User talk:The Dart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, The Dart, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Daring class destroyer (1949). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

As an aside, I added the information you've updated to the text of the article itself (first para of the "Design" section. Is there any chance you could swing by, check to make sure I've used the right edition of Jane's Fighting Ships (maybe you're checking 1953-54 instead of 1954-55) as the cited source, and provide the page number the information came from? Muchly appreciated :) -- saberwyn 09:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Last battle of the battleship Bismarck[edit]

You have violated the policy on living persons with comments you have made on the above talk page. Please remove them. Parsecboy (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is non-negotiable. We can do this the easy way, or the hard way. Your choice. Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not violated WP:BLP. Please explain further 3.262 Lightyears Boy.The Dart (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have baselessly attacked a living person, Robert Ballard. That is unacceptable. Strike the attack, or I will block you. Those are your options. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death, your right to say it'The Dart (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of speech is not a right on Wikipedia. Parsecboy (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For verification of all that I have summarised in my previous arguments, can I suggest that you need to thoroughly read Iain Ballantyne's book "Killing the Bismarck", Pen & Sword Books Ltd.,2010, ISBN 978-1-84415-983-3. In particular chapters 14, 17 and appendix I, which all support my contentions in far greater detail.The Dart (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be replying here so as to avoid cluttering Saberwyn's talk page. No, edit conflicts happen all the time, administrators do not have any special abilities with regards to them. And no, William Garzke and Robert Dulin are Americans, Niklas Zetterling is Swedish, and Holger Herwig and David Bercuson are Canadians, so please stop with the "German" references garbage. Mullenheim, the only German source used for much of anything, is valuable since he was the senior surviving officer from the ship. And I have no idea what you're talking about with regards to Wikipedia Review, the only time my name has been mentioned on that site is here, from a former editor who was displeased that some other editors and I were trying to minimize the "yay America, we won World War II all by ourselves!" crap. Parsecboy (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read anyone else's books? Antony Preston refutes the German claims entirely in his "The World's Worst Warships" (2002)pg.148-152. Likewise in Ballantyne pg. 257-261, Jim Crossley's "Bismarck the Epic Chase" pg.119, D.K.Brown's "Nelson to Vanguard" (2000) pg.163 and also these articles:- "Warship 1994" magazine 'The sinking of the Bismarck' with co-authors Garzke & Dulin, 'The Bismarck Encounter' in "Marine Technology", SNAME 1993. Brown, Preston & Mearns also point to the fact that Bismarck's stern fell off due to the same failure mechanism that occurred in several other German ships. i.e. 'Deutschland/Lutzow', 'Prinz Eugen' due to bad welding/metal fatigue started by torpedoes or shelling, but they managed to limp home for rebuilding. Perhaps if you read more widely than your favourite authors you might understand where I am coming from. P.S. I am Australian, not British, so I am not a jingoistic patriot. Okay those weren't your words but that's how Wdford described me. Not Guilty your Honour.The Dart (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have read Preston and Brown (in fact I own them). The work of academic historians (such as Bercuson and Herwig) are much better and more reputable than those of popular historians (Crossley, Ballantyne, for instance), hence why I prefer the former. Preston's claims on the condition of Bismarck's hull are refuted by the observations of those who have actually dived the wreck (as in the article here, which points out that the hull is submerged in mud at least to the load waterline, and even deeper toward the bow, and that there were very few penetrations of the main belt that could be observed). Preston also claims that no one from below decks was ever seen after the battle commenced, when in fact, Gerhard Junack, the commander of the engine room personnel, survived. Preston is good, but he does get things wrong (for instance, he claims that the 38cm SK C/34 guns were 47-caliber (a common mistake with these guns, when they were in fact 52 caliber guns). Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. At ease soldier! I have exhausted my interest in this topic for the time being, I've got other things to worry aboutThe Dart (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it's alright for you to quote Garzke & Dulin when they support your argument, but you have previously called them unreliable on 22 July 2011 when discussing the older version of the Bismarck article with Bigpad on your own Talkpage (archive 25).The Dart (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QwertyBinary[edit]

You may archive content on your user talk page but do not remove cautions or warnings. If you continue to do this or to harass users, you will be blocked from editing as the template states.

Finally, the correct and only spelling is "rebuttal".

Best regards. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is using an ampersand to join closely associated objects, or in this case ingredients, incorrect use of English grammar? What you did to Arnott's Biscuits products list only confuses the description of Monte Carlo. The Golden Syrup, honey & coconut are all combined ingredients of the biscuit base, not separate layers of each. Also "Golden Syrup" is a Trademark and so should be in capital letters. The only removal of messages on MY talk page were of a general notice relating to the temporary closure of the feedback function due to maintenance. I suspect that your version of English may be American, whereas mine is Australian English. There was no removal of page content or templates on Arnott's. The Dart (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening to block me when you, yourself, have recently been blocked is amusing to say the least. PS. Please don't alter the spelling of flavour to flavor, as this is an article about an Australian company and so should use Australian English not American English.The Dart (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further to your above warning about removal of content on MY Talk page: I have since been informed by two real Admin that I am perfectly within my rights to remove whatever I like from my own Talk page. The Warning was TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED and you definitely are not Admin.The Dart (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair do's; "flavour" it is.
"Golden syrup" has become a generic trademark and few copy-editors would recommend capitalising either or both of the initial letters.
With regard to the supposed threat of blocking, well, I can't actually block you and I really wouldn't want to anyway. As for the remark that it would be somehow comic or ironic, would you care to please check the publicly accessible block log for blocks against my name?
Have a good one and cheers. Keep up the constructive editing. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Qwerty, you might like to look at any of the Arnott's product packaging, particularly 'Chocolate Monte', 'Monte Carlo' and 'Assorted Creams'. There in the ingredients box they use a capital 'G' for 'Golden' and capital 'S' for 'Syrup'. If Arnott's respect the Trademark 'Golden Syrup' on all their packaging then why doesn't Wikipedia?The Dart (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to two Administrators whom I have consulted, I am perfectly within my rights to remove any content on my own talk page. It is not disruptive, it is totally permitted and is not a blockable offence!The Dart (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson-class[edit]

There's probably a still better way to phrase it. The original editor may have accidently created a portmanteau of disablement and dismantle and we've fixed it but is it a bit of a overstatement? King George V was putting a lot of shells into Bismarck as well as two heavy cruisers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Graeme, I have traced the author of this gem back to 'Vanguard53' on 7 July 2012, but he doesn't have a current user page to communicate with him. So if you want to re-phrase it then go ahead. Thanks for your interest and other contributions over the long history of this article and several other Naval history articles where I have noticed your work. According to a book written by Lt.Cmdr. Galfrey Gatacre RAN, Rodney's navigator, the two forward turrets of Bismarck (Anton & Bruno) were definitely knocked out by Rodney early on and most of the damage done to Bismarck was achieved by Rodney at a range of 3000 yards, while KGV sat of at a distance using plunging shots. Rodney also fired 12 torpedoes at her one of which actually hit Bismarck and these claims were also verified in the official USN biography of Lt.Cmdr. Joseph (Gus) Wellings the then US Naval attache' aboard Rodney. Yes the cruisers also took pot shots when possible as Rodney circled and zig-zaged around Bismarck. Gatacre's book is called "Reports of Proceedings 1921-1964" and there's a link to Welling's account on the HMS Rodney article. The Dart (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Sorry Graeme, the link to Wellings seems to have been misplaced and I can't for the life of me remember how to find it. Getting old, or maybe it's my CVA catching up with my short-term memory. The Dart (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Found it at www.ibiblio.org/anrs/docs/D/D7/1002wellings_onhismajestysservice.pdf it is entitled On His Majesty's Service, the letters of J.H. Wellings 1940-41. The Dart (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2013[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

If there is a missing --> - I fix this --> error. And I thank you very much, not as an IP Frze > talk 20:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't drink beer, but a malt Scotch would go down well. Glenfiddich or Glen Moray would be very nice right now, thanks Fritz.

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, The Dart. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, The Dart. 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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Dart&oldid=813455976"