matter of conceptual coherency. Certainly seaways can overlap: and the Strait of Dover, being the connection between The Channel and the North Sea indeed overlaps both. The part south of the smallest point (i.e. south of Cape Gris-Nez) belongs to The Channel and the part north of it belongs to the North Sea. This is simply what it means to be a connection. And you wouldn't deny that the North Sea is connected to The Channel by the Strait of Dover, would you? But I have to admit topography is so conventional in nature these first principles might have to cede to common usage anyway, utterly silly as it might be. So it is my better judgement to cease defending the cause of conceptual clarity against the entrenched forces of British tradition...;o)

--MWAK 10:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you picked me right. Us Brits don't like conceptual clarity half as much as a good old-fashioned muddle ;-) Grace Note 07:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should start a new tradition of calling Calais a North Sea Channel port :o)--MWAK 13:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Did you know?

I'm honoured!--MWAK 12:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Limburgish and pitch accent

I noticed that you seem to be familliar with the Limburgish language. I've commented on its talk page on the article's questionable use of the term tonal language, mentioning that I've written a draft new version of the article pitch accent at User:Alarm/Pitch accent. Since this article mentions Limburgish as an example, I would really value any input from people familliar with it. If you have the time and energy to take a look, I would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions for expansion. / Alarm 13:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll see whether I have any meaningful contributions to make - but even before having looked at that talk page I think I know what the problem is ;o).

--MWAK 09:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Tredagh 1654 = HMS Resolution 1660

Well spotted! Gdr 13:37, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Thank you! :o)--MWAK 16:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Battle of the Sound

Hallo there MWAK excellent contributions you made.You requested battle of the Sound info a Dutch list of ships can be found at http://www.kentishknock.com/a-d-wars3.htm perhaps you can ask the webmaster for info on the Swedish fleet (which I don't have).

CatsClaw 16:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment and the excellent advice!--MWAK 17:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Flying Elephant

Hello MWAK! Just a couple of comments: (i) I've had a go at using Wiki Commons, but I just don't understand how to post images there; if you like, I'm perfectly happy for you to copy the Flying Elephant photos and post them there yourself, it would be much quicker than waiting for me to learn how to; and (ii) thank you to whoever tidied up the FE page (thumbnailing the photos, and adding extra links)! McTodd 21:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

WW I Tanks

Hi MWAK. I think I may have just about used-up all the WW 1 British tank images I have but I should be uploading some from other countries over the next few days. Regards, Ian Dunster 20:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Looking forward to them :o)--MWAK 05:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Pim Fortuyn discussion

Please, could you take your discussion with Tellar26 somewhere other than the Pim Fortuyn page, for instance on one of your user pages? Thanks. Junes 15:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Battle of France

Hello MWAK. I came across Battle of France when browsing random articles and was very impressed. I'm considering nominating it as a featured article, but I thought I should first ask you, as one of the leading contributors to the article (and as someone with much more knowledge of the topic than me) whether you think it's ready to be featured. Is there more that needs doing before it can represent Wikipedia's best work? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the article, but I would strongly advise against nomitating it at present. It really needs to be reworked as it still contains many details that are rather imprecise. Also it lacks a certain coherency. I hope to bring it to a higher level in future myself, but I can't make any promisses as to when this shall happen...--MWAK 09:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it for now - thanks for all the work that you've done on it so far. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No thanks are needed! :O)--MWAK 10:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Read Frieser

Greetings, Thanks for your comments, However I can not find Frieser in English and sadly know no other language. Is it available in translation?KAM 18:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but only in a French translation, so it would be of no use to you :o(. Mosier's The Myth of Blitzkrieg leans heavily on Frieser, but that book is simply too silly to have the power to convince anyone. But you could read this abstract from Doughty: http://web.mit.edu/ssp/fall98/doughty.htm, which unsurprisingly has the same title. The abstract quoted in full (to save it for posterity ;o):

The 1940 German campaign against France and the concept of blitzkrieg have exerted a powerful influence over modern perceptions of warfare. The 1940 campaign is frequently cited in discussions of strategy and operations and in publications about the "Revolution in Military Affairs" (RMA). Proponents of the RMA have argued that blitzkrieg was the product of technological and conceptual advances during the interwar period. They have also claimed that the 1940 campaign demonstrates how such advances can quickly change the conduct of warfare.

Many of the concepts associated with blitzkrieg are actually myths. This is a consequence of poor military history and the preponderance of popular accounts of the 1940 campaign. For example, German doctrinal innovation was due more to the unfavorable situation Germany faced rather than to any "revolution" in technology or concepts of warfare. Their planning the 1940 campaign did not expect a swift, easy defeat of France nor was its success solely attributable to technology, specifically tanks and airpower. Rather, the campaign had modest objectives, German strategy and tactics were extremely important, and the infantry played a critical role in its success

The concept of blitzkrieg as it is now understood was not developed by Hitler and the German General Staff. Rather, it was formulated for public consumption. The term appeared occasionally in the literature between 1936 and 1940 and was the subject of a Time magazine article after France’s defeat. At this time, blitzkrieg simply meant a knockout blow in contrast to the trench warfare of World War I. The Germans, for example, employed the term to refer to a short war. No theorist used it to refer to a combined offensive by armored forces and aircraft to deliver a knockout blow against an adversary.

Rather than a revolution, mobile warfare represented a natural evolution in the conduct of war. The development of methods and equipment necessary for mobile warfare was informed by the experience of World War I. Yet, the evolution of technology and strategy was the subject of considerable debate in Germany. There was a lively discussion in the literature about the proper role of tanks and airpower. The development of mechanized forces was retarded by Hitler’s military and economic policies. The best strategy for the 1940 campaign was not immediately evident to the German high command. Hitler dabbled with strategy and inquired about the possibility of an offensive through the Ardennes before Manstein devised his plan. The German strategy for the attack against France was a desperate operational act ultimately chosen for its risky strategic possibilities.

The German advance in the 1940 campaign is widely perceived to have been a rapid "jaunt" through France with armor and airpower playing the dominant roles in the offensive. This notion is unsubstantiated. Rough terrain hindered the progress of the XIX Panzer Corps. The crossing of the Meuse River was also very difficult and its outcome might have been different were it not for some remarkable successes by a few German forces. The movement of armored units across the river was far slower than anticipated and German commanders submitted false reports about their progress and the vulnerability of the bridgehead. Moreover, infantry played a key role on both sides. German armored forces were led across the Meuse by antitank and engineer units. At the beginning of the campaign German forces encountered stiff resistance from Belgian infantry mounted on bicycles. A single rifle company turned back an assault by a German tank division. Furthermore, a German infantry batallion played a pivotal role in the eventual defeat of this company.

Airpower was important in the 1940 campaign and German ground forces would not have been successful without the air support provided by the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe achieved air superiority, established a protective umbrella over advancing German columns, and facilitated the crossing of the Meuse by German forces. German air attacks also confused French commanders about the location of advancing forces and contributed to the collapse of the French 55th Division defending the Meuse. However, German airpower accounted for little of the destruction on the ground nor did its use in the 1940 campaign mark the advent of a fundamentally new way of warfare.

Neither Hitler nor the German high command expected a rapid, easy victory over the French in 1940. They expressed serious concerns about the prospects for success on May 13th and 14th. However, the German forces were victorious because of luck, better leadership, skill and training, superior concentration of forces, and French weaknesses in strategy and tactics. German leaders considered the outcome of the 1940 campaign to be a miracle. Yet, this was soon forgotten as they fell victim to their own propaganda. Seeing themselves in newsreels and movies, the German officer corps became convinced that the myth of blitzkrieg was reality. Confident that blitzkrieg would enable Germany to achieve a swift, easy victory over the Soviet Union, Hitler initiated the invasion of the Soviet Union almost immediately after the 1940 campaign.

Continued British resistance and the expectation that Soviet forces would quickly be defeated led Hitler to pursue an offensive against the Soviet Union in 1941. The British rejected Hitler’s peace overtures following the defeat of France and a German Navy study concluded that an invasion of Great Britain would be extremely difficult. Meanwhile, military options on the eastern front were evaluated. An offensive would seek to crush the Soviet army before it could retreat and to seize enough territory in the east to prevent Soviet air strikes against Germany. Both Hitler and Halder believed that blitzkrieg would enable German forces to deliver such a knockout blow against the Soviet Union. A campaign against the Soviet Union was also expected to be far easier than the invasion of France. With the defeat of the Soviet Union, any remaining British hope of successfully resisting German domination of Europe would be eliminated.

Hitler therefore directed the German army to prepare to crush the Soviet military prior to the defeat of the United Kingdom. The Germans thus sought a "Super Cannae" against the Soviet Union. The invasion of the Soviet Union was widely anticipated to be a short campaign and military planning reflected this expectation. The German high command believed that 80-100 German divisions would easily be able to defeat the 50-75 top Russian divisions. The German economy was not mobilized for the invasion, stockpiles were not accumulated, and the long distances involved in transporting supplies to advancing German forces were ignored. Operation Barbarossa was based to an unprecedented degree on myths and hopes stemming from the successful invasion of France. Intoxicated by the success of the 1940 campaign, Hitler and Halder even envisaged the use of blitzkrieg operations to secure German domination of the Mediterranean and Asia. Such confidence contrasts sharply with the German high command’s far more sober analysis of the successful 1939 attack on Poland, which generated substantial pessimism among military leaders because of the many deficiencies that it had revealed. Instead, concluding that they had devised blitzkrieg to defeat the French, Hitler and the German high command believed it could also be used successfully against the Soviet Union. In the end, such arrogance and poor intelligence led to German failure in the east.

And of course you could read the excellent books by Robert Allen Doughty on this subject: The Seeds of Disaster: The Development of French Army Doctrine, 1919-1939, and The Breaking Point: Sedan and the Fall of France, 1940. I can't say I'm in full agreement with the first book: the doctrine of the French Army wasn't too bad; many writers have been deceived by Gaullist myth-building.

The main thing to keep in mind is that there simply was no such thing as a German Blitzkrieg doctrine before the summer of 1940. To quote Frieser: "Vain is the search for the Blitzkrieg doctrine". It is nowhere to be found. The German Army was completely dominated by the Infantry and the full doctrine and organisation were centered on that Weapon. More money was spent on fortifications than on tanks. After the first three Panzerdivisionen were formed — mainly for political reasons: Germany had been forbidden to possess any tanks, so now it would have its own Tank Corps — only independent armoured brigades were added for infantry support. The situation improved somewhat in 1938, but still the Panzerwaffe was seen as a specialised tool for exploitation, a mechanised cavalry. To spare the expensive tanks, armoured units were forbidden to take part in breakthrough operations. In Poland an exception was made for the embarrassing reason that there wasn't enough trained infantry available. In May 1940 things went back to normal: the crossings of the river Meuse were carried out by motorised infantry and the bridgeheads were to be enlarged by the tank units — and consolidated so that the "Mass of the Army" could position itself for the decisive battle. But the armour field commanders weren't content with such a subordinated role. They disobeyed, exploited a bit more and then the "miracle" happened. And afterwards the Germans looked at each other and said: "Gee, did you see what we just did? We executed a strategic armoured penetration and the enemy simply collapsed! Wow!". And Liddell Hart said: "I told you so! Glad...ah, sorry you listened". And thus the Myth of Blitzkrieg was born.

--MWAK 09:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks, I read them with great interest. I appreciate you taking the time. Blitzkrieg, = Bewegungskrieg + assumption of collapse-- very good point and well made....."your operations always hang by a thread."-Kluge, Guderian superior.... Also, Robert Doughty, The Seeds of Disaster. is on my reading list the rest is here: http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_archive.htm ( #72 and #73) Perhaps the Blitzkrieg article needs a "myth" section... again thanks KAM 18:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! Keep in mind that Lind's distinction between Second and Third Generation Warfare is a bit of a caricature — or at least too ideal. He favours a very risky variant of manoeuvre warfare. Later modelling showed that his tactics had a small, but very real, chance of NATO defeat, whereas the "static" forms he was so critical of, were practically foolproof...

Concerning the article: it really needs to be rebuilt entirely. Not that it's likely to happen :o). In the Dutch Wikipedia I've completely rewritten the original page — but there my reputation is better ;o).

--MWAK 14:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Voting.

Hi, may I make a request? could you please vote for my FAC, Dinosaur here:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dinosaur? I know how we had discussions involving dinosaurs, so thought you'd be interested? It would mean so much to me & I would definitely return the favour if you need anything voted on. I've come so far, but I just want to make sure as voting can turn sour at any moment? Don't feel pressured, but thanks anyway... Spawn Man 02:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to improve the article. Such effort is however the only benefit derived from the system of tagging some articles as "excellent". It has many dangers, the greatest of which is that we were are tempted to lock the article because it has presumedly reached its ideal form. The present tendency to somehow protect Wikipedia from the public — the very body that created it — should be resisted. So, opposing FA's in general, the only time I ever vote on them is when trying to prevent an article that is substandard from attaining the status. As Dinosaur is pretty good, I won't vote :o).--MWAK 09:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I was counting on you! One of my main reasons is to get it to the main page so it can actually get publicity! I wrote dinosaur articles, didn't get an editors to it. Got dinosaur on the article improvement drive, got a little attention for a week. Got it to FAC, gets little publicity, but Im still the main one doing work! Hopefully if it goes to the main page it will be better still! Plus, I've heard of FA going on peer review! You could always give a vote of weak support or neutral.... No article is ever perfect.... Thanks anyway... Spawn Man 22:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, such publicity is always short-lived. In this field Wikipedia has to compete with two of the best sites on any subject of popular science: the Dinosauricon and DinoData. That's very tough. All that "peer review" is rather silly: what peers? :o)--MWAK 08:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The opposing forces table

I see you've changed 'offensive artillery' for 'mechanised'. If that's the term, then well done, I myself tried to translate it from Russian and literally translating it was 'offensive'. It presumably stands for cannons that are mainly used in offensive operations. Constanz - Talk 11:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The military jargon can be very confusing :o). Did the original indeed use the term НАСТУПАТЕЛЬНЫЙ? ~:o\ What was in any case was meant was штурм: it is a reference to assault artillery, i.c. the German Panzerjäger and Sturmgeschütze. This term is derived from the French artillerie d'assaut. It strictly refers to mechanised guns (although most confusingly artillerie d'assaut in the beginning referred to vehicles that we traditionally call "tanks", such as the Schneider CA). So the category is much more limited than the literal translation would suggest. This also explains why they are lumped together with tanks: they are what the layman would call as such, only they lack a turret — and they would be very dangerous adversaries to most Soviet tanks in June 1941...

And now I will change "mechanised artillery" to "mechanised guns" because I myself got confused :o).

--MWAK 15:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The term in Russian was штурмовые (Танки и штурмовые орудия)

See: [1] Chapter: 'Место "Восточного похода" в стратегии Германии 1940—1941 гг. и силы сторон к началу операции "Барбаросса"' Таблица 47

May-be 'assault artillery' then? That explains why they were included in tank numbers: both are similarily used as 'assault weapons' ?

Constanz - Talk 16:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the closest correct translation would be "assault artillery". However this term is today uncommon in English: the present technical word for the weapons indicated is "self-propelled guns". The point is that the term most confusingly refers to systems that are precisely not real (indirect fire) artillery pieces but self-propelled guns (i.e. tracked AFV's) equipped with direct fire cannons, just as tanks. The lack of a turret is the only relevant distinction. The term "self-propelled gun" avoids as much confusion as possible — though it is still somewhat ambiguous. Furthermore штурмовые орудия is simply the literal translation of German Sturmgeschütze, "assault guns" — which term can't be used because any American reading it would think an assault rifle was meant, though we do have an article assault gun :o). And now I will change "mechanised" into "self-propelled", if someone didn't beat me to it.

Very useful link BTW!--MWAK 19:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And after perusing the relevant tables first I see that the Panzerjäger are subsumed under Противотанковые орудия на самоходных лафетах, so Sturmgeschütze is the correct translation only. Which saves me from changing it again :o). --MWAK 19:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. The study by M.I.Meltyukhov is really interesting, so in case you're a Russian speaker, it would be worthy of using this new material in wikiarticles such as Operation Barbarossa. Constanz - Talk 13:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I speak Dutch — and with great effort I can read a bit of Russian. I used to be better at it in the Cold War days, but I've lost that competence over the years by lack of practice. Peace doesn't only bring dividends...But Meltyukhov hasn't found a pre-emptive attack order by Stalin, has he? :o) In any case you're right in that the article still gives too much the "Liddell Hart" version of events. I'll give my opinion on the talk page of Operation Barbarossa.--MWAK 14:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I see: "стремлением упредить своих противников в развертывании вооруженных сил для нанесения первых ударов более крупными силами и захвата стратегической инициативы с самого начала военных действий" has rendered the predictable confusion :o).--MWAK 11:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Babelfish: 'by the tendency to forestall its enemies in the development of armed forces for putting first impacts by larger forces and the seizure of strategic initiative from the very beginning of military actions. See link on Viktor Suvorov page for review of Meltyukhov's book. As for my opinion on then WW2 matter, I've made some comments on Suvorov discussion page. BTW, Meltyukhov's study includes document by Soviet Army leadership, suggesting (immediate) Soviet offensive.

It should be noted, that for obvious rerasons the possibility of finding a detailed invasion plan or a similar document is next to zero -- the successive Soviet authorities were hardly interested in maintaining such documents. For plans, see section Список фотографий и схем Constanz - Talk 15:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

And I'll give my two cents there too :o).--MWAK 08:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've created article on Stalin's Missed Chance. Constanz - Talk 11:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry me Holland

Sorry for bad grammar. Me Dutch and sometimes making much mistakes. Andries 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Me Brabant. Me make big heap bad heap time.--MWAK 08:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

'Our article'

I've putt some work in Battle of the Netherlands today, and I just think we're coming closer and closer to that featured article status  :-)

But you said you wanted it to be expanded.What are you thinking of? (maybe I can help)

Sandertje 13:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort. But why not just try to make a good article :o)? Personally I don't care whether it's "featured" or not, as long as I am happy with it. And trying to make it featured brings little benefit yet much danger. Are featured articles more often read? I doubt it. But their claim to excellence annoys the semi-literate who then in his spite tries to demolish them ;o).

As to the expansion: I've really been waiting for a copy of a new edition of a certain book, to make sure my edits reflected the latest data. But I might as well write it at once and emend later; that's my favourite method and it's more fun :o)

Greetings, --MWAK 14:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (whose ego, by the way, is so big you shouldn't worry about it being hurt ;o)

The Featured thing is just a matter of feeding my ego. :-) and more people will read it ...

Anyway I'm not in a hurry on that ..

Sandertje 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I fear any article is read by surprisingly few people :>/ That's why there is no hit counter ;o)--MWAK 16:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Renault tank

Hi there! I was wondering why the price previously mentioned was so low... 190,000 francs is roughly 5000 1939 US dollars. At the same time the 7TP had the price of 43,500 US dollars (1939, armed), the Vickers E was sold to Finland for 21,000 dollars each (unarmed)... Even the tiny TKS tankette had the price of roughly 9000 dollars (1939). I doubt the French tank could be that cheap.

As for sources, there is a pretty page devoted to tanks at http://derela.republika.pl/. Check their prices page for details. Halibutt 16:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this interesting information! The 190,000 FF price (for the complete hull only: the turret added another 100,000) is exact and comparable to many similar prices in other French tank contracts. Of course in 1935 there had been for many years a strong deflation of the dollar, making it very strong against the FF. This was from 1936 worsened by a deliberate French policy of devaluation (see: http://www.indiainfoline.com/mony/twen.html) until the FF was fixed against the dollar on 9 September 1939 at 43.8 to 1. These exchange rates didn't reflect internal value though: they were an artificial instrument to stimulate French exports. This explains how the French were able to produce the entire R 35 at about 500,000 FF in 1939: the real value of the materials and labour used was about $30,000, not $12,000. The FF was undervalued about 2.5 times! This seems incredible by today's standards but was sustainable because the French could obtain raw materials from their empire at production costs, not market prices. As your data shows they did demand a realistic price from the Poles, in this case export stimulation apparently being of secondary concern :o). A sad consideration is that Germany, not having colonies, couldn't devaluate comparably, making Hitler anxious to find a foreign military solution to his domestic economic problems. --MWAK 20:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That solves the riddle ;). I took the liberty to transform your comment at my talk page into a note, just in case anyone wondered why the price was 10 times lower. Halibutt 22:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent changes! However I am still a bit puzzled by the fact the site you referred to seems to give a price of 1,400,000 FF for the entire tank. It also says "updated" behind the R 35 entry: could it be the 1,900,000 for the hull only is from an earlier version you read?--MWAK 10:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, previously it claimed the price was 1,900,000 (after Jeleń&Szubański's work, obviously). Could you correct that? Halibutt 15:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have done so :o).--MWAK 07:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

AMR 35

If I'm not mistaken, you added "in March 1936 twelve were ordered by China and four a few months later by the Yuan province administration" to the article of AMR 35. I'm doing some clean up on yuan because it can mean a number of things. I don't think there's any Chinese provinces called Yuan. Can you verify please? --Chochopk 01:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right: it was a typo for "Yunan" :oS. Thank you for pointing it out!--MWAK 08:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of France

Huge apologies, mea culpa. I'd found amends by 71.146.153.48 to the casualty figures that looked nonsense (as did this editor's amends to other articles); I thought I'd just reverted that. Not sure what went wrong, unless we were editing at the same time. I'll do the repairs, serve me right. Folks at 137 16:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That explains it all :o). Thank you for your effort — especially in guarding against vandalism!--MWAK 16:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

With reference to our recent chat on who was the victor of the battle I thought you might appreciate this:

"IN THE summer of 1939 von Ribbentrop told Churchill, "If there’s war, the Italians will fight on Germany’s side." After a pause Churchill replied, "That’s fair; we had them last time."[2]

--Philip Baird Shearer 18:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly true that in both wars they were more of a liability than an asset :o). But is it a true story?--MWAK 23:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to present you with the Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award for your contributions to many aspects, especially French, of military history. Oberiko

Keep up the good work MWAK! Oberiko 03:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the honour and I'll do my best!--MWAK 06:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Leopard 2

Leopard 2 since A4 at least features tungsten (though I don't know for sure in what form) in its turret armor. It also features ceramic inserts in the hull and turret. Therefore it would not be incorrect to state that the armor configuration includes both tungsten and ceramic materials. Of course, if we want to keep it less detailed not knowing the specifics or what other materials the armor may or may not include, we could simply state that the armor is "composite". Exel 07:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is those "ceramic inserts" aren't ceramic tiles, whereas most people would assume they are.--MWAK 07:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't go into the specifics of the armor layout, but what people assume is largely irrelevant to the point. The fact is that Leopard 2 has ceramics as one component of its armor configuration, and thus it is not wrong to say that it indeed includes ceramics. Exel 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, what people assume is far from irrelevant: this is an encyclopedia and readers shouldn't be deceived by ambivalent wording.--MWAK 05:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for cooperation

Hi MWAK,

I'm planning on starting an article about 'Dutch millitary history' and because our battle of the Netherlands worked out so well (me rough sketches, you -very much-details and refining) I was hoping you'd help me again. Sander 12:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Why, of course! However, I must warn you that my knowledge about events earlier than the 20th century is rather limited. But I should be able to contribute something worthwile about more recent developments.--MWAK 13:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Here's the link.I believe your 'vakgebied' is waiting for you ;-) Military history of the Netherlands Sander 14:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, its certainly an inclusive article so far! :o). When your narrative has reached the year 1900 I'll kick in ;o)--MWAK 14:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll see you then! Sander 14:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Question concerning Military history of the Netherlands

You said you'd join in when the article reaches the 20th century, and I have a question that could affect the article in the future.

I'm pretty sure you're expertise is most present in the area covering the second world war, of course you'll know that this war wasn't limited to the Netherlands, but also happened in it's colonies...most notably the Dutch indies.

What would you advise? Trying to fitt in all colonial happenings throughout the article, or create a separate section within the article concerning all colonial affairs? Sander 20:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best to fit them in, especially as colonial rivalry was at the heart of most conflicts the Dutch had between 1610 and 1940, 1941 to 1945 and again between 1945 and 1962 :o).--MWAK 06:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I hit the 20th century ;-) Sander 15:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

About the H35/38/39

You made "my" article much better. I was the lazy one... I practically copied it out of a book on tanks. You basically rewrote it. User:ATK102587 20:24, 12, April 2006

Well, I too basically copy material, just rephrasing it a bit, so we're no different ;o). But, as I said, I 'm glad I have been slowly able to make accessible to the larger public some of the newer information available in the latest published French sources. It's very bizarre how general books on tanks simply keep repeating outdated information, sometimes parotting mistakes of over seventy years old! --MWAK 07:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello check this out

Hello I have made a request for comment on Kurt Leyman and I need people to sign the request and also to sign on the specific page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kurt_Leyman

(Deng 03:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

Well, I have to admit Kurt can be at times a bit troublesome and he certainly has a limited ability to engage in rational discussion. However I am convinced his edits do not constitute vandalism because he sincerely believes they are correct. Indeed it is his obstinacy combined with a lack of good judgement that makes him such a bother. But a selective memory, inability to judge the value of sources, poor background knowledge and incoherency of thought are not enough to exclude someone. These things are relative and none of us is free from these defects. I've often noticed that after some careful explanation he slowly begins to understand he might have been wrong. And some of his edits are simply correct. The name of the aggressor in WWII was not "Nazi Germany"; it was just Germany that did it, not some special entity where all the dirt of history can safely be locked away. And Italy did attack France and Slovakia did participate in Fall Weisz. So as the work of Kurt is not completely detrimental, I think we ought to overcome his deficiencies in the direct way, by the bothersome process of correcting mistakes — which is the essence of Wikipedia.--MWAK 09:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaur articles

Hi MWAK, I've noticed lately you've contributed to a lot of the WP articles on dinosaurs. Thanks! If you're interested, you could sign on to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs -- we are in need of good editors such as yourself. Well, I hope you will consider it. And keep those contributions coming! Thanks again, --Firsfron 07:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC) :)

I'll do my best! :o). Most of the edits have their origin in the Dutch wikipedia, where I add all new species and slowly build up all the relevant clade concepts. Sadly I really don't have the time to join the Wikiproject in a more formal way.

Greetings, --MWAK 06:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It's nice, though, to see someone working quite well 'behind the scenes', so to speak. Keep it up! :) --Firsfron 16:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Working behind the scenes" is the story of my life :o).--MWAK 06:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Dragons are descendants of dinosaurs, not birds. That's democracy, the most popular belief prevails over the most articulated... It might that it turns good though... Idiocracy of creationists might not be as bad as Stalinism (where the "theory" of evolution leads due to creationists). Have a nice day and convert for your sins or you shall burn in Hell (or if you are an atheist, as your unedjucated belief in the heratic "theory" of evolution indicates, you shall be simply burnt on a stake by righteous God-fearing people). Working behind the scenes is the method of the one who must not be named (and I do not mean Sauron), shame on you tool of the you know who! --Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are the creationists in Greece that bad? :o) But seriously: evolutionism can easily turn as malicious as even the worst creationist and indeed did: racism between 1870 and 1945 was largely founded upon it. Both the creationist and the materialist are mistaken: the fact of evolution has few implications for metaphysics. And as one working behind the scenes I see many an evil entity lurking there also ;o)--MWAK (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Char B-1

Hi MWAK, I posted a few questions on the Char B-1 discussion page and would be grateful if you could reply. I admit the questions are rather obscure but if anyone knows the answers, you will. Thank you DMorpheus 18:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll do my best :o).--MWAK 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

L2A6 Talk

Hey thanks for the reply. So, since you're the expert, what tank do you think is the best of all the modern MBTs? I feel as though the M1A2 is getting out-dated, and that the people behind it are not thinking outside of the box. Instead, they just add more armor and nothing like laser jamming or laser blinding optics like the Type 99. So... what's your thoughts? Please reply to my talk page.--Hellogoodsir 15:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I make no claim as to being an expert :o). For a rich country the Leopard 2 is probably the most efficient tank. The individual M1A2 is a bit more effective. The US-Army has more or less made public it has an (semi)active defence package to update the M1 in case of war with a high-tech opponent. We may assume this at the very least includes the features you mentioned. A similar package is available for the Leopard 2. Personally I think what the M1 needs, certainly when fighting the Iraqi guerilla, is in fact even more armour to protect the lower hull sides.--MWAK 07:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So, if you could, what order you would list all modern tanks in performance or K/D ratio from top to bottom, generally speaking. Might want to leave the Merkava out since it is designed more to safety in urban environment. I'm not sure how well it would mend in field warfare with tanks.

In my opinion, I would rather be in a T-90. Would you consider it's turret design superior? Do the angles deflect/disintegrate KE rounds well? Also, what would it's radar jamming system be effective against, beside tows and small AT rockets by infantry? I don't know much about radar jamming :(

I've got a few questions still though. Is the Type 98/99 a superior match for the M1 or any European MBT? Do fire control system vary much, or are they practically the same? I know some tanks have a few more sensors or different one that others, but they shouldn't vary in performance right?

If you don't want to reply, you don't have to.--Hellogoodsir 23:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether my answers will be very informative, but I'll do my best:

1. Making lists is basically meaningless. I would lose all credibility if started to do that :o). Not that there aren't scientific models, but even these are dubious. However I can state that the Merkava would be a very dangerous opponent. That it in all probability isn't fitted with Chobham armour doesn't mean much.
2. The high opinion many have of the protection of the T-90 stems from a severe underestimation of the armour protection of the Leopard 2 and the MA1. It is true though that the T-90 has an excellent armour-inner space ratio. But it has a dangerous weak spot around the mantlet, which happens to be the spot most likely to be hit. Its forms are not optimised for deflection — modern penetrators don't deflect easily — and the inner armour structure is unsophisticated by western standards. Its protection strongly depends on the ERA. Radar jamming would have no effect on TOWs or RPGs at all (the former use by definition an optical system ;o). Jamming, in its various forms, would be most useful to defeat an integrated battlefield management system. But preventing a lock-on by large radarguided missiles can be handy too.
3. We can only speculate about the Type 98 and 99 but I doubt it would be superior. Indeed it would be quite a feat to make it equal.
4. Fire control systems vary strongly in their performance. Why else keep improving them? :o) It is not just a matter of reaction speed in a single typical engagement, but of course also of accounting for many variables as movement, weather conditions and system conditions, not to mention the tactical conditions.--MWAK 06:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the reply! So like all tanks, they have their draw backs. After reading some of your stuff, I think I'd be comfy in the L2A6. Someone really needs to link thay keyword to the Leopard 2 article. I play Battlefield 2, and there is a booster pack that added the Leapord 2 tank. It's called the L2A6 ingame, so I'm used to that. Best tank in the game IMO. I read somewhere were you explained perforated armor, and that was helpful.

I'm wondering, with the current design of the M1A2, if any composite armor could be modified to improve armor strength. Adding depleted uranium in the armor didn't seem to do much. Thanks for your reply though.--Hellogoodsir 08:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever tried playing Steel Panthers? It is excellent in giving a very good impression of the tactical abilities of tanks. And it's great fun :o). Regarding the armour of the M1, it should be emphasized that the DU modules enormously improved the protection level. The first Burlington package of the original M1 apparently consisted of alumina and seems to have been designed with the steel penetrators of the T-62 in mind. Replacing half of it with a feet of DU mesh should have more than doubled the protection. The newer silicon carbide tiles are of course optimised to defeat HEAT — and very good at it — but they also have a much improved toughness and special resistance to KE-penetrators due to their being under constant compression by their titanium matrix. Given the volume of the M1 and a weight constraint of about 64 metric tons it should be possible to make the front of the turret immune to all presently used KE-rounds. And there's still room for improvement, e.g. by adding carbon nanotubes to the composite material.--MWAK 11:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You're my hero! When it comes to tanks at least. Anyways, you're a really nice guy. Thanks for the info and helpful insight. So how large of a mortar would you need to penetrate the top turret of the many modern MBTs? I read somewhere that a few Merkavas were damaged/disabled by mortars, which I'm not sure as I skimmed his post and was not sure how reliable the person was.

So I play Battlefield 2, and I was playing the booster pack Euro Forces (a while back, like in late 05?). They included two tanks into the game: L2A6 and the Challenger 2. Well, not knowing much about tanks (never seen a MBT up close in real life except this M1 but they had Marines around it and they scared me because of them trying to recruit). So I had nothing to compare it to except other tanks in the game. But, when I first saw the L2A6, I was impressed by it's size (bigger than the M1 in the game, not sure in real life). Then, I saw the Challenger 2 and wow, it was HUGE! It was like self-propelled howitzer. I didn't think of it much, nor looked into it (and not like I could visualize it or confirm it's authenticity to it's real life counter-part), and just played.

I decided to actually look into it, and yea, the wikipedia measurements as listed show the L2 to be slightly larger than the Challenger 2, but in the game, it was more than "a little" bigger than the L2. So, I took some in-game pics: http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c42/Phrozenbot/screen036.png L2A6 next to the Challenger 2 http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c42/Phrozenbot/screen037.png Another, except from the back http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c42/Phrozenbot/screen042.png T-90 next to the Challenger 2 http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c42/Phrozenbot/screen046.png Same, but different angle

So anyways, as being out of proportion, you think the tanks are done fairly well? I have no idea why the tanks are so dark. Even though the ground is like chocolate brown on that map, they didn't have to make it so dark because the sun is already dim. On one map, the L2A6 almost looks black under some shadows. I think these people need to be mugged! Do you agree with me MWAK? :p--Hellogoodsir 06:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the compliments! They make me feel a little embarrassed... To answer your questions: the roof of tanks is protected to HE shells up to about 122 mm calibre. So you would need a pretty large mortar, e.g. the 160 mm, to crack the top armour. The Merkava is better protected than most tanks against such top attack, because it has the engine in the front under the sloped main armour. Indeed the Challenger is out of proportion — or perhaps the other tanks are too small :o). The dark colour might reflect the fact that in wartime MBT's would be painted as dull as possible, with special radiation absorbing coatings. They wouldn't look like the Greek tanks seen here: http://greekmilitary.net/greekmbtanks.htm (you have to scroll down a bit to see the really gaudy examples). This pattern is decribed as "including a sienna earth colour, adapted to the mediterranean landscape". Most people I've met consider it to be just orange :o).--MWAK 07:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh that was a quick reply. Are you from Europe? Just wondering.

About them tanks. Well, I couldn't really tell because I know the T-90 is small (it's smaller than the M1 and about the same size as the Type 98), but didn't know how small. Besides the EU tanks, they are all bright and reflect light proportionally (show darker with less light, show brighter with more light). Even on one of the brighter maps, which only features the Challenger 2, it's still kinda dark but looks a lot better then on this map. But that makes sense, except they didn't do it to the other tanks unless they don't have them. I really like that orange camo though!

Do you know much about attack helicopters? Just wondering, because they are interesting too. I like the Tiger HAP and Mi-28 Havoc.--Hellogoodsir 09:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm Dutch :o). I don't know a lot about attack helicopters, just that people tend to overrate their importance. They form a serious potential danger to tanks, but are themselves rather vulnerable. And very expensive.--MWAK 10:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought so. I know a few Dutch people; very friendly.

You're right, but I think if they execute their mobility better and strike at longer ranges, they wouldn't be as vulnerable. I've read about how apaches did get scuffed up by small arms and 50 cals in Afghanistan, and the Apache is no light attack helo. Attack jets with close air support like the A-10 have done wonders against enemy tanks, but we have yet to see one being blown up against a tank like the L2A6 or the M1A2. Both can hit, or supposedly, helicopters and low flying (and slow of course) aircraft. I just wonder what the success rate would be.

Anyways, I like you but I don't want to bug you. So, talk to you some other time.--Hellogoodsir 10:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Vågen

Nice work on the expansion of this article! It is one of the few articles where I put in significant effort in the initial versions, but I was always interested in seeing if people had anything else interesting to add to it (as well as explaining some things like Teddiman's rejection of the fort's offer and so). I am delighted to see your improvements to it. Thanks! Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No thanks! I based the new edits largely on Warnsinck's short article De Slag in de baai van Bergen, but he has written a whole book on the subject, which I haven't read yet. So perhaps in the future there will be some more expansion. Frederick also seems to have made some very complicated diplomatic moves which I'd like to analyse.--MWAK 06:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no "het" in Middle Dutch

Hi MWAK,

In middle Dutch there most certainly was "het".However, not in all variants, I believe the (though I'd have to check) Brabantian and limburgian variants (as it was not a unified language) had no "het" but a variant on "da(s/t)" instead. In Hollandic and West Flemish/Zealandic however it was most certainly present, most likely a Frisian influence.So, the way I see it, we're both right ;-) I propose we keep it though, otherwise we, in all fairness, would have to make the 5 different tabs of pronouns. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 09:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm Brabantian so that explains it all ;o)--MWAK 12:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? Let me guess, you live east of Breda? Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 15:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed.--MWAK 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought you did. You see, most (nearly all really) Brabantian dialects east of Breda (de harde H varianten) don't have a het form natively.

Which only seems to corroborate the old suspicion the h was only put there as a hypercorrection ;o).--MWAK 07:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh, (to avoid confusion ;-) with "harde H" I wasn't pointing at a variant of "het" but on the pronounciation of "houdoe", East of Breda the "H" is clearly noticable, while in the West of Brabant they say something more like "auwdoe". Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 07:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Appeal of June 18

Thanks for answering my question about the timeline at the end of the Battle of France and so forth, and for editing the articles that had it wrong. I also had some questions about de Gaulle's Appeal of June 18; maybe you know the answer to that as well? In particular there is a discrepancy between the English and French versions of the article. See Talk:Appeal of June 18#Time zone and fr:Discuter:Appel du 18 Juin#Quel fuseau horaire?. --Mathew5000 08:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the appeal was made at 18:00 local time, 19:00 French time. So the French article is apparently simply wrong in giving a time of 22:00. I've not been able to find out which British ministers opposed for what reasons — though they were probably the obvious ones ;o).--MWAK 06:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you honour us with your presence?

I'm currently trying to get a Dutch military task force started, would you join us? From what I've seen on the Battle of the Netherlands article, you could most certainly provide a (more than) worthy contribution.

If you're interested, and I hope you are, please drop a note at this talk page Cheers,  Rex  16:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, but I simply lack the time to commit myself to anything.--MWAK 09:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you really sure? Because the level of commitment isn't that high, and I don't think anything will be done in a hurry.  Rex  12:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure :o).--MWAK 06:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of War

I've recently made an article, German declaration of war against the Netherlands (May 10 1940), and I was wondering if you might want to take a look at it, maybe you can spot errors I didn't see. Rex 14:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to contribute if possible.--MWAK 07:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about an unblocking of Sarcelles in the German Wikipedia

Hi MWAK,

please comment on my behaviour at

[3]

Kind regards, Sarcelles 19:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally have always found you to be an intelligent and constructive contributor. However I have no experience with you on the German wiki, so I don't feel qualified to judge your behavior there.--MWAK 08:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Glorious Revolution

Many thanks for contributing so much to Glorious Revolution BillMasen 14:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Being Dutch I just considered it appropriate to highlight the Dutch involvement. For some reason this aspect is often somewhat neglected ;o).--MWAK 15:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Add my thanks to the above - your consistent efforts are admirable on that wikipage. Cheers! Raymondwinn (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm honoured by your praise...--MWAK (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

King of Germany and Rex Romanorum

King of Germany and Rex Romanorum are really the same thing: i.e.: the emperor-elect of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. The title changed over time; early on it was "King of Germany", later on "King of the Romans". I think it had to do with the fact that the King of France also clained the title "King of the Romans"; after all: Both were successors of Charlemagne who got the title from the pope in the first place. But at some point in time those sensitivities were brushed aside, and the title "King of the Romans" became the sole attribute of the Holy Roman Empire. In Holland Willem is always called Rooms Koning, the title Koning van Duitsland is never used. JdH 10:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, within a 13th century context the two concepts seem to be identical. I was mistaken in not noticing this. Thanks for the info!--MWAK 11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Munsell color system

Hi MWAK. I've been greatly expanding the Munsell color system article, but I have for now commented out your couple of paragraphs of "criticism," given that they don't really seem supported by the sources, and give a very misleading impression to the reader (without balancing information explaining Munsell's tremendous influence). I think it would be worth splitting "influence" into its own section, and discussing the problems with the Munsell system's perceptual uniformity which later models tried to solve, as well as problems introduced by those later models. And it would be worth comparing Munsell to, e.g. CIECAM02. But I don't really have the expertise to do this full justice; maybe I'll try to enlist some professional color scientists to help out. Anyway, I responded to your comments on the Talk:Munsell color system page. Maybe you'd like toe have a look. --jacobolus (t) 00:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to my attention! I'll try to answer these issues on the talk page.--MWAK 06:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Non WP:EL link

Why did you revert this link back: *Article on DSTL/QinetiQ Chertsey and Longcross Test Track (Chobham Tank Research Centre) ? It doesn't look like a reliable source to me? --BozMo talk 22:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I reverted some vandalism and your edit went with it. But, regarding the wisdom of that edit, the info in the linked site seems quite accurate; also it isn't as such a "source" in relation to the article but simply something that might be of sufficient interest to the reader and relevant to the article subject. Such a link is not some sort of endorsement of the content of a site; each reader might judge for himself its validity — as you did :o).--MWAK 05:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Renault UE Chenillette

MWAK, you are the only person I know who may know this: Can you help me with the deployment of the UE in French Infantry Regiments in 1940? I have the following: "Le RI normal dispose de 9 chenillettes : 6 à la C.H.R., 3 à la CRE (*). "

I take it this means each Infantry Regiment had 9 UEs, of which 6 were employed in the CHR (Resupply company?) and 3 in the CRE - what is a CRE please? Repair company perhaps?

Also: " Les RI motorisés disposent de 18 chenillettes ; 2 par CA mortiers), 6 à la CE (1 par canon de 25), 6 à la CHR."

So Mechanized Infantry Regiments had 18 UEs, but what are the sub-units? Two in a mortar platoon? 6 towing 25mm AT guns? 6 CHR (again is that a supply company) ?

Thanks a lot DMorpheus 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, DMorpheus! Why, of course I am perfectly acquainted with such basic knowledge — but for some strange reason had to look it up nevertheless ;o). It transpires that CHR means Compagnie Hors Rang, CRE Compagnie Régimentaire d'Engins and CA Compagnie d'Accompagnement. See here for further details: http://alain.adam.perso.cegetel.net/R%E9giment%20type%20NE.pdf ; the site this is part of, http://alain.adam.perso.cegetel.net/fran%E7ais4.html#bataillon_inf, will answer all conceivable questions about French army organisation in 1940 (and then some) — but beware: despite all efforts it still contains some errors, so I can't guarantee the answers given are correct :o)

Greetings, --MWAK 20:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot DMorpheus 14:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Birds history section

Back from my vacation, I have started work on origin of birds again. I've rewritten the history section and I think it's now very complete. Mind critiquing it? I'm wondering in particular if it should be broken up by subheadings. Sheep81 00:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You've done an excellent job! I'll add some little details ;o). Most people would probably prefer to have subheadings in a text of this length, though this doesn't conform to my personal taste.--MWAK 06:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those little tidbits, I had no idea what Heilmann's work was titled in Danish! I've added some subheadings to kind of break up the text a little bit. Had to split one paragraph to make it work. Dinoguy2 suggested adding some more information on other authors who supported the thecodont hypothesis pre-Ostrom. Does that book you referenced happen to have any examples (I'm thinking major guys like Romer, Simpson, etc.) You can let me know or just add it in if it does. Thanks!! Sheep81 07:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The book doesn't cover these subjects. It's only a work of popular science — but for that very reason useful as a higher level reference. The issue is as such very important, because the fact that researchers between 1926 and 1973 described the likely bird ancestors as "thecodonts" is misleading. It should be remembered that the Dinosauria were at the time considered to be a paraphyletic group and (or: because) many thought birds were more closely related to the Saurischia than to the Ornithischia. This means that in modern cladistic terms they considered birds to be the sistergroup of Eusaurischia, as "basal" saurischian dinosaurs! I'll try to find some good references. --MWAK 06:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Leyman

I'm having trouble with this user on the Battle of france page. I see you have had trouble with him yourself. Can we do something about him?Dapi89 21:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not appreciate this "maybe we can down him together" effort of your's, especially because you say, "I see you have had trouble with him yourself.", while I cannot think of such, a conclusion to which I came upon checking his edit history for this year. The only problem in the article which involves you and me at the moment is that you persist with your view. The fact that Italy as a country could have been better prepeared for World War II is irrelevant to this case. The reason for the Italian invasion of southern France not getting far is because the Italian Army Group West (as a side note, even if Italy's economy and so on would have been prepeared for the war, it would not have helped in this case if time is not given for your army, which is supposed to invade another country, to organize and plan properly for this particular invasion.) had very little time to prepeare for the invasion. Mussolini quite literally ordered it to attack without warning time, givng very little time for wider planning and organizing. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 04:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but obviously if the general Italian preparedness had been better, the short preparation time would have been less detrimental — and indeed the Italian army was in a low state of operational readiness just because the commanders didn't expect to make a short effort given the general poor preparedness. So there are clear causal connections between the two, pointed out by several writers.--MWAK 04:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree fully. In any case one would have to give at least some time for the invading army for an invasion, not Mussolini's time when he decided to invade southern France. Even if Mussolini had noted earlier (do not take the form very seriously) "Hey, peeps! I have a feeling that I might declare a war in short time, so get ready!", you would not get an army that would be prepeared for particular invasion. Thefore, if Mussolini had given time for the army, the invasion could have gone better, even with Italy's situation in June 1940. This is why I belive that the current version; "Adding to this grave situation, Italy declared war on France and Britain on 10 June, but made little impact during the fighting's last twelve days as the Italian army in Northern Italy did not have enough time to prepeare for the attack before being ordered to advance by Mussolini. Mussolini was aware of this and sought to profit from the Germans successes" is better. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 04:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Kurt, No way. I have never POV pushed. This is not Pov it was sourced. Its impossible to have a POV on this situation as it is an accepted fact that the Italians were unprepared. The sentence you suggest is a mouth full and the one you replaced is short and to the point. The arguement is not about whether the Italians were unprepared or not. Unless your prepared to go into great detail, which I am, on the page about the state of the armed forces, a very short discription is all that needs to be there.

Secondly this user has discussed you before - check this talk page under Hello check this out heading. Dapi89 09:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

Firstly, let me emphasize what I said under that heading was meant to support Kurt, even though my analysis of the way he functions on Wikipedia may seem very harsh. I hope he can understand I was at the time using rhetoric to make my point more clear: that however negatively we may think of him, his shortcomings are simply those shared by everyone. As regards the issue at hand, perhaps it's good to realise that the Italian army was given a certain preparation time, as there was a gap of over nine days between the declaration of war and the actual beginning of the offensive. Also there is a simple solution to the problem: simply mentioning both aspects!--MWAK 11:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you!

Thanks for your great work on the Tjerk Hiddes de Vries-article; you greatly improved it! 84.87.138.105 10:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :o).--MWAK 12:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Second Anglo-Dutch War

Hallo, wie du sehen kannst habe ich eine englische Version der Karte eingestellt. Die andere Karte war absolut ungeeignet, weil darauf die mordernen Staatsgrenzen eingezeichnet sind. Der deutsche Artikel dazu kandidiert übrigens seit gestern als Exzellenter Artikel. Vielleicht möchtest du dort auch stimmen. Bis später, --Memnon335bc 21:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adapting your map! But I don't think the other map is unsuitable: it has the advantage of showing the Bergen site also and providing a more general geographical context. For us the location is of course at once obvious; for someone in China it might well not be. Why not use both maps? The more maps the merrier :o)!--MWAK 07:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This argument is hardly to follow. The map also doesn't show the African theatre as well as the West Indies or the far East, althrough there were fighting, too. But what it does show is the wrong borders of the states, for they are after WW2. (someone from China might not relise that ...) If it had shown Europe in 1665 I'd not complained, but the way, it was, it was simply wrong. And we don't want an article to provide wrong information, do we? --Memnon335bc 08:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memnon335bc (talk • contribs)

Indeed: a map of the entire world would be even better. But as long as we don't have one, this one is still quite useful. That the modern borders are shown, is a minor imperfection. He who knows of it, might be annoyed; but the ignorant will be mainly interested in the naval battles.--MWAK 11:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Pepys's or Pepys'?

You made a change from Pepys' to Pepys's on the Medway raid article. I am interested to know why you made this choice - The City of Rochester Society publication is consistent in using Pepys' while the Magdelen college Camb site uses Pepys's. The Wikipedia article on Samual Pepys uses both. ClemRutter 23:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I simply applied the convention that s' is reserved for the plural genitive and s's is used for the singular genitive. Wouldn't it also be pronounced as "Peepses"?--MWAK 07:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My only grammar book Thompson and Martinet, A Practical English Grammar- OUP 1960 ISBN 0 19 431323 9, is not conclusive. On page 9 para 10.2 Possessive case it says:

A simple apostrophe (') is used with plural naouns ending in s: the girls' school

Classical names ending in s and also some less common English names add only the apostrophe: Archimedes' Law, Hercules' Club, Keats' Poetry

So there we have it- decisively inconclusive.

on the pronunciation issue- I do say "Peeps" not "Peepses" but that is hardly a good test- round here in the land of the "Glo'al Stop" near "Landn" it would be "Pee's". —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 08:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, should we not not reason like this: "As a general rule for the singular s's is used. There are however some exceptions, such as classical and some uncommon names. We are uncertain whether "Pepys" qualifies as such an uncommon name. Therefore the general rule applies and "Pepys's" is correct"?--MWAK 11:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically, no. There is a description on Apostrophe 1.1.2 that makes interesting reading- but when it comes down to it the Guardian jumps one way and the Independant the other. The case that of St James'Park (London) and St James's Park (Newcastle) which do have established spellings, is cited while in the States with 3 exceptions all geographical names ommit the case ending and would be St James park. In Medway we do have a road Pepys Way. Jesus's name is spelt that way in the King James's Bible but, it is Jesus' name that is used in the New English Bible. So I use the WP:Life's too short principle.ClemRutter 11:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So we are forced to make a real choice. Then perhaps we would best honour Pepys by considering his name as sufficiently exceptional to warrant Pepys' :o).--MWAK 13:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dutch Raid on the Medway

That was a fantastic editing session- I enjoyed reading it. Do you have the citation, could you add the <.ref> <./ref>.ClemRutter 11:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't ended yet; I merely took a break to fulfil my religious and alimentary duties :o). I'll also give a reference.--MWAK 13:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I, Major Bonkers hereby award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for your excellent work on Holmes's Bonfire.

--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll (tirelessly :o) expand it somewhat further.--MWAK 09:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This must be the greatest ever naval victory, in terms of number of ships sunk and/or economic loss caused(?), especially when viewed against the negligable English losses. Interestingly, when I was at school, we were all taught that the Second Anglo-Dutch war was a stalemate which ended in the humiliation of the Medway Raid. However, I believe that there is a good case for saying that the war itself, largely due to this action, was an English victory. The four Anglo-Dutch wars were primarily aimed at degrading/ destroying Dutch commercial maritime supremacy, and in this they succeeded. My background is insurance, and even today a loss like this would be catastrophic: I suspect that this raid had equally catastrophic results, possibly/ probably even pushing the Dutch economy into a recession.--Major Bonkers (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I presume some sea battles in Antiquity exceeded this event in scope. In The Netherlands children are taught the "Second English War" was a great Dutch victory :o). It all depends on the criteria. Their short-term war aims were not attained, so in this respect the English lost. It is certainly true the war grievously hurt the Dutch economy. But then it hurt the English even more — apart from the Plague and the Fire, they lost more merchantmen in absolute terms to privateering, while having a much smaller fleet — and the Dutch economy soon recovered. Losses to the Dutch mercantile fleet combined with loss of trade profits amounted to about fifty million guilders; export of fish and home-made goods also sharply declined; 42 million guilders were spent on the Navy. British naval expenses were about the same, perhaps slightly more, depending on the estimate of the exchange ratio between the respective currencies. Their economic losses were more severe in absolute terms at about twenty million pounds (120-170 million guilders); then again, having a larger agricultural base, they were less vulnerable to trade losses. Whether the wars had any long-term effects is a hotly contested topic among historians. The truth is, we simply do not have sufficient data to decide these issues. It has been argued that English maritime ascendancy was caused by those shoals; Dutch merchantmen could not be made large enough to remain competitive in the 18th century :o).--MWAK 08:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One of my academic interests used to be in the 'insurance cycle' and correlating it to the stock market cycle (of boom and bust). By and large there was no correlation (in fact, a negative correlation) until you got extraordinarily destructive catastrophes (such as the Great Storm of 1987 and the Collapse of the World Trade Center) where the extent of the loss requires insurers to sell their assets (invested in the stock market) into a declining market (thus driving it lower in an ever-intensifying spiral). I very much suspect that you might have seen something similar with this loss; it would have been so disastrous as to bring down the economy with it. Regarding battles, both Salamis (allegedly) and Lepanto had greater loss of ships - Lepanto costing the Turks 137 vessels - so Holmes's Bonfire must be up there in the Lepanto class! However, these ships were, of course, battle vessels as opposed to trading vessels. Vessels such as the Batavia were extremely well constructed, and, therefore, expensive. The other problem was replacing them: when the British fired the Toulon dockyards in the Napoleonic Wars, the major casualty was not the loss of shipping but the loss of raw materials (primarily oak), which took years to replace.

In short, I expect that the loss of this shipping caused a wider stock-market crash and brought down various traders, insurers, etc. who were over-exposed. Replacing the shipping lost might have taken - say - 25 years. Given that the Dutch were in a race with the English for commercial shipping, this loss would have put them on the back foot to such an extent that they were never practically able to recover. Alas, this is all 'original research' and not allowed to be included in the article!

Incidentally, on the assumption that you are Dutch, this picture (right) was recently on show in London at the National Gallery - mention was made in the catalogue of the exhibition to the frame, which was not brought over, and apparently is a masterpiece of rococco design, featuring anchors and other naval motifs. Any chance of being able to upload a picture?!--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

On 1 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Holmes's Bonfire, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Major Bonkers (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm Dutch :o). Six exemplars of the painting were originally made by Bol, one for each of the six Admiralty offices (in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Middelburg, Harlingen, Enkhuizen en Hoorn, the Northern Quarter having two offices due to a rivalry between the last two cities). Three are still extant in The Netherlands, in the Mauritshuis, in Hoorn and in Amsterdam; one is at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich. The baroque frames are indeed gorgeous; alas, it is forbidden to use flashlights to photograph them! I'll see what I can do with a high sensitive mode on a digital camera...

As regards the effects of the raid on the Dutch economy, it's hard to say whether it had a long-term impact. Certainly it wouldn't as such have taken 25 years to replace the ships lost. The loss represented less than a quarter of merchantmen losses during the war — and these were less than 10% of the mercantile fleet, which of course was huge. And again, relative British losses were higher. Most writers seem to assume the Dutch economy had fully recovered by the time of the next war in 1672.--MWAK 09:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your 'DYK' success! I've looked up the picture in my catalogue of the show, and there (p.77) is a full-page photograph of the picture with frame! I'll try to scan and upload it later. According to the catalogue, only the Mauritshuis picture retains its original frame. You are aware that the ship portrait in the background, De Zeven Provinciën, is by Willem van de Velde the Younger?

I'm not sure quite how long it took to build a sailing vessel - certainly not shorter than two years, I'd have thought, and probably up to five. The raw materials were sourced from all over Europe (which is why, 150 years later, the British went to war with the Danes). Indeed, the English word 'spruce' (which was used for masts) derives from the Polish 'z Prus' (literally: 'from Prussia').--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer your rhetorical question. Yes thats about right. HMS Valiant (1759) which is featured in the Chatham Historic Dockyard Wooden Walls exhibition took 26 months from ordering to launch. While HMS Montagu (1779) took a month from launch to sea ready. Chatham was quick when it needed to be- I suspect that a repeat order, that could use the same moulds could shave a couple of months off of that time- making it posssible to have a sea ready vessel in under twenty four months. ClemRutter 11:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but one of the reasons for Dutch maritime dominance in the 17th century was that their wharfs were a lot more efficient than those of the competition. De Ruyter's flagship De Zeven Provinciën was built in less than eight months (ordered 11 December 1664, launched 29 July 1665), despite the fact that 47 other capital ships were under construction at the same time. Due to a severe winter the real work was only commenced in March and the States-General were much displeased by what they saw as a slow delivery. An average fluyt would be built in less than three months. Sometimes ships would be lost because the oak hadn't sufficiently dried and warped at full sea...--MWAK 13:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Van de Velde background used the theme of this drawing by Van de Velde the Elder: ; but we now know this drawing was originally of the Vrijheid and then changed and renamed. Sometimes painters use pre-fab parts too, just as Dutch wharfs :o).--MWAK 13:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Argh! My scanner (an A4 model) is just marginally too small to fit the image on! I'll have to go to a copy shop to get an A3 image. In the meantime... .--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Tank scandals

I can from the version history see that you are one of the main contributors to the Char 2C article. The text mentions some "tank scandals" that this tank was involved with, also, there are references to some similar scandal in the United States in 1944. What scandals are these? --MoRsE (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the American scandal was the fact that the Sherman hadn't been replaced with a more powerful tank, alternatively been upgraded sufficiently, in time for the Invasion, so that American tankers had to fight Panther and Tiger undergunned and underarmoured. Big row about it in Congress.

The nature of the British scandal of that time can be understood from the content of David Fletcher's work Great Tank Scandal: it has the entire British WWII tank development as its subject...--MWAK (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for clarifying to me. :) --MoRsE (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to William III of England

Hiya — I noticed your edit uses the abbreviation ZH, with which I'm unfamiliar — could you please clue me up? DBD 11:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In full it is the Dutch phrase Zijne Hoogheid, "His Highness". This was the familiar honorific for the Princes of Orange. It might be spelled in many variants in teh 17th century, e.g. Syne Hooghheit was also possible. For females it would be Hare Hoogheid.--MWAK (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in an English article, we use translated/transliterated forms, in this case, His Highness, abbreviated to HH, as it was before you changed it, so I hope you won't mind if I revert — P.S. it's more usual to reply on the other user's talk page DBD 18:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had overlooked the title was given in English :oS. And it is indeed more usual — but also making it much more difficult to reread the discussion!--MWAK (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

article structure consistency

Would like your input on the article structure I have developed for the series of articles dealing with Eastern Front operations. I am particularly concerned with the introduction section vs the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph is supposed to be a brief summary of the entire article, but I have found way too much information inserted in them in other articles, duplicating information in 'campaign boxes' and repeated in the introductions that follow Contents.

Below is a suggested standard structure for article taxonomy based more on the military terminology, and incorporating a way of describing an event that follows a more military event structure.

• ‘’’Introductory briefing’’’ (unnamed) – a short, one paragraph of no more then seven average length sentences, description of the article addressing the question when, where, who, why, larger context, significance, and outcome.) Using Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Describing conflicts would be helpful here.

+Contents (here)

• Role in the conflict – describes role of the event in the larger conflict. A war also has a context in a larger conflict since it usually evolves from non-armed forms of conflict such as social, cultural, political and economic conflicts.

• • Campaign situation – this describes the event in terms of a war's theatre campaign.
  • Strategic situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the campaign where an operation is the event
  • Operation situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the operation where a battle is the event
  • Battle situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the battle where an event describes a part of a tactical battle

• Decision making – after assessment of the situation comes the decision-making process that seeks to change the existing situation through securing of initiative by offensive action.

• • Goal of the operation – to change the situation one needs a situational change goal
  • Objective of the battle – at the tactical level the goal is called an objective
  • Side A intelligence – the first step is to gather understanding by the attacked (A) of the defender’s (D) capacity to resist
  • Side D intelligence – usually anyone suspicious of an attack will also gather intelligence on the likelihood of an impending attack

• Planning – after the intelligence is gathered, planning starts

• • Side A – description of planning should begin with a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
    • Forces involved – organisation of forces and their structural description (in modern times described as tables of equipment of organisation and equipment) need to be given
  • Side D
    • Forces involved

• Description of the Campaign/Strategic operation/operation/battle – this is the core part of the article. All military events have phased sequence that can be divided into:

• • Initial attack – describes initial execution of the plan
  • Progress of the offensive – describes success or failure of the plan
  • Decisive action – describes the instance when the plan has the greatest chance of success or failure, or the attempt to correct the divergence from the plan
  • Final commitment – any attempts to secure success or prevent failure of the plan
  • Outcomes – comparison of end result with the planned result of the event plan

• Consequences – the impact of the outcomes on events that follow, but which are not part of the above-described plan

• • Immediate effects – immediate effects that include changes in a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
  • Effects on future planning – describe effects on the planning in the larger scope of events

• Myths – often popular rendition or beliefs about the event that are either partly or completely false, or presented for the purpose of propaganda
• Memorials – a means of post event commemoration of the event
• Popular culture – depiction of the event in popular culture and media
• References – page reference in an authoritative source used to research the article content
• Footnotes – explanatory notes for points made in the article
• Bibliography – sources used for the compilation of research on the article
• See also – other Wikipedia articles related to the event
• Online resources – other online sites that relate to the event or its larger context
• Further reading – other sources not used for the research of the article but recommended to the reader

The purpose of the article structure suggested above is not to straight-jacket the authors and editors, but to enhance consistency of presentation throughout the project’s assortment of articles to the reader, and to enable the future editors to be more focused in the editing process by providing more focused sections in the article structure. Thank you--mrg3105mrg3105 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly many a user would have enhanced the quality of his contributions, had he but been guided by these rules :o). As long as they are indeed applied as guidelines and not as strict prescripts, they should work just fine. As regards the lead sections: yes, they are sometimes too long, containing too much information. However, the lead sections serve as abstracts of the main text, allowing the reader to be informed of the essence of the subject. If that subject is complicated, it might be necessary to make them quite a bit longer than seven sentences. The battleboxes are a mere extra — to be frank, their main purpose of being is esthetic. Ideally most of the information shown there should also be present in the main text.

There are a few points in which, I believe, your proposed structure is still wanting:

1. The structure is strictly hierarchical. That might make it too rigid. For example, you rightly indicate that wars take place within a sociopolitical context. However, this context will have its influences on all levels. Someone writing according to these guidelines might be tempted to mention the political aspects in a single sentence and then limit himself to more technical military aspects on a lower level. This might make it impossible to render the subject with the correct coherency. Especially on the Eastern Front decision-making was highly politicised, Hitler of course being infamous for micromanaging even the smallest units.
2. The way you present the military process is highly normative: one has goals, gathers the intelligence, makes decisions and plans accordingly. Now it is indeed a useful tool to analyse any actual event along this normative structure, but it should be kept in mind that these phases are mere idealisations. In reality all these processes take place synchronously and writing along normative lines might prevent a correct descriptive account — or worse, lead to improper value judgements (though there are also proper value judgments to make :o).
3. A final point I've pointed out to you before: it is not desirable to limit ourselves to the goals, intelligence, decisions, planning and operational action of the attacker. The defender too aspires, gathers information, resolves, prepares and handles his forces in action and his side of events is not in some way made less important by the mere fact that he will not start the battle. Now I'm not sure whether your structure does contain such a limitation, but I couldn't help noticing the Side A rules are a lot longer then those to be implemented for Side D ;o).

Greetings,--MWAK (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings indeed MWAK :o)

How's the wife and kids?

In any case, thank you for your comments. I may be unjustifiably strict, but I think that the author must exercise discipline in the introduction section and leave something for the reader to want to read on to. In the age of short attention span, learning everything from the introduction section of the article is not what encyclopedia writing is about IMHO :o)

I appreciate point 1. Also, I can not tell the authors or editors what to write! If the event warrants describing issues other then military, and at strategic level most did, then they need to research and incorporate that as part of the event article. Example, Hitler removes a field officer from command as a result of a reverse in fortunes. I can not force the author to elaborate on the sub-event, but I hope that some enterprising editor will do so eventually.

Point 2 is actually an issue of article format and not structure. It seems to me that use of columns to show the simultaneity of the various processes would be an advantage in understanding. The structure need not be hierarchical, or normative, but it simply asks the writer to conform to the general look-and-feel of the rest of the subject area and keep the reader in mind who may have interests outside of 'their' article.

The 'rules' for A are only explanations what I think should go there as a must, and is obviously not exhaustive to leave as much freedom for the author as possible (some minimum parameters are required in any design). I was too lazy to paste them for D with the expected understanding that same applies to both. Maybe I should have pasted after all. The only reason A's perspective comes first is because of the all-important initiative, and the factor of surprise, a factor that defined Eastern Front from start to finish (see Glantz, Soviet military deception in the Second World War). Of course this part is almost completely neglected, and is non-existent in most extant articles, which is maybe why you have this impression of impropriety of the attacker POV. In time my friend I hope that I will be able to bring out this factor to the fore in the articles, and it will become obvious that initiative in war is everything. I remain adamant that the baseline for article narrative perspective must be from the POV of the attacker. This is quite different from the WP:NPOV concept, and is probably closer to the literary concept of character creation, and indeed there are more 'characters' in a military operation then A and D. However, some baseline for narration has to be adopted by the author. If no consistent baseline is available then there is a distinct possibility for a WP:NPOV occurring, and this has already occurred in several articles, such as my most recent 'battle' to rename the Yassy-Kishinev operation.

In any case, I will see what others have to say, and try to reach consensus. I strongly believe that an encyclopaedia needs to have a consistent approach to content presentation. How that content is written is of course up to the editors :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 09:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We Wikipedians are all one happy family. Never noticed this ;o)? My main objection against writing from the point of view of the attacker is not that it is POV (though it might well be for a particular case) but that it is simply inadequate. Of course, when the attacker manages to hold the strategic initiative, any correct description will naturally take the form of a series of actions by the attacker and reactions by the defender. And in the end we may judge whether the results have lived up to the expectations. But suppose, mirabile dictu, that the Soviet defence plan had worked in 1941. The German armoured spearheads cut off and destroyed, Army Group South obliterated, the Soviet left wing swinging through Poland to crush the blocked Army Groups North and Centre. Should we still give primacy to the point of view of the attacker? Or should we perhaps say: "Wait a minute. Things have gone seriously wrong here. This is no longer Operation Barbarossa"? No: it would still be an Operation Barbarossa but one in which it would be natural to describe most of the events as a series of actions by the original defender and reactions by the original attacker. And in the end we may judge whether the results have lived up to the expectations. Of both sides of course, just as in the first case.--MWAK (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't look in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Describing conflicts, did you? :o) I accept that the outcomes of a campaign, operation or a battle, and indeed the entire war could be in complete opposite to attacker's plans. Never the less, the perspective would still remain that of the attacker as the initiator of the conflict. I just see no other way to have an NPOV in narration that can be consistently applied to the entire series of articles.--mrg3105mrg3105 12:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I had already noticed such an outcome could be described as an "utter failure" from the perspective of the attacker :o) (although I'm uncertain what real meaning the percentages could have) but such cases demand even more that the perspective of the defender is given too. This is simply a matter of completeness and adequacy. Unless "taking the perpective of the attacker" simply means we give the attacker the rôle of the attacker, but that is trivial. We cannot describe the defender's actions as if they were mere obstacles to the attainment of the attacker's goals: the defender has goals too. They need to be described. They cannot be adequately described unless their effect on the battle is given. That effect is the result of the defender's strategic, operational and tactical handling of the campaign (his "perspective"), the same kind of goal-directed process the attacker is involved in. The outcome of the campaign is the result of the interaction of both processes.--MWAK (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it seems to me that you misunderstood the point here (is it possible?!). The structure is only a guide. The guide simply attempts to imbue the articles with some degree of impartiality given the prevalence of POV I have found throughout the Eastern Front articles. By forcing the author/editor to always contribute from the POV of the attacker the author/editor has no choice but to adopt a POV independent of the personal POV. This approach simply creates either a "level-field", or a very sloped one if the author chooses to write from attacker's POV completely, as you fear. If this happens, it becomes very obvious, as for example with the Battle of Narva articles which Mr.Wilson is hopefully going to rewrite. I can't think of any other way to force the author's editors to present a NPOV account of the event. What is your suggestion?--mrg3105mrg3105 09:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Might the prejudiced editor not be simply confirmed in his bias — without this leading to an extreme exaggeration? My alternative is to have a baseline enforcing a balanced view directly. Of course, many contributions do not conform to this norm. The fundamental Wikipedian mechanism, that other potential editors will then get irritated and tempted to correct the bias, will have to do. Using a systematic error as the default position, seems a bit drastic :o). But I feel that your choice is influenced by the, as such understandable, desire to structure the text along an analysis of a single process, for reasons of elegance and coherency. And the attacker's enterprise then presents itself as the most logical candidate. However, history is not quite so tidy...--MWAK (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I must admit that logic had not served me well in the past. However others are making great strides in 'tidying' history. I am actually unable to find an entire town in Hungary! I can only agree that it does not take much to get editors irritated. Even aesthetics are a cause, so structure and logic have no hope whats-so ever :o) Are you working on any articles?--mrg3105mrg3105 13:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I try to choose such obscure subjects that nobody cares :o).--MWAK (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you may enjoy this. Soviet commanders may have had a sense of humour even in war, and perpetuated this for decades. There was a minor offensive operation in Hungary called in Russian Надьканиже-Кермендская. I had a hell of a time looking up the area because I could not find the first town. Eventually I realised that this is in fact Nagykanizsa. By changing the 'g' to a 'd', the name became Nad'kanizhe in Russian. If one says it slowly, and breaks it up, it become Nad'ka Nizhe, which in Russian means Nad'ka (a variant of the female name Nadya from Nadezhda (En-Hope)) + nizhe, en-lower. This has all sorts of funny connotations, but the funniest is that every version of the official operation maps for the Vienna offensive from Soviet times has this spelling and no one has corrected it!:o)--mrg3105mrg3105 13:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Limiting myself to the linguistic side I would say that дь is a reasonable approximation of Magyar "gy". Not limiting myself I might add that we Dutch would never have condoned such humour; in 2003 a Calvinist broadcasting organisation carefully avoided the English transcription of a certain Iraqi city.--MWAK (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

ARL 44

I see that my recent edits to the ARL 44 article have for the most part been reverted, sorry if these edits appear to be perverse, however reading the article as it now stands gives the impression of at times being very chatty and informal as if a friend was relating a tale to you rather than an article in an encyclopedia, my editing was an attempt to make it read less like a monologue and more like an article. For example the line 'Only a wooden mock-up had been completed by engineer Lavirotte' was amended because we are not told who Lavirotte was, what his relationship with the project was and there is no link to enlighten us. Think of it this way, a couple of paragraphs earlier DEFA was introduced into the article, you wouldn't dream of doing so without explaining what DEFA is, and its relationship to the project, the same should apply with Lavirotte, who appears and disappears from the article without an introduction. Another matter is that in English, unlike on the continent it is not usual to use engineer as an honorific (uncivilised as that may sound) if he or she is important enough to be named, than the name will suffice, if he's not important to be named than something like 'the engineers' or the 'engineering team' is used. For example you would never introduce someone as Engineer (insert surname) like one would Doctor (insert surname). Although I still think the article needs to become less chatty, I respect the work the ongoing editors have put into the article and I'll try and be more circumspect in my edits. Thanks for your understanding. KTo288 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, even an encyclopedic article in fact is a narrative: it tells you what the state of affairs is for a given subject. If that subject is of a historical nature, the article informs you of what has happened. And if that is done in a coherent way (as it should) and if the relevant contextual setting is also related (very desirable) the text will approach normal human communicative language. Which is not such a bad thing as this is a quite effective way of information transfer. And that is what Wikipedia is all about. You should ask yourself: If the article were less coherent and contextually rich would the reader then understand the subject better after reading it? Or worse? And in fact the language is not really all that informal. I predict that on any readability index applied, it would be labelled "difficult". The "chatty" aspect — that it is quite rhetorical — is just an instrument allowing more information, ordered in more complex relations, to be absorbed.

Now the case of Mr Lavirotte shows how important context is: we like to know his full name and the precise relation he had with the project. Alas, my sources as yet have not informed me on these points (if only they had been more chatty :o). You're right in that the sentence is now, though not strictly ungrammatical, rather awkward. I'll improve it.--MWAK (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A little search in my own private library made a book Maurice Lavirotte had written show up :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Vagen

I write you via this way for I believe you check this account more regulary then its counter part in the German Wikipedia. I wrote a new article on about the battle. I'd like to ask you wether you could add some additional information on the topic. For example the birth year af de Bitter of de Bitter as well as the one of his death. I am also interested, if there is some Dutch account of the firefight. I could also not find any source to verify the Danish casualties or the civilian losses. I look forward to hear from you, --Memnon335bc 19:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. The article is supposed to candidate soon, so please use references :-)

Ah, well, it so happens that a new Dutch book about the battle has just been published. I hadn't had the time yet to insert all the information to be found there into the article, the main reason being that it would force a very major rewrite. The present account is apparently still rather simplistic and all kinds of juicy details have to be added. Perhaps it is best to wait a bit longer with that candidacy ;o). But I'll have a look.

By the way, it's not surprsing you couldn't find the birth date of De Bitter, as it is simply unknown; but he died aboard the Hollandsche Tuyn on 15 June 1666, again on his way to the Indies.--MWAK (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I guess the article in the German Wikipedia is ready for candidate. But there are some things you may still be able to help me with. In the artice there is a table with the English ships, their captains, canon, crew and casualties. I'd like to add a similar table for the dutch ships, but a lack the names of the captains and the number of crews at least. Do you have this information in your new book? Second: I'm going to make a map of the battle (for the commons) this weekend. If you have one in your book or other material, please e-mail it to me (you get an English version in return) (memnon335bc@freenet.de). Third: I bellieve we should provide at least some small articles about the admirals. I will do that for Teddiman, but concerning Bitter, your way better informed. Would you write some sentences about him, just the basics ? Thanks a lot, --Memnon335bc 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memnon335bc (talk • contribs)

The book contains the names of the captains, but not the crew numbers. Regarding the articles: it seems best if I'll write one of De Bitter in English, from which you can use information for a German one. My German is so bad you would need to rewrite it anyway, so...:o).--MWAK (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you could tell me the captain's names of the ships. It is better then nothing. And is there a map? I'll do the Teddiman article this weekend. --Memnon335bc 20:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memnon335bc (talk • contribs)

I've added the captains to the list in the English article. There is a map but I won't be able to send it to you; I'm suffering from rather severe technical limitations at the moment :>(. Good luck with the Teddiman article! If possible I'll write the De Bitter one today.--MWAK (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I introduced the Pieter de Bitter article in the German Wikipedia. Now, you can alsofind there an article about Sir Thomas Teddeman as well as a Map of the action of Bergen in the article itself. It would take only minutes to convert it into an English version in case you want to work over the Vagen article here, too. Cheers, --Memnon335bc 07:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memnon335bc (talk • contribs)

Yes, an English version of the map would be most welcome. I'll translate the Teddiman article.--MWAK (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here I got something for you. I started the candidature of the Bergen article in the German Wikipedia. Unfortunately our topic is not among the most populare there, so it would be fine if you could lend some support by voting for it :-) See you later, next map will be about the St. James's Day Fight. --Memnon335bc 10:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent map — and the map in the book is no better...I'll add it to the English article.--MWAK (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mk V (IV ?) British tanks in Ukraine

Hello, I see the tanks at the Lugansk memorial are labeled Mk IV in the photographs at Commons, and you have described them as Mk V in the Tank Mk I talk page. Can you give evidence of why they are Mk V, so I can correct the Commons pages if necessary ? Thanks. Rcbutcher (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Beter still, I have a source for it: David Fletcher, 2001, The British Tanks 1915 - 19, p. 175 states that they are Mark Vs. Couldn't have been otherwise as only Mark Vs were sent to Russia. But it's also easy to see the difference: the Mark V had ventilation grilles in the hull sides and a much larger secondary turret ("cab"). From behind the presence of a rear machine-gun is a good identification mark.--MWAK (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I've updated the Lugansk tank image pages. Another one : This image of a tank at Aberdeen Proving Ground, USA is described as a Mk V on the Tank info page (Mark_I_tank#Mark_V_2). According to you this should be described as Mk IV ? In fact the image is indeed categorised under Mk IV.

Indeed, it is a Mark IV! When the list was added, the mistake escaped me. But I remember becoming suspicious when seeing the picture — but I didn't act on it...I'll remedy.--MWAK (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Another question : the nl Mk V page describes the views of the Lugansk tanks as a single hermaphrodite, shown from left and right. But the photos clearly show 2 different tanks. ??!Rcbutcher (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did you learn Dutch? ;o). Yes, that is an old mistake, now one by myself. Time to correct it.--MWAK (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I learnt Afrikaans at school in South Africa, it's a dialect of Dutch plus some German - it enables me to read Dutch but I can't speak it.Rcbutcher (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a better place for it to go?

[4] William Ortiz (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is Architecture of the Netherlands ;o). And Floating House. Or perhaps Flood control in the Netherlands. But, really, it is not as if there were a major design programme to this extent. Just a few experiments by some architects. It is not, nor is it likely to become, a major aspect of Dutch infrastructure. Your edit was inspired by the Discovery Channel documentary? That gave a rather distorted view of the facts, I'm afraid... And, of course, it shouldn't be in an article dedicated to Holland as those houses, if at all built, would be mainly in the rivers area in Gelderland--MWAK (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I found the link on a website. William Ortiz (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't take the article too seriously: "re-designing the country" is very far from the truth :o). Besides, it is simply not true those 600 Amsterdam floating houses are built to prevent them from being flooded: it is an expedient to make the new suburb a bit larger. There is no "free land" in The Netherlands...And Amsterdam is no controlled flood area :o)--MWAK (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Hey, I'm interested in, what you think about this: In this article HMS Swiftsure (1621) is a Velde-Picture. The line under it states, that this shows the HMS Swiftsure during the 4-Days-Battle. But clicking on the picture you can read that it rather shows the HMS Royal Charles. So,what is right? Any opinion? --Memnon335bc 18:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the picture information states that in the French book it is taken from, it is decribed as showing the Prince Royal. But the book is simply wrong :o). The painting depicts the famous event on the first day, when three English ships were captured in the turn close to the Flemish coast. On the foreground is the Swiftsure shown and next to it the Reiger who captured her; on the left the dismasted hulks of the Loyal George and Seven Oaks that came to her assistance only to become victims themselves. On the horizon the Flemish coast is visible. The Prince Royal, a three-decker, was of course much larger and was not dismasted as it simply ran aground on the Galloper and surrendered without a fight. Here we see the same painter showing us the other event, of the third day:

--MWAK (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I guessed. I'm of cause aware of the famous incident about the Swiftsure - an event, which I can only explain by reference to Berkeley's biography before the battle. I was just confused and wanted a competent writer tohave a look at it. Thanks a lot. --Memnon335bc 04:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memnon335bc (talk • contribs)

ARL 44 is great!

I just came across the ARL 44 article, following links out of the AMX-50. I just wanted to take a second and tell you what a fantastic job you did. I really mean it, it's a great article! Have you considered trying to take the article to GA or FA? I would help in any way I could. Maury (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I always secretly doubt that people read my articles, so it's good to hear they even appreciate them! But not all would agree with you, the same article has been described by a critical fellow user as "very chatty and informal as if a friend was relating a tale to you rather than an article in an encyclopedia" :o). Different people have different perceptions and needs; one can only hope to strike a balance that serves most.

Thank you for your offer to help out in making it a GA article. However, you should be aware that there is very little chance this wil really come about, for the simple reason there are few good sources about the subject. Unless you happen to possess Touzin's "Les Véhicules Blindés Français 1945-1970" or Ferrard's "Engins Blindés Français", my copies of which books I lent to others, never to receive them back again (life ain't fair ;o). Both articles would probably benefit greatly from the information contained in those works; I'll try and obtain new copies.--MWAK (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Google Books to the rescue: here's an article that I think backs up pretty much the entire article here. I'll find more, but in the meantime I'll add this one along with an intro para mentioning in the ALR 40. One question: the (current) first para mentions teams working in secret under the occupation, and the third mentions APX and AMX but does not really explain who they are. Are these two companies the ones that were working in secret? Was ARL another of these? A little background text here would be helpful IMHO. Maury (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is not that we don't have sources, but that the good sources I possess are so limited that we would end up citing the same few pages all over the article. Alas, the sections dedicated to the subject of French tanks in general English language tank books tend to be riddled with error and Miller's is no exception. The ARL 40 had little if anything to do with the ARL 44; and contrary to what Miller states a prototype was built and it was not a tank with a 75 mm gun in a turret. He has simply copied earlier texts confusing the ARL 40 (the name is similar), the Char G1 (75 mm gun turret in the later specification) and the ARL prototype of the Char B40. The latter project really had some connection with the ARL 44, but even in this case it is slight. It is incorrect to suggest the ARL 44 had some single direct "ancestor project". Very tricky subject, French tanks is ;o).

However, your suggestion to explain the company names and the role they played in the clandestine development is excellent and I'll soon act on it — though the story is somewhat complicated.--MWAK (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Reading the thread again: "very chatty and informal". Actually, it was the wording that I liked the most about it! I am not a great fan of my own writing; I think it can be very technical and dry even when the situation demands otherwise. I really though the background about the French situation took it beyond the pure engineering to the underlying why that the engineering represented. That is so often lost in technical articles. And please led me know if my addition of the ARL 40 is wrong, if I'm not mistaken you're saying I'm actually talking about the Char G40? Maury (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Ahh, I see I missed your last edit :-) Maury (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I always try to give the historical context; without it no tank makes sense. Not a native speaker of English, I also make an effort to use careful formulations. I hope my edit clarifies matters sufficiently. There is however, much more to be said about this tank, but it seems modern publications are sadly lacking.--MWAK (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Maastricht

On the page for the Battle of Maastricht, you posted that it never happened. I have references at the bottom that show in great detail the battle that unfolded. Could you please explain yourself and what you mean when you say it never happened? Thank you. (Red4tribe (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Archaeoraptor

Hi MWAK,

user:Jbrougham and I were working on Archaeoraptor in preparation for Good article status. However, it's proved to be more work than I had anticipated. Considering the referencing you've done on this article in the past, I am asking for your assistance on this article, if you have the time and energy to do so. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Firsfron! I'll see what I can contribute — but you have done most of the work already, it seems :o). Very tricky subject this is...I will at least give a beter reference for Bones of Contention and see what extra information it contains.--MWAK (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, MWAK. I cannot tell you how much your offer is appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your edits, MWAK. The article has reached GA, thanks in no small part to your edits. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I just kept a watchful eye on the house while you were gone :o).--MWAK (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehe! Well, I'm just glad there wasn't a break-in while I was gone. ;) Cheers! Firsfron of Ronchester 05:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Leopard 2E A-class Assessment

Hi! I was wondering if you're interested in voicing some opinions in the Leopard 2E's A-class review? They would be much appreciated, if you have the time (of course). Thank you, regardless! (Especially for the time to copy edit the language and some minor mistakes.) JonCatalan (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It was an honour to contribute to the articles of one who has done so much for the subject of tanks on Wikipedia! I'll give my opinion.--MWAK (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Tank Task Force

Hey,

I wrote my reasoning for the founding of a task force for tanks on the Military History WikiProject, which you can read here. I guess its success is dependant on membership, and given that you are an active editor in many related articles (especially Leopard 2 and I know you've done edits in the Leopard 2E and Panzer I articles) I wanted to express an invitation. The task force wouldn't require editors that do 'heavy edits' - as in, entire articles - and, in fact, I would be looking more for active copy editors that do minor edits to maintain the quality of the article. What I'm looking for is more or less detailed in that message I left on the WikiProject talk page (previously linked above). If you're interested it would be great if you could mention it there, and if not that's fine - but, it's worth a try. ;) Regardless, thanks for your time and patience! JonCatalán (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, JonCatalán! It would be nice to participate in this way and I, again, feel greatly honoured, but I sadly have to decline as I simply haven't got the time to be active on a regular basis...--MWAK (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

List of James II deserters to William of Orange

Hi MWAK, I’m currently researching their genealogical & political relationships with all the Clarendon – Hyde’s, but I will link the others by name or title to their articles ASAP. With respect to your knowledge of these issues, I’m interested in any information you may have on names or titles involved with the: ‘British Adventurers at the Hague 1688?’Stephen2nd (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Stephen2nd! I'm afraid my knowledge is rather deficient on this point — but I'll try to make it less so.--MWAK (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Hannut

I have removed the information you have put in. Please cite inline citations from the book source you added, and then put them back in. Otherwise the article will have "uncited" tags added to it and it will look a mess. Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll add the citations. --MWAK (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Lowercase von

As indicated on the Wikipedia page on Capitalization, the "von" is not capitalized unless it is the first letter of a sentence. You can find examples of this on Wikipedia pages about people named von Something. I used to live in Germany, where the spelling rule is clear, and the English style guides on my bookshelf say the same thing.

The only exception is if the person carrying the name prefers to write the "Von" capitalized all the time, which is quite common in the US. This is not the case for any of the German generals on the "Battle of France" page, where you undid my corrections.

I see you have contributed many good things to Wikipedia and I thank you for that. Your articles will be even better with lowercase von's.

P.S. I would be thankful if you could update the Battle of France page. I wouldn't like to redo it unless I know that you agree. Also, according to Google the term "Schlieffen Plan" is 20 times more commonly used than "von Schlieffen Plan", and only the former is found on German webpages.

128.208.74.201 (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was indeed mistaken about the German usage. I assumed the lower case was only employed by the nobility. Thank you for pointing this out to me! I'll correct the Battle of France page.--MWAK (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gondwana pics

Good work spotting those Gondwana dinosaur pics. They do indeed look a bit odd, and without an OTRS permission I'm guessing the two left here and the one on commons will be deleted. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just hope I haven't made a mistake; but I had a strong suspicion the real Peter Norton did not upload those images. In any case Wikipedia should avoid even the appearance of a copyright violation.

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Holland

Why did you revert my infobox I added to the Holland article. It is perfectly within the usual guidelines for provinces?? Robert Fleming (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, apart from the fact that the article is not about a province per se, which raises interesting questions regarding the applicability, something went wrong with the infobox. Could it be that it is unable to correctly show two flags at a time?--MWAK (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see my other reply here. Robert Fleming (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Duriavenator

Hey MWAK,

You're quick! ;) Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 13:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I was even so quick that some on nl: disputed the existence of the critter :o).--MWAK (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we've had that happen on a few of the English dinosaur articles as well. But if my Babelfish translation is correct, the nomination has been withdrawn. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 09:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it has — and again, thank you for your support in this matter! There was also a certain notability problem: it is often hard to understand for new users that an enyclopedia is not a textbook and that by mentioning a new name we do not somehow endorse it ("Duriavenator is from now on the official name of M. hesperis"), but merely reflect its existence.--MWAK (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly: we sure aren't endorsing Ponerosteus or "Unicerosaurus"! Just reporting what's been already stated. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 08:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Battle of France

Hi. I think there is an awful lot of work that needs to be done. Particularly citing sources. I aslo think this campaign article should highlight some of the myths surrounding Blitzkrieg and the German armed forces. People tend to think of it as an unbeatable doctrine, and those that are not educated in the detail of the war regard the German defeat as Hitler's, (or worse fate's) fault. The fact of the BOF is that it was a damn close shave and could so easily have failed. I think more should be put in about the well known frailties of the German plan, regards. Dapi89 (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct of course. When I rewrote the article early in 2007, I sort of stopped when reaching the events of 15 May, avoiding most of the "Myth of Blitzkrieg" issue. The parts on the German strategy and the historiography section should debunk, or at least make problematical, many of the more common misunderstandings, but the matter should really be tackled more directly. It is however very hard to do so in a NPOV way; we may compare interpretations but are not allowed to state "and the traditional account is wrong and the revisionists are in the the right" ;o) — though I truly believe this is the case. I'll give it a try though, if you can be patient for a few days; at present I simply lack the time to give it the attention it needs.--MWAK (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if you take a look at this. I have used some of it in the BoF article. Have a glance at the French campaign sections and let me know if you think it is worth adding in some of the extensive info to the article. Dapi89 (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read it now and it's certainly an interesting book! The essay you refer to, by Frieser, is however basically just a excerpt from his Blitzkrieg-Legende — apart from leaving out its most interesting hypothesis: that the "dash to the Channel" was made because the armour generals feared that Gruppe Kleist would be dissolved after the Meuse crossing, as originally planned. That is certainly an element that should be in the article. I simply stopped rewriting it at the point I had reached the necessity to treat both the Dinant and Monthermé crossings and integrate these with the entire "von Kleist issue" — without making the article too long...One of my good intentions for 2009 is to finish the rewrite in the last two weeks of January, when I have sufficient time available. So I can only beg for some further patience...--MWAK (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And a danger inherent in the shortness of the essay has now become evident: you may be well excused for understanding otherwise after having read the essay, but it was mainly 1 DCR that blocked Rommel on the 15th; the events you referred to took place in the night of the 16th-17th...But I will, deo volente, critically review the entire text over three weeks.--MWAK (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

AMX-30

Hey, thanks for adding that information. Can you add the source to the bibliography? I've had times when I've forgotten to put articles I've used in the bibliography, and then I go back a month later and try to figure out where I got that information from. :p Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 06:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you in return! I had already anticipated your request ;o).--MWAK (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And of course, thank you for all the information which wouldn't be there otherwise! JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see why we should. Most other Wiki articles (in other languages) have it as the AMX-30, including the French article (not that they're right); besides, it would bring up questions on whether we should change AMX-30E to AMX 30E (which we shouldn't; the designation is AMX-30E), and it would require us to go through dozens of articles changing the designation to AMX 30. When you Google AMX 30, most of the pages are actually titled AMX-30. I think it's fine how it is; it's not a major oversight. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, your first three points are about disadvantages — inconsistency with other wikis, a possible future confusion, a lot of work — that ideally should not influence our decision. Of course your last point is a very good one: after all in principle those names that are common in English should be used (in pure quantity AMX 30 is probably globally prevalent as it has been most often used in France itself). However, given that the name in question is not some normal noun but a technical designation and that the difference is so slight (a single hyphen) that it may well count as a spelling variation, I feel the emphasis in this case should be on good information transfer. People consult an encyclopaedia to be correctly informed; if they had used "AMX-30" before, this was undoubtedly because they simply did not know AMX 30 is the official name; they will be glad to have learned something new. We would do them a (admittedly very minor, but still real) disfavour by then nevertheless conditioning them to use the incorrect designation by many times exposing them to "AMX-30". Also consider that, in the vernacular so to say, the American tank is commonly referred to as "M-60" ("M-47", "M-48", "M-1") but the article title nevertheless — and rightly so in my opinion — is M60 Patton. Why should things be different for a French tank?--MWAK (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Xiongguanlong

Hi MWAK,

In this edit you changed the sentence I wrote with the edit summary "which is not at all the same". Both Xiongguanlong and Appalachiosaurus are both apparent basal members of Tyrannosauroidea, and I feel your edit is possibly a little jargonistic for an article this short. The readers, not knowing anything about Xiongguanlong, will want to relate it to a dinosaur they know something about, or at least to a dinosaur which has a picture on its own article. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Firsfron! Having a picture helps :o). However, the point is that the original sentence stated something that was simply not true. Xiongguanlong, being more basal than Appalachiosaurus, is thus not more closely related to it than to any other more derived tyrannosauroid — the Tyrannosauridae included! I admit though that my edit was a bit technical ;o) — and I'll try to elucidate it.--MWAK (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Medium Mark B

Can you provide a citation for yor 7 machine gun claim?Geni 19:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the Mark B had no fixed machine-guns; they were removable. It had seven machine-gun positions. However, in action less guns would be taken along, the single machine-gunner taking his gun with him, while switching position. How many less? We can never know, for the Mark B never was in action. Four is a reasonable estimate, made in Ellis & Chamberlain's Medium tanks Marks A to D — but it is unclear to me whether this was based on some official direction or pure speculation. I found it doubtful whether this situation would be correctly described by simply stating "four guns" in the infobox and it seemed better to me to give the possible maximum.--MWAK (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand we have two actual sources that go for the 4 gun number.Geni 16:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point :o). I'll reinsert that number but give a qualification in the infobox. Also, I was mistaken in claiming that the vehicle never saw action; it was of course used in Russia.--MWAK (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Belgium

I have taken a risk and started the article! Please help if you can! Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

An ambitious — but very necessary — project! I won't be able to contribute much in the immediate future, but I'll try to assist later.

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, an individual who has clashed with me in the past and present is trying to cause trouble by "questioning" the notability of the article. Help may be required. Dapi89 (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll join the mêlée :o).--MWAK (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I should warn you, this "editor" is relentless in pursuing his agenda driven motivations. Don't expect him to agree to anything. He may also resort to edit warring. His trouble making has nothing to do with the good of wikipedia - its personal. Dapi89 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please give an early opinion on the development of the article. Dapi89 (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

removal of sourced material

Could you please explain why you removed sourced statements from the Origin of Birds article, other than your personal opinion that the article is not following the scientific standards? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections against inserting said material where it belongs, i.e. in the section about the BAND. I strongly object against giving undue weight to such fringe science in the lead section.--MWAK (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So, why did you not move it to there but just deleted it? 2. Why does the lead claim that there is a overwhelming consensus for the theropod origin, while I can dig up plenty of articles disagreeing? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A good question. Perhaps I instinctively abhorred from tainting myself any further :o). The number of articles is not a good indication. There is an overwhelming consensus within the medical community that homoeopathy is sheer nonsense but the sect of course produces plenty of papers. Of course you deserve a much more detailed answer. Sadly I presently lack the time — for some reasons such conflicts always erupt at the worst possible moment — but I hope to give you one shortly on the talk page of the Origin of birds article.--MWAK (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Really, I really would like to see those peer-reviewed homeopathy articles, on which I am pretty sure that you can only produce a handful, contrary to doubt about the consensus that birds are theropods. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could point to the often lamented failure of peer review but the fact that the discussion has been going on for a long time is perhaps the real explanation. Such an article would likely not have been accepted if it had claimed something new, but now that it is part of a pattern or debate the standards are lowered.--MWAK (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you here talking about the bird origin paper, or the homoeopathy papers? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The first, of course.--MWAK (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, in that case, you basically only have some vague speculations why this peer-reviewed article was accepted and no real arguments based on the cintent other that that it is not in line with the general talking points abiout the origin of the birds? Let me know if you are going to answer my earlier question regarding your claim that the article did not follow the scientifi method. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the moment I'm slowly recovering (I hope :o) from the flu (perhaps even that Mexican thing), so a too intense effort is still beyond me. And I want to check whether the Limusaurus-article would reinforce or invalidate some of my intended argumentation. So I must by necessity be a bit vague about promises I make. Should this be my last contribution to Wikipedia, you know the reason ;o).--MWAK (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Sedan (1940)

Thoughts would be appreciated. Dapi89 (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Very impressive! But much of the info by Frieser about the French side is a bit dated. I hope that I find the time to correct some of it — you are creating articles at a faster rate than I can hope to keep up with :o).--MWAK (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

HELLO MWAK

Are you the same Diets guy as on the Diets Wikipedia MWAK??? You must be. Greetings from GoudenEeuw GoldenAgeHolland (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hallo GoldenAgeHolland! Yes, I am the same, Dutch, guy ;o).

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nellie

Hi MWAK. You seem interested in unusual AFVs so you might find this link interesting: [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.32 (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting (though I can't agree with the assessment of Gamelin's merits :o). Thank you for bringing it to my attention! I doubt this apparatus would have functioned as Churchill imagined but it would at least have made a great mine plough...--MWAK (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Netherlands

Hey, I noticed you reverted my edit about the German occupation going under territorial change so could I put it under Decisive Axis Victory as a bulletin?--Coldplay Expert 14:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Coldplay! That would indeed be the best solution. And I should have thought of it myself...--MWAK (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that the article is ready for GA status?--Coldplay Expert 18:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, it simply isn't finished yet. I've started working on it four years ago when it was little more than a Start Article (as we would say today), then paused for three years and early this year I began expanding it again. After a second delay, caused by some very long deliberations with a concerned user, I rewrote and referenced much of the existing text and finished the day-to-day account of the battle. I still need to rewrite the "Backgrounds" section, expand the section about the French Army and reference it and then add sections about "Aftermath", "Losses", and "Historiography". Could take a while :o). And said user might express renewed concerns, possibly necessitating a next round of talks. Writing about these kind of subjects requires a very delicate balancing act, I've discovered ;o).--MWAK (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Im commited to make it a GA and eventually a FA. Just tell me what else need to be done and ill get to it!--Coldplay Expert 22:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a very nice offer! Now, what we really, really need, are a number of maps...Do you happen to have any skills (and the necessary software) in making these? (I haven't).--MWAK (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have the skills but I dont really know what is required as I dont really have the software. But I can give it a try useing paint. And the united states military academy website has tons of maps we can use. And here's one thing we need to work on. the Dutch air force. there are a few citations needed comments on that section. (you want to continue this on the talk page of the article?)--Coldplay Expert 22:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That would indeed be better.--MWAK (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok then Ill get to work makeing a list of things that need fixing for ti to become a GA and eventually a FA.--Coldplay Expert 00:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I made a comment over at the main talk page. And if you want me to make maps then can you tell me the postion of the german advance for each day of the invasion?--Coldplay Expert 01:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Good news, I recently spoke to another user on the article and they said that witht he exeption of the missing citations in the Dutch Air force section, it is ready to go for a GA. So do you want to nominate it?--Coldplay Expert 22:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, then I would first have to get those citations. As I said, it might take a while :o). Furthermore as the article will still be expanded, such thorough changes might cause a subsequent loss of GA status. In my experience, it's best not to hurry things...--MWAK (talk) 06:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I have taken on too many tasks as it is. I have also stated that I would like for the nomination to be withdrawn. Maybe next year once we fix the kinks that he mentioned =D--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A wise decision ;o). I'm confident we'll finish it yet!--MWAK (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey MWAK, I was rewording it because the way that you have worded the article, well...it's not in proper English.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 14:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm Dutch! I'm not pretending to know English :o)! I'm bound to make many mistakes — and my language is wooden and ponderous. So, by all means, improve the wording...but be careful when changing the content. Also, it might be that what seems a bit strange is simply the usual military terminology — though I thought I hadn't been too technical. Or are you telling me you had never heard of "staging an offensive", "constructing defences" or "manoeuvre warfare"?--MWAK (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I had a feeling. And no, those examples are ok. Just try your best when writeing things. I'll take another look over the article in a while and fix up and mistakes.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

World War II

Hey can you help me out with the GA review on the world war II article. There is a lot of work to be done and extra hands are always welcome.--Coldplay Expert 22:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a very tricky article to get involved with...I personally disagree with much of its content.--MWAK (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you disagree with.--Coldplay Expert 13:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The story as it is told now is very simplistic and unscientific. It would take too long to explain it all.--MWAK (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well can you still help out? Please? I really need a lot of help to get this to GA status.--Coldplay Expert 01:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps this is not the kind of article for which it would be very practical to strive for a GA or FA status. To attain such a status you have to establish a high level of quality. Inevitably this involves an attempt to more or less "fix" the text. However, a subject that is both so popular (with many millions of hits each year) and so contentious (with many competing scientific and ideological interpretations) simply won't stay "fixed". It will start to deviate immediately, making either the "GA" a joke or necessitating endless rounds of GARs. Why do you think that after nine years the article is still not a GA ;o)?--MWAK (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well thats why we have to fix it, its a challenge. And I went back to the old mpas for the battle of france article because the old ones had borken likns as the website upgraded to the maps that I put in.--Coldplay Expert 11:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes , but most of the work to be done, I assume, consists in the adding of references. And without changing the content, that would mean that I would have to search poor sources to prop up falsehoods :o).

The images would very likely not have been a problem. There are no copyright issues here.--MWAK (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Signpost interview

Hi MWAK, User:Mabeenot is writing an article for The Signpost and wanted to do an interview with WP:DINO editors. The interview questions are here. Since you're a prolific editor on the project, I thought you might want to comment. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Firsfron! Again you are paying me a great compliment! But actually my contributions can hardly be called prolific. Sometimes I add little details, such as a holotype or the etymology of a specific name. As a relative outsider to the English Wikipedia (I do add a lot on the Dutch branch), I feel it is not my place to advance my opinions. But my thanks for pointing out the interview! I found the view expressed there most interesting — and very reasonable. Now I have to hurry preparing the Dutch Sericipterus article :o).--MWAK (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think you underestimate your own work here; you've done more than just add etymologies and holotypes (and here's some recent proof of that), but anyway, thanks for your work. I certainly never thought of you as an "outsider". :) Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 16:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I will add the holotype and etymology to the Sericipterus-article, which has meanwhile been created ;o).--MWAK (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Linheraptor.

Hello, MWAK! I'm trying to get Linheraptor ready for DYK and ITN. I'm asking users to come and help, and would appreciate your participation, if you're willing. Thanks in advance! Oh no! It's not here!!! (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hallo, Wilhelmina Will! Well, with a dinosaur being named every five days, we'll have to hurry ;o). But I'll see whether I can meaningfully contribute. --MWAK (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Oh no! It's not here!!! (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Netherlands: Possible GA

Hi there! As you may already be aware, Battle of the Netherlands has seen some major copy editing and is now ready for a look! I thought you might be interested to see how it looks now, since you were a major contributor. If there were any factual errors introduced in the editing process, I apologise. Regards, --Diannaa ^TALK 03:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Diannaa! Thank you for your efforts! I'll check for possible misunderstandings still remaining.

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The article might be ready for its WP:GA nomination so it would be great if you could give it a look when you have the time. Thanks! --Diannaa ^TALK 23:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and find some :o).--MWAK (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello again! Battle of Netherlands is now undergoing its GA review, and I was hoping you could help with the outstanding questions. Please go to Talk:Battle of the Netherlands/GA2 if you are interested in having a look. Thank you. Diannaa ^TALK 22:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look.--MWAK (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This user helped promote Battle of the Netherlands to good article status.

As a major author of this article you are now entitled to display this user box! Diannaa ^TALK 13:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite honoured!--MWAK (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

To my humble opinion it is unjust that the article has a GA status. Apparently mod's only care about citations, but don't bother to check the relevance of those same citations. The article is packed with bad or wrong information, often abuses the citations and should have a large overhaul (e.g. quality boost) or reassessement should be applicable. Grebbegoos (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Van Ghent

Hello MWAK. Did you add the information to the article about Admiral van Ghent stating that an 18c owner of the enamel cup presented to him after the Chatham Raid destroyed it in anger at being charged a gold tax? I would very much like to know where this story came from..... Many thanks, C94.30.47.170 (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hallo! I did indeed and if I remember correctly I took it from Prud'homme van Reine's Zeehelden, this book: http://www.nrcboeken.nl/boek/zeehelden-druk-1-prudhomme-van-reine-r However, at the time I had borrowed it from the local library, so I can't check this right-away.

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am delighted to hear this. Thank you very much!! I am an art curator researching van Ghent and would very much like to check out this story. I assume this was the cup that matched the other two from after the Medway raid,now in the Louvres and the Rijksmuseum? I am handicapped in reading neither German nor Dutch but I will try to find the reference you have given me. If you had a transcription of the passage that mentions the story that would be amazingly helpful!Do you by any miracle know the name of the person who destroyed the cup? I would like to find out as much as I can about him and especially any paintings he may have owned - and his connection to van Ghent. I am tracing the provenance of a painting by Ludolf Backhuysen that may be connected to van Ghent. Huge thanks. C

Well, after I wrote my previous answer I remembered another publication. The author is again Ronald Prud'homme van Reine, but giving the story in a small article in the Compagnie Journael, a naval magazine issued by the Bedrijvenkring van het Nederlands Scheepvaartmuseum Amsterdam in which he states, in close translation: "The exemplar [i.e. one of the three chalices, the De Ruyter one presently in the collection of the Rijksmuseum, the De Witt one in the Louvres] of Van Ghent was at the end of the eighteenth century trampled by the owner at that time out of anger over a forced silver and gold levy". Full citation: Prud'homme van Reine, R. (2005). "Gebroeders De Witt in Dordrecht en Den Haag". Compagnie Journael, December 2005, 7(3): 7

Not much, but perhaps you could contact Prud'homme van Reine to ask for more information. I am convinced he would be happy to oblige you.--MWAK (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is very helpful. Thank you very much indeed. C —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.47.170 (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Pim Fortuyn

I do not know if "Defamation" really implies that the claim was false (which could itself be POV again since there was no verdict). In the Dutch legal system, there is the difference between "smaad" and "laster". For the moment, your solution seems fine. --JanDeFietser (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a subtle difference. To avoid ambiguity, the word had better be avoided.--MWAK (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Netherlands

MWAK, it is about time to dig in and start improving this GA article or we should have it reassessed, which I would find counterproductive, but what should be the right procedure if the content remains as is. Grebbegoos (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's better to leave our entrenched positions ;o). As it happens, I'm on a Pentecost holiday and can't access my books at the moment. So, I can start working at the article by next weekend at the earliest. Then again, I wouldn't mind that the article lost its GA status because it was proposed for that quite prematurely. But some people put a lot of work in it to improve the English and I didn't want to disappoint them. Some of the, let us say, more peculiar aspects of the present text, were introduced on that occasion. I intended to improve them in due time — which time might arrive next week...--MWAK (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Entrenched positions? Not from my stand-point anyway. I care to see it all improved and (have) put my efforts in that. Grebbegoos (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm convinced your contributions will lead to a major improvement!--MWAK (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Grebbegoos (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Meanwhile we haven't seen any reflections on your behalf yet ...

You're right: I have been a bit intimidated by the large amount of work this will entail — and was very busy with other activities — but I'll start editing today!--MWAK (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Grebbegoos (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Good to hear!

The Mechelen Incident

I have left a few comments on that article's talk page that might interest you. As its past one in the morning here, I completely forgot to give them a heading. Doh!
RASAM (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear MWAK, I added in the discussion (Mechelen incident) a comment that Reinberger was released by the allies during the war and included in some pow exchange. I believe he was at first arrested and interrogated but released after some time. Whether he was reinstated as a Luftwaffe officer I don't know for certain. To be honest I cannot find the source for this information in my library thusfar. I'll try to get back on that Grebbegoos (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A most welcome contribution! I've wondered about his fate.--MWAK (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• I found it. Herman Götzel [Kroniker of Kurt Student] states [pg.81 - Student memoirs] that Reinberger was withheld in the Belgian camp Huy and moved to the UK, later Canada as a pow. In the winter 1944-1945 he was exchanged with other pows. He was shortly contained by the Gestapo but soon after released and reinstated. I added some additional comments on the discussion page of the topic itself Grebbegoos (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thecodontosaurus

Hello, MWAK;

I've just been looking over your work on Thecodontosaurus - that's quality work! I wanted to let you know that there is at least one other abandoned species: T. polyzelus von Huene 1906, better known as Anchisaurus polyzelus (Hitchcock 1865 (originally Megadactylus)). von Huene was convinced that Anchisaurus polyzelus was a species of Thecodontosaurus and A. colurus was not, which is eventually how we got Yaleosaurus. I would have changed it myself, but I wasn't sure if the Haughton (1924) reference pertained to all of the species in front of it (perhaps if Haughton had made a summary of all the previous names). J. Spencer (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hallo, J. Spencer! The quality of the article, I fear, still leaves much to be desired. Whereas, in a large part due to your personal efforts which in 2006 transformed one of the most amateurishly treated fields of knowledge within Wikipedia into one of the most professional — a development which at the time highly surprised me — the English wiki has the dinosaurs completely covered, the Dutch one had an enormous backlog in this respect. From late 2004 onwards I have been adding new species, hoping that in the meantime the old ones would gradually be filled in, but that process proved to be so slow that by my calculation it would take until 2052 to be finished. So, following a suggestion by Firsfron of Ronchester, last summer I began to quickly treat a number of obscure taxa on which only limited information was available. While I was at it, I decided I might as well expand the English articles too if they were still stubs. With some luck, the Dutch list will now be completed around 2035 ;o).

This explains the imperfections of my work on Thecodontosaurus: the genus is not really that obscure and I only started a Dutch article because the omission was so glaring. The Haughton citation is simply one that I managed to find quickly and does not refer to the other species. Should you have been preparing an improvement of the article, do not hesitate to replace my text! The reader will no doubt prefer well-written English to my Teutonic style :o).

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, *I* think that your additions to the English WP are a great improvement. I'd like to work on Thecodontosaurus, but it probably won't be for quite a while; if I was working on prosauropods, I'd work on Anchisaurus first, because I have a lot of the papers. J. Spencer (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! In that case I'll add the extra species. Anchisaurus is very interesting — and one of the many lacking among the Dutch articles...--MWAK (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Geosternbergia

Hi MWAK, I agree it's tough to integrate Bennett's work on sternbergi with Kellner's, but just because Kellner doesn't go down the list and refer all of Bennett's taxa to his new genus doesn't mean he implicitly disagree's with that work. It looks like the paper naming G. maysei is a preliminary one. I don't necessarily agree with Kellner's taxonomy, but he didn't really do anything new with sternbergi other than split it off to its own genus, which is a completely arbitrary decision either way. G. maysei, as I see it, is the problematic one. Several other authors have suggested that the Pierre Shale material may belong to a new species. Bennett referred this to P. longiceps on the basis that it's part of the same anagenetic lineage (but so is P. sternbergi), Carpenter (in his overview of Niobrara and Pierre strat zones) referred to to P. sp.. In my opinion, this should be either Pteranodon maysei or assigned to a new genus, but Bennett's argument for an anagenetic lineage looks good so placing it in Geosternbergia (especially given the wide stratigraphic gap) makes very little sense. Anyway, I don't see a problem with including Bennett's ideas on dimorphism. Whether the article subject is Pteranodon sternbergi or Geosternbergia sternbergi, everyone is talking about the same species. The only problem would arise if the wording implied that anyhting that holds true for G. sternbergi also applies to "G." maysei (one of the common problems with having a single article discussing a multitypic genus are those kind of generalizations). MMartyniuk (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I admit that anagenesis is certainly the core concept necessary to understand the situation (or Kellner's article)! However, even though Kellner acknowledges that Bennett's work on sexual dimorphism has potential merit he still implicitly rejected the reference of any female material to G. sternbergi. This is because he very explicitly rejected the reference of any further material to that species. In his opinion only the holotype is known to be G. sternbergi! He states on page 1068: "The holotype of Geosternbergia sternbergi represents one of the largest flying reptiles recovered from the Niobrara Formation, known solely from one skull". Nota bene: it does not say "known from the skull" in which case it could be interpreted as referring to the type specimen as such and merely stating that it consists of a skull. No, it claims that the species itself is known only from that single skull. Accordingly the species is diagnosed with a set of traits that has only ever been identified in that skull. That's the taxonomic species concept for you :o).

Kellner makes it pretty clear what the consequences are for the issue of potential sexual dimorphism: The limitation of specimens is still more problematic in order to understand changes of morphology as a function of individual variation and sexual dimorphism....there is a lack of empirical data to address this interesting question properly....The new interpretation of a larger taxonomic diversity in the material previously restricted to two species of Pteranodon does not necessarily invalidate some ideas presented before, such as the hypothesis of sexual dimorphism....Although the idea is tempting, it is still necessary to find specimens with the skull and pelvis showing the morphological attributes of the respective gender. A larger diversity within the Pteranodon material does not per se invalidate the hypothesis of sexual dimorphism, but makes it more difficult to select characters (and specimens) that reflect a particular gender. So, Kellner says, to test the hypothesis of sexual dimorphism we need a statistically significant set of specimens in which there is a correlation between a certain crest shape (e.g. large versus small) and a certain pelvis shape (e.g. narrow versus broad). Sadly, in the case of G. sternbergi our needs aren't yet met because N=1 and the single specimen known doesn't even have a pelvis preserved.--MWAK (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well Done!

A very manly man, just like you!

You have been awarded the Manliness Award for helping to construct a great encyclopedia.

Keep up the great work!

A Very Manly Man (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! See nl:synapsiden for the biological basis of this ;o).--MWAK (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

New dinosaurs

Hi, MWAK !D

The names were leaked early by the news and the Proceedings of the Third Gondwanan Dinosaur Symposium supposed to be the first issue of the Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. I think that without the name of the articles those names can't be valid. At the moment I will manage to find the full article (see Angolatitan) or at least the abstract I will expand the page (a little bit... :P) as usual.

Rnnsh (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Italic titles

Hi, you recently reverted my italicization of the title of Char 2C stating "Italic titles are standard for biological genera only". However, according to MOS:TITLE, "Named vehicles" should also be italicised. My understanding is that the sub headers "Trains and locomotives, Ships, Ship classes" is an example list rather than an exhaustive one, so tank names would also be italicised.

I had also thought that non-english words should be italicised in titles too, but I can't see a guideline for that; only that they should be italicised within articles.

What are your thoughts? (Hohum ^@) 12:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, non-English words are not generally italicised in the titles. In the case of the "named vehicles", it should be understood that this refers to the names of individual vehicles (or ship classes derived from such), not to type designations. This is why the MOS states: "Ship class names are often italicized, but ship types are not". So, if we had an article about the Char 2C Champagne, the article title would be Champagne (Char 2C) as well, not Champagne. But an article about the type is written as Char 2C, not being about an individual. You see, we have to apply subtle distinction here ;o).--MWAK (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your distinction between type and class.

In your opinion, is the italicisation I applied to Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga correct or not?

It looks like my italicization of Schutzstaffel, etc. and a bunch of German military ranks and vehicles would be wrong - I based that entirely on being a foriegn name; although it's puzzling that nobody on milhist has mentioned it, they are probably widely watchlisted.

(Hohum ^@) 17:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the class name is derived from the individual name of a ship. As the individual name should be italicised, by analogy the class name had better be italicised also. The type designation is not the name of an individual and therefore should not be italicised.

Kaga is the name of an individual ship. By convention such a name is italicised. The case of Schutzstaffel is less clear-cut. A concept, even if introduced into English from a foreign language, should normally not be italicised. E.g. polder is originally Dutch but needs no italicisation even though it is not a very common concept. However, when a term refers to an historical phenomenon and its object thus has a certain individuality while it is at the same time derived from another language, it might be italicised. After all, in a written text the term might conceivably be italicised also. But this is not obligatory nor a general rule; each case should be judged on its own merits. Schutzstaffel, given the historical context and the fact that the article refers to a single organisation might be a good candidate for italicisation. But there is no need to make every Panzer a Panzer :o).--MWAK (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, in that case I don't think I've done it inappropriately too many times. I'll discuss it at milhist to see if it's worth mentioning on their MOS page, with some examples. (Hohum ^@) 19:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems a very fruitful line of action!--MWAK (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Down the line thanks

Good evening MWAK, Thank you for answering so fast. Your explanations are perfectly clear and I now feel able to translate this critical sentence. Thank you again. Hop !Kikuyu3 (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Please remember to ask me if ever you need the same from a french article. Hop ! K3

You're welcome — and thank you for your offer!--MWAK (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

2nd generation Chobham armour

"2nd" generation Chobham armour is a name given to a revised and improved version of Chobham armour making the tank that possesses this, superior (in terms of defensive armour) to any tank with "1st" generation armour in this case the M1 Abrams tank. Although this is no discredit to the tank. thefreddy12354 14:27 28th October 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefreddy12354 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree — though "second generation" is a vague term —, but we have to avoid suggesting subsequent M1 models, such as the M1A2, would not have comparable armour. This was my concern when reverting you edit. In image captions the amount of "explanation" is best kept to a minimum.--MWAK (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As regards whether Dorchester makes the Challenger 2 the "heaviest armoured tank in the world" we would need serious and very specific secondary sources to back this up. Not fan sites and not vague advertisements from the producer ;o).

In general the whole concept of "heaviest armoured tank in the world" is based on the misunderstanding that such tanks are produced with a fixed armour protection. In fact they are modular: the hull and turret contain spaces that can be filled, according to the wishes of the costumer and the tactical conditions, with several armour configurations. A more informative way to look at it would be to compare the space available. Under that criterion the French Leclerc has more space in the horizontal plane than the Challenger 2 and therefore can, if needs be, be better armoured.--MWAK (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for your reply and co operation I will not market the Challenger 2 tank as the "heaviest tank in the world" on the Chobham armour page, because the way a tank is perceived as heavy is imprecise. Thefreddy12354 (talk 14:39 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My thanks in return for being a thoughtful and considerate fellow Wikipedian!--MWAK (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Saint-Chamond - Got It!

Hello, MWAK. I believe I have got to the bottom of this particular problem. Schneider entrusted the fitting of the engine of the CA1 to its subsidiary Somua, at St. Ouen.

This is from François Vauvillier: "(Schneider) pensait pouvoir compter sur le concours de certains constructeurs, et principalement Saint-Chamond, pressentis comme sous-traitants. Or, la commande en série dès avril d'un second modèle de cuirassé terrestre . . . va priver Schneider (et Somua) des concours attendus."

Bizarrely, "concours" can mean either "competition" or "aid, help, or support." I think that's where the misunderstanding has arisen. Schneider did intend to involve Saint-Chamond ("approached as sub-contractors") but when the order for Gen. Mourret's design was given to the latter it meant they had to concentrate on it and had insufficient capacity to handle the Schneider. The military interdepartmental rivalry was most certainly a factor. It cannot be ruled out that, from a commercial point of view, Saint-Chamond welcomed what happened, but the order was placed with them by Albert Thomas.

I think that is what the sentence "the tank produced by Saint-Chamond was meant to be identical to the Schneider CA" is intended to convey - that S-C were meant to undertake a proportion of Schneider CA production.

Hope that this makes sense to you and that you are happy with it.

Regards,

Hengistmate (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hallo, Hengistmate! My excuses for not responding to your last remarks on the talk page of Saint-Chamond. I pondered on what answers to give and kept procrastinating far beyond the limits of civility...I hope to address this issue on said talk page within a few days. So, if I might try your patience a bit longer...--MWAK (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No apology necessary. At your convenience. You are far more polite and receptive than some people who have an interest in the subject. Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, MWAK. I'm glad you enjoyed François Vauvillier's contribution to the Renault FT "debate." Who do you imagine asked him to take an interest . . .?

Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Tell me ;o). We might also ask him about the Saint-Chamond dépanneur numbers :o).--MWAK (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx

Hey, actually I would tend to agree that all your points are more likely than the alternatives. Aside from the usefulness of tertials: I've yet to see any evidence that most birds use these as anything but glorified coverts, or that the humerus would be held extended when airborne in basal birds and unlike in almost all other birds except some highly specialized lineages. Note that most birds do not extend the humerus much at all when flying, it is held near the body so the elbow forms something of a 45 degree angle. This must have been the case in many early fliers/gliders due to the fact that Microraptor and others had large propatagia connecting the wrist to the shoulder, physically preventing the elbow from extending. If tertials were present, they would just blend into the contour feathers and or scapulars to close a very narrow gap at the armpit.

As for this "Repeating myself, I again want to emphasise that there is no good evidence Archaeopteryx couldn't lift its wing "above the dorsum"", I think further research will bear out that it could extend above the dorsum, especially with Jason Brogham's great blog series showing why a lot of Senter's work on this was flawed. However "no good evidence" doesn't cut it in science: we need good evidence that it *could* before we go around saying so, not just a lack of evidence that it *couldn't*. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, true, but it's also not license for untested inference; rather, it's an invitation for further research. The fact is that right now, we have one or two 9flawed) studies suggesting elevating the humerus was not possible, and no studies suggesting it was. This field of inquiry is in its very infancy, but I have a hunch greater range of motion will prove correct a few years down the road (a few more good 3D preserved specimens like Mei would help!). There's also the issue of the totally bizarre deltopectoral anatomy of confuciusornithids and some other basal birds, which suggest that they were probably flying in a way very different from modern birds that we have no analogue for. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, a strong extension would seem most unlikely. The entire skeleton of Archaeopteryx still lacks a rigorous quantitative three-dimensional analysis. Not for lack of potential data of course. A plausible function of the peculiar crista deltopectoralis of Confuciusornis might be to compensate the lack of a sternal keel and enhance elevation, supination and flapping frequency. Perhaps primary feather length had something to do with it but I'm not convinced by the analysis by Wang, Nudds & Dyke. Both Microraptor and Confuciusornis had long pointed wings with long primaries, but in Microraptor more of the length is accounted for by the bones. It can't be proven that both had very different flight styles by applying bone/feather ratio's taken from modern birds which never have arms of the basal type.--MWAK (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

And a shrubbery…

Wow, that is one astonishing list of demands for an admin (supposedly) who doesn't stand a chance of getting his way with Platonic realism. You might want to keep an eye on Talk:Theory of Forms as well. I really wouldn't mind if his proposal was for Platonic idealism to be merged to Theory of Forms (though I doubt there's anything worth merging). But that's not what's on the table, despite saying flat-out that all he really wants is to have the end product named "Platonic idealism". Good to keep in mind if the outrageous demands persist, or outrageous accusations follow… I just hope he knows he's bluffing.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll try to see it as a challenge :o).

Clavicle

I am happy that we converged on a solution at last. For me this is not a compromise, I am completely satisfied. --Ettrig (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It again shows human cooperation can result in a real progress!--MWAK (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Suasso

Seems to be referred to mostly in reliable sources as Francisco Lopes Suasso. Shall we start an article on him? Moonraker (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

From Daniël Swetschinski, Loeki Schönduve, De familie Lopes Suasso, financiers van Willem III (1988) "Francisco Lopes Suasso alias Abraham Israël Suasso was de eerste zoon..." Moonraker (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, he is notable enough! Indeed it is always tricky how to combine the "gentile" with the "Jewish" name. As I don't have the source you refer to at hand, I would be much obliged if you yourself started the article!--MWAK (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. If you have time, would you be willing to glance over my translations from the online sources? My reading of Dutch suffers from never having learnt it, so I read it as if it were a funny kind of German. Moonraker (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Linguistically, that is not far off the mark ;o) (the reverse is also true, of course). I'll see to it immediately.--MWAK (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You see, I missed Ouderkerk aan de Amstel. The 17th century English is also an improvement: I knew I had fudged that sentence rather. Moonraker (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Your translation was quite good as a paraphrasing. But it is better to give the "literal" text — and once we have decided to do so, it forces us to use more archaic forms because in modern English the choice and order of words would be inexplicable. I secretly hoped you would add the other painting :o). Very remarkable portrait and very remarkable red colour. I've often wondered whether it is caused by a later restoration or by using, hugely expensive, through and through glazes of cochineal...In any case the original bows were dyed with it!--MWAK (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Saint-Chamond - I can't stand it any longer.

Hi, MWAK. I've been reading the Saint-Chamond article again, and I'm going to have to do something about it. The idea that FAMH were given an order for 400 Schneiders is completely wrong. All the sources are clear on that - even Estienne's biography. And I have more info that clears up the question of the Supply Tanks. Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You have shown remarkable patience already! Put the new information on the talk page and I'll answer you this evening. Again, my excuses for being so tardy.--MWAK (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, MWAK. Sorry, I didn't know you had replied to this. The watchlist thing doesn't seem to have worked. Doing it now. Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

As you might have already seen, I have put down my response. Greetings,--MWAK (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, MWAK. If anything, it's getting more complicated. Have a look here. Hengistmate (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting! But let's continue the discussion on the Saint Chamond talk page.--MWAK (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Yutyrannus

The DYK project (nominate) 00:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Char D2 (French)

Hello MWAK, I think that you speak very well french because you read GBM. Is it right? If you want you can help me to improve the french article fr:D2 (char)! My name on french Wiki is BKLX. Thank's in advance.92.152.40.162 (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi BKLX! Well, I'm able to read French. Whether I'm capable of writing French is an entirely different matter ;o). But I'll see if I can provide some meaningful contribution.--MWAK (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"Cite doi" template

It makes many mistakes, however it saves place and you can fix the mistakes manually. I'll fix the rest.. Rnnsh (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's hope this yet imperfect tool will soon reach perfection!--MWAK (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Rahonavis & Archeopterix

Hi MWAK,

I was just reading the pages about Archeopterix, Rahonavis and Feduccia's 'temporal problem'. I have little doubt that birds descend from Dinosaurs and in that sense I can understand that the page about the temporal problem is rather dismissive of Feduccia's ideas, but if I look at the ages of Rahonavis (70-65 mY) and Archeopterix (150 mY) I do find it rather strange to see that Rahonavis, a critter half the age of Archeopterix 'makes the latter less important' somehow.

I don't think that you need to be a supporter of Feduccia's ideas about bird origins to see that there is a bit of an anachronism here. At the least the bit about Archeo being less important needs to be worded a bit more carefully imho. Sure 'transitional' forms may have survived all the way to K/T and you can learn a lot from them and maybe Rahonavis had been around for 70+ mY or so, but the discussion cannot just ignore that -in itself rather remarkable!- fact.

Vriendelijke groet Jcwf (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jcwf! I'm not sure whether I'm getting your point. As far as I can see neither in the Temporal paradox (paleontology), nor in the Archaeopteryx article Rahonavis is even mentioned. But perhaps this is exactly what you object to: the existence of Rahonavis might in some way corroborate Feduccia's "temporal paradox". However, I'm not quite understanding how this might work. It's true that if Rahonavis represents a late-surviving remnant of the "dino-bird-transition" (not that I favour such terminology, you understand ;o), it would create an enormously long ghost lineage and so the fact might be deemed improbable. Bot the rejection of this hypothesis does not in any additional way support the "paradox". Furthermore, if the alternative possibility were true and Rahonavis would be a late bird-mimic from dromaeosaurid stock, the least that may be said is that it attests to the potential of the Deinonychosauria to spawn flying forms.

It should be emphasized though, that the presence of Rahonavis might support a more general Paulian Hypothesis: that the Maniraptora were originally flying and the later dromaeosaurid and troodontid species secondarily flightless. However, for Feduccia c.s. to adopt a MANIAC position makes the "temporal paradox" largely irrelevant. One would have to argue that Archaeopteryx is more basal in morphology than the Deinonychosauria, but this very fact brings it closer to basal Tetanurae — some of which certainly lived before Archaeopteryx! Besides, in this case the long ghost lineage Rahonavis creates, is an argument against the MANIAC position...

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I meant mostly this secion Origin_of_birds#Diminished_significance_of_Archaeopteryx

Jcwf (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if Rahonavis is a dromaeosaurid, of the three possibilities mentioned above, two would, admittedly in a very small way ;o), diminish the importance of Archaeopteryx: if it represents an older flying lineage, it exemplifies that Archaeopteryx was not the oldest flying dinosaur; and if it is a later off-shoot, it lessens the uniqueness of the Urvogel. Of course there is always the third possibility of dromaeosaurids being Aves, in which case Archaeopteryx would be more important, as the perhaps most basal known flying form of a more auspicious clade! And Rahonavis might not be a dromaeosaurid to begin with but a more derived bird instead.

Whatever its taxonomic position, Rahonavis shows that a "primitive" flying morphology was not all that unique — and might well indicate a very successful and efficient lifestyle, not some early evolutionary experiment that was soon superseded and replaced.--MWAK (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Char B and lorraine

Happy to discuss edit differences, if required :) Irondome (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A good discussion is always nice :o). I'll answer you on the respective talk pages.--MWAK (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The evidence for self destruction is overwhelming :). I have just removed "scuttled" puts me in mind of a battleship. Hope acceptable to you. Irondome (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that tear in the armour. Maybe it was 47mm AP cooking off in an internal fire. I always love to examine armour pics at the highest res :) You always find a new interpretation. Irondome (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, British tank jargon uses a lot of nautical terms, a left-over from the time they were seen as "landships". The damage in the BEARN II is indeed massive. If one takes into account the internal lay-out of the Char B1 bis, the most likely explanation is that fused charges were placed against the ammunition rack to the left of the driver, which housed fifteen 75 mm rounds. This stock was easily accessible and rather concentrated, whereas the other 75 mm rounds were more dispersed in boxes below the compartment floor. The explosion blew out the entire upper left side, suspension elements and all.--MWAK (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It is perhaps some of the the worst damage of all Char pics I have seen. The whole side has gone. The quality of the pic is excellent. I admit I wrote her instead of the final "it" on a BEARN II edit. :) the nautical analogy is tempting. Irondome (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Chobham armour

Hello MWAK,

I am going to translate this article in French, and I am stucked with the end of the following sentence: "They typically form an inner layer placed below the much more expensive matrix, to prevent extensive damage to it should the metal layer strongly deform but not defeat a penetrator" There are two solutions, the first is that one word is missing or the second is that my English is not so good. Could you please help me? Have a nice Sunday. Skiff (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hallo, Skiff! I may offer a third explanation: the wording is somewhat dense and convoluted :o). Perhaps breaking the reasoning down in several points will elucidate the matter:

1. The heavy metal modules are below the ceramic tiles.
2. This is in fact to protect the expensive ceramic tiles.
3. Would the ceramic tiles not be better protected by putting the heavy metal layer on top of them?
4. No: there already is a thin outer armour layer to protect them from small projectiles. This armour cannot stop a large penetrator whereas a heavy metal layer might well do so. However, a large penetrator will typically deform the heavy metal to some degree, causing it to bulge out to behind and crack several tiles, compromising their protective value. Damage would be severe and the protection offered by the system would be diminished.
5. Therefore it is better to have the tiles above the heavy metal. On impact a penetrator will then normally destroy but a single tile, be blunted by it and thus be less able to penetrate the heavy metal modules. Damage would be limited and protection optimised.

I hope this makes matters clear. Success with your translation!--MWAK (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, it clear now. Best regards. Skiff (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Aublysodon

Hey, I saw that you took some care of the article. Do you think it is ready for another GAN? Nergaal (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, we could give it a try...:o)--MWAK (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

While we're talking GANs, I've been watching your continued work on Monoclonius, and thought I'd suggest it would make a Good Article, too. Any thoughts? Firsfron of Ronchester 19:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It isn't quite finished yet :o). I must admit to being a bit doubtful whether such technical subjects lend themselves well to a GA or FA process. They merely have lot of citations due to the large number of species names they contain.--MWAK (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as the article is factually accurate, with clear prose and broad in coverage, I don't see the trouble. Still, it's your decision. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The barrier and the bridge

Hey MWAK,

Are you sure this photo was taken during the Albania crisis? Isgeschiedenis [6] and the Bundesarchiv [7] are dating the photo in may 1940. - RHLifa (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, RHLifa! Lou de Jong's Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Deel 2 gives the, presumably, correct caption: the picture was made in April 1940 when the alertness of the Dutch forces had to be shown to the general public. Obviously, it wasn't taken on 10 May but I assume you already had understood this ;o).--MWAK (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm, just checked deel 2, I can't find the picture in it, nor does it give a conclusive text fragment on the date the barrier has been used (or demonstrated). Which page number should that be? Maybe a difference between editions? RHLifa (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly.... It could also be that I misremembered and it was in part 1. I am presently not able to check out the volumes myself but I can, hopefully, access a series tomorrow. If you can bear with me...--MWAK (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC).

It's part I, after p. 548. Yes, lets keep it the wat it is. RHLifa (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that solves it then.--MWAK (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Anchi

Too early, but maybe I can get around to it in the near future. Abyssal (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case I'll simply refer to the specimen, mention its removal and give some characteristics.--MWAK (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

FCM F1

Hi, we just butted heads on an article, but upon looking at your page and edits it seems we should get along better. You are a dilettante, and I mean that as a compliment. Cheers! 76.166.144.21 (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, wrong person. You can keep the compliment anyways, it seems appropriate. 76.166.144.21 (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

OK :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Fossil star

	The Fossilized Barnstar
	For all your hard work in sorting out 19th century taxonomic confusion throughout Wikipedia! FunkMonk (talk) 08:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I feel truly honoured! To celebrate it, I'll immediately expand the Hylaeosaurus article (I already noticed some nice confusion, just waiting to be sorted out ;o).--MWAK (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome, for some reason I really enjoy reading the weird histories of old taxa, but few people like to write them up! FunkMonk (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It is often a bit labour intensive :o). But I say: the more convoluted, the better.--MWAK (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Edits to article on Renault FT

Hi, MWAK. Have you seen what is happening to the article on the FT? It's being ruined by an anonymous person who seems unable to interpret the evidence of his own eyes. Apparently, no FTs had wooden idlers, and they were mostly used by the Americans. It's unbelievable. I'm going to revert his editing, but I know he'll resist. I'll need some help. Can I count on you? Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm a bit afraid of getting involved in endless and meaningless discussions. It might take some time but, I hope, eventually all this will be solved to the satisfaction of all when the Renault FT article is expanded. Getting too upset over what is written before that happy moment arrives, is futile ;o). Still, I'll see what I can do.--MWAK (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

a comment

"Reader beware!...." and writer beware! a tank is incoming! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.219.73 (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

William Davies

Hi there. I recently created an article on the palaeontologist William Davies, and came across a possible reference to him in Thecocoelurus. You added the information about Davies to that article back in November 2010 with this edit. Would you be able to confirm that I was correct to disambiguate the link to William Davies to the palaeontologist? And would you have access to any sources that could be used to add to the article on him? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This is indeed the same man. Thank you for creating an article about him! I found his obituary here: https://www.google.nl/search?q=%22William+Davies%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:nl:official&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp&gws_rd=cr#channel=np&fp=18f5c767a974fcc1&psj=1&q=%22William+Davies%22+fossils&rls=org.mozilla:nl%3Aofficial Davies was first of all a collector and preparator. One of his innovations was the use of plaster of Paris to stabilise fossils as noted in Peter Whybrow (1985) "A History of Fossil Collecting and Preparation Techniques", Curator: The Museum Journal Volume 28, Issue 1, pages 5–26. That article also mentions the fact Davies collected the famous Omosaurus specimen; I misspelled his name... Here is a concise listing of what is known of him, which is not all that much, I fear...: http://bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/geologyOfBritain/archives/pioneers/pioneers.cfc?method=viewRecord&personId=195 Some biographical details are given here: http://www.sinclairgenealogy.info/davies-family But you probably had already found those. Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those. I hadn't actually found those other online sources, so they will be most helpful. If you know of any other offline sources, or can suggest places to look, that would be wonderful. Please go ahead and add to the article if you have time, as I may not get back to it for some time. Carcharoth (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I'll be able to add!--MWAK (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in a picture of him I found. It is a group portrait of him with fellow Natural History Museum colleagues in the Geology Department in 1881. See here. The whole group consists of Arthur Smith Woodward, William Davies, Richard Bullen Newton, Robert Etheridge and Henry Woodward. Wonder if there is enough on Bullen Newton for an article? Carcharoth (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A very interesting picture! I wonder whether it is free from copyright :o). R.B. Newton is certainly notable if alone for his geological work on guide fossils. He was the son of librarian T.W. Newton and the nephew of Edwin Tulley Newton. Some information can of course be found here: http://bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/geologyOfBritain/archives/pioneers/pioneers.cfc?method=viewRecord&personId=147 and there is a bit here: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C15417 A pdf on all Survey staff can be found googling under this url (blocked by our spam filter): url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEYQFjAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.bgs.ac.uk%2Fdownloads%2Fstart.cfm%3Fid%3D2702&ei=BdImUsqyOobatAb5woGgCw&usg=AFQjCNHDxe-YHFqsxQd8ezvgGAhUAi7W_Q --MWAK (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the pdf linked from here. That is a very useful resource indeed. The Natural History Museum have some fascinating photographs in their online collection, sadly not all with full labels and details (one is of half the Zoology Department in 1895, with one person named but not identified [possibly in the centre of the photo] and the Keeper of Zoology at lower right [he would be in the centre of the group if the whole photo was there] - in this photo [I don't have the link handy right now] a certain Albert Günther). Regarding copyright, it may be a matter of whether the photograph was published or not. Some of theses archival photographs are unpublished, so may still be copyright (i.e. the date the photo was taken may not apply). There are also some fascinating personal accounts by some of these museum and survey people. I came across one by Gunther that was a history of the Zoology Department told from the perspective of two of the Keepers. I'm sure the Geology Department had stories just as fascinating to tell. The whole set-up at the Natural History Museum was rather eccentric. They had open desks and working areas in their 'corners' of that massive building, and systems of Assistant Keepers and so on. One book I've read included horrific tales of carefully catalogued collections (years of work) being thrown out in the rubbish, or labels being lost! Anyway, that's getting a tad far away from the Newton family, so I'll stop there. Thanks again for the links. Carcharoth (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! In this context I found Discovering Dorothea by Karolyn Shindler a very inspiring book — but I presume you must have already read it :o).--MWAK (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not read that. It looks good. I'll keep an eye out for it. The book I was referring to is Dry Store Room No. 1: The Secret Life of the Natural History Museum, by Richard Fortey. Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion! I'll buy it :o).--MWAK (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

	Dinosaur Barnstar
	Here, have a barnstar for your recent expansion of many dinosaur articles. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. Reid,iain james (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'm honoured! Positive reactions like these keep an old man expanding even further (not just his ego, I hope ;o).--MWAK (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Megalosaurus

Hi MWAK. I've noticed how much we've been changing Megalosaurus from a C article to a B or GA. If you don't mind, now about us making it as good as possible and then co-nominating it for GA. If there is any information that you need a ref for just send me a notice, for I own 2 or 3 good, verifiable books that have information on Megalosaurus. Also, if there are any species I have missed then go ahead and add them. Information on my progress of the Species section is also greatly appreciated. Iainstein (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it was rather disgraceful how poorly such an important dinosaur was treated...However, that is also the strength of Wikipedia: if people can't bear it any longer they start making improvements :o). I'll first finish the description and then add the plain text about the species. Missing species and such can then be added too. I think generally you have done very well regarding the species list, but there is one point I had forgotten to mention: with changed names it is best to add the authors who changed the name, behind the original authors (the ones between parentheses). True, it is not formally necessary but still rather essential information. Those books could be very useful, especially for the paleobiology section. If you want to nominate the article for GA-status, you have to keep in mind that the people who have to review it are generally no fan of species lists :oS. I predict a disturbing tendency to remove the species from their logical place to somewhere at the very, very end of the article, lest any reader might be scared away by them. Or perhaps they will suggest to split them off entirely, just to make sure no-one will ever see them again ;o). Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The thing about the species list is I plan for it to look like the list on Iguanodon. It is a featured article so if I can get the list like that then I think It is definitely acceptable for a good article. Iainstein (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You might well be right. There is, however, a difference: with Megalosaurus the number of species is rather higher. That should be a reason to give them a prominent position but people might not see it that way :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I noticed this conversation and I can't resist linking to a classic (though extremely inaccurate) picture of Iguanodon and Megalosaurus: File:Iguanodon versus Megalosaurus.jpg. I was very pleased to see that this image, along with many others, has been marked with a warning and placed in Commons:Category:Obsolete dinosaur restorations. Still fascinating to see how things have changed since then (I think I'm right to say they didn't even exist at the same time?). All the best with your work on the Megalosaurus article. Carcharoth (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your good wishes. Is there anything you have that you can add? Iainstein (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

My thanks too! They indeed didn't exist at the same time, though this did not become really evident until the twentieth century.--MWAK (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi MWAK. I got a comment from FunkMonk on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs#Megalosaurus - going for GA saying that readers might be scared away by the talk about the complicated classification in the lead and thought that it might be better to change the sequence of the sections. Iainstein (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he meant the lead section, just that people are confronted right away with the whole "Scrotum Humanum" affair. I'll rewrite it in a more appealing manner — as befits the subject matter :o).--MWAK (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been very acrtive on Megalosaurus lately but do you think it is ready to nominate it as GA soon? Btw, great job on the species list, I greatly apreciate your help. Iainstein (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are still a few things to do — such as checking whether all images really depict Megalosaurus. I think in a week or so it'll be ready for nomination.--MWAK (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Any issues with the "modern" restoration? I think the legs seem a bit iffy. And is the presence of a vestigial fourth finger supported by anything? FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

For a general impression, it isn't too bad. The legs are probably too emaciated for a robust animal. Some details however, are very likely incorrect. The lower arm is much too narrow. The nostrils are much too low, especially with the individual on the foreground. If the fifth metatarsal (none has been preserved) was visible as a separate element, it must have been much longer, attaining about 60% of general metatarsus length, as can be deduced by contact facets on the (preserved) fourth metatarsal. The first metatarsal is shown as being attached high on the shaft of the second metatarsal, but in fact it was connected to it just above midlength as again shown by a facet.

The vestigial fourth finger has probably its origin in the assumption by Britt in 1991 that Torvosaurus, as we now know indeed possibly closely related to Megalosaurus, might have had four fingers, in view of its wide wrist. Also, Torvosaurus was in the 1990s sometimes seen as a very basal tetanure (isn't it a tetanuran? Or tetanurine? No, not if you apply standard derivation rules. Unsurprisingly, nobody does) and so it was logical to assume a fourth finger. Today, loss of the fourth finger is a possible synapomorphy of Tetanurae. However, the image actually shows a fourth metacarpal. The pattern of the loss of this element is far from clear. It should be noted though, that the presumably more derived Szechuanosaurus and Sinraptor dongi do retain this element, thus by phylogenetic bracketing Megalosaurus might still have had one too. Of course, the hand is completely unknown and a fourth metacarpal would not have stuck out but have been connected to the metacarpus by soft tissue.--MWAK (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll see what I can do. I guess it could have a hint of feathers as well, in light of Sciurumimus? FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Phylogenetic bracketing again :o). Megalosaurus was small enough to possibly have profited from some form of integument. But I would warn against planting some token hairs on selected points. That would be just as bad as those largely reptilian velociraptors on which some chicken feathers are glued. Either give the poor thing a full "fur" coat or leave it scaly!--MWAK (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You two got reviewed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Megalosaurus/GA1 FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning!--MWAK (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I edited the "modern restoration". FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Very cleverly done! I'm always amazed how naturally you make the changes fit in, without them being discernible by a different style...--MWAK (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Heheh, manipulating images for Wikipedia has been good practice, it has actually benefited me quite a lot in real life! FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Euoplocephalus

Hello. Do you think Euoplocephalus could be pushed to FA. FunkMonk thinks it may be difficult because it was recently split into different genera. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I fear I have to agree with FunkMonk...The taxonomic position of Euoplocephalus is a bit unstable. Also, major new research will probably be published in the immediate future. It is best to await its results. So: I'm glad you're ambitious — but I have to caution against overambition in this case! Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• On this note, I modified this[8] image recently, based on MWAK's guidelines. Is it ok now, MWAK? FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, no :o). The morphology of Euoplocephalus is truly bizarre. The belly was closer to the ground, the gap between it and the ground representing but a third of the total height. Obviously, that could only have been true if the limbs were shorter. The shin was about 40% shorter than the thigh. The forelimb was again distinctively shorter than the hindlimb, with the upper arm attaining about 70% of femur length and the radius about 40%. The torso was not only low-slung, it was also very stretched in side view. It should be only about 15% shorter than the tail. This has of course direct implications for the (lack of) curvature of its top. And the hindlimbs and forelimbs were wide apart in side view. Between the hindlimbs and the forelimbs the belly protruded sideways. Not just a bit: its widest point was about three times farther from the midline than the shoulder joint was. This is not easy to indicate without strong shadowing, produced by an assumed low-angle light source.--MWAK (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, will give it a whirl again, but at least the spike arrangement is better, no? To get it closer to the ground, should I shorten the upper arm and leg, or lower arm and leg? Or both? I guess no "correct" skeletal drawings of it even exist anymore for reference? Apart from the spike arrangement, the skeletal in Gregory Paul's Field Guide might have good body proportions? FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the spike arrangement, especially on the neck, is much better — although with this caveat that I haven't yet read Arbour's latest paper on ankylosaur armour...You should shorten the lower leg compared to the upper leg, the entire arm compared to the leg and the lower arm compared to the upper arm. Indeed, while trying to understand what exactly makes those legs so short, I was peering at page 234 of GSP's Field Guide ;o).--MWAK (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

How about this?[9] Pretty much everything has been altered to some extend. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite an improvement! The almost sprightly look of the earlier images has been replaced by the solidity the real animal must have possessed. Of course any side view has its limitations. To really convey the peculiar build to the reader we would need a top oblique view showing how at some angles the immense girth of the torso hides three of the four legs — or all of them!--MWAK (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Heh, at least the legs are slimmer now... FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Recently however, experts have come to the opposite conclusion, limiting the authentic finds of Euoplocephalus to about a dozen specimens. These include a number of almost complete skeletons, so much is nevertheless known about the build of the animal." Did you write that? LittleJerry (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I did indeed.--MWAK (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the information on descriptions and paleobiology based on studies of specimen currently considered authentic Euoplocephalus. I know the study on nasal passages is. LittleJerry (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Some additions have been made which reflect outdated literature or confuse taxa. I'll try to clear matters. The "Description" section is largely based on Arbour, although it must be said she described the entire material and I might have misinterpreted whether some remarks referred to the authentic Euoplocephalus or not... --MWAK (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the description section is too large. LittleJerry (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, we have to beware of trying to "balance" the article by removing information. The article should not please by offering attractive equal-sized chunks. In fact it should not strive to please at all: Wikipedia is not infotainment. It's an encyclopedia with the humble purpose of reflecting the secondary literature. The vast bulk of the content of scientific articles about dinosaurs consists of a description of the osteology. Therefore most of the Wikipedia dinosaur articles should have a large description section. Most don't and the reason for this is simply that the people who wrote them were either too lazy or too ignorant or both. I know that I myself am often very lazy and sadly ignorant of the majority of scientific knowledge. That's not a big deal: we should all be thankful that people like me still make their modest contribution to the common good despite their laziness and ignorance. But we shouldn't take it as an example :o). Another way to look at it, is to recognise that the known facts about dinosaurs are their bones. The rest is largely idle speculation.--MWAK (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

To give you an indication what happens when, on a rare occasion, I'm not lazy, see: nl:Megalosaurus#Beschrijving. Beschrijving is Dutch for "description". With many kind regards to Mr Benson for making this possible!--MWAK (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

But we also shouldn't get bogged down in technical details. Wikipedia is supposed to be accessible to general readers. Removing information to make an article more readable and manageable is not uncommon, check out the page history of Tiger for example. LittleJerry (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure length of sections only becomes a problem once the article exceeds the recommended size limits.[10] At 39 kb, with images and all, it isn't really close to the limit yet, so I think a split would be premature. I've had problems with too technical language in other articles, but in this case, MWAK has the knowledge to actually explain what it means, so as long as this is done properly throughout, and the size of the article is manageable, I think it comes down to how long the other sections grow. I believe tiger was cut down because of the overall size of the article? It is currently over 100 kb, so it is past the split recommendation. I see it was a whopping 130 kb before you and CC started work on it! FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't model the articles about extinct species on those of extant animals. When a species still exists, the history of its discovery is of little importance and vast data can be available about its general appearance, physiology, behaviour, habitat and interaction with human society. It's obvious that information that only has an indirect relation with the subject should be removed or split off. With extinct dinosaurs however, it's all about bones. What bones were discovered, by whom, where and when. What are their qualities. These aren't details: it's basically all there can be said about the subject. That's the core. Sometimes the literature will allow to embellish that a bit.

Yes, articles should be readable and accessible to the general public. What does this mean? It means that the information should be ordered in such a way and expressed in such language that the reader who wants to, can inform himself about a certain subject, if his general intelligence and background knowledge suffice. It emphatically does not mean that the reader who really doesn't care should never be in any danger of getting bored and quitting reading. After all, 99% of the human population can't be bothered with 99% of the available information on 99% of subjects (conservative estimate of course :o). So the "readability" of a text should be understood in the technical sense of its being able to be read. Not in the sense that people will actually read it. It's a given that they won't. It is the core business of an encyclopedia to provide the boring facts to those who are not bored with them!--MWAK (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

What is Coombs and Maryanska (1990)?

It was indeed the chapter in Dinosauria 1st edition, as you had already surmised.--MWAK (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

File:Detective Barnstar Hires.png		The Detective Barnstar
		For greatly expanding and fixing countless mistakes in Plesiosauria and many avemetatarsalian-related articles! Rnnsh (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm honoured! Frankly, I'm not yet convinced that pterosaurs are avemetatarsalians ;o).--MWAK (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tsintaosaurus

The DYK project (nominate) 00:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Nankangia

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Europelta

Gatoclass (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

ITN credit

ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm gratified!--MWAK (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Kentrosaurus

Hello, would you like to help bring Kentrosaurus to GA? LittleJerry (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a go at it :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice job. I think one thing missing is Paleoecology. LittleJerry (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, we need a source describing the Tendaguru as a habitat, so the niche of Kentrosaurus within its ecosystem can be made clear.--MWAK (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I found this and this. Would you like to write it or should I? LittleJerry (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Quick response! I leave the honour to you :o).--MWAK (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You think it's ready now? One remaining problem I see is that the lede says "Often thought to be a primitive member of the Stegosauria, several recent cladistic analyses find it to be derived" but the Phylogeny sections says the opposite. LittleJerry (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try and add a bit more osteology. Just a bit, I promise :o). As regards the phylogeny, the contradiction is perhaps merely apparent. Stegosauria is today a clearly wider group than Stegosauridae, so being a basal stegosaurid implies that you're a derived stegosaurian. In the past, species like Huayangosaurus were seen as stegosaurids, while Kentrosaurus was the typical "primitive" taxon of the group. On the other hand it is possible that the remark refers to some analysis showing Kentrosaurus in some very derived position.--MWAK (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Perusing The Dinosauria it now obvious to me that it was likely inspired by Galton (2004)--MWAK (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ready now? LittleJerry (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I can see a bunch of paragraphs ending without citations, would need fixing before a GAN. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe I've now eliminated them all in the main text. And of course we must leave some room for improvement ;o).--MWAK (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion about my last questions here, MWAK? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kentrosaurus#image_copyrights FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As always, I'm very opinionated :o). I'll try to answer them on the Kentrosaurus talk page.--MWAK (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me known when you think its time or when you're nominating it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the article is ready — and again leave the honour to you.--MWAK (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been tempted to work on Sauropoda to FA. Do you think its doable? LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the article certainly is in need of being improved because it shows many serious deficiencies. It really should be completely rewritten and doubled in size. So it would not be a matter of perfecting what is already good, but of making adequate what is painfully inferior. Such a transformation would be a massive effort, worthy of its subject :o). It can be done, of course, and it would be good if it were done. But personally, I lack the time to make a substantial contribution. I you are brave enough to take it on, I'd advise to obtain Kleine's Biology of the Sauropod Dinosaurs: Understanding the Life of Giants (Life of the Past), which landmark publication is presently cited exactly zero times, and start from there.--MWAK (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose your right. What about bringing Brachiosaurus or Apatosaurus to FA or GA? LittleJerry (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Apatosaurus is a very tricky subject as it consists of several species. Brachiosaurus however, can easily be brought to GA status and for precisely the same reason Kentrosaurus could easily be improved: professional paleontologist Mallison already had written a text surpassing the average FA article :o). But shouldn't we wait until Kentrosaurus has been promoted? (I have no doubt it will be) --MWAK (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course. LittleJerry (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

How about Sauropoda for GA? LittleJerry (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, as regards the content of the article there would be no difference with bringing it to FA. The problem are not the bells and whistles :o). I admit it is a tempting adventure. But it might also be very disappointing in the end. Sauropods are a popular subject and the article, once created, would almost certainly start to degenerate very quickly due to poorly coordinated edits.--MWAK (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we can push Brachiosaurus to GA after Kentrosaurus is done, whenever that happens. LittleJerry (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. May take a while :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Need your help at talk. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Its finally being reviewed. Need you there. LittleJerry (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

More. LittleJerry (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Need, you to do the other half. Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Air Sacs

True, it's probably too hasty to say they are definitely absent; however, as Senter notes, the air sac involved in the syrinx is actually fusion of several forelimb/pectoral girdle air sacs, which makes it seem slightly less parsimonious to assume it was well-developed enough to actually function in sound production in the many theropods that lack corresponding pneumatization. I'd also have to check and see if there is evidence for humeral pneumatization in Aerosteon which would also suggest the presence of a clavicular air sac that could fully function as a syrinx... The problem is that it seems pretty likely the primary purpose of these air sacs is not in sound production, so we would expect them to become independently expanded in many lineages for other reasons, and if these expansions are not homologous with birds, there's no reason to think they did or could function in the same way. One intriguing thing I found and briefly touched on in my blog was the role of the cervical air sacs in sound production in some ratites, which seems like it could almost be kind of a pan-avian "larynx" or at least vocal cord. IIRC cervical air sacs are much more widespread in pan-avians. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly more abundant than osteological indications of clavicular air sacks ;o). That being said, we must also remember Ignacio A. Cerda, Leonardo Salgado and Jaime E. Powell , 2012, "Extreme postcranial pneumaticity in sauropod dinosaurs from South America". Paläontologische Zeitschrift 86(4): 441–449 so clavicular air sacks are more widespread than it might seem. Wedel (2009) also mentions a pneumatised clavicle in Buitreraptor and a possible pneumatised humerus in Eotyrannus. That's pretty close to T. rex (unless Eotyrannus is closer to birds as Mortimer hinted at).--MWAK (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Kentrosaurus

Gatoclass (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

feather

After the Kulindadromeus story, maybe feather needs an update too. Jcwf 174.97.131.198 (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. And good to hear from you again!--MWAK (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Changyuraptor

Harrias ^talk 14:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Holland 2

Connected to former (province) this link is not appropriate. The former Seven Provinces is something else. See my answer to someone else on my talk page. Salix2 (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

But the article linked to, is also about the history of the concept and thus explains all these political changes. And you are forgetting that Holland up to 1840 was a province in the modern sense. Of course we can move the link to a more proper place in the lead.--MWAK (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Where you have placed the link shortly after writing the text above is OK to me. Salix2 (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"roughly consists of the two Dutch" seems Ok and more accurate. VandVictory (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad we have reached consensus!--MWAK (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Tachiraptor

I noticed your edit to Tachiraptor, and since I've seen you editing a number of articles in this subject area, I was curious if you could add an {{Automatic taxobox}} to the page so I could see how it's done. I've never really been able to figure those out. Thanks, G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I wouldn't know how to either :o). I never add taxoboxes because they are by necessity an inane mixture of the outdated Linnaean taxonomy and modern cladistics.--MWAK (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ichthyosauromorpha

Hoi, bedankt voor je edits. Ik heb het lemma Ichthyosauromorpha aangemaakt, kun jij misschien kijken of je wat meer referenties kan vinden? Oh, is het een idee om Ichthyosauriformes te redirecten naar Ichthyosauromorpha? Aangezien die twee clades bijna synoniem zijn. DaMatriX 13:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And I have a problem with these automatic taxoboxes. Tried to make one for Ichtyhosaurmorpha, and it appeared to be fine. However, when I changed the automatix taxobox for Hupehsuchia (changed parent clade from Diapsida to Ichthyosauromorpha) everything is fucked up, because the taxon Ichthyosauromorpha is "Unrecognized". These automatix taxoboxes has given me headaches from the moment they were introduced :( :( DaMatriX 13:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Niets te danken! :o) I fear the redirect is a bit misleading. Certainly the two concepts are not nearly identical, as the one includes the entire Hupehsuchia and the other does not. I'll make it a full article, giving the clade definition.

I wish I could help out with the automatic taxobox, but I have never bothered with these things. Can't you just insert Ichthyosauromorpha below Diapsida? Motani agrees that these are diapsids.--MWAK (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Proofreading

Ik heb trouwens iemand nodig die artikelen die ik geschreven heb even controleert op spelfouten e.d. Ik weet niet of jij je geroepen voelt? Het gaat om lemma's met betrekking tot de Rijn-Maasdelta, zoals Haringvliet, Hollands Diep, Afgedamde Maas, Bergse Maas, Oude Maas, Nieuwe Maas, Noord, Biesbosch en Merwede. Alvast bedankt! DaMatriX 19:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll give it a try!--MWAK (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.

Well done on the Schneider CA article, updating with the new stuff on Fouché and Quellenec. I haven't had the time to devote to it - it keeps one busy just trying to defend existing articles against those who would fil them with nonsense. We don't hear much these days about France having no claim to the development of the tank. Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope to update the Saint Chamond article as well — after I've finished the Car 2C one, which may take a while :o).--MWAK (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Tachiraptor

Mike V • Talk 18:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Battle of France

Thanks for your message, and apologies if my edit summaries seemed a little blunt (a vice in which the strict character limit plays its part). I guess my contention is that the phrase "Battle of France," while it sounds like it should encompass contemporaneous Italian operations, is used in English-language historiography to refer only to the German campaign "which culminated in the British evacuation at Dunkirk and the French surrender at Compiegne," i.e. here, here. In other words, while the Italians also campaigned in France, they were not involved in the military campaign (confusingly) known as the Battle of France. Albrecht (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I feel we might get entangled in a bit of circular reasoning. Obviously, when pondering the events in France, the Italian contribution (or lack of it) is not the first thing that comes to mind. And we can safely assume that the same is true for those writing histories. So when historians refer to the "Battle of France", evidently the German campaign takes first place in that concept — and this is reflected in the amount of text dedicated to either German or Italian actions. But we cannot infer from this that they would strictly exclude the events in the Alps. It is not as if they made a clear distinction and based on this banished all Italian involvement from the concept. It is the other way around: the Italian army is neglected and by this the need for a distinction seems irrelevant. You seem to reason: they neglect, therefore there is a clear distinction, therefore we should neglect. I feel that the best way is to be practical about it. The Italian events must be mentioned in our article and mentioning the Italian troops in the Battle Box provides the reader with an overview of all forces involved in the military events, for which totality of events "Battle of France" does not seem much of a misnomer.--MWAK (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't altogether disagree, but I suspect you would have a stronger case if a sizeable fraction of the literature did treat the Alpine operations in the context of something called the "Battle of France." As it stands, actually-existing RSs are being treated as "partial" or "incomplete" next to some Platonic ideal concept of the Battle of France (such lacunae could certainly be ascribed to the encyclopedia, but there's no reason for monograph-length studies to be so partial to the German contingent), which, it seems to me, runs afoul of Occam's Razor—surely the sources that don't mention the Italians are best taken at face value.

But as we're unlikely to resolve this disagreement without some tedious back and forth, and because there are only so many hours in a day, please see my latest edit for an attempted compromise. Albrecht (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with this compromise! And yes, I do have a penchant for Platonism :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Aquilops

Harrias ^talk 12:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Oh, you'd better watch out, you'd better not cry, you'd better not pout, I'm telling you why Christmas Velociraptor is coming to town He sees you when you sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for your life's sake Oh, you'd better watch out, you'd better not cry, you'd better not pout, I'm telling you why Christmas Velociraptor is coming to town Merry Christmas, and watch out for the Christmas Velociraptor, IJReid (talk) 25 December 2014

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your recent work on the ankylosaurs Tarchia and Gastonia. Abyssal (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Great work ! VandVictory (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, guys! I've been creating or expanding Dutch articles for all ankylosaurs lately. Each time a Dutch article is finished, I'll update the corresponding English one. May take a few months, of course :o).--MWAK (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Proofreed

Hi, you checked and improved the Cartorhynchus article I created. Could you do the same for Docofossor? Alvast bedankt. DaMatriX 19:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll give it a try, though my knowledge of the subject is limited.--MWAK (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Origin of birds

Hello MWAK, you deleted this section and references. It seems relevant to the origin of birds. What is the reason for your deletion? I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to learn its workings. Thank you,Jcardazzi (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

Recent research indicates that bird-specific features, like feathers, began to appear before the evolution of birds, indicating that birds adapted pre-existing features to new uses, like flight. Other gradual changes like a more baby like skull shape into adulthood may have been important changes in the origin of birds. The features of birds evolved in a sequence; first bipedal locomotion, then feathers, then a wishbone, then more complex feathers, then wings. After these features existed then bird evolution was faster than dinosaur evolution.

One problem is that this information should not be in the "Phylogeny" chapter. It simply isn't about phylogeny :o). But there is a much deeper problem: it should of course be in some chapter about the morphological evolution. But there isn't one yet. And although there is a commendable amount of citing, the three lines you offered were a bit meagre. They were also, though factually correct, misleading. A naive reader might assume that the sequence of changes you indicated, though slower than the evolution of birds, still immediately preceded the rise of birds. This however, is not at all true. Bipedality must have been at least 240 million years old, integument might well have been equally ancient and, depending on definition, wishbones and "wings" were probably quite old too. So that must all be explained in a more thorough way. Including the definitional problems. So the real reason for deletion is that this is already a long article and other editors are weary of edits that necessitate large structural changes that perhaps will not be implemented in an adequate way. But you correctly spotted that (or what) the article was wanting.--MWAK (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

MWAK, thank you, your comments were informative.Jcardazzi (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

DYK for Arcticodactylus

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Wendiceratops

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Order of battle for the Battle of France

I've just seen your excellent description of French armoured division nomenclature and common misleading translations (I thought they were equipped with light tanks too). Do you have any references and citations so I can put a note in the Battle of Abbeville User:Keith-264/sandbox5 edit I'm working on? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

First, thank for the compliments! I'll try to find a reference but it may take some time. If merely a source is needed for the fact that the DLM was, qua equipment, organisation and doctrine, the French counterpart of the German Panzerdivision, this can easily be provided as it is one of the main themes of Saint-Martin's L'Arme blindée française.--MWAK (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It's one of the most informative talk page comments I've seen in ages and remedied an ignorance I was ignorant of ;O). I have in mind a Note but will need the source and pages so I can add something like this "the DLM was similar to a Panzer Division in equipment, organisation and doctrine" (I'm not keen on "doctrine", would tactics or role do?) and any other comments for the other classes of armoured division/unit. For example was a DCr equipped with the equivalent of I tanks? It's quite frustrating that the few glimpses I've had on Amazon look insides show how Anglo-centric my sources are and at this rate I will have to add a disclaimer in the lead. At least I've found a source for the German division in the Abbeville bridgehead. Thanks again.Keith-264 (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The citation should then be something like this: Gérard Saint-Martin, 1998, L'Arme blindée française. Tome 1. Mai-juin 1940 ! Les blindés français dans la tourmente. Economica, Paris. p 133-134. The volume as a whole has 365 pages. The author greatly expounds on the French armour doctrine but "tactics" will of course do, especially the actual tactics shown in 1940 which, according to him, essentially were no different between DLMs or PDs. DCrs in general and 4e DCr in particular — it was of course a mike-shift unit with a bizarre collection of disparate vehicles in which any type might have been present — had no tanks comparable to the PzKpfw I or II. A useful booklet, stuffed with details, highlighting the French side of the battle is Yves Buffetaut's La Bataille D'Abbeville published in 1996. But I am a bit puzzled about the relevance of DLMs as none participated in this engagement.--MWAK (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Bugger they're DLCs aren't they? Sorry about that, regardsKeith-264 (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

They are indeed :o). The same principle applies of course: their name should be translated as "Cavalry Light Divisions". Should you have trouble finding the exact order of battle or tank equipment data, I can very easily provide these.--MWAK (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do. I'm putting the re-edit up today but I fear it has some serious flaws, because of the Anglo-centric nature of the sources I have. The follow-up attack of 4 July clearly began much closer to Abbeville according to situation maps on other sites yet in the OH it sort of begins at the 27-31 May start-line. Thanks again Keith-264 (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

PS is Economica a self-publishing outfit?Keith-264 (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

On 4 June the bridgehead had in fact already been much reduced. It's a very impressive article now; it will be easy for me to insert some additional details about the French forces but it might take a few days. Saint-Martin's work is indeed based on his thesis, yet it was not self-published but a part of the Collection Campagnes & Stratégies. Les Grandes Batailles-series edited by Philippe Ricalens.--MWAK (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm a bit too close, all I see are the flaws but thanks again. I gathered that the attacks made headway despite the OH, not because of it and took out a few sentences, because I couldn't find cites to alter them. I've read all your comments here about the BofF article and have enjoyed them. You might also have noticed that I altered the section on Blitzkrieg a few weeks' back, before I know that there had been a correspondence. I recognise MWAK but can't remember why; have we had any full and frank exchanges of views in the manner of History Today? ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If so, I can't remember them. But my memory isn't what it used to be. None of us is getting any younger.--MWAK (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Abbeville redux

Thanks for the recent additions to the narrative, it's much less lopsided now. When you've finished we can put it in for a B class again. I was hoping that the Karslake book would arrive today but no such luck. Keith-264 (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It might provide some useful details. It will take some days for me to cover the events of 29 and 30 May. We're only about seven hours into the real battle ;o).--MWAK (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi, thank you indeed for your contributions. Please remember not to link years or common terms (like "England") unless there's a particular reason to do so. Cheers. Tony (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it might not be too anglocentric to think "England" is a common term, but certainly the vast majority of the world population hasn't a clue where West Sussex might be located, even if they have ever heard of it?--MWAK (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hualianceratops

Allen3 ^talk 12:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

NCS

Hi MWAK, I think that we with our joint efforts have made the NCS article much better. Greetings --Chandra Varena (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chandra Varena! I tend to agree :o). It's a tricky subject of which it is difficult to determine what a neutral point of view might be. Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Daspletosaurus page

I used parentheses for the part on the Dino. Park Fm. formerly having been considered part of the Oldman because that's absolutely trivial to the Daspletosaurus article. Contrary to what you wrote in your edit, parentheses are extremely useful if not overused. This is not trivial because by removing the parens, you make the DPF/Oldman terminology bit a part of the article when really all it should be is a footnote. You might as well have the whole history there then--how it used to be called the Judith River Fm., and before that the Belly River Fm, and then Belly River was elevated to series... and so on. But whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.248.209 (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is a part of the article. You have to explain the situation to the reader to avoid a likely confusion. Putting that bit of information between parentheses to indicate "It is just an explanation of background data" is unnecessary because that's quite obvious anyway. What else could it be? There is of course an implicit hierarchy but making it explicit is silly. In this particular case there is the important point that Russell lumped all these forms in the same genus because the stratigraphical nomenclature induced him to think of them as roughly coeval.--MWAK (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Treaty of Westminster (1674)

Hello there
I've just been looking at this page, which you expanded (some time ago!) In it you mentioned England's Dominium Marium “from Lands End northward to Staten Land”, and that hostilities would end “between the Soundings and Norway”. Can you remember what was the source for that information? And do you know where the Soundings, and Staten Land, are? The first links to New Zealand, which is hardly likely; the only other Staten Lands I know of (here) aren't northward from Lands End. The second is a dab page which doesn't mention the place at all.
Any ideas? Moonraker12 (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Moonraker12! The source was Raid on America. The Soundings are the Soundings of England, the point at the entrance of The Channel where the continental shelf abruptly begins (and thus soundings could be made). Staten Land is cape Stadlandet on the Norwegian coast, also known at the time as The Point, the traditional northern border of the North Sea. Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I'd had it in my head that Staten Land was somewhere around Spitzbergen, or was an old name for it, but couldn't find any reference to it that helped; the Norway location was a bit of a surprise. And the Soundings was a new one on me, too. Thanks again, Moonraker12 (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I initially assumed the same thing, that Staten Land was some island far in the north and named by the Dutch :o).--MWAK (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to William

Why use the subjunctive in this clause? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Because the statement is likely counterfactual. We have to avoid the suggestion that the prince were suppositious. But I agree that such constructions, though possible in principle, are in fact exceedingly rare :o). Let's replace it with "would be".--MWAK (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Isn't "on the grounds that" good enough? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It does little to prevent an incorrect conclusion. If you are charged on the grounds of some facts, it doesn't mean you have not committed them.--MWAK (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC Dutch/Netherlands Lion

User:MWAK, you might be interested in this RfC. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Battle of the Golden Spurs and the river Leie

Dear, I saw your recent edit, and I am in two minds about it. On the one hand, I know very well that English sources on military matters are (for reasons beyond my understanding) often happy to improperly use French geographical terms outside the French-language areas - I have already corrected dozens of such occurrences. On the other hand I appreciate the reticent, almost shy re-introduction of the French term - and I must admit it might be of help to some English readers. So I will leave things as they stand, and kindly thank you for the "nuance" in your edit. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Part of the explanation might be that the river originates in France. Also, many educated Brits have some knowledge of French but rarely speak Dutch or even German. Then, there is the common misconception that Belgium would be in essence a "French" country. And since the Norman Conquest, England is itself a French country, its patois best limited to local matters, to be replaced by proper French when the mind escapes the bounds of the little isle ;o).--MWAK (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Char 2C edits

Hi,

I have reverted you additional write-up. Zaloga describes the event during May, yet you still persist it happend during Fall Rot or on 15 June. Zaloga also used the very same refrence to the book of Jean Mayet as you did, yet, with a completely contradictory narrative to what you have written.

Here's the complete refrence list from Zaloga's book, French Tanks of World War I, 2010:

• Buffetaut, Yves and Bruno Jurkiewicz, Magin Sauve Paris 11 June 1918, La battaille du Matz (Ysec: 2001)
• Danjou, Pascal, Renault FT (Trackstory: 2009)
• Dutil, Léon, Les chars d'assaut: Leur création et leur role pendant la guerre 1915-1918 (Berger-Levrault: 1919)
• Duvignac, André, Historie de l'armée motorisée (Imp. Nationale: 1947)
• Gougaud, Alain, L'aube de la gloire: Les auto-mitrailleuses et les chars fraincais pendant la grande guerre (Musée des Blindeés: 1987)
• Guenaff, Didier and Bruno Jurkiewicz, Les Chars de la Victorie 1918 (Ysec: 2004)
• Hatry, Gilbert, Renault: Usine de guerre 1914-1918 (Lafourcade: 1987)
• Jeudy, Jean-Gabriel, Chars de France (ETAI: 1997)
• Jones, Ralph, G. Rarey and R. J. Icks, The Fighting Tanks from 1916 to 1933 (National Service Press: 1933)
• Jurkiewicz, Bruno, Les chars francais au combat 1917-1918 (ECPAD/Ysec: 2008
• Kolomiets, Maksim and Semyon Fiedoiyev, Renault FT (Wyd. Militaria: 2005)
• Laroussinie, Roger, Méechanique de la Victoire: La grande histoire des chars d'assault (Albin Michel: 1972)
• Lafitte, R., L'artillerie d'assault de 1916 à 1918 (Lauvauzelle: 1921)
• Lawrynowicz, Witold, Renault FT (Progres: 2006)
• Lawrynowicz, Witold, Schneider CA-St-Chamond (AJ PRess: 2008)
• Mayet, Jean, Le Char 2C, (Musée des Blindés: 1996)
• Urtholan, Henri, La guerre des chars 1916-1918 (Bernand Giovangeli: 2007)
• Perré,J., Battailles et combats des char francais: L'année d'apprentissage 1917 (Lavauzelle: 1937)
• Perré,J., Battailles et combats des char francais: La bataille defensive avril-juillet 1918 (Lavauzelle: 1940)
• Ramspacher, E. G., et. al. Chars et blindés francais (Lavauzelle: 1979)
• Ramspacher, E. G., Le Général Estienne: Père des chars (Lavauzelle: 1983)
• Touzin, Pierre, Les véhicules blindés francais 1900-1944 (EPA: 1979)
• Touzin, Pierre and Chrisian Gurtner, Armour in Profile Number 13: Renault FT (Profile Publications: 1967)
• Zaloga, Steven, Vanguard 46: The Renault FT Light Tank (Osprey Publishing: 1988)

One thing more; the six tanks were all operational at time when they were embarked on train, however, pictures show, that at least two tanks were repeatedly penetrated which certainly caused an internal explosion. Other's show a direct bomb hit. That the tanks were allegedly blow up by their own crew, doesn't hold water. See picture: http://imgur.com/a/5kPtt

Theowslao (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but you obviously have not personally read Mayet. So how could you then possibly know what is the content of his book? For Zaloga, describing French First World War tank development, the Second World War events were of minor importance. He only refers to this incident in a single sentence of a photograph caption on page 42! So, that is not much of narrative :o). It's clear that he simply forgot to update the information. I'm glad you hold Zaloga in such high regard, for he is indeed generally a very reliable author, but even the best make mistakes.

Indeed there were internal explosions! These then caused the plating to break. The external penetrations were caused by 8. Panzerdivision using the wrecks for target practice, to see whether their ammunition could pierce the frontal armour. Surely you recognise them for AP-hits? The "direct hit" look is caused by the very large internal fuel reservoirs blowing. Real bomb hits would have caused much more damage because the way the Car 2C was constructed, it could not withstand even 50 kilogramme bombs and would have completely disintegrated.--MWAK (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have to read nor to consider Mayet, as the story don't hold up. Zaloga certainly didn't forget to update any information, anything other is pure speculation. Now back to your "tale", it is almost impossible that the Wehrmacht could have used them as target practice, while the tanks were still embarked on the train, as other goods wagon or tank would take the complete sight. Thus making a "practice shooting" impossible, seen on a third penetrated tank: http://i.imgur.com/KfWcniY.jpg Yes a bomb would have disintegrated the tank as seen on another picture, where it hit the front of the tank: http://i.imgur.com/CWUE1WL.jpg.

The French Gov. used the Char 2C straight and exclusively for propaganda purposes, it even might have influenced its later loss and allegedly destruction. So yes, I take Zaloga's expertise above anything else. ;-) Theowslao (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, if the Junkers Ju 87 at the time had been armed with a 37 mm gun, you might have had a point. But the first prototype of this version only flew in 1943. Bomb shards do not make such round entrance holes. And Stuka crews did not travel from Germany to Meuse-sur-Meuse to paint nice white rings around the penetrations, numbering them :o). The very pictures you refer to, indicate that the Germans were in the process of removing the wrecks. Obviously, if not earlier, during some point in this procedure there would have been room to test the various PzKpfw III or IV ammunition types. In the third picture, what might seem penetrations are in fact the hole of the removed ballmount of the bow machine-gun (the large circular black spot at the right side of the vehicle) and the rectangular opening of the lifted driver's hatch.

Now, I get the strange feeling that you suspect I'm making all this up :o). If your suspicions could be assuaged by a third-party opinion confirming the "tale": here's a very interesting site page which gives a more detailed account of the events of 13-15 June: http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/engins-blindes/chars?task=view&id=48 Scroll down to Historique. I trust the powers of modern machine translation will overcome any language barrier, should it exist. And, no, I'm not Jean-Pierre Valantin ;o).--MWAK (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've also taken a look at the fourth picture, which you interpret as a bomb having hit the front of the tank. Had this really happened — quite a feat in 1940 given the still limited accuracy of even dive bombing — the front half of the tank would have gone. What we really see is a very large hole in the right side. The armour plating is bulging to the outside, due to the internal explosion of the charge. It had clearly been placed in the prescribed position for scuttling tanks, i.e. in the rear corner(s) of the fighting compartment. The front is still pretty much intact, though the front storage boxes below the turret have detached, but the upward bulge broke the right track, hurling its upper front forwards. The explosion lifted the entire turret, shifting it over the turret ring to the front. One might think that the cupola was blown off, but in fact it was always removed for transport and attached to the engine deck. All five disabled tanks show holes in exactly the same position. Again, this is not due to the incredible precision of the Stuka pilots :o).--MWAK (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You are being silly, a Ju 87 B equipped with watering cans of 15mm could penetrate the 40mm front armor at roughly 300 meters easily. "Bomb shards do not make such round entrance holes" Please? An AP bomb has a delayed fuse, it will penetrate the armor fist, then explode. On this picture, the bomb appears to hit the frontal armor of the crew compartment first, then exploded inside.

"And Stuka crews did not travel from Germany to Meuse-sur-Meuse to paint nice white rings around the penetrations, numbering them" Are you kidding me? Ground troops would do it, simply out of curiosity, or to confirm the penetration. Same as the Soviets did with many German tank wrecks. Source: http://www.litmir.net/br/?b=167995&p=2

"if not earlier, during some point in this procedure there would have been room to test the various PzKpfw III or IV ammunition types" Sure! So, they capture the train, embarked at least 3 tanks, only to shoot them up; after it, they loaded them back again onto the train. On top of it, they blow them up, for a staged photograph. That must be the way how the filthy Germans handle it. Oh wait, didn't the French men destroyed their own tanks to prevent capture before it could fall into German hands?/s

No, I'm not saying you make something up, I find simply implausible, with all the photographic evidence. Well, let's get serious and have a fact check. Since you apparently have Mayet's book, can you scan/copy the pages for me? A friend of mine is fluent in French. Thanks! Theowslao (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

There are still serious problems with your hypothesis. I'm truly impressed with the penetration numbers (remember though, that the frontal armour was 45 mm), but were there Ju 87s with 15 mm gun pods in 1940? And would Ju 87s attack trains with AP-bombs? Why? They're not the Tirpitz :o). In any case, the penetrations were certainly not by 15 mm rounds, being much too wide. But certainly not wide enough for an entire bomb to enter! My own hypothesis has more plausibility, I feel. It merely requires that the Germans were able to decouple a wagon; or could manoeuvre, making use of the curve preventing the unloading, a PzKpfw III in alignment with the front of one of tanks.

I'm happy to send you a copy of the book, if you provide me with an address to send it to; or to send a scan of the relevant pages to some e-mail address. But I will not make these pages public on internet, as this would be a serious (and public) breach of copyright.--MWAK (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Same on your hypothesis. You also don't make yourself looking good either with making silly counterarguments. There are certainly penetrations of small calibre rounds, like 15mm as visible. And no, front armor is given at 40mm according to the website you presented: "effectivement blindé (40 mm), c'est-à-dire capable de résister à un coup direct"

"My own hypothesis has more plausibility, I feel" [..] "preventing the unloading" [..] "front of one of tanks." No, it doesn't. At least 3 tanks show signs of complete penetration. Also, why on heck they make a threefold repetition of the firing test, with so limited spaces without unloading the tanks? It doesn't make sense. First picture with about 7 penetrations, second tank, with about 10 penetrations and a third, close up, with about 25 penetrations. Anyway, you can send me those to: tomasz@sraka.xyz Theowslao (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just a case of German Gründlichkeit. The last picture seems to show impacts by 20 mm, 37 mm and 75 mm AP-rounds, so I have to admit that in my hypothesis several tanks were involved, both as targets and as firing vehicles. I think it's pretty obvious the impacts were not inflicted by strafing aircraft; nor is it credible that they were entrance channels of AP-bombs. Apart from tanks, AT-guns of various calibre might have been tested. For me, it's now late in the evening. Tomorrow, I'll make the scans and send them to you.--MWAK (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Re-add

Hi

At this point, I find your tendentious editing approach worrisome and rude.

I can't read nor speak French, a study colleague to whom I made the honest request, is doing the translating in his free time, voluntary. No sane person would force another by setting a deadline. It's done when it's done. Just because I took a break from our discussion to focus entirely on my exams, it doesn't mean you’ve suddenly “won” or we arrived at consensus.

Like the last time, you combine material from Zaloga to reach or imply a conclusion which was not explicitly stated by him; or using own original research to complete others work. In example, Mayet states that Churchill gave that particular "myth" a "certificate d'authenticité", but makes no further annotation from where he got that confirmation. How do you personally know that it's written in the "The Second World War" book series? Have you got the reference to it? Can you source it? It could be easily coming from a situation report, or created during a radio broadcast speech.

In the same manner in the case of the tank destruction, whereas Mayet make also no annotation to the Ju 87 dive bomber and simply stated, that is being destroyed by arriving "l'aviation allemande". Either you keep the objectivity and NPOV of Mayet, or sourcing the claims origin additionally, but don't combine them.

As for the other pages, my colleague had translated only 2/4 of page 24 at all. I'm also not having the time right now to get into a exentsive back-and-forth reply. I also think that your additional intricate detail is not appropriate and a second reliable source should be taken into consideration. Since there are still many open question, why at least 4 (yes, I found a fourth picture) tanks were penetrated et al. I suggest we stick to the current version: 1 until we got a better source. Theowslao (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I sent you the scans but you did not confirm their reception, nor gave any answers to my questions about them on your talkpage. I fully understand that your study must be your first priority but if you basically lack the time to discuss the issue, you should admit to yourself that there is no discussion. Using Zaloga to provide the detail that the exact location is Meuse-sur-Meuse, is allowed, given the historical consensus since the 1990s that the tanks were scuttled by their own crews. That is not some fringe theory; many more sources can be provided — and in fact I already referred to another source. You make an excellent point in asking for the exact page of Churchill's work as my memory could well fail me. And we really should have the press releases by Goebbels as well :o). Now as regards those penetrations: it will be harder to find a source, though I have a pretty good idea where to find it and have already ordered the magazine.--MWAK (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I could’ve kept you on track about every little progress on my TP, but frankly speaking, it wouldn't have changed anything so far. There's simply no need for it, and when your email-provider can't provide you a "delivery" and "read receipts" notification, you surely should think about to shift to another. You were also well aware that the colleague of mine would needed to translate it before I can participate further in our discussion. To say that there's no actual discussion regarding the premise, just shows off how unwilling you are to hold a constructive interaction and to reach consensus.

"Using Zaloga to provide the detail that the exact location is Meuse-sur-Meuse, is allowed"

Really? Zaloga may provide the exact location, but other than that, it is completely contradictory to its core. He describes the event during May and destroyed by Stukas. Yet, you combine Mayet's source with Zaloga's only to reach and imply that one ridiculous point, because Mayet failed to mention the exact location and makes only a vague statement: "village de Meuse à proximité de Montigny". Whereas you, have tried to complement both sources by stating: "However, fifteen kilometres south of Neufchâteau near the Meuse-sur-Meuse station, [..]" Neither, is Meuse-sur-Meuse 15 kilometres south of Neufchâteau, nor does it follow any of the sourced narrative. Having heard about WP:SYNTH and WP:OR? That's what you are doing.

IF there was a "historical consensus" since the 1990s, there would have been no contradictory views to list in modern works. Or missing somehow the explanations to the photographic evidences of four penetrated tanks. How they were performed, why Mayet stating that only one of the tanks have been debarked to perform the firing test, and why a tank showing penetration marks and is destruction at the same time without having the train moved elsewhere. There doesn't seem to be a "historical consensus", neither an attempted empirical research to qualify those photographs, only a thesis on what could have happened exists. You can add as many sources as you want and repeat yourself like a broken record, but It won't resolve anything until one could explain it.

However, I'm looking forward to what you can gather about Churchill and Goebbels. Thanks. Theowslao (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

We must keep in mind that your entire source consists of one sentence in one photograph caption. Zaloga does not explicitly contradict a consensus; the poor man just made a slight mistake, that's all! I'm not sure what you mean by "contradictory views to list in modern works". Mayet gives the location again and more precisely on page 40 of course, so the synthesis, if any, is very slight :o). Though reading it again, I noticed having introduced a very stupid error: it should be fifty kilometres! Thank you for correcting this. However, Mayet nowhere states that tanks have been debarked for firing tests — that the pictures can only be explained by AP-shot was my hypothesis, remember, and it was your conclusion that a tank would have to have been disembarked. Indeed, he does not address the penetrations at all. Now, if the penetrations, which obviously are very real, would logically contradict the consensus that the tanks were scuttled, it might be wise not even to mention the cause of the loss of the Char 2Cs. But scuttled tanks can easily be used for ammunition tests. On the other hand, German aircraft at the time did not carry large guns, nor were equipped with bombs or rockets with a hollow charge warhead, so could not possibly have inflicted such kind of damage. While the story behind them must certainly be very interesting, and they should be mentioned when a source about them is found, the penetrations can therefore be safely disregarded while weighing the sources. They do not provide accessory evidence that Stukas were involved. So, on this point no resolution is needed in the first place.

To speed the process of consensus formation, I'll send you a translation of page 40 of Mayet. If you are able to trust me enough ;o).--MWAK (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I also quickly checked what kind of AP-bombs the Germans used in 1940. According to de:Deutsche Abwurfmunition des Zweiten Weltkrieges, the smallest was the PC 500 with a diameter of 395 millimetres, much to wide to explain the penetrations.--MWAK (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Dyle Plan

I'm beginning an expansion of the Dyle Plan page tomorrow using Doughty, having looked at May, Frieser and Tooze first, so you might want to see what I make of it, before committing yourself to a parallel effort. Thanks for risking a mobbing by editing the lead by the way, I was about to reach for the flamethrower. ;o)) RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll await developments :o). Personally, I always keep a Crocodile nearby.--MWAK (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It's going very well but I'll have to move it to French defence planning, 1920–1940 or some such because it's growed. Keith-264 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe splitting is an option? The entire French defence planning during those decades is of course a formidable subject :o).--MWAK (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Possibly, I was hoping to finish today but need a bit longer. Keith-264 (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

French war planning 1920–1940 now look what I've done. Could K-W Line this be a place for a shorter article on the Dyle Plan? Trouble is, I've struggled with the details of the French implementation and I've got nothing on the Belgians as yet. Keith-264 (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the K-W-line was basically a set of fortifications and obstacles, so the article should focus on the Belgian efforts in creating them. I do feel the title "French war planning 1920–1940" is too grand. The text mainly is about "French military strategy 1938-1940".--MWAK (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's true but given the paucity of sources for the KW article, I'm not sure that it's going anywhere. I don't agree with 1938-1940, it starts at 1920 in the background and prelude. By 1935 most of it was fixed. Keith-264 (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the prelude covers the 1920s. That also means the main subject is represented by the 1930s :o). Also it must be remembered that "war planning" includes the relevant French internal political developments, their foreign policy and their rearmament policies. Indeed there are not a lot of publications about the K-W line but enough to considerably expand the article. I'll give it a quick upgrade.--MWAK (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I had the impression that 1939-1940 was one of your areas so it's nice to know you have the sources. The link to the Cointet-barrier page was useful too. You're right of course but I have to decide what I'm writing about and I prefer to leave the grand-strategic and politico-military stuff to others. I could alter the title to French military plans against Germany, 1920–1940 or some such, if you like. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

PS I found May useful as you predicted but too discursive for a base, especially after I swiped a copy of Jackson for 44p. Do you know of any sources in English, with more detail of the actual advance of the 1st Army Group and the retreat? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing that comes to mind. But I remember a study with day-to-day maps of the position of all divisions...--MWAK (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Infantry tank

Been doing a spring clean and left a talk page note you might find interesting. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, nice to see you at the Gun Carrier page. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MWAK. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Rif-Raf in Battle of Dungeness?

Back in 2015, you added a lot of stuff to Battle of Dungeness. Thanks! You added a description of the shoaling situation that includes "Rif-Raf and the Varne shoal." I found our article on the Varne Bank, and since it seems to match your sentence, I linked it. However, I can find no reference to "Rif-Raf", either in Wikipedia or anywhere else. Is this perhaps a local name for a some part of the Goodwin sands or some other shoal? Do you have a reference? Thanks. -Arch dude (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a pebble bank, also called the Riprap or the Rip Raps. I'll change it to the latter name as I have a good source for it.--MWAK (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Paludititan

On 5 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Paludititan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Paludititan is a Romanian island dwarf? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paludititan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Paludititan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Precious

dinosaurs

Thank you for quality articles such as Paludititan and Holmes's Bonfire, for moving dinosaur articles to their proper names, for "avoiding any original research...", for defining yourself by your contributions alone, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That's high praise indeed! One tries... In turn, I owe you many thanks for your contributions on the subject of eighteen-century music, which is especially dear to my heart.--MWAK (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 1608 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you today for Achelousaurus, "about a ceratopsian (or "horned dinosaur") nominated for FAC in ten years, since 2007's Styracosaurus. This ceratopsian dinosaur is unusual in having bosses where most others of its kind had horns, and it has been theorised to have been a transitional form between horned and non-horned members of its group"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

One question

One question about this: Koenders watched the CNN programme; Does Bert know Turkish well enough to understand Mr. Çavuşoğlu's Turkish, or did he ask his men who knew Turkish to watch it? The text you have written is contradictory at this form. Kavas (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I wondered about that myself, but the source didn't say... There is no strict contradiction in the text, it just raises questions that can't be answered yet (unless some other source elucidates this). Very likely he had some interpreter present.--MWAK (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Box type tank

I have tremendous respect for your work on wikipedia and we have worked together in the past on French tank articles. That said....I have never, ever heard the term 'box type tank' in any source. This is completely new to me after 40 + years studying AFVs. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Why, as recently as 2016 Anthony Tucker-Jones in his Armoured Warfare in the First World War: Rare Photographs from Wartime Archives states on page 35: "The Schneider was a box-type tank, lacking a turret but with a 75 mm fortress gun on the right side" ;o). But I was actually referring to the fact that such early vehicles are often described as a "simple armoured box" or "box tank". I can't remember exactly where I got the essential distinction with compartmentalised vehicles from. I'm pretty sure I didn't make it up :o).--MWAK (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the current edit as you've written is great, avoiding the usage "box-type". I'm not a fan of Tucker-Jones at all, having reviewed several of his books. Thanks a bunch, DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Name use conventions for Dutch names in Wikipedia articles

Greetings! I am not a Dutch speaker, and I was wondering if you could help me with a question on Dutch name usage in the English Wikipedia articles. I hope to do some work on the article on Siebren Erik Hazelhoff Roelfzema, but I have some confusion over his name. If I refer to him in the body of the text would I use the name Hazelhoff, Roelfzema, Hazelhoff-Roelfzema or Hazelhoff Roelfzema? Also out of curiosity, he seems to have been commonly referred to as Erik. Why is it the name Siebren was dropped? Was that just the preference of the person or his family? Short handing his name in say a caption, I imagine I would use Erik Hazelhoff Roelfzema. Would that be correct? Any help on these questions would be greatly appreciated. Gunbirddriver (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Gunbirddriver! I'm not an expert on Dutch names and I know little of the man but I'll try to be of some help. Such a double-barrelled surname in Dutch is not hyphenated when the combination is heritable, I presume to avoid confusion with the hyphenated double family name spouses often adopt and which is not heritable. It is also very usual to use the full double name, i.c. Hazelhoff Roelfzema. However, sometimes the last name in such combinations is dropped, especially in informal situations.

I frankly haven't got a clue why "Siebren" was dropped. But the Dutch are very free in these matters and often use given names. It's not uncommon to read on birth announcement cards things like "We have a new son Jan and we call him Piet". In this particular case, the explanation might simply be that his father was called Siebren Erik also. Moreover, the Dutch are exceedingly prone to use diminutive forms in the names of children. The diminutive form of Siebren would be "Siebrentje". Very few children are called that, as it is hard to pronounce and has, let us say, strong rural connotations. Whereas Erikje sounds cute and Erik is a perfectly acceptable name for a flamboyant student. But I can only speculate.

To sum it up: (Erik) Hazelhoff Roelfzema would be the correct form throughout the main text.

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks much, MWAK! Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Dunhuangia) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Dunhuangia, MWAK!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for creating this. It has had 2 tags added.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Belgium

Regarding this, while the site seems to be a non-reliable site, I don't think it is an extreme right site (they e.g. argue for the removal of a Cyriel Verschaevestraat in Breendonk). In general, it is better to simply remove such sites as failing WP:RS than to put a label on them, unless you are very certain about it. Fram (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You're right of course. I was careless in this.--MWAK (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Teamwork Barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For joining in on Achelousaurus and making it probably the best Featured Article about a ceratopsian dinosaur! If I had done it alone, it would have been very short... FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm honoured! Of course, your thoughtful guidance through the FAC process, was essential for the promotion. And we still have that skull image to add...--MWAK (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, when that's done, the article should be ready for an eventual main page appearance! Of course, if you ever feel like taking an article to FAC again, I'm ready to help... FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I hope to finish the added text this evening. It was fun to have experienced a full FAC but it also made me aware how time-consuming these things are. I might in the future be forced to start GA or FAC processes to defend the quality of certain articles. Meanwhile, I will from to time to time add or correct information in existing GAs and FACs. I'd like to express my gratitude and admiration for your indefatigable artistic and typographic efforts, as well as your constant friendliness.--MWAK (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah, they are so time-consuming that it's often a good idea to just forget about them and work on other things while waiting for reviews... But when completed, it almost feels like another dinosaur has been redeemed... Your new diagram looks good, by the way, only thing I would change is the white space at the top and bottom of the image, so I'll just crop it... FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Your edits on Renault FT

Please don't start an edit war. "concerns" is not a synonym for "companies". The average person without a business degree will not understand what a "concern" is supposed to mean. As I said earlier, if you disagree with me, and feel that "concern" is an acceptable synonym for "companies", then discuss that on the article's talk page. See my talk page, I've explained there to another user as to why "concern" shouldn't be used in the article. Weslam123 (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, "concern" is a synonym for "enterprise". I'm fully convinced that the average reader understands the sentence. And I don't have a business degree :o). The only argument you gave in favour of the change was a presumed rule "Anyone should be able to read the text". However, this is not policy. For a good reason: it would mean the end of Wikipedia, as there are many on this planet who can't even read. In this case, the subject is rather simple, so we can find a nice balance between the average reader having his intelligence insulted and him feeling excluded by a too difficult language. The use of the word "concern" in this context will surely not exclude the majority of actual readers, who of course will have an above-average intelligence as they belong to the select group that can and does read.

But why not include as many as possible? This is such a minor issue and, as I have just argued myself, "company" is a perfectly acceptable synonym of "concern". So, why not use it? The reason is that inclusion comes at a price. And that price is collective imbecility. While we evermore decrease our vocabulary, we lose subtlety, nuance and understanding. Kanzi knows a thousand words, a dog can learn two hundred — at what level will we end? Every time when we encounter a word we hadn't known before, we have a choice between adopting it and increase the collective knowledge of mankind or rejecting it and push humanity a tiny bit towards the subcanine ;o).--MWAK (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The majority of readers will find "companies" easier to understand than "concerns". Unless you can provide a strong reason as to why the term "concerns" must absolutely be used instead of "companies", "companies" is better used for the context, because it is less confusing. Andy Dingley has agreed with me that the word "companies" is much clearer to use in this context. It's literally listed right at the top of the Manual of Style, in the second paragraph, that "Plain English works best. Avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." So yes, it is policy. If you still disagree with this, feel free to start a new section in the article's talk page, but I would strongly advise you against starting an edit war. Weslam123 (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

As above. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, probably more readers will know the word company than the fact that it is the synonym of concern. But again, that is not a cogent argument. "Concern" is Plain English, is not jargon (Sociétés Anonymes), is not vague ("organisations"), nor is it complex wording ("institutions of the French military-industrial complex"). There is a certain ambiguity but that was fully solved when I changed it into "business concerns". So, it did not violate policy.--MWAK (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• I would though revert this change: [11] "Attempts to manufacture in U.S." to "United States production". They weren't produced in the US, we shouldn't describe them as if they were. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, wasn't the M1917 produced in the US, just built too late to participate in the war? I suggest we rename the "Manufacturing" section to "Production" (to keep consistent with other Wikipedia articles on tanks) and rename the "Attempts to produce"/"US production" subsection to "M1917 production" or something? Your thoughts? Weslam123 (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The M1917 was not the Renault FT. Therefore the section heading talked about the attempt to build the FT for general Allied benefit.--MWAK (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

O, Andy, you're such an elitist. As if normal people know the word "manufacture"... --MWAK (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about "manufacture" vs. "production", but very obviously about the fact that none managed to be produced (or manufactured). Nor, as already pointed out, is the M1917 (which was US-made) the same as an FT. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Would "Attempted FT production in the United States" be a suitable subsection title, then? The subsection title never stated clearly if it was referring to production of the FT, production of the M1917, or production of both; I had assumed the title to mean the production of both, and got confused when you said that neither tank was produced in the US, when the M1917 did get manufactured there. I suppose it was a misunderstanding on both our parts. Also, I'll go ahead and rename the "Manufacturing" section title to "Production" first right now. Weslam123 (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

M1917 light tank is a separate article. As it saw no WWI service, we should keep it separate. I think it's reasonable to keep "failed" in there in the FT article: there were no FTs produced, the M1917 also failed to be produced in time for the war. That's a pretty big failure. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

So would "Attempted FT production in the United States" be okay, then? Weslam123 (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Juehuaornis) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Juehuaornis, MWAK!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add urls to your references if they're available. Thanks.

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! To the best of my knowledge the naming article is presently nowhere available on-line.--MWAK (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MWAK. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Holland article external links section.

Hello,

You are correct, after reading the article again I agree with you. However I think that a link to the Government of the Netherlands in the Holland article is appropriate.

I removed a nonexistent link and readded the link to the Government of the Netherlands (with new description). If you think that is not appropriate, feel free to undo it.

Thanks, MountainStarMagic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300B:C0C:6000:5C68:951F:E2D5:BF42 (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, we might ask ourselves: why have a link to the government site of some country, if that country is not the subject of the article? If the subject were, e.g., Wales, would it then be useful to link to the site of the administration of the United Kingdom?--MWAK (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yellow pigment thing

Hi, I am not trying to be difficult, although maybe the effect is otherwise. But in any case, I left a summary of my rationale, mainly from the perspective of chemistry articles where we might have a different approaches. It is not a huge, huge deal to me. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you made some valid points, probably shared by many. I'll try to explain on the talk page of the article why I think the original text has some merits.--MWAK (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Feitianius) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Feitianius, MWAK!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add urls to online references to assist other users. I can't rationalise your author citations with those given here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02724634.2015.1054035?journalCode=ujvp20 This needs to go in to your third paragraph and you can remove the 2015 author names listed there as a result. Please also add a taxobox, and remove emboldening from the holotype accession number.

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks

Thanks for providing a new source on the dinosaur/birds page. Makes a big difference! (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_birds&type=revision&diff=850040110&oldid=849944820) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.49.139 (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you see the irony :o). For the sake of good order: the lead in principle needs no sources. It is uncontroversial that there is a consensus and this uncontested fact is sourced in the main text.--MWAK (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Eighty Years' War you included material copied from Eighty Years' War (1566–1609). That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this legal requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be more careful next time. The situation is more complex, really. I reinserted text from an earlier version of Eighty Years War but in a summarised form. In 2014 forty percent of the article was split off, without providing a summary.--MWAK (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War

Hi. Thanks for the addition based on Asher & Hammel. Very useful. I have rephrased a couple of bits. I hope that you are ok with them. If not, let me know and we'll sort something out.

I'm not entirely happy with the last sentence, which seems a bit POV and non-encyclopedic, but as I can't off hand think of a better phrase I'll leave it. You may want to have a relook at it. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Gog the Mild! I'll try to rephrase it.--MWAK (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Wish

Hello. Help improve article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thank you. 125.214.51.223 (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I know nothing about the subject but I'll try to help out.--MWAK (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, MWAK. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Antarctanax

Hi MWAK! Ive started to work on the article for the basal archosauriforme Antarctanax but im new with making articles. Do you think you could help? Thanks, OviraptorFan OviraptorFan (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Oviraptorfan! I'll see what I can do.

Greetings,--MWAK (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus

Hi. Do you think you could expand the description section for T-rex? It seems Brochu (2003) has more information on post-cranial anatomy. LittleJerry (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll see what can be done :o).--MWAK (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you think you can find page numbers for or replace cite number 97? I think we can shutdown the FA review after that. LittleJerry (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, I failed to acquire that book at the time... I'll add a bit more to the description tomorrow. Something should be mentioned about the teeth count, the lower jaw and the pelvis.--MWAK (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Would you be able to expand the description section for Triceratops too? LittleJerry (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

That is exceedingly difficult as a good modern osteology is simply lacking. I can't provide a description as I would like it but I'll highlight some salient points.--MWAK (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Glorious Revolution

I think simply undoing an edit is always discourteous. Two specific points;

• 'You cannot simply use 'its sourced' as a rationalisation for retaining material that is either wrong or at the very least dubious;

• Verbose; we can always be more specific but the length of the new Lead is the same as the old. I can make it shorter by removing more of the original.

Robinvp11 (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me begin by emphasising that in general your writing is excellent. You are also erudite and industrious. All very desirable qualities for a Wikipedian. They carry their dangers, however. Great knowledge can make a person misjudge the value of a source. Hard work might cause a more abundant expression than is called for by the demands of clarity and economy. But I have full confidence we can reach consensus on the talk page of the article in question!--MWAK (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

That

Yes I do systematically look for for thats; likewise onlys, boths, and &nbs (mixing HTML and wikitext in the same article can be problematic). Meanwhile, thanks for reconsidering which, and please take solace in the fact that I'm done with Achelousaurus.--Brogo13 (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• p.s.--Brogo13 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I just find it strange that you combine a modernist approach of "that" (the gradual demise of which was much lamented in traditional style books) with an old-fashioned conformism to the prescribed position of "only". A certain flexibility seems functional. I'll critically re-examine Achelousaurus.--MWAK (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You're quite welcome.--Brogo13 (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Query re Huntington

I would really appreciate it if you would avoid intervening in issues that are not relevant to articles we are editing. You have no idea of the background and I don't know why you are tracking my Talk Page.

Please do not respond as I am really struggling to keep my temper on this point.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

But Robin, on Wikipedia there is no such thing as a private article or even a private discussion. It's a collective project and "third-party" intervention is normal and desirable, if constructive. As you are prone to removing large chunks of articles, the easiest way for me to check whether texts I once contributed are afflicted, is to follow your edits, as I don't have all of them on my watch list. There's nothing sinister about that. People from all corners of Wikipedia comment on my edits all the time. In this particular case I noted that a conflict had arisen that could have easily been avoided by a correct interpretation of policy. So I provided that interpretation, as is my duty. And yes, also in the hope that this might instil in you some methodical doubt regarding your general application of policy, having spent in the last four months hundreds of hours counteracting misapplication ;o).--MWAK (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Peishansaurus

Hello! We are trying to find out where 'Peishan' is, and you may hold the key! In this edit: [12], you added the 1953 source that seems to be the origin of the term 'Peishansaurus'. Do you have page 67 of this book? The scanned copy I found ([13]) didn't have it, but the Table of Contents says that there is content concerning Peishansaurus on page 67. Are you interested? Please join us at [14] where I have laid out more of the details on this issue. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't have the book personally. I remember having seen at least part of the work and pictures of the fossils via some internet site. Regarding the location, perhaps this site is helpful: http://paleobiodb.org/classic/basicCollectionSearch?collection_no=50730&is_real_user=1 --MWAK (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, it is very helpful. The coordinates provided in the link match up to my personal impression of where this mountain is supposed to be, but it is definitely not part of today's Xinjiang (as the article currently states)- that spot is in today's Gansu (not sure if boundaries changed or what). Again, thanks. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe not? May I ask you, what does the term 'paleocoordinates' mean? "Where: Gansu, China (41.1° N, 96.9° E: paleocoordinates 37.4° N, 86.7° E)" [15] The 41.1° N, 96.9° E matches up with my expectations of where the fossil was found, but the 37.4° N, 86.7° E coordinates are in southern Xinjiang. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It would then be in Gansu. The paleocoordinates give the position in the time of Peishansaurus itself: due to plate tectonics the continents have shifted.--MWAK (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realize palaeontology had gotten that good! What an interesting concept. Thanks for your all your help and explanations. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Australopithecus afarensis#Society

Hi. Please correct me if I'm wrong (and I might indeed be), but postcanine teeth do not appear to be mentioned anywhere within the article, and no such comparison relative to the postcanines seems to be present within the supplied references. In its context, the sentence appears to be directly comparing the canine sizes between species, and not their ratios to the postcanines.Maschinengott (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

My bad. Somehow I missed that the context was the aggression level :oS.--MWAK (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Dutch dialects/Limburgish

Hello,

on Talk:Dutch_dialects#Groups_of_dialects I started a discussion on how the dialects of Dutch should be classified on a scientific basis. On Talk:Low_Franconian#Limburgish I asked, whether Limburgish is actually Low Franconian. I would be grateful, if you had additional points on these questions. Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Glorious Revolution :(

My apologies - I was overly dismissive recently of a reasonable comment you made on the TP. Sorry about that :) Robinvp11 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm often quite dismissive myself ;o). This is perhaps a good opportunity to express my admiration for your many contributions on 17th and 18th century military subjects!--MWAK (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Please preview, consolidate, and summarize

Hello, and thanks for your contributions. Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

• Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
  • The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
• Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 11:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, these edits were not really planned. Nearing the completion of a much expanded Dutch version, I let my eye swerve over the English text and on impulse made changes when they seemed necessary. Long ago, I summarised each edit but after a while it seemed futile. As regards the consolidation, is there not the simple expedient of comparing my last edit with the original version?--MWAK (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi- Thanks for replying. I don't know which edits you're referring to, or why you might find a summary less important for an unplanned edit vs a planned one. Anyway, it's less work (fewer steps) for your colleagues when they go over their watchlist. If they see a helpful summary, they'll be more comfortable not checking the edits, especially if they're not familiar with your work. Eric ^talk 20:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Capitalisation of families and clades

May I ask why capitalising families, clades e.c.t. isn't genitive? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, my "genitive" remark referred to your translation of Javelinadactylus as "Javelina's Finger". The genitive "Javelina's" was less correct, especially as the name does not directly refer to a person; it can be simply translated as an apposition: "Javelina Finger", a construction which is very common in English.

In general, the convention is that Latin names of groups are capitalised, such as Pterosauria or Tapejaridae, but their English counterparts are not: pterosaurs and tapejarids.--MWAK (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes I forgot that I hadn't changed the translation thank you for that. But also while that I am aware that their English counterparts are not technically a perfect translation, they are still proper nouns are they not? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, they do not refer to some unique individual subject or concrete object, and are thus in this respect no "names". So they are not capitalised as names would be. Of course, it's all a matter of convention. In German, all nouns are capitalised :o).--MWAK (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Alrighty, understood, thank you for taking the time to explain this to me! Sauriazoicillus (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! MWAK (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Nieuwe pagina over de Derde Engelse Oorlog

Ik ben bezig om een pagina aan te maken over de tocht van Evertsen en Binckes die zou leiden tot de herovering van New York in 1673, maar het gaat alleen wat langzaam. Aangezien jij veel hebt gewerkt aan de pagina's over de Engelse Oorlogen dacht ik dat je misschien wel zou kunnen helpen. Advies is ook welkom. Draft:Dutch Raid on North America DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

In beginsel zou ik dat heel leuk vinden maar ik ben bezig met het dringend oppoetsen van een duizendtal lemmata die Der Belsj op nl: aangemaakt heeft. Dus de tijd mankeert mij simpelweg. Raid on America is een goede bron. Je moet wel in het achterhoofd houden dat ze de staatsinrichting van de Republiek niet echt begrijpen. Het ontging ze dat er een verschil was tussen de Staten van Zeeland en de Zeeuwse admiraliteit en ze worstelden ook met het begrip raadpensionaris. Mocht je het artikel willen doorzetten, kan ik wel proberen dat probleem te ondervangen.--MWAK (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Question about old Wuerhosaurus edit

Hi, in this May 6 2011 edit you added a line that "A single spike was found but was seen by Dong as being positioned on the shoulder" -- do you remember if this was from Dong's 1973 paper in Chinese or from some later source? I'm curious because many reconstructions seem to show it without shoulder spikes, I wonder if some other paleontologists think the spike was on the tail rather than the shoulder, and whether the paper describing the spike gave its size. Hypnosifl (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It must have been from some later source. In the Dutch version I wrote that Dong reported a spike found in association with the left scapulocoracoid. In any case Dong (1990) does not mention it. Perhaps it was referred to in Dong (1983).--MWAK (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again!--MWAK (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Sordes

Where does the data come from Later David Unwin emphasized that "hair" in the form of pycnofibres was indeed present on the body, after the find of new specimens clearly showing this. Dinomarek (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Wasn't that his position in The Pterosaurs from deep time?--MWAK (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Limburgish

Hello MWAK,

there are tricky questions on that talk page.

Kind regards,

Sarcelles (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Lusognathus appreciation

For your much-appreciated additions to Lusognathus

I just wanted to sincerely thank you for your recent work expanding the Lusognathus article. I had every intention of (eventually) adding some kind of description after I started the page, but it certainly would not have been as thorough or timely as yours. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

These cookies are my favourites! I must admit my main motive was to create room for the free images :o).--MWAK (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, my thanks.--MWAK (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Consolidating and summarising edits

I've been keeping track of your edits made at Dacentrurus, which has proven to be quite the task. I can see that another editor has alerted you to this beforehand, but it couldn't hurt to ask again. Would you be so kind as to consolidate your edits on articles and provide a summary so that those keeping track of the editing have an easier time? Perhaps moving the article into your sandbox could work, making smaller edits there and then publishing the final version on the page. Thanks in advance! The Morrison Man (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, between 4 and 7 November 2012 I made the article triple in size, in no small part to provide room for the gorgeous lithographs FunkMonk had uploaded. Since then, the text had been largely stable until the day you objected to the large number of images compared to text length and their being "indiscriminate". I think this was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of policy, but I considered that instead of entering a probably fruitless debate of these issues, I might as well walk the royal road and solve matters elegantly by expanding the meagre description section and then fitting the images at their appropriate places and with explanatory captions.

Of course, I could make all the changes at once, but then a summarisation would be useless and other users would have a hard time analysing the transformation. For you, could a better result perhaps not be obtained if you simply let the article rest for a week and only then read the new version?--MWAK (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Sloped armour

The "simple physical mechanisms" are intuitive but probably should be explained or at least listed. Particularly why the effect is more pronounced at certain angles. If you were wondering why I had softened the "will" into a "may", it was due to cases such as shallow angle of incidence (potential rotation away from normal; see the diagram on that very page) or incomplete penetration (potential over-rotation to the other side of normal).

You seem to be the right Wikipedian to effect such an explanation. --pmj (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll give it a try.--MWAK (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Le chars

Re this revert, I'm wondering why you think all these things should be capitalized. Most particularly, char lourd and char d'arrêt and char d'attaque des fortifications and such are types, not names, and are not much found capitalized in sources (esp. not in French sources), e.g. [16], [17]. And the specific designations like "char 2C" are also pretty much always lowercase in French sources (e.g. these books: [18], [19], [20], [21]). Also, WP:MILCAPS, with a sufficiently broad reading, could be suggesting lowercase is preferred; we should edit it to be more specific about the case where the alphanumeric designator follows the generic type. What do you think? Dicklyon (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The point is that it is not in doubt that the designations are proper names. They should therefore be capitalised. Not every char lourd is a proper name of course but char d'arrêt and char d'attaque des fortifications were not general terms (like in "Gentlemen, presently we don't have a char d'arrêt evailable, so we should asap develop one") but indicated unique projects.--MWAK (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

My doubt comes from the fact that I don't see them capitalized in sources. MOS:CAPS says "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." These are not that. Phrases that are made up for a unique purpose are not proper names, in most cases. Dicklyon (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

No, but words for unique projects are! You also undermine your argument by not observing accurately. Zaloga mentions a Char 2c and Estes a Char d'arrêt. Probably, a mass of non-specialised text on any subject can be found in which people forget the distinction between proper names and normal substantives but these should not be seen as normative.--MWAK (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Au contraire! It's the specialist sources that should not be seen as normative. See WP:SSF. Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

But that is not policy. :o)--MWAK (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither is it policy to treat specialist sources as normative. The idea that "words for unique projects are" proper names is bunk, too. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

SSF reflects and explains policy/guidelines. That is the function of essays. Complaining that an essay "is not policy" is ridiculous. The policies and guidelines themselves remain policy and did not change to say and mean the opposite of what they say and mean (as explained in that and various other helpful essays). The purpose of essays is to better explain policy to people like MWAK who seem to have difficulty properly interpreting their more concise and quasi-legalistic wording. The applicable actual rule has already been quoted to MWAK here. WP does not capitalize something unless it is almost invariably capitalized in independent, reliable, English-language sources. There is no "capitalize what some specialized sources like to capitalize" rule, and no amount of wishful thinking on the part of MWAK is going to make it otherwise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in, S. I was also writing about French sources and French WP, and got an edit conflict. See my next comments. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

In the French Wikipedia, fr:Char lourd (Le char lourd) and fr:FCM 2C (Le char FCM 2C) don't cap char for anything, or make it look like char is ever part of any proper name. And fr:Char d'assaut has a list of types, where Char is capped in sentence case, but the rest of the phrase is not (e.g. Char d'arrêt and Char de forteresse). I don't anything on char d'attaque des fortifications. Based on the history, this must have come from either "Les projets de chars de forteresse" or from Touzin's Les véhicules blindés français. Do they cap it there? Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Touzin does not consistently capitalise such terms. I merely tried to apply the general rule that proper names are capitalised, confirmed in the MOS for military terms. Trying to check that by sources, I saw as a inconsistency, best charitably ignored. But admittedly, this is our system.

The essays are mere suggestions, giving the interpretations of their writers.--MWAK (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll cap them again, per the inconsistency in sources and the general guidance in the lead of MOS:CAPS and WP:MILCAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yingshanosaurus

Hi, I'm working on overhauling this page that you significantly expanded about 10 years ago. One of the references you added was Zhou's 1985 conference lecture, published in "Les Dinosaures de La Chine à La France". Do you have access to this text? I'm interested in reading it. Cheers, -SlvrHwk (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, SlvrHwk! Sadly, just a week ago, I destroyed the old mainframe on which those files had been stored... So, I can't be of much help.

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)