User talk:Phillipsbourg

Before you change anything else I contribute, I strongly suggest that you stop and take a look at my sources. I looked back at the history of the Sherman page :: Please feel free to report me anytime you wish; there is no need to wait. My record speaks for itself. While I have great respect for my fellow wikipedians, I have none for threats. DMorpheus 16:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the tougher aspects to get used to with wikipedia is that you will frequently find edits you worked very hard on get reverted or changed by someone else. Trust me, eventually it self-corrects. There are a lot of smart people here. DMorpheus 16:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By your response and your actions you demonstrate just how little respect you have for other contributors. The fact that the Eastern Front page is locked down is proof positive of your "record" here. You are right about one thing. Your "record" speaks for itself.

Best Regards, Philippsbourg

You may enjoy your time spent on wikipedia more if you focus on edits, not editors. I have no desire to get in some kind of personal dispute with you. Attacking me on my talk page is not productive for either of us. If your edits are good contributions, other editors will support them. If enough of them disgaree, the edits will be reverted or updated. That's the nature of wikipedia. As frustrating as it is sometimes, in the long run it works pretty well. DMorpheus 15:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting my talk page. You have made 17 edits to my page in one day. DMorpheus 20:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing and reverting my talk page. You have made 18 reverts/edits to my page today. I have been forced to request administrator intervention. DMorpheus 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have already violated the Wikipedia:3 revert rule. Any more reverts to DMorpheus's talk page and you will be blocked for 24 hours. In addition, he can delete comments from his talk page (or her's, if she's a "she") if he wants to, as long as he doesn't remove warnings from administrators. Finally, if you have a complaint against this user, don't bring it up (violating WP:POINT by continuously reverting another user's talk page. Thank you, – ugen64 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Dragoon

Re: your amends on logistics. My understanding was that Marseille and the southern French railways, although damaged, were brought back into use far more easily than the northern facilities, and way ahead of expectations. On the other hand, the northern ports and transport network could not support the speed of Allied movement. To this extent the importance of Marseille's contribution was unplanned. I don't doubt that a major port such as Marseille had been counted on. Discuss? Folks at 137 08:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1410 Hours, 28 March 2006

The importance of the Port of Marseille in supplying the U.S. Army was forseen by Allied planners as far back as the Spring of 1944. When finally pressed for a decision Eisenhower supported Anvil/Dragoon, and one of his stated reasons was the need for its significant capacity as a port. With Patton's failure to fulfill the goals of Operation Chastity, the logistical situation in NW Europe became critical, hence Eisenhower's support of Anvil/Dragoon. The repair of the Port of Marseille was a superhuman effort for which the Corps of Engineers and the French themselves deserve great credit. The French railways, paticularly bridges, were badly damaged by the retreating German forces, and it was not until well into the fall of 1944 that some critical bridges were rebuilt along some of the more important rail lines. Still, using a combination of side routes, canal boats, and road networks, the supplies flowed north.

You can read Ruppenthal's excellent two volume work "Logistical Support of the Armies" for more information. Even more specific to the Port of Marseilles, railroads, and road networks in S. France is the "History of the Continetal Advance Section: SOLOC." (This book is often cited under the keywords CONAD History.)

Best Regards, Philippsbourg

Ok, I don't dispute any of your points - I think your comments expand on mine, so we agree there, I think. A quote from [1]: On the evening of the 27th the German commander parlayed with Monsabert to arrange terms and a formal surrender became effective on the 28th, the same day as the capitulation of Toulon. At Marseille the French took over 1,800 casualties and acquired roughly 11,000 more prisoners. Equally important, both ports, although badly damaged by German demolitions, were in Allied hands many weeks ahead of schedule. Given the early capture of both ports and the unexpected logistical failures and problems in northern France, the value of Marseille and Toulon was more critical than expected - that's my point. Folks at 137 23:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time to stop

Please consider stopping - now - the revert war on DMorpheus's talk page. It's not doing anyone any good and it is likely to get you blocked from editing the next time you do it, if only to give you time to calm down. If a user requests that you stop posting on their talk page, it's polite to stop. Thanks. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞

I have blocked you for 24 hours for the revert war at DMorpheus' talk page. Specifically for WP:3RR violation. Right or wrong, you should not be reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours. And 3 times is pushing things. Hopefully 24 hours off will allow you to calm down about the situation. (And you can still edit here, on your talk page, while blocked. So you do have a means of communication if you need it.) - TexasAndroid 21:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M4 Sherman

If you feel there is something wrong with the article, please discuss/explain the issue on the talk page in a constructive fashion - citing sources. Megapixie 04:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1145 Hours, 1 April, 1945.

I do not "feel" that something is wrong with the article. I know there is. I am a bona fide content expert on the Sherman and Armored Force Doctrine, not to mention a published military historian of some note. You have asked me to cite sources to support my position that the page contains numerous errors, and that it should not be used as a source of historical information until some future date when it has been thoroughly revised. Here are a few:

"Operational History 12th U.S. Army Group" "Operational History [Report After Action] 3rd U.S. Army" "Operational History 1st U.S. Army" "Operational History 6th U.S. Army Group" "Operational History 7th U.S. Army" "The Lutes Report, Dec. 1944-Jan. 1945" "The Christman Report, Dec. 1944" "History of the Armored Force" Army Ground Forces Study No. 27. Various General Officers interviews including Gen. Devers, former Chief of the Armored Force.

There are many, many more sources, but I think this short list will make my point.

Given my prior experience on this site, I expect that I will never hear from you again on this matter. If I am wrong, I will be delighted to discuss the subject with you.

Best Regards, Philippsbourg

I've added the tag for disputed accuracy , now [insert the word "please"(edited by Philippsbourg)] go read Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute to see what needs to be done.GraemeLeggett 20:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Content Experts

You've changed the statement involved, though. "Historically, encyclopedias and their predecessors, dictionaries, have been researched and written by well-educated, well-informed content experts" is reasonably accurate (the questions of whether it is best placed at that point in the article is a minor matter, and not really the issue here.) "An encyclopedia written by the masses can never contain accurate information of high quality" (the statement you originally placed on the page) is neither accurate nor neutral, with Wikipedia being the primary counter-example. Furthermore, the insertion of such a statement—particularly in such a prominent position within the article—could generally be interpreted as a mere attempt to discredit this project; a somewhat more sophisticated version of placing "WIKIPEDIA SUCKS!!!!" on a page, in other words. Kirill Lok s h in 03:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DMorpheus' Talk page

Would you two please just stay off of each other's talk pages? You two apparently do not wat to hear what each other want to say, and it's reaching ther point where either of you posting on the other's talk page only serves to antagonize the other. And repeating *that*, will approach trolling. Nether of you is wanted on the other's page, so please, just stay away from each other's talk pages. - TexasAndroid 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Rory0 96_(block) 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pom-Pom (gun)

I have initiated the correct procedure for suggesting the article be renamed on your behalf. In the mean time, please refrain from editing the article unless you have something valid to contribute. Please voice any concerns you have on the Talk:Pom-Pom (gun) page. Your current edits are considered vandalism. Emoscopes ^Talk 00:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signing dicussion threads

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Please always use this and not your manual signs - your threads are not easy to read. --Denniss 01:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]