User talk:Mkpumphrey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Mkpumphrey! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Cornell Rockey 18:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Cornell Rockey 18:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Diana Quinn, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

[edit] Army Group Courland

Thanks for all the work you did on this one. Can you please also provide citations, i.e. where you got all that information from? I will not delete your additions, but for a good Wikipedia article, the main facts at least should have inline citations. Thanks MadMaxDog 23:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, my fault. You did provide some citations. MadMaxDog 23:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pontefract Castle

Thanks for the complement, but most of it was written by you. BTW I have had the fighting in the city of Berlin on my "to do" list, since I expanded the other sections, but I ran out of steam, and other things seem to get in the way (like the re-write of the Battle of Halbe). I am very glad that someone has tackled it, because the article was unbalanced (all bread and no meat in the sandwich) and it is much easier to chip in more information if most of the details are already written. :-)

As a kid I spent an inordinate amount of time studying castles, to such an extent that even now, by looking at an English castle I can still usually date any part of them by the architecture to the nearest 50 years. However I think my only link to Pontefract Castle in the Wikipedia project was from Robert Lilburne (Pun intended). --Philip Baird Shearer 20:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Berlin

Page sizes should not go over 32K. This page is now at 39K. I think that the Battle of Berlin section is becoming too German intensive. It should be more about the Soviets who after all had the initiative and were fighting the battle on their terms. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhapse you would like to move the paragraph into Bombing of Berlin in World War II. But if you do I think that the 18th should be changed to the 15th and the online book I have put on the BoB talk page be used as a reference. I did not appreciate until I read yesterday it that this bombing (with the refrences given) this could be seen the first action of the cold war. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I like Latin numerals for all German units, and some authors like Ziemke use them (see the map [1]). However I fought a loosing battle over this issue over the Battle of Halbe (see Talk:Battle of Halbe#Numbers of units). I think it makes it clear if one army is listed as 3rd and the the other as III. However only yesterday I went throught the Battle of Stalingrad [2] and used words for the German Armies to distinguish them from the Soviet ones. The reason for Corps being in Latin numbers is traditional and is followed by almost all military historians (and is in one of the guidlines). --Philip Baird Shearer 14:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is a good idea because all the military histories I have read about the Battle of Berlin date it from the 16th. Indeed the arguments are that there are only three crucial dates in the battle. The initial attack on April 16th, the breakout on the April 18th by Konev, the 25th because of the breakout by Rokossovsky and the Soviet American linkup meant that the war was won. After that it was all over bar the killing. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hanna Reitsch flew in in a Storch but was flown out by another pilot in a Arado 96 which landed and turned around for close to intimidate take off. I am fairly sure that it was not from the Tiergarten but from Unter den Linden, but I have not found a source for that. BTW I deliberately put the wording on the outfight vague because I did not want to put in this much detail and some sources say she flew the plane out.

It is I suppose possible that the street now called Strasse des 17 Juni (a definate post war name) was then also part of UdL in which case that would square the circle (same street but in the Tiergarten) but according to the 17 article it was called "Charlottenburger Chaussee" during the war (which makes sense to me), so back to square 1. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

See my cut and past into Battle in Berlin. I have put back the text you wrote and I cut out of Battle of Berlin. It gives us a whole new sandpit to play in :-) --Philip Baird Shearer 13:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The article can always be moved if there is a better name. Add anything you want, but expect it to be "edited unmercifully" :-o --Philip Baird Shearer 12:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deserved

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		For your excellent work in what was a serious hollow in treatment of History of Italy in English Wikipedia, the entry Italian Social Republic. Attilios 12:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Army Group Courland (2)

Please see Talk:Army Group Courland#At capitulation AGC comanded by Gilpert or Hilpert --Philip Baird Shearer 17:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation of Iceland

You seem to have taken text from http://stonebooks.com/history/iceland.shtml verbatim and put it into the Occupation of Iceland article. This would seem to be a copyright violation. Unless you can explain it some other way I will have to delete the article. Haukur 19:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning: "You seem to have taken text from http://stonebooks.com/history/iceland.shtml verbatim and put it into the Occupation of Iceland article. This would seem to be a copyright violation. Unless you can explain it some other way I will have to delete the article. Haukur 19:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)," please feel free to delete away. I could spend some time on the subject, find some alternative sources, and re-write it. But I just saw an "open link" and filled it. I probably should have left it alone. The only thing that intrigued me about the whole subject was what the "occupation of Iceland" was called. Most sources appear to agree that the "invasion" was Operation Fork. But the "occupation" is identified in Wikipedia as Operation Alabaster and Operation White Falcon. Neither name appears to be supported. I will leave this subject to you and I wish you well. Mkpumphrey 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll delete it, then. I hope to eventually write an article on the subject myself and the page you used looks like a useful source. Operation Fork was the invasion operation, Operation Alabaster was the replacement of the Royal Marines by the Army. I doubt that the occupation as such had a particular name. Haukur 14:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Willbraham Watson Ford

Should his second name be spelled with one or two "l"s? The London Gazette server is acting up right now, but I find the spelling with one "l" appearing four times during WWI, and get no hits with the two "l" spelling. Choess 15:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have several sources which indicate one "l" (Wilbraham), please feel free to make correction. I have found very little on this gentleman. My primary interest in him is that he was involved in Iraqforce. Thank you! Mkpumphrey 15:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, sources seem to be hard to come by: most of the references to him on the web or Google Books seem to be by his initials. I just ran him through the Gazette to see if he'd been decorated. What source are you using, BTW? It would be nice to have an explicit reference in his article. Yours, Choess 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a note about both spellings until a source can be determined as being THE SOURCE with the correct spelling. If you think "Willbraham" versus "Wilbraham" is bad, try getting World War II-related numbers that match from various Italian sources. I have some books which were provided to me by the Italian government ("just the facts" type of books) and the numbers STILL do not coordinate from one chapter to the next. Mkpumphrey 17:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Occupied Europe

Andorra, Liechtenstein and San Marino were not occupied during WW2; please see the articles on those countries for more details. Serbia,Slovenia, and Montenegro did not exist as independent states during the war, and the Independent State of Croatia was a Axis puppet state which was not recognised internationally as separate from Yugoslavia. Please be more careful when including material. Grant | Talk 19:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

From the History of San Marino, I offer the following: "The last occupation of the country was during 1944. San Marino was officially neutral in World War II. However, German forces used the country to retreat through, and they were followed by Allied forces. The Allied armies only remained in occupation for as long as militarily necessary." Mkpumphrey 21:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

While tou are fixing things, why not remove some of the other "non-countries" on the list? When exactly were Belarus or the Ukraine recognized as nation states during the 1940s? The "Independent State of Croatia" had more countries recognizing it internationally than either of these examples. In the 1940s, Belarus and the Ukraine were just occupied parts of the Soviet Union. And then there are the Channel Islands on a list of "occupied countries" . . . I do not mind the comments. But, please, try to be thorough. Mkpumphrey 21:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Eustace Le Fleming

I presume this article was an error. I can only find details of Roger Eustace Le Fleming, which you seem to have already created. I put a {{prod}} tag on it but I can speedy it if you prefer. Leithp 06:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

CORRECT . . . thank you! Mkpumphrey 14:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SD nomination of war generals

Sorry about the SD template on the two soldier articles, I didn't think to read their ranks... My apologies there. I got a little used to kids making articles about their grandfathers who never rose past the rank of private... well, regards, †Ðanieltiger45† ^{Talk to me} 23:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Someone was kind enough to indicate just about every officer involved with Iraqforce. Surprisingly (to me), very few of these gentlemen had existing Wikipedia articles and material on most of them is often rather hard to find. Long story short, I am just trying to connect the dots between multiple Iraqforce commanders. One of the more interesting connections was a guy I stumbled on who was responsible for invading Madagascar AND Iceland. Mkpumphrey 03:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Participants in World War II/Occupied Europe

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Grant | Talk 13:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And? Grant | Talk 14:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't know what you mean. I have reinstated San Marino to Occupied Europe as it apparently was occupied for several weeks by retreating German troops (although none of the relevant Wikipedia articles mention this). I have also reinstated the sub-national entities, because it looks odd to describe "UK" and "USSR" as Nazi-occupied when they were major allies, it's better to be precise, and the Channel Islands are not, technically speaking, part of the UK.

Basically my rationale is to use the smallest contemporary geo-political unit which is accurate. In all other cases, whole countries, or the vast majority of them, were occupied Grant | Talk 02:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We already list Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia separately. Along with Belarus and Ukraine, that doesn't leave much of the USSR that was occupied, does it? Grant | Talk 13:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] East African Campaign

Hi. Got to give the guy the benefit of the doubt - he's an Italian university professor (as you might have guessed from the stream of Italian he has written in the guerilla article - I assume he will translate!). Generally in the English Wikipedia this sort of campaign article is understandably very Allied-centric so I'm really happy that an Italian with Italian sources is taking an interest - the tidying of the stilted English is a small price to pay in my view as long as there is quality in the information and it is satisfactorily referenced. May have to have a discussion with him on this latter point in due course! Sometimes one is pleasantly surprised....a French user of Wikimedia has taken the laborious map I made for the northern campaign and turned it into a pretty svg file - very professional (although I have to say I was rather proud of my original effort which I thought had a certain earthy charm!). By the way, it would be really nice to have a map for the southern front... any ideas? Keep up the good work! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 16:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerning a "map for the southern front," that is difficult. How about a map of the re-taking of British Somaliland? Mkpumphrey 16:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't think that a map of the retaking of British Somaliland is much different from that of the taking....the brits even used the same three battalions which had previously evacuated!

Re the insightes section (your comment on my talkpage). It reminds me of a list of obscure Trivial pursuits facts. Or maybe that quiz show on US TV (can't remember the name) where the contestants are given the answers and have to supply the question ("What was the first British colony to fall to enemy forces in World War II?"). I claim no interest in it at all. Not sure whether the crazy Finn or mad Italian contributed. What I normally do in such circumstances is to indicate an intent with reasons on the talk page saying that I'll go ahead in [two] days absent any dissent. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

In the article List of Eastern Fleet ships you've added a number of external links within the article. Please see Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember, point 3. It appears to ban the use of external links within the body of the article - if I've got that wrong, let me know. The approach has been to leave "redlinks" to highlight missing articles, to prompt either new articles or linking to (for example) ship classes. Sorry to be a pedant. Folks at 137 18:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Englebert (tyre manufacturer)

Hi Mkpumphrey. I was just wondering why you removed Englebert (tyre manufacturer) from Category:Tire manufacturers? Thanks. DH85868993 15:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the site, it indicates that Englebert "was" a manufacturer. The "Tire manufacturers" category looked to be a list of current manufacturers (even if currently owned or operated by others). I attempted to access the two websites provided at the Englebert site and neither worked (for me). If this is incorrect, please accept my apology and please add the company back in to the list. I was not trying to harm the Englebert site. I did add Englebert to the "Formula One" categoty. Thank you for being interested. Mkpumphrey 15:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought that's what it might have been. I agree it's not clear whether Category:Tire manufacturers is intended to include only current manufacturers, or both current and former manufacturers. (In my experience, most categories tend to include both). I'll check it out and put Englebert back in the category if it's appropriate. Thank you for being so polite. DH85868993 16:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Alfred Dimoline

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of William Alfred Dimoline, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.generals.dk/general/Dimoline/William_Alfred/Great_Britain.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British 11th Division

I see you have done a lot of work on the British African divisions of World War II. However the (reconstituted?) British 11th Division fought in the Burma Campaign as part of the British Fourteenth Army: and is usually called the "11th East African Division"(second paragraph). Could we discuss what to do with this reorganisation on the talk page of the Talk:British Divisions in World War II? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to make any corrections you think ae required. Other than a book I once bought about Chandra Bose, the Burma Campaign IS NOT one I know much about. There was an EXISTING mention of the "11th East African Division" fighting in Burma in the article. I just added the link. HOWEVER, it is my understanding that the 11th East African Division was disbanded after the East African campaign (and I only know this because it is written in Wikipedia). I noticed the "East Africa/Burma" disconnect right away and I "meant" to get back to this one. Thank you for noticing. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey 21:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqforce

I don't see a problem with the Iran article. As I understand it the chronology was 1. 10th Indian Div arrived at Basra -> Anglo-Iraqi War -> Habforce leaves Transjordan and is attached to Iraqforce when it reached Habbaniya -> 8 Indian Div starts to arrive -> Syria-Lebanon campaign -> Arab Legion sent back to Transjordan ->Iran Invasion. I think the texts reflect this now....? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your chronology is correct. However, the Iran article currently indicates: "the British Iraq Command (known as Iraqforce)". Was Iraqforce ever known as the "British Iraq Command"? I do not know. That is what I was attempting to add (albeit poorly) into the "Iraqforce" article. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey

Hmm. Don't know. I'll look into it. Regards Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Night of the Long Knives vandalism

You're welcome; actually, Wknight94 (talk · contribs) reverted the vandalism. I just let you know. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Dönitz FAR

Karl Dönitz has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Peter Andersen 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Country Club Mall

An editor has nominated Country Club Mall, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Club Mall and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I added information from the German Wikipedia article (which I mention in the notes). However, I already discvered an inconsistency with something that the German article indicated. I do intend to cite sources. However, if I read what you have written above, I should first suggest changes in the article's talk page. I must admit that I have not seen this done typically, but I am happy to do so. Is there an acceptable period to wait for a reply or comment after an intention to make a change is posted? Many of the articles I look at are not particularly popular and heavily perused. Thanks for your assistance! Mkpumphrey (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Compass

Sorry I didn't respond to your note earlier but I've been away for 6 weeks. I didn't write that sentence but I did reorganise the article with new sub headings and may have cut and pasted it to its current position (thus getting the "credit" for its inclusion). On the subject of adding a citation tag, there are no rules. If you think it needs more then stick in a tag and see if it stirs anything up! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Concerning adding citation tags, I was getting lots (and lots) of stern warnings from a "Jeff G." Whoever he is, he arbitrarily suspended me for translating material directly from the German site without providing citations (the German site had no citations to translate). Oh well. Concerning Operation Compass, I doubt the "BCS" organization described in the Derna section (with 50 M11 tanks) ever existed. Unfortunately Graziani was promised much (i.e., 1000 medium tanks) and some posters may confuse promised units with real units.

I plan to check the Operation Compass article again, but I just re-read a book which describes the initial British attack on the Italian camps (War Without Hate). One of the big points made was that the British forces slipped through between two of the camps and attacked the Italian positions from the rear. I am not sure that this is indicated. Mkpumphrey (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that the Italian strongpoints were widely separated and that the British attacking force planned to pass "..... through the gap between Sofafi and Nibeiwa. A brigade from the Indian Division supported by Infantry tanks of 7th Royal Tank Regiment would then attack Nibeiwa from the west while the Armoured Division protected their northern flank. Once Nibeiwa was captured a second Indian brigade, gain supported by 7th RTR would attack the Tummars. Meanwhile the Matruh Garrison Force (3rd battalion Coldstream Guards plus some artillery) would contain the enemy camp at Maktila. Assuming a successful outcome, Sidi Barrani would be attacked on the second day and a westward exploitation would follow." So making it clear that they passed through the Italian lines and attacked from the west (which was the rear). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second English Civil War

If during a copy edit you split a paragraph in two for style reasons, as you did to the Second English Civil War article, and there is a citation for the paragraph at the end of the original parent paragraph, please remember to include the same citation all of the child paragraphs. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point! I will do what you indicate. I was just reading for interest but I just see so many paragraphs and/or sentences that run on and on. But I do see that the clarity of the citation needs to be maintained.

In addition, sometimes there are "dead links" when the person (place or thing) has an existing "link-able" article. Thanks! Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Italian Colonial Empire

Hi

You have added a lot of material to Italian Colonial Empire. Can you please add the references for your additions? Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am mainly adding links the Italian Empire article to other existing articles I hae found and sometimes adding a minimal amount of text from those articles where it seems relevant. I will gladly look to add references from the original articles. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, this article really needs more info about colonies, colonial policies, less about military details of wars. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I will see what I can find of a non-war nature. I do know of a book I have that has some limited information on Italian public works projects in East Africa. Also, I do remember seeing an existing piece which listed Colonial Governors, etc. Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)