User talk:Xyl 54

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 194.176.105.40 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Yamla 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Barfleur etc 2 HMS Royal Oak (08) 3 re: German Commerce Raiders 4 Organization/Organisation 5 Convoy SC-7 etc 6 HMS Jervis (F00) 7 Convoy SC-7 8 proposed Eastern Front article structure 9 Silver Fox 10 Anthony Miers 11 North Atlantic convoys 12 Vandalism to the Battle of Atlantic page 13 "Prod" process explained 14 Trick to avoid speedy deletion tags 14.1 Looking 14.2 A lot 14.3 Like this 15 Convoys 16 BotA 17 Mare Nostrum 18 Re:Agreed

[edit] Barfleur etc

Thanks for the message and the work you have done. I will give you any thoughts I have in a few days. Op. Deo 11:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Royal Oak (08)

Thanks for picking up the error with the date here. Regards, — BillC ^talk 17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: German Commerce Raiders

Yes, the German commerce raiders is a subject that interests me. I'm interested in the history of the German Navy in general, from the Kaiserliche Marine forward. I've recently been working on improving the early battleship classes of the Imperial German Navy. Parsecboy 15:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead and work on the articles as you wish. The more people we have interested in this subject will only improve the articles' quality, right? Parsecboy 15:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization/Organisation

-ize/-ise is more complicated I agree, the OED often actually prefers the -ize form, I jsut think it looks ugly personally, and there was no real reason for it to be changed int he first place, so since other stuff needed changing, I changed it back as well. David Underdown 08:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Convoy SC-7 etc

Hello

Non what so ever. I just think that as THE encyclopedia, wikipedia and the data contained within it should be truthful and unbiased. Listing Nazi germany as a statename contradicts both, no matter how evil its regime

U wrote :Convoy SC 7 again! What are you playing at?

You objected to the tag reading Nazi Germany, and wanted Germany, which I didn’t disagree with, but the link to the page Germany is plain wrong; Germany from 1933 to 1945 has a page of its own , and Nazi Germany is the title of it. So that’s where the link should go. Anyway, I’ve changed it, again; do you want to stop messing about? Xyl 54 11:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well i am playing at nothing at all. first u agreed now u dont.. what 's it gonna be?? --Vosselmans 22:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"....What, you want to talk but you don’t want to listen? You want to ask questions but don’t want to hear the answers? The discussion page is the place for talking; If you don’t want to talk, fine; just don’t say anything..."

Pffhh, man.. I don't mind talking at all. I just dont like my talk page to be cluttered with a lot of messages. (like urs is looking now :-)) --Vosselmans 10:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"...In answer to your question, I told you what I did, and didn’t, agree with in my last post; which I thought was clear enough. In the matter of the name tag you may be right; in the matter of the link you are wrong...."

I also recently discovered that on "the great objective encyclopedia" called Wikipedia, one tends to get a lot of flak for trying to get politically motivated nonsense changed into what it should really read, u weren't the only one trying to correspond with asams10.

Well, like u said i am not wrong about the nametag, It should read germany. That it links to the wrong page is something u could have told me politely (i wasn't even aware of it) u know. --Vosselmans 10:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Jervis (F00)

Hi. It seems, that HMS Nubian had more battle honours - 15 [1] Pibwl ←« 13:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(Discussion here.) Xyl 54 11:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Convoy SC-7

Afraid not. My last name is Brooks, his was Brook. It would've been rather interesting had that been the case, though. JKBrooks85 11:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] proposed Eastern Front article structure

I'd be interested in any comments you have on the article structure below.

• ‘’’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

--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 12:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Fox

Thankyou Xyl. The 'Globalise' tag has usually been used up until now on ridiculously Americanised pages (as far I've found personnally, anyway) but since user:W. B. Wilson nudged me on the Battle of Narva (1944), I've found a few pages on the E Front that need a little updating from copies of '60s German histories & SS memoirs. I have no expertise on Silver Fox and the Finnish front isn't my main focus - go ahead and improve it all you like.. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your editing on that operation.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Miers

Well actually its not a huge deal but the Second World War link was a redirect to World War II so thats why I replaced it. Its just to reduce redirects.--Kumioko (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North Atlantic convoys

Thank you for the encouragement. I'm a Wikipedia novice, so I prefer to conform to the style of others with an interest in the subject. I'm a bit uncomfortable, however, that some entries required on the template with the other convoy articles encourage deviation from neutrality:

• Date might be the dates from sailing to arrival or the dates U-boats remained in contact with the convoy or the dates German tactical planning focused on the convoy.
• Result seems particularly difficult. Consider convoy SL-125. Did destruction of the largest number of ships from any SL convoy represent German victory, or was poorly escorted SL-125 a successful Allied decoy to keep U-boats away from the North African invasion convoys? Every convoy arriving without being detected or engaged might be considered a decisive allied victory. Simply engaging the convoy might be considered a German victory.
• Belligerents might be construed as British for the convoy commodore or Canadian or American for escort group commander nationality.
• Commanders might include Horton on the allied side and possibly particularly successful individual U-boat commanders whose example motivated other boats.
• Strength varies with time. It might be the number of U-boats assigned to the search lines, those that reported finding the convoy, or those actually firing torpedoes. (and U-boats firing torpedoes at ships in formation might be regarded differently than those sinking disabled ships astern of the convoy.) Escort strength might be the assigned escorts or might disregard those that left before a certain point in the action or might include reinforcements arriving after the main action was complete.
• Casualties and losses may be evaluated differently. Allied sources tend to disregard losses of ships that straggled out of the convoy. Evaluation of intent and combat readiness might be required for U-boats sunk by patrol bombers before they reached the convoy.

This isn't criticism of the template -- just an explanation of my difficulty using it. I would encourage anyone who feels qualified to add the template to any of the articles I have created.

My area of interest is the HX/SC/ON convoys from SC-94 through ONS-5 because I am developing a computer simulation/game where the player controls an escort group from the perspective of the escort group commander. U-boats are AI-controlled, as are the other escorts (subject to previous instructions from the escort commander) when encountering situations outside of signaling range. The simulation won't include air operations, so my focus is operations analysis of tactical situations within the air-gap. My approach to the subject tends to emphasize numbers for appropriate statistical weighting of random AI actions.

I have Clay Blair's two volumes of Hitler's U-Boat War but I have heard complaints about Blair's neutrality from users of uboat.net, and tend to regard his conclusions with some skepticism. Has he authored a separate publication entitled Battle of the Atlantic?

I look forward to working with you on this subject; and welcome your suggestions to improve coverage. Thewellman (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Thank you for the suggestions. I admire your productivity working from public access computers.

• 2) - I concur with your perspectives on both Blair and u-boat.net. From my discussions with U.S. Navy veterans of the second world war, I believe Blair is accurately expressing a widespread perspective of United States naval personnel of that era (possibly originating from subordinates adopting Admiral King's opinions.) Blair's work is a significant improvement over Morison's; and Morison's access to information was superior to most most other authors of his era. I find British and Canadian naval sources tend to emphasize the type of information I find most useful.
• 4) - I have Gannon's book, but I haven't seen the one you mentioned by Williams. I perceive tactics as less significant than technical developments in the convoy battles. Availability of patrol aircraft appears to have been the decisive factor in the spring of 1943. Most U-boats were detected before they could get close to the convoys; and the "Fido" homing torpedo tremendously increased the success of attacking aircraft. Information regarding the availability and capabilities of those torpedoes appears to have been unknown to many authors or their sources; and some of their conclusions are correspondingly distorted. Availability of 10-centimeter SW RADAR appears to have made the biggest difference in the typical U-boat night-surface attack. During the winter of 1942-43, 1940 tactics worked only until the U-boat's assumption of an escort's night visibility range was trumped by the escort's RADAR. The availability of SW RADAR on any particular escort is another elusive bit of information (clouded by the frequency of non-functionality even when the date of installation is known.)

Individual U-boat skippers seem to have made more difference than the number of boats involved. Most skippers of the winter of 1942-43 appear to have patrolled around the convoys hoping to catch stragglers. Unless the convoy was scattered by bad weather, significant convoy losses usually occurred only when a particularly aggressive (or lucky) skipper got into the convoy and torpedoed a number of ships.

The size of the U-boat appears to have been a significant factor once the escorts were in position to attack. The smaller type VII U-boat offered less reflective area for a SONAR return echo, and was more maneuverable than the larger type-IX U-boat. The difference was even greater when considering Japanese submarines. The United States Navy found Hedgehog very effective when launched against large, shallow Japanese submarines from large, stable destroyer platforms in the relatively calm Pacific. The British preferred Squid because of their experience launching Hedgehog against small, maneuverable U-boats from corvettes and small destroyers pitching and rolling through North Atlantic storms.

Few of the foregoing opinions have the necessarily concise reference citations for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. My intent in the short term is to focus on filling out some of my convoy articles with more descriptive text; and similarly expanding coverage of individual escort ships with combat experience during the winter of 1942-43. I value your help and suggestions. Thewellman (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Very nicely done editing of Convoy SC-104; and a significant improvement over my format. I'm a big fan of tabular data. My statements of merchant sailor casualties seemed clumsy in comparison to your text, so I took the liberty of moving that data into the infobox. Thewellman (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism to the Battle of Atlantic page

Your offensive addition to this article's summary box has been reported, see here. Dapi89 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then; would you care to read the "Strategic Objectives" section now you've edited it, and tell me what it says now? Xyl 54 (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What it is supposed to say. Dapi89 (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so now you’ve deleted the comment “ …and suck pussy”, which you added after I’d deleted it, but instead of an apology, which might have been appropriate under the circumstances, or maybe "thanks", or even just a "good catch", you’re trying to pass it off as my mistake?

I don’t believe it!

And, who have you “reported this vandalism” to? With whom do I have to clear my name, now you've impugned it?

Xyl 54 (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You must be joking. Why would I congratulate someone who defaces wikipedia in any manor. Who mentioned anything about a mistake? I referred only to the edit summary, which was deliberate was it not? Your edit history has already black listed "your name", as you have been blocked before for totally inappropriate behaviour, so don't give me that. Dapi89 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'll post it here too since there are dup htreads. Dapi, i'd recheck the diff. I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you dapi reverted to vandalism twice and xyl removed it once.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't. I did it once and corrected it immediately. I did so without looking (given this user has been banned before) I simply reverted. Quickly realising he was being a "smart ass" I corrected it.Dapi89 (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it misses the point, the complaint was about his defence of obscene material. I would have thought that was obvious. Dapi89 (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dapi he took it out and the ip took it out, see the diffs i left you.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Prod" process explained

If you disagree with the proposed deletion, just remove the "prod" tag, with a brief explanation in the edit summary; simple as that. If somebody still feels strongly enough that it's not encyclopedic content, then they will have to take it to a formal AfD (Article for Discussion) process. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Xyl, just so you know the prod's been removed. With the references and info you added, the article should survive any attempt to quickly delete it. It's always posible that someone could try to send it to afd. But then there would have to be a discussion, usually lasting 5 days where people could give their input. For now though, the article's safe.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trick to avoid speedy deletion tags

Create a subpage as a sandbox, write your article in peace in there, polish it up and when ready, create your article and copy/paste text into it. If you need help setting up a sandbox just yell! Mjroots (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely the route to follow. An article should be submitted to Wikipedia only when it's ready to read and of value to the non-knowledgable reader; instead, we get situations where people post a skeleton or framework with a promissory note, so that Wikipedia is littered with these outlines, some of which consist of a single sentence, others merely of a stack of section headings

[edit] Looking

[edit] A lot

[edit] Like this

with nothing under the headings.

Please understand, when I say I am a bit of a deletionist, I mean only that I hold articles here to higher standards of notability, verifiability, etc. than some other editors. (And yes, our servers are overloaded, and the problem's not getting any better.) I am really glad to help other editors in any way I can, though; and please don't hesitate to contact me. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Convoys

I've replied on the article's talk page about the lists. Mjroots (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BotA

It was more of a suggestion, based off of my research for the World War II article, which I thought might be of benefit. Once WWII gets FA'd, I'll be doing what I can to assist the Special projects department, but if someone's willing to take the lead on refactoring the BotA article, I'd be happy to provide opinions on the framework and fill in bits and pieces that I'm aware of. I should note though, that I'm far from an expert, I only really understand the overall course of the campaign and am quite shy on the details. Oberiko (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mare Nostrum

Yup - that looks like a good idea. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Agreed

Agreed. I apologize if my edit was perceived as arrogance, I will revert and try to restart a discussion. I am aware that things should be done by consensus, but this is not always easy in relatively irrelevant articles such as this one. At least now maybe interest in this matter will be rekindled, despite its probable rock-bottom traffic, I hope you agree that the article cannot remain in such a state. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't want my edits on this matter to be viewed in this "fanatic POV" light, so from now on I'll restrict my contributions to the article's talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)