User talk:Dna-webmaster/Archive02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived Messages for Dna-Dennis : 2007
Do not post messages here. Do it here, on my active talk page.


Contents


[edit] Reasons for WW1

hi,could u pls tell me the reasons for WW1 i have come up with some but there snt enough pls help,thks a bunch terence —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Terenceraaj1 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

  • Wow, such a short question deserves a short answer... Reasons for WWI: Imperialism, expansionism, arms racing, settling old disputes, complicated alliances, and, of course, the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. So, as you may understand, the reasons are quite complicated (in my opinion more complicated than it was for WW2), so for more and better information check out the article Causes of World War I. My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 07:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WWII montage

Hi. I've been enjoying your WWII montage for some time, but now someone is monkeying with it. Please help. Haber 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on the changes made to the Image:WW2 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg! I have replaced the old debated Nuremberg pic with a new one, and uploaded a new version of the montage. My Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. Good choice for the replacement. Thanks for doing all the work. Haber 21:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again. Now it looks like the order is flipped, so that Normandy is on the bottom. I tried to fix it myself but I can't figure out how. Was this vandalism? Haber 16:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've taken care of it. Thanks! --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 10:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I just looked again and it's upside down. How is this happening? Haber 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Try clearing the cache in your browser and hit refresh.--Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 09:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons:Image:WW2 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg

Hi! One of the images that you have used in your montage has been deleted. I marked the montage with a template that will give you 7 to 14 days to replace the image with another one. When you have replaced the image, feel free to remove the "No source since" template. Regards. Samulili 11:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 13:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asia/Pacific images in WW2 montage

While I admire your great work with the montages, I have to say that I don't think five of the six images and approximately 16% of it in area should be from Europe. It was a truly global struggle. The Pacific War was fought by roughly one third of the total number of people involved in the war (see World War II casualties) and was much bigger in terms of area than the Euopean conflict, stretching from Mongolia to Alaska to Australia. Can I suggest that "Image:1anschluss.gif" is replaced, possibly by one relating to the China-Japan conflict? For example, the image on the right also connects to the unique atrocities committed in Nanjing as well. Thanks.

Grant | Talk 05:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, Grant65! You are not the only one who have commented on the theatre aspect of the montage. The choice of pictures are really the result of a quite long discussion: Talk:World_War_II/Archive_6#The_Picture. The emphasis was to primarily illustrate different aspects of the war (e.g. fighting, politics, civilian impact) rather than the various theaters. We did not want the montage to be too "warcrufty", i.e. we wanted to appeal also to those who weren't particularly interested in WWII. There was a version with the "Iwo Jima flag-rising" but people objected to having TWO flags in the montage. Furthermore, it proved very difficult to find an appropriate image for the Pacific theatre, that is, an image people recognize and/or can distinguish what it is. I am afraid I think the picture you suggest does not help the "Pacific issue" very much, as it isn't obvious to the casual viewer that it is from that theatre. Personally I think a picture from Pearl Harbor (haven't found a good one yet, they are all messy) or the Iwo Jima flag-rising (but two flag-risings???) would be best to cover the Pacific theatre. But however we address it, there will always be a problem of what is being left out. If we care about theatres and try to balance it with adding a Pacific image, we automatically have the problem with other left-out theatres (Africa, Atlantic, Mediterranean and the Eastern Front in Russia etc). Furthermore, if we add one more image, we have to remove another image and thus remove an important aspect which the montage tries to illustrate.
Image:The baby setuped by Capra s staff.jpg
250px

My reasons for the current selection of images (to view the image, click Commons:Image:WW2 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg):

  1. D-day: Very known & very important multi-national battle. The beginning of the end of the Nazi rule.
  2. Nazis marching: Easily recognizable & very important aspect, since they were the supreme main reason the war started. It also symbolizes the psychological factors and the indoctrinations of the totalitarian regimes.
  3. Death camp: Easily recognizable & important aspect describing one of the greatest civilian impacts.
  4. Atom bomb: Easily recognizable & very important aspect describing the huge development in weapon technology and the start of the Cold War. It also marks the end of the war in the Pacific.
  5. Soviet flag in Berlin: Easily recognizable & marks the huge Soviet effort and the end of the war in Europe. It is also a marker of the start of the Soviet influence in East Europe.

As you understand, my intention was to illustrate different aspects of the war, not necessarily warfare, theatres and nations. Nevertheless, I will think about it for a while, and see what other poeple think about this. So, if anyone else is reading this, please write your opinion here below. My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 08:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's fine the way it is. The existing images are classics. Haber 12:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Physics

--81.225.27.181 18:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not 100% certain

Hi There. I was browsing a article about WW2. I Saw the pie chart you created for that particular article. I figured out that the percentages don't add up to 100% (Image URL, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WorldWarII-DeathsByAlliance-Piechart.png).

Hope this has been helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doomguy1001 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you very much for your sharp eyes! There was a bug in my Excel sheet, which now is corrected. I have replaced the faulty image (clear cache and hit refresh). My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World War 2 image

Hello, Please make the picture of battle of Normandy half of it's size and add a ppicture from the battle of Stalingrad or Kursk. There were more then 20 Million Soviets who died in the, and in fact if not the Soviets the world was lost. It's really not fair to put the soviets in a "shade" on the image. Stalingrad and Kursk each were not less importent then Normandies, so please add one of them. M.V.E.i. 18:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi MVEi! Please also read Talk:World_War_II/Archive_6#The_Picture and User_talk:Dna-webmaster/Archive02#Asia.2FPacific_images_in_WW2_montage above. After this you will understand that there are MANY and DIFFERENT opinions on what to include. Let's face it, everyone really wants it to cover everything, but it is only ONE montage, trying to give a fairly balanced view. As it stands now, I think it is "fairly" balanced. I do however see your point and agree - in part. But nevertheless having TWO images covering the Soviet effort would in my opinion make the montage much less balanced and thus worse - even though it "might" be fair, if we count the military casualties. But the objective of the montage is NOT to display degrees of effort, but to serve as a GENERAL title picture for WW2. My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 04:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You have Two american images, with Normandie being to big. We can make the Normandy battle image twise of it's size and add another one. you cant have an image without the Battle of Stalingrad. M.V.E.i. 10:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
American images? Please! What do you mean? This is not an ideological fight betweeen USA and the former Soviet Union - it seems you are reading too much into it. The selection of the D-day pic is not American POV. It depicts a multi-national battle between US, UK, Canada, France, Poland, Germany and many more nationalities - even Russians! Consult your history books... And the atom bomb? American POV? No such thing; it depicts (1) the battle between US AND JAPAN, and (2) the culmination of the huge weapons development. Brits and Germans were also involved in the development of the nuclear bomb.
Thats it, changed it. As you could see, now it's far more fairly-split and more material entered, and everything you did in your image remained. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WW2ArticleImage.jpg#Image_Montage_Information M.V.E.i. 10:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Concensus reached As you could see here, there is a concensus on the fact my image for the World War 2 article fits more then the previous one. Anyway, i kept everything that was on your image, and furthermore, in the details of my image in the "author" i clearly said that it is mostly based on what was done by you. M.V.E.i. 15:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No such consensus. The picture as it stood for years was very good. Haber 02:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Alot of people in the link i gave support what i did. I am not the only one that said that we need a Stalingead picture and that the Normandy picture was overshading. P.S. Everything from the previous picture was kept. M.V.E.i. 12:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I "understand" your reasons but I sincerely think you are wrong.

  • Your so-called consensus:

Your so-called "consensus" was formed by User:M.V.E.i., User:Vihljun, User:Kalan, User:Ezhiki, User:TigerK 69, User:Ilya1166, User:Alaexis within 5 days, and each supporter is Russian, each arguing for inclusion of a picture from Stalingrad! Please don't call this a serious consensus against an image selection which have stood stabile for years. I am sorry if I offend you, but this feels more like a Russian coup...hardly NPOV!

  • Stalingrad seriously unbalances the picture.

As I said before, the objective was not to cover different theatres of war. Now, the montage is seriously unbalanced with TWO images depicting the Soviet effort. What about those people who want one more Pacific image? Or China? Africa? Mediterranean? Atlantic? Now it is bad, and unfair, in my opinion.

  • The Stalingrad image is a bad selection.

A picture of bombed buildings which could be from anywhere in the world is certainly not a good selection. Furthermore, whether Stalingrad was the turning point of the war could certainly be debated (even though I agree it was one significant turning point). But what about Kursk? Invasion of Italy? Allied Strategic Bombing? Hell, even Pearl Harbor was a turning point, as Churchill said: "Now we have won the war".

  • The objective of the montage was ASPECTS, not THEATRES.

Yet again, I suggest you read

and

  • Image Selection Reasons

Please consider this, before you enforce your views.

  • The layout is in my opinion bad now.

Artistically I think the montage is hurt by 6 equally sized images. Furthermore, you open up a can of worms by your inclusion of Stalingrad. I wouldn't be surprised if it will yield more discussions of other things "left out", and I wouldn't be surprised if the montage will grow into 8 or more pictures, which would be a disaster. I'd suggest you seriously reconsider your views, and seriously consider using the original montage, Image:WW2_TitlePicture_For_Wikipedia_Article.jpg.

--Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 18:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion isn't the deciding

My image was chosen by a majority. The image you uploaded is irrelevant, that was realy rude you re-uploaded it! If you want shure you could take part in the argument on the discussion page but please, everything here is decided by a majority. M.V.E.i. 05:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Rude? Not at all... Your image was "chosen" by a "majority" of Russians. I am still defending the original idea of the montage, as I have on numerous occasions told you before, on behalf of many other opinions. The new montage is clearly debated, as we can see on the template talk page. I will gladly debate the montage, and if we can't agree, I will take it to a REAL majority voting. And, M.V.E.i., please stop insinuating vandalism. --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 16:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not just Russians that approve the new image, the only person that really opposed the new image was Parsecboy, and now he's said "I have no problem with the montage, except for the bombed out buildings from Stalingrad", which a new image was found, and LtWinters has now shown his support. I'm afraid the only one who objects now is you, "On behalf of many others" doesn't mean anything, and you cannot unilaterally prevent majority concensus. I don't understand why you oppose the new montage so much, NONE of the images were removed and your argument is that it 'ruins the balance'. It doesn't as the Eastern Front had more combat than all the other theatres combined. The template will be changed back when it is off protection.--Miyokan 17:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Not true. I've always liked the old montage. Haber 17:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Miyokan, you say I don't understand why you oppose the new montage so much. Well, have you read my statements on the template talk page at all? Once again: 1. The objectives are aspects, not theaters. 2. Two "Soviet" pics seriously unbalances the montage. What about those people who want one more Pacific image? Or China? Africa? Mediterranean? Atlantic? Two "Soviet" pics is bad, and unfair, in my opinion. We already have a Soviet flag in the montage, for goodness' sake! Your "majority consensus" was formed by a handful of Russians, each supporting an inclusion of another Soviet image - a tyranny of the "majority", opening up a can of worms on what theaters to include, when the objective is aspects, not theaters. If a real majority/dispute resolution votes against the original montage, I will not oppose it. In the meantime, let's keep our discussions civil. Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 18:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you check on something?

There are several IPs who are posting claims on the Administrators' noticeboard that they reperesent some sort of organization which has the right to hear matters concerning Internet disputes. See this post. Do you have any way of calling that telephone number or checking the address to see just what is located there? Corvus cornix 22:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm in communication with User:Davidgothberg‎ who has agreed to look into it. sorry to bother you. Corvus cornix 23:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No probs, I would have helped out. I hope you solve the issue. My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 19:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I think it's nice

I think the map look really good. And its a NPOV. This is the only strongest solution. I'm glad theres peace now :-) Nice to know it's cool now. M.V.E.i. 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is peace, and it's cool; Don't worry, I haven't taken anything you said personal. That does not however mean I approve of your methods - I still think your language, conduct and methods have been questionable; I don't necessarily accuse you of it, but I want to state firmly that Wikipedia is not a place for political or nationalistic agendas. In the future, to avoid such conflicts, I suggest you read and comply to these Wikipedia guidelines:
  1. Wikipedia:Assume good faith - that is, don't automatically assume that other Wikipedians are POV, just because they disagree with you.
  2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks - that is, don't accuse others of vandalism, when there is a clear dispute about Wikipedia contents. Don't call other persons "snobs", don't say that others' opinions are irrelevant - your views are not more valuable than others. You will only make enemies, if you continue doing this.
  3. Wikipedia:Canvassing - don't campaign among a particular community, in this case, Russians, in order to influence people to support your views. Wikipedia guidelines state that you may inform people about an issue, but shouldn't urge them to support your view in particular. This is disruptive. The honest thing would be to inform as a many people as possible, in a neutral way, by posting information about the issue on regular article talk pages, not only on Russian users' talk pages.

I hope you consider this in the future. My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 20:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The canvassing thing, i didnt know the law then. But the other things? I dont see anything nationalistic in trying to get an NPOV. I still think that the image you made was Western ethnocentrism (which could be easily called political agenda). We didnt ask to make the big image Soviet (though we had the right for that, 75% of the Axis forces were sent to the eastern front to fight the Soviets and still we won), we wanted to make it nutral. I got mad because i didnt understand how could you oppose to that if i kept everything you had in your image and even write in the image details that most is based on what you did. Nevertheless, now the image is nutral and that's why i decided to support it and re-bring up this suggestion previously offered but ignored by another user. Please notice that my party complitely supported it, which proves that we wanted NPOV. If you'll check the template history you'll see that after we reached a compromise another user who didn't participate in the argument reverted it to mine image again, and Miyokan reverted it back to the map explaining that these was the compromise reached (and if you remember, me and Miyokan were the most active supporters of mine new suggestion). M.V.E.i. 21:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
MVEi, you say "though we had the right for that" - that really feels like a Soviet POV politicial statement. MVEi, you are barking up the wrong tree - I am a Swedish historian, we were neutral in the war. I have previously been defending the Russian effort in WW2, and will continue to do this. But there are limits! I have stated the reasons for the original image montage selection, and you ignored my points, that it was about aspects, not theaters and that your changes was hurting the balance. The only thing you did was pushing for an inclusion of 2 Soviet pics, which I thought would bring imbalance to the montage, which never was about military effort. We apparently disagree, let's leave it at that now! Consider the Wikipedia guidelines in the future. I would appreciate if we stop this discussion now! Please. --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 21:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It's just that we see differently what the image represents. Nevertheless, it's over and irrelevant now. P.S. I really didn't know about the convassing laws then, i didnt even know that word. M.V.E.i. 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:WWII

Thanks for your comment and your support. It's mostly just M.V.E.i; if he wants to be immature that's fine. It doesn't bother me at all. Sure, his insistence on pushing his Russian/Soviet POV is rather irritating, but I usually relax before I start typing. Thanks again. Parsecboy 13:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)