User talk:Loosmark

Kubica

Fair enough - actually we might almost cut that bit altogether, as it doesn't really have much to do with Schumacher. Just a thought. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

i was thinking the same thing. Loosmark (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

i've just checked the Trulli-Kubica collision isn't even mentioned on Trulli's page so it should definitely go from Ralf's page Loosmark (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Japanese minelayer Itsukushima

I have nominated Japanese minelayer Itsukushima, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese minelayer Itsukushima. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. — Ceranthor [Formerly] LordSunday] 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC) — Ceranthor [Formerly] LordSunday] 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Japanese minelayer Okinoshima

I have nominated Japanese minelayer Okinoshima, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese minelayer Okinoshima. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 19:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC) — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 19:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. I know you're unhappy about how the consensus has gone, but blanking the page, was not neccessary at all. D.M.N. (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

i have not done that at least not on purpose and i don't understand how could have that happened accidentaly either as i wasn't copying or doing anything with the text. Loosmark (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Grzegorz Gajewski

A tag has been placed on Grzegorz Gajewski requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.  RGTraynor  20:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jana Jacková

A tag has been placed on Jana Jacková requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Bongomatic 05:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jana Jacková

I have nominated Jana Jacková, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jana Jacková. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Bongomatic 08:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Jana Jacková

I removed the hangon tag since the article was not subject to speedy deletion. You can argue the deletion, by clicking the link in the Articles for deletion box on the top of the article. (Such discussion is not available for speedy deletions, so that's what the tag is for) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#a_question

You've a reply waiting there.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked

Loosmark: From Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, quoting you I don't understand this poll at all. can somebody please tell me how can I vote against all date links?. Since you asked… I too am opposed to linking. However, from previous RfCs on this subject (1, 2, and 3), it was clear that the community consensus was that there were some instances where date linking would be permissible. The proponents of option #1 for month-day and option #1 for year came up with that wording as it comes closest to no linking. Greg L (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

i was unaware of this previous RFCs but in my opinion option 1 still sucks a bit. why? because apart from the date links being useless there is also the risk that everybody will have their own interpretation what "some" is. but anyway thank you for explaining me their reasons for the lack of "no links" option. Loosmark (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, I, too, am against just about any linking of month-day or year links. We probably should have included this option in the poll, but it is too late now. Those who feel this way can simply say so in their vote comment wherever they vote. Tony (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that such a large oversight was made, but we cannot do anything about it. The community simply will not accept another RfC on this issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Kubica

If you think this: "The incident meant that Kubica understeered into a wall because of lack of downforce from front wing" is worthy of inclusion in a wikipedia article, then you might want to discuss your edits before making them - it is bad English and actually pretty meaningless. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It is undeniable, no matter who says it. If you could discuss this rather than get involved in an edit war with two different editors, that would be best. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Your picky edits to Robert Kubica are very unhelpful. You do not own this article, and when someone makes a decent edit to it, it is better if you do not just change it slightly without any real purpose. It is blindingly obvious that the front wing was damaged, otherwise it wouldn't be stuck under the car. Maybe English is not your first language, in which case I advise against making edits using the finer points of English. Also, your refusal to discuss this is a pretty poor show. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

it is not blindingly obvious the front wing was damaged, especialy not for the casual reader who doesn't follow F1 too much anyway and most certainly adding the word "damaged" doesn't hurt the article in any way. i would also like to ask to stop with your agressive tone: (speculating about my English, accusing me of owning the article, ridiculing my edits etc etc). i find your mentor's tone very unpleasant and harrassing. if you want to discuss the edits then make a post about it on the talk page of the article which is the proper page to discuss the edits. Loosmark (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it's stuck under the car, I'm afraid it is blindingly obvious. You don't have to follow the sport at all to realise that. If you think my tone is aggressive, then that's your business. If you want to avoid editors getting irate with you, then I suggest entering the discussion when one is started, wherever it is started. Ignoring talk page messages is a long way from polite, particularly if you then come in with your accusatory stuff. I don't know what you mean by "mentor's tone", but I am entitled to ridicule your edits if they follow the line of repeatedly reinserting an edit, as detailed above, in very poor English. Equally, it's not a huge leap to make then that English is not your first language. If it is, then I take that back. I started the discussion here because I originally had issue not with the nature of your edits, but the fact that you seemed to be ready to start an edit war with me and AyrtonProst, whose original edit was perfectly fine. You don't need to tell me where to start a discussion, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

what is wrong with having "damaged front wing" instead of just "front front"? IMO nothing at all, you are probably just a bit angry because you want to have it your own way. i'm sorry but at this moment it is just my opinion vs yours. if you really have a problem with "damaged front wing" (instead of just "front wing") why don't you ask the other editors about it on the talk page. if others prefer your formulation too then thats fine with me and i won't change it anymore. Loosmark (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, so what's the difference between me accusing you of just wanting your own way, and then you doing the same thing? I think the difference is you getting your knickers in a twist and not me. Secondly, no - the original edit was my edit, without the word 'damaged'. If you want to add that utterly pointless word, then you take it to discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

So you just re-add it anyway? This says a lot about you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

well it was you who came on my talk with an agitated tone and not the other way around. i don't get why are you so much against "damaged wing" but if you really want to have it your way so much then have it i don't care. Loosmark (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I came here because you were just reverting other editors, and reverting to a version which was, frankly, rubbish. If I got agitated it was because you didn't engage in discussion. I am against "damaged wing" because I believe it is a low-quality edit, the like of which is all too common. Obviously it's damaged because it's stuck under the car, no longer attached to the front. To say it's damaged is moronically obvious. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It is "moronically obvious" for you maybe but for me it is not, the difference is that i don't ridicule your view. But anyway since i rewrote section in question the way you suggested and after the last edit the word damaged isn't there anymore can we now close this discussion? I have my own view who started to missbehave and you have yours. I don't think there is much more say. Loosmark (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not ridiculing you personally, in case you were thinking that. We probably do have differing views on who started to misbehave, and that's because you think it's okay to ignore a discussion when it has been started, and I don't. I agree that there's not much more to say. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out just because Vettel got a penalty from the FIA does not mean it was his fault in the whole at all. Have you considered the fact nearly all of F1's major pundits, and wider fanbase believe Kubica also had some blame to take? Do you believe in Spa, 08, that Hamilton unfairly took a place from Raikkonen just because the FIA said he did? Get real, the sport's governing body is not infallible... Ayrton Prost^sign 11:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

what i or any other editor think about whois fault the accident was is irrelevant because wikipedia isn't a place for our personal opinions. the fact is that the government body of sport found Vettel responsable for the accident and thats that. as a side note: immediately after the crash Vettel said on the radio something like that he's an idiot and said sorry to the team. Loosmark (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Then it should say that the FIA found that it was his fault, with a reference - it should not just simply state that it was his fault. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. Loosmark (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton

You're kidding me, right? It says in the reference that he was "aquaplaning all over the place". Do you even know what aquaplaning is? I suggest you revert back to the referenced version. I'd hate to think you were starting an edit war over this, because it's beginning to look that way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

stop your using language like "you are kidding" and "do you even know". if you are trying to bully me you are losing your time. i know very well what aquaplaning is but there is no prove that he was spining due to aquaplaning he's only claiming it. in general drivers like to find excuses for their errors and besides this is the same guy who not so long ago claimed that he did not let Trulli pass in Aussie. remember that? Loosmark (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell me what language to use, and if you accuse me of bullying you once more, I'll take this further. I am questioning your edit. Do you want me to find an independent quote that he was aquaplaning? Do you actually believe that he made a mistake, a driver error, each time he spun? Spun on a white line? I'm honestly interested. This bears absolutely no comparison whatsoever to the Australian race - moreover, I believe it is clear to anyone watching the race that he was aquaplaning, and I doubt that anyone else would even need a cite. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are questioning my edit do it in a polite way and respectful way. you are not allowed to use rude language on wikipedia. and take "this" further if you so wish i have no problems with that. now to answer your question yes i believe he might have made a driver error, he was just pushing too hard. Kovalainen in the same car had no spins. and no it is not clear to anyone watching that race that he was aquaplaning, just read F1 forums. Loosmark (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have used no rude language to you whatsoever, I would ask you to retract that accusation or show me this "rude language". Hamilton spun several times, and you think each spin was driver error? You don't think his tyres were more worn than Kovalainen's, as they usually are, due to his driving style? What have F1 forums got to do with anything? They have no place here. I ask again, will you "allow" an independent cite? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

coming to somebody's talk page starting the discussion with "you must be kidding" IS rude. i don't know what was the reason Hamilton spun several times however there is absolutely no prove that each and every spin he had was due to acquaplaning. are you claiming that all spins in wet are caused by acquaplaning? never seen a driver just applying to much throttle? regarding the F1 forums you claimed that it was clear to everybody watching the race the he was acquaplaning. it wasn't - it wasn't to me and it wasn't to many people who watched the race and posted comments in F1 forums. regarding Kovalainen, i don't know maybe Hamilton's style is harder on tyres and maybe not we just don't know it and if you'd cared to read the reference you provided it isn't clear to Hamilton himself either: he said that "maybe" is his style meaning he isn't sure himself. Loosmark (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't agree - it was a straight question. "Rude language" is an entirely different thing. Secondly, I was not claiming that every spin was due to aquaplaning, but that he had spins due to aquaplaning - not the same thing. Yes, he may well have contributed to his spins by using too much throttle, but this is not particularly typical of him, (and I can't stand the guy). What people say on F1 forums is of no interest to me - in my long experience, 90% of people watching F1 are pretty clueless about it, and about 95% are horribly biased, and no, I'm not including you in that. We do know Hamilton's style is harder on tyres, it's been shown many times, and Kovalainen is particularly easy on tyres. Thanks for suggesting I hadn't read the reference I'd provided - do you really think I hadn't read it? That's quite funny. Hopefully you find the current version of the article to your taste - it is more accurate to say that Hamilton himself blamed aquaplaning, as you pointed out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

i'm not enterily convinced that Hamilton is harder on tyres particulary in the wet, for example Silverstone 2008 Kovalainen 'destroyed' his tyres while Hamilton's were still quite ok. but anyway the current version of the article is good. Loosmark (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking

I have noticed that you are making many edits to different pages delinking dates. This type of editing is in violation of a temporary injunction passed by the Arbitration Committee: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Temporary_injunction in reference to an ongoing case. Please do not continue to delink dates, as such behavior will be met with a block for violating the injunction. -MBK₀₀₄ 16:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft carriers

Please see my comment at WT:SHIPS about the converted merchantmen. These are valid aircraft carriers IMHO as they saw front-line service. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello and welcome Loosmark! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with our community.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you Piotrus. Loosmark (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BABEL

Please consider using the language knowledge userboxes; I don't know if you can understand Polish - thus I don't know if I should give you link to Polish articles of interest? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Invasion of Poland (1939)

Why you undid my change of caption text? The file's name is "Schleswig Holstein firing Gdynia 13.09.1939.jpg". --Ukas (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well how do you know it's the Schleswig Holstein firing on Gdynia on 13.09.1939? Loosmark (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The uploader of the file informed in Commons the source, original date of the file and what is happening in the photo. --Ukas (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the trouble of viewing several pictures and some film footage about SMS Schleswig Holstein during the Polish offensive and I must say that it's prolly I who was wrong. By comparing the surroundings of the ship in the pic to other pictures it certainly looks like it's in Gdansk. Ships guns are lowered down to shoot direct fire, so it must be that it's firing at target which is close - that would be Westerplatte. If the ship would be firing at Gdynia from Gdansk, it's guns would point more upwards for indirect shots. Besides, according to what I've read, the battleship had stopped bombarding Gdynia by september 12th, so sept. 13th is out of the question. Either the uploader or the source was wrong. I'll write about it in Commons. --Ukas (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I also remember that I saw that pic in some book captioned as Schleswig Holstein firing on Westerplatte. Loosmark (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Off wiki questions

Have you been in contact with Molobo off-wiki? -- Avi (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope I haven't, not with Molobo nor anybody else. Since I wasn't calling any shots during the Molobo investigation thats also pretty irrelevant isn't it? Loosmark (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments about SPI

Making edits on behalf of banned users is counter to wikipedia policies and guidelines. Whilst Molobo may not be officially banned now, having people make improper and unfounded allegations on his behalf may be considered further evidence of disruptive tendencies on his part and on the parts of those who are acting, intentionally or unintentionally, as his proxy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social club, and editing privileges are predicated on agreeing to abide by its policies and guidelines. At this point, I see you casting unfounded aspersions on the work of the clerks, admins, and checkusers at WP:SPI people and not trying to enhance the project. The only appropriate option now is to file a formal claim with the members of the Wikipedia:BASC or possibly ask for admin advice on WP:ANI. Further personal attacks, be they overt or covert, may be interpreted as a disregard for wikipedia's policies and guidelines and may result in measures having to be taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: I'm not making edits on nobody's behave other than my own. Also contrary to what you say my main interest is exclusively to enhance the project and to make sure that any future complex cases/investigations will be conducted in the best possible way. The reason I didn't start any formal claim is I've limited experience with investigations, in fact this is the first case i followed so closely, and i'm still trying to understood what rules govern it and what are the established practises. If you feel that you have to any measures against me do it I have no problems with that. Loosmark (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to malke it clear, I made the decision, not AdjustShift. I discussed the case with checkuser clerks (mainly Nixeagle) and members of ArbCom due to its complexity, but neither Scurinæ nor AdjustShift. I did not know any of you prior to my assumption of the case, so I do not think any allegations of partiality are appropriate. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point you have 3 choices:

1. Bring the issue up on WP:ANI
2. File a request for review at WP:BASC
3. Drop the issue

Please choose one of them. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing of cited information in Wielun article

Dear Loosmark, you have reverted a large mass of cited material added to article, with no reason given, despite having been a participant to the discussion about it on the talk page of Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II, and at which there were no objection about the sources. Could you clarify why you have removed the material with no appearant reason given (preferable on the article talk page), and why you added very uncivil comment your edit? Kurfürst (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes i can, dear Kurfürst. It was because you were POV-pushing unproper sources. Until the discussion on the controversial sources is finished stop with that practise as it is highly provokative. Loosmark (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Loosmark, unless you participate in that discussion, its very difficult to discuss your objections. 'POV-pushing unproper sources' - is very generic, and it seems there is an agreement by other editors that the used source (Poeppel etc.) is fine reliable secondary source. You have presented no objections then. If you choose not to take part in the discussion, it will only mean that a consensus will be formed without you. It seems to me that your objection was emotialal based 'I dont like it' arguement - ie. your edit note was 'controversial my ass'. So please note your specific objections. Kurfürst (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have all day to discuss every single of your source-missuse to push your POV. Loosmark (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Yamashio Maru/Yamashiro Maru

You moved the article Japanese Aircraft Carrier Yamashiro Maru to Japanese aircraft carrier Yamashio Maru - stating that the move was "correcting the name of the ship" - what is the source for this different name as both Chesneau in Aircraft Carriers of the World and Gardiner and Chesneau in Conway's All The World's Fighting Warships 1922–1946 give the name as Yamashiro Maru?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

They got it wrong because they have no idea how to read the kanji. Anyway my source is "Japanese Warships at the of world war II" by Shizuo Fukui. Loosmark (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you please add this ref to the article and cite the name?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

yes. Loosmark (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

!

[[1]]--Jacurek (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

thank you for bringing it to my attention. Loosmark (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not revert anymore today. Thansk--Jacurek (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

okay. Loosmark (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Specific objections to revised, extended Poland section

I have created a new section where you can discuss your specific objections to the new extended Poland section over Strategic bombing during World War II discussion page in the BRD proccess. Please do not abuse the rollback feature (it seems to me you had problems with that feature and it was taken away from you) but try to discuss your objections first. Also, note that removing such amount of carefully researched and referenced edits is, IMHO, borderlines vandalism, to it was probably an error on my part to describe it as such. My sincere apolgies for this comment. Kurfürst (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no rollback feature so i don't what the hell are you inventing again. The edits removed weren't carefully researched but rather a most blatant POV pushing against a consesus reached by most editors. Loosmark (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I may be mixing you up with another editor who tended to abuse this feature, my apologies. Any specific concerns? We have seen such vague comments from you many times, but you never address the specific edits and their contents. Kurfürst (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I explained you the "concerns" very specificaly on the talk page. You are using the sources selectively leaving out things which you don't like and overblowing every fact which you feel appologies the terror bombings. There other concerns already discussed on the talk page. Loosmark (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Nathan Okun

Read the whole article - it follows: The BISMARCK gets "the low end of the stick" in these outer belt armor comparisons against any foreign battleship of its era! However, we are not done with analyzing the side protection, because there is more waterline armor to many of these ships than their outer belt. and the final conclusion in the end of the article: Similar computations with British 14-16" projectiles concerning hitting the sloped 4.33" deck after going through the 12.6" belt gave identical results. Even the 18.1" (46 cm) guns on the IJN YAMATO would have had to be placed directly against the side armor of the BISMARCK to have even a chance of penetrating that sloped deck. The German designers had done a very good job in this one protection area! ..... FINAL CONCLUSION: The BISMARCK's internal vitals could not be directly reached through the side belt armor under any normal circumstances due to the sloped "turtle-back" armored deck design, making its design the best of all given in this article for this purpose.

While the belt could be pierced at longer ranges, there were armor behind it: a sloped deck of 110-120 mm thickness right behind the belt. This would be needed to be penetrated too so that a projectile could enter into the magazines or machinery. But it simply could not be done. It would reject any projectile at any range into the ships upper works above the main armor deck, where you don't find anything of importance, only laundry rooms and crew quarters. Kurfürst (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't stop there and read the article further:

However, there are several costs for this:

(1) Due to the main armored deck's low position in the ship, extensive flooding of the ship above the sloped/flat armored deck is likely if the side armor is holed, which could cause serious stability problems and which reduced protected reserve bouyancy by one complete deck

(2) The upper hull area can be destroyed at much longer ranges than any other design due to the weak side belt armor. Furthermore, some important equipment, cables, etc. were in this region, compromising the effectiveness of the protection to some (possibly critical) extent

(3) The weak lower main deck armor design -- especially the close-range zone of vulnerability after the projectile penetrated the 1.97" weather deck and was deflected downward through the thin 3.15" main armor deck over the amidships region -- allowed the possibility of reaching the vitals by hits that were deflected off of other structures, such as barbettes, or which hit "shot traps" where ricochet was inhibited (such as where a solid object was bolted to the armor deck and the projectile hit the joint, requiring the projectile to lift the solid object up or to punch through it in order to ricochet)

(4) The requirement for a rather heavy upper side hull armor belt to protect the thin main armor deck from side hits above the main armor belt, which costs considerable weight that could be used to beef up the deck armor or belt armor or both

(5) Unlike the USS SOUTH DAKOTA (and USS IOWA) or the VITTORIO VENETO, the BISMARCK's side armor does not ensure that a completely penetrating projectile is virtually always shattered and rendered "ineffective" by being decapped prior to hitting the face hardened belt armor, which reduces the damage that the projectile will usually case even if it does not penetrate through the belt

(6) The armored transverse bulkheads at each end of the Citadel were weakly protected and had no sloped deck behind them, making the BISMARCK very vulnerable to raking fire from either end, especially as the main magazines were located directly behind these bulkheads

(7) The shallow extension of the belt allowed hits below it to frequently occur, as was demonstrated during the fight with the HMS Prince of Wales, bypassing the main armor belt and aggravating any flooding effects that projectiles punching through the belt above the low main armored deck might cause

7 negative points!! It clearly indicates that it wasn't worth. Loosmark (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Fischer edit

Hi I saw your comments on the matter but I didn't see an answer to the original question " Does the Kraktoa edit seen here, have Impartial tone concerns? " I would like very much to hear from you if you think that this edit belongs in the article or not. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Impartial tone concerns? I'm not sure what exactly do you mean by that. If your question is whatever that info that Kraktoa added should be in the Fischer article or not then my answer is that I have no idea. Loosmark (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish Corridor

Dear Loosmark,

• you inserted: The German politicians referred to this area as the corridor directly matched to a source which simply says nothing about it. The term "Corridor" was in fact already used by the NYTimes in March 1919 (Footnote 5)
• the ethnic composition is already mentioned in an extra section, so it's rather redundant to mention it here once more.
• the headline Establishment of the corridor is perfectly describing the section's content, while Poland regains independence is rather an emotional and unencyclopaedic headline.
• be more sensitive in the usage of the term "Propaganda". HerkusMonte (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What happened after the First World War was not that the "establishment of a the corridor" but rather that Poland become an independent country again. The territory in question had a majority of Polish population and it was known as the Pomeranian Voivodeship. Refering to the a part of Polish territory as a "corridor" is simply insulting and it is a term that Hitler and the Nazi proganda machine used extensively. Loosmark (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to remove the sentence falsely attributed to a source? HerkusMonte (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not insert the source there. It is removed now. Loosmark (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Find sources for your edits instead of removing sources not backing your claims.HerkusMonte (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked you what exactly is disputable and needs to be sourced? Loosmark (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

AE thread

Your recent editing behaviour is subject to an AE thread I opened: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Based on analysis of Skäpperöd evidence on AE: I think you are reverting too much; try to adopt a voluntary 2RR approach. If you keep going close to 3RR too much, this creates an impression of edit warring (in fact, it is edit warring if done long enough). Also, remember to respect AGF/CIV/NPA, even if your opponents do not. Bottom line: keep it cool, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Massacre of Lviv professors

Hi Loosmark, that is o.k. Not “biggie”. Please focus on more important things such as Expulsion of Germans controversy etc. I think that this is the real problem right now. I tghout that we are getting all together with German and Polish editors somewhere on that pages but now I think that all has turned into something unreal. I'm slowly loosing all remaining faigth in realibiliety of Wikipiedia...It is all about who wins favours or sucsesfully manipulates people in charge (administrators). I'm so dissaponted...Good luck to you with that dispute.--Jacurek (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, thanks. Suffice is to say that share your concerns about Wikipedia (I prefer not to say anything more). Loosmark (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

File:Yellow warning.png

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, "any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

Editors are cautioned that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia that approaches its subjects from a neutral point of view. While it is possible for editors with strongly held opposing viewpoints to collaborate and produce neutral articles, it is extremely difficult, and requires editors to be patient, flexible, respectful of their fellow editors, and willing to negotiate and compromise. Editors are further cautioned that when a change to an article becomes contentious, such as through a few early reverts or a strong objection on the talk page, they should stop reverting and discuss on the talk page until a compromise or consensus is reached. Use the content dispute resolution mechanisms including content request for comment, request for third opinion, mediation, or the content noticeboard. Reverting without discussion is very bad. Reverting during discussion is almost as bad, as it shows disrespect to the editors participating in the discussion. Thatcher 11:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)