User talk:Lt.Specht

2

Disputed fair use rationale for File:OBFsteinhausl.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:OBFsteinhausl.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:OBFsteinhausl.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:OBFsteinhausl.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:OBFsteinhausl.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:OBFsteinhausl.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token e7900d34cc0ffd0e4cbd0b95460b0130

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

TUSC token 5f8a4db6c8ff943e96c77fb5530b5953

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Copyvio at Emu War

Your recent addition to Emu War has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. 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. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Some guy (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orrrly? Lt.Specht (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specht Germany

Hello Lt. Specht, is Specht also your family name? I`m living in Germany. My Username in the German Wikipedia and also my real name is Joachim Specht. And I`m a Lt. (Lieutenant) in the German State Police. As well I`m a active catholic and very interested in military-historical matters as I saw it also in your wiki-edits. I discovered your User-page accidently and thought I must send you a message. If you search for: "Benutzer Joachim Specht" in google, you get my personal page with photos from me and family and my study. Or click here, if it`s working: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Joachim_Specht On one photo of my study you can see the huge sword of my great-great-grandfather, who was a Bavarian lancier in WWI.

Best regards from Germany --Joachim Specht (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with sources

Why RUSSIAN sources are not valid for articles describes RUSSIA?. It's looking obvious. If someone not understanding russian, this not means, that russian sources always invalid and false, at least, in articles describing RUSSIA itself. Seryo93 (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For verifiability reasons, English Wikipedia prefers English-language sources to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material (WP:RSUE). In this case, the source is a website that is in Russian, compared to half a dozen published books which are in English. It doesn't mean that the source is necessarily invalid or false (not everyone knows Russian, I don't know whats said in the source), it just seems that the majority of English sources don't agree with what you're saying the Russian source says. Lt.Specht (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree does't meant, that is true. For example, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR was called in pre-1990 sources as President of the USSR, while it was not president. Or if majority of sources in future will state, that Germany was doing right deal in WWII, we should post it too? Majority doesn't always means truth. I only ask to stop blindfully following majority. I've verified sources, and it seems fine for me, at least in Tsarist/Imperial flag information. I may write a translation for source, if it will be appropriate for Wikipedia. Seryo93 (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having a translation of the parts of the source which are relevant to whats being cited would be nice to atleast have in the footnotes. Online translators don't work very well. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I going to translate it manually, without online translators. Seryo93 (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

Very good work with articles about the World War II! Greetings from Estonia! DJ Sturm (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Lt.Specht (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Grayson

This article could use some updating. I have noticed that you have provided many pertinent facts about Mr. Grayson for this article in the recent past.

Translation

re [1], please use some common sense. You cannot really expect someone to get hold of this book and translate part of it for you, the very idea is ridiculous. All you're doing is clogging the translation category --Jac16888 ^Talk 21:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you take the time to read WP:RSUE, you will see that it is common for editors to request translations of material that is being cited that is not in English. In this case, whoever cited the source should of added a translation (just a small quote of what is being cited would have been sufficient). Leaving the tag on will be a heads up for the editor who did, or to someone who might have access to the source. Another option would be to remove the source completely, and change the article per the dozens of reliable English sources. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of RSUE, and I'm also aware of just how many people request translations of sources, considering everytime someone does it appears on my watchlist and I have never ever seen a book source translated unless someone found it online. All that tag is doing is clogging up a backlog. And are if there are English sources that say differently then they should be used, not the current, as RSUE says--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in full agreement. However, changing it with the English sources would create a firestorm and possibly an edit war, which is why I created a section on the talk page to attempt to create a consensus on the issue before making the changes. Feel free to add your input, if you'd like to. Lt.Specht (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emu War vandalism

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You are perfectly aware that community consensus has decided the military conflict infobox is not suited to the Emu War article. Some guy (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you actually check out what vandalism is bro. I'm aware of what the consensus is on the military infobox. I made a bold edit and added an Operational plan box, calling this vandalism is ridiculous. You should also check out WP:STALK, and stop harassing me and making personal attacks. Lt.Specht (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please stop trying to game the system. You put in a military infobox in your continual pursuit of treating the event as a legitimate military conflict, referring to a nuisance wildlife management attempt as a "strategic operation". If you actually read the WP:STALK article you might note "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. ". Some guy (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's tons of sources which do actually treat the event as a military conflict. If there were none, your arguments would have a point to them. I see that you've been blocked for personal attacks or harassment in the past. Not going to respond to them anymore. Lt.Specht (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tongue-in-cheek recounting of events does not turn culling into an actual war. What was that about stalking? You've been warned about your behavior, and you know full well what you're doing. Don't be surprised when you're held accountable. Some guy (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Some guy. You had your fun in this article mid last year and were probably lucky not to have been blocked like another editor was (talk page comments such as this, this and this are entirely unhelpful), and you're really pushing your luck by continuing the exact same behavior. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and added an Operational plan box, there's nothing for me to be sorry about. I only regret Some guy referring to the edit as "vandalism" and simply dismissing it without even an appropriate response. All my edits to the article itself have always been accompanied by highly reliable sources. If you call something like this [2] and others "unhelpful" you clearly have a bias against me for whatever reason. Lt.Specht (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation at Operation Highjump

Your addition to Operation Highjump has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Some guy (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some other reading material for you I would suggest is WP:DTTR, Some guy. What did you actually find this material to be copyrighted from, though? Copied it from the Richard Evelyn Byrd over to Highjump. Assumed it was a summary from the newspaper or something. Perhaps both could be rephrased if you have a source for it. Lt.Specht (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[3]. Some guy (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracies/myths

Hello. I am not a Wiki, I read a book and barged into “death” a month ago because I questioned the article. I have been trying to help make the article better, but I can be crude and rude. Kierzek is a Hitler expert, and takes it seriously. He has helped me.

The idea of a new article is interesting. I probably can not help you. I’m not Wiki or a writer, and I am crazy. I can stand one or two weeks of nazis a year, now I have done a whole month. I need to get away from “evil” and back to “stupid”, like battle-crusiers.

I often have trouble understanding people, especially Wiki. I am from the middle of U.S. Do we have a language or culture difference, or is it just me? Either way, if you come up with something interesting on this, I would like a quick note on my talk. I may not come as often as now, but I will check in sometimes. Thank you either way.Wm5200 (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lt. Specht-I think the Conspiracy/myth theories as to Hitler should be made into a separate article; if you want to do it. You will have to overcome any apparent copyright problems (as stated by other editors) and WP:VERIFY problems, as well. I leave it up to your informed discretion. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning! You have started me thinking. If something like this interests you, and you are interested in babbling ideas, let me know. I don't know when to start or stop, but probably can be controlled. Wm5200 (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I probably won't have the time to start working on something like this for at least awhile. Lt.Specht (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attalus I

Sorry about undoing your edit. I hadn't noticed your comment on the talk page. I've now replied there. Let's see if we can come to some amicable agreement there. Thanks, Paul August ☎ 21:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied again. Paul August ☎ 23:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Paul August ☎ 01:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia

Hi,

I know that's old news, but I entirely support your view about the start date of Tito's Yugoslavia : 1. The infobox and intro should be changed. cheers Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Steinhäusl.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Steinhäusl.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:KaltenbrunnerGruppenführer.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:KaltenbrunnerGruppenführer.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 18:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ErnstKaltenbrunner-12.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ErnstKaltenbrunner-12.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:ErnstKaltenbrunner1944.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ErnstKaltenbrunner1944.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. b uidhe 16:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]