User talk:Georgejdorner/Archive: General bumf
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
An Invite to join Aviation WikiProject
 Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Aviation WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to aviation. This includes aircraft, airports, airlines and other topics. |
| You might like to take an extra interest in our Biography subproject |
| We look forward to welcoming you to the project! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 12:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC) |
There's nothing set up to make translating easier for you, but if you do create a page that exists on another language wiki, they can be linked together in a standard way. For example Gustav Dörr has a link to the German Wikipedia page in the left hand column, at the bottom under all the navigation/search/interaction links, labeled "languages". You'll find that, in this case, the German page seems to have quite a bit more information, which, since it's on Wikipedia, is free to copy. If you want to add a link to another language version, check out Wikipedia:InterWikimedia links. Specifically, you can add (for example) [[de:Gustav Dörr]] to the bottom of the page(that's where they usually go). - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. Anything on other language Wikipedias is just as free to use as anything here, so feel free to translate and use at will. It definitely won't get deleted for any copyright reasons, and the question of notability is helped by having articles in other languages. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not possible to merge two created accounts, but should you ever wish to change your username, you can visit Wikipedia:Changing username. As for the sinebot, you need to type ~~~~ to sign your posts. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Air units
There are a lot of unit articles already created, see Category:Air force units and formations, and List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons. The Military aviation task force is a big force in creating these. More are created every day, as you can see at User:AlexNewArtBot/aeronewSearchResult. According to Wikipedia:PAPER#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, "there is no practical limit to the number of topics [Wikipedia] can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and [notability]". So create all the red links you want, it'll help promote article creation in other editors.
Airfields
Airfield are under the scope of both Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force. There are a lot of them, see Category:Military airbases. But, again, lots of redlinks at List of RAF stations, List of Royal Canadian Air Force stations, etc. still need to be created.
Invitation to Join the Military History WikiProject
George, your recent work on military biography articles leads me to believe you may be interested in joining the military history project. If so, add your name to the list at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members. You can also add your name to the list at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military; there you will find other helpful editors with similar interests, as well as project information and resources. - Canglesea (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding the addition of infoboxes for military biographys, go to {{Infobox Military Person}}, copy all of the template text within the dotted line box, paste the text into the top of the article and fill in the parameters - Canglesea (talk)
Ravens FAC
A great article. Hope you don't mind me tweekin' it just a bit.--Buster7 (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
An acknowledgment of your appreciation
(Addressed to Ian Rose on his talk page). I think it was pretty classy of you to acknowledge me upon submission for Featured List. I am also appreciative of your comments on my stub creation. However, I have fallen back on Stub Creation because I am tired of dealing with a dysfunctional assessment department. With about 90% of all the articles in Wikipedia completely unsourced, they are coming all unglued about the plainness of my citations. The effect is to effectively drive me into the realm of creating non-cited articles. In fact, the box atop my Talk page pretty well outlines my case.
Georgejdorner (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Debate about Red Baron's funeral on Missing man formation
Someone who apparently imagines that Von Richthofen is a figure from the SECOND world war is madly reverting over a silly idea that funeral flyovers originated from his funeral. His source indicates that it is a supposition, but he insists is "useful" and "accurate". Anyway, I would appreciate your having a look at this as we need to get a consensus.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer rights
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Magic
From long experience of my own foul-ups, I just read through it carefully! Nine times out of ten it's something the editor/author has written that is the cause. Have a nice dal y'all.Petebutt (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Pusher aces
You added some info from pusher aces to the R.E.8 article - I am quite sure (although I don't have a copy of the source concerned) that this information in fact relates to the F.E.8 and I have reverted your changes. It might be an idea to check - but the info DOES fit the F.E.8 very well, and doesn't fit the R.E.8 at all!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
(Copied from SOM's talk page) Thank you for catching my error concerning the FE.8 and the RE.8. I intend to go back to the original bio article, correct it, and then add the FE.8 info to the correct article (if it is needed).
Georgejdorner (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea about checking the F.E.8 article - make sure that any additional information is, as you say, "necessary" - i.e. new, apposite, and "likely" (compatible with what you know about aviation in general). The current F.E.8 article is largely based on Bruce - it is pretty accurate so far as it goes. Look for genuinely new angles in the "Pushers" book rather than what is already well covered. I have found that some quite good aviation books about people (as it might be aces) can be sketchy or even inaccurate about aircraft, and vice versa of course. Biographies can eulogise, and credit their subjects with things that were either well established before the case, or first discovered long after it! Look at all the pictures first, and check the captions - wildly incorrect captions (misidentifying aircraft, people and places for instance) are a dead giveaway for badly researched aircraft books that are simply NOT good sources at all. BTW I have acquired a copy of Hare's The Royal Aircraft Factory (this was published by Putnam which makes it an excellent source) and plan to revise the R.A.E. article's section on the "Factory" as well as the particular factory types in light of this. I prefer to own a book for a few months and read it cover to cover so I can assess its usefulness before I hop straight into the editing of articles in its light - nothing worse than good information out of context. So far Hare is looking really good - the insight into why the factory types were subject to such virulent criticism for instance - although it is just a little bit the other way. It also sorts out the wild and wonderful type numbers "system" for factory types, and just what was supposed to be a rebuild of what in a way I haven't seen done elsewhere! Happy editing, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- BTW "he who never made a mistake never made anything" !!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
(Also posted on SOM's Talk page)
Now that I have re-covered and amended those articles–Powell and the FE.8–you can see what I contributed.
Your comments were well chosen and are well regarded. I might mention that I doubt I will have much to contribute toward the "hardware" articles such as the FE.8 and such; probably more piping than anything. My prime interest is in the notable aces' biographies. I guess I am just a victim of my experiences. I am writing Biographical Order of Battle, just as I used to once upon a checkered past.
In the present case of the RE.8/FE.8, I happened to have a photo of the aeroplane in the source text, another photo on screen of same bird. I could see the dihedral in the photos, estimate wing width, etcetera. So I dubbed in that tech info because I could pretty much literally see its validity. Its just that, being in my sixth or seventh hour at the keyboard, I fell into the white line fever of the information highway, and the fine distinction between R and F blurred...and "tractor" and "pusher" bleared....
Anyhow, I lived through it.
Georgejdorner (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding patronising (NOT my intent!) being able to frankly admit a mistake is an extremely important (and, alas, rather rare) quality, that can only make people think the better of you in the long run. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Selden Long
George, Inoticed you have problems with articles proposed for deletion before you have completed them. I get round this by copying the template to a word processor and writing the article away from wikipedia, then copying the complete article into the new empty page. Just a suggestion, that would certainly stop you having premature deletion proposals. on another note, you mentioned in a message to me that you had problems with ISBN info being deleted from references. This sounds like vandalism as ISBNs are part and p[arcel of book and magazine details. Can you give me a couple of examples and I'll see if there is any magic to be had, or at least find out why they were removed.188.65.183.51 (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Apologies
Hi george, i have just read the section of your converstaion with Bearcat and now understand the ISBN situation and why you were understandably prickly at my innocent remark. No hard feelings keep up the good work. if you don't want to bother with the talk pages for your articles you could drop a link for the article onto my talk page and i'll do it for you and give initial assessments too if you like.Petebutt (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Hidden text
Hi, I'm intrigued as to why you added this hidden text <!-- This article is a part of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military]]. --> to a number of articles. NtheP (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The Tuskegee Airmen: American Heroes sources is not considered a reliable source. Not only is it a junior age novel but it has been described as virtually worthless for research purposes by the American Library Journal. FWiW, you also seem to be having a really hard time formatting citations and bibliographic notations; I can help here, being a former reference librarian and currently an author and editor for professional journals. Bzuk (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC).
- Lynn Homan and her partner, Thomas Reilly, has written four books on the Tuskegee Airmen:
- Tuskegee Airmen (1998) ISBN 978-0738500454, a pictorial book
- Tuskegee Airmen Story (2002) ISBN 978-1589800052, a "very" young reader's book (K-Grade 3 reading level)
- Tuskegee Airmen: American Heroes (2002, reprint 2005) ISBN 978-1565549944, Young Adult Novel (universally derided as "worthless" for research)
- Black Knights: The Story of the Tuskegee Airmen (2001), ISBN 978-1565548282
Only the last book is an authoritative source. I am loathe to characterize these two, but they are the owner/operators of a design studio, who have 24 books out, mostly in the same vein and some observers could consider them "hack" writers, exploiting a meager amount of research. Did I just say that? I thought I was just thinking that... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
MVR
Hi George. Okay. I've reversed the revert. But I still insist that this requires referencing where ever it is written. Otherwise it just looks like someone has added a personal opinion, or someonelses view that they read in a magazine or a blog or something. Dapi89 (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- George, you go overboard! I'm not sure about the lack of ego either! If you say you have a source, then its all fine with me. You wouldn't know it from my edits, but I am a FWW fan (I mean of the subject of course). I have my eye on one or two of the British Empire ace articles. I may start editing them soon. I am generally interested in pilots and aces (British and German), units and aircraft themselves. If you are ever stuck for sources on either of things, or higher policy, anything like this, then note down my User name and give me a nudge. I have all sorts of weird and wonderful things - I spend too much time at Kew. Thanks again, good editing. Dapi89 (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I am doing a minimal job as a WP editor. Nine years in military intelligence for some fairly influential folks honed my chops as an information forager, and has accustomed me to attaching sources to my information. And I am a professional writer, so I am fluent. Over the last 26 months, I have created almost 1,000 new articles. More importantly, I have expanded and re-expanded hundreds of articles in the niche of WWI aviation. I am the prime producer of text in the niche.
HOWEVER, I have minimal wiki-editing skills. Wiki-editing comes hard for me. I am picking it up slowly, but to date have been so poorly skilled to have always been a cowriter on FA articles because of it.
Georgejdorner (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
FM 100-20
George--I replied to your question on my talk page. I tend to be a little testy sometimes; hope I was both civil and courteous.--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
DYK nomination of LaVonne Salleé
Hello! Your submission of LaVonne Salleé at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Drmies (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Merry, merry
Manfred Von?=
Happy, happy
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Caterpillar Club
You've put some nice information in this article, but it isn't at all about the Caterpillar Club. IMHO it probably belongs in the Parachute article. Please consider moving it there, or to a related article. --Lou Sander (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- From your response about what you 'should have done', can I take it that you will be reverting your edits? --Lou Sander (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- It might be a good idea for you to post your concerns on the talk page of the article, where others can more readily see and evaluate them. --Lou Sander (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do not get discouraged by the opinions of others. It is important that there is an article in Wikipedia about the Caterpillar Club, but that article should meet Wikipedia standards. What they are I do not know (and I doubt if anybody knows nowadays) but this does mean that it needs to be a well written and well resourced article. Feel free to contact me [1], if you need any help, I will see what I can do. In the mean time I have stated my opinion on the relevant talk page. JHvW 17:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
UK/US English
Thanks for the tip - I mistakenly made the change on the MOS:TIES guidelines. Noted for future. Cheers. Denisarona (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
DYK
It looks like something very strange happened to your latest edit at Template talk:DYK (that is, the computer may have eaten your edit). You may need to redo it. --Orlady (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
DYK nomination of William Stanley Jenkins
Hello! Your submission of William Stanley Jenkins at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I do not accept your withdrawal of the article—it's too good to pass up! I formatted the references for you. However, one reference, "aerodrome", is a malicious link. Do you have another link that verifies the information? Also, please add some categories to the article so it's complete for DYK. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- When I clicked on the link, a page came up saying that it was a malicious link and I was denied access. Perhaps I have a better firewall on my computer than yours? Anyway, if you can get into the link, please write the citation as follows: <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |date= |accessdate= |publisher= }}</ref>. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
RAAF FAC merge proposal
Hi George, I've replied at Talk:No. 4 Squadron RAAF. cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Photos/images of World War I aces
Hello,
The photos/images of World War I flying aces that you uploaded are most welcome. My interest in World War I aviators has led me to create a few hundred bio articles on aces, all of them lacking illustration. Additionally, most of the other WWI ace bios written by others also lack illustration. If you are enthused about illuminating some articles, you have literally a thousand opportunities here. If you limit yourself to Irish, Aussie, and British aces, you still have hundreds. In either case, your talents are extremely welcome in this niche. The key to the niche may be found at List of World War I flying aces.
At any rate, thanks for new imagery. It adds a new sparkle to the articles so adorned.
Georgejdorner (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Autoconformation RfC
A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This article arose from certain editors taking exception to the section in the "Air Aces" article about "Accuracy". They started bleating about "specific examples" - and ended up creating this article for containing some. The overall point, after the blatant seig heil POV of the original article had been (sort of) fixed, is that the generalisations in the "Air Aces" article are actually pretty spot on!
I am not entirely convinced that the article could not actually be made reasonably useful - but it would need a very drastic rewrite. The original purpose of the article (to "address" non-existent bias in the air aces article) was simply never valid, IMHO.
I don't however think that the concentration of "instances" in the 1939-1945 period is necessarily a bad thing - as I pointed out, instances from any other period are likely to be pretty meaningless.
If we are going to delete this one - there may nonetheless be a few snippets worth transferring to other articles - especially "Air aces" - but also (perhaps) articles on particular WWII campaigns? B.O.B. springs to mind - if the info about the degree of overclaiming by both sides is not already there? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
As I remarked on the article's talk page, it properly should be named Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II.
And while lacking the reading background to be able to cite any stats on my behalf, I did spend 18 months debriefing combat pilots once upon a long-gone time. Simply put, I believe because of my experience of the human factors involved, there is no such thing as an accurately reported tactical air campaign. And while I agree with your observations about the inaccuracy of WWI history, I have no reason to believe that The Big Deuce was recorded any more accurately than any other air war before or since. Georgejdorner (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- The point (from a Wikipedia point of view) is that "respected" researchers have looked into what WWII statistics exist, and there is a consensus about what these tend to show. We may well feel that the original documentation the research was based on is in some cases just as sus as that for other periods (in fact I fear that may be the case). I FEEL (emphasis because of course I don't, and we can't REALLY know) that WWII documentation may well be a little more accurate than earlier (and maybe later) conflicts - for various reasons - this seems to be the consensus among historians who have examined them.
- Having said this - I'd like us to moot a suggestion that would go like this:
- Delete this article altogether as over-speculative and unuseful - really, non-notable!!
- Rewrite the "Accuracy" section of the "Air Aces" article - so that it sets out more clearly just how futile pontificating about such questions as which airforce(s) have been guilty of most overclaiming, or if one ace's figures can be taken as more accurate than another's. These may well have inate fascination for some people, but are not the sort of thing that deserves encyclopedic authority.
- Sadly, this is a subject where many responses are shrill and hysterical, abysmally ignorant and childishly partisan to the point of nausea, and in which it would be possible to "cite" (respectably!) all too many incompatible statements. Is it any wonder that several well known books about the aces staunchly refuse to be drawn into this question at all? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes, I realize that Wikipedians believe that reliability of the researcher guarantees reliability of the said researcher's product. As I come from a military intelligence background, I believe just the opposite; the accuracy of the info proves the reliability of the source. Their viewpoint is somewhat undercut by such cases of plagarism among the respected as Stephen Ambrose. On the other hand, my point of view is flatly ignored and occasionally derided. Ah, well.
I agree with you about the juvenile chauvinistic fascination with individual ace scores and the purported superiority of some nations' fighter aviation. To me, the most important new fact I have discovered about WWI aviation is the Italian air superiority campaign at the end of the war that was instrumental to the defeat and disappearance of Austria-Hungary; yet, I think I have pretty much told you all that is known about it right now.
I also agree with you about deletion, which is rare for me; I would rather save almost any article, and have never sponsored a successful deletion.
I also agree that attention paid to the Flying aces article could take up the slack. Certainly, as you observed, the "Accuracy" section needs a revamp. However, I believe the World War sections could also use some help. I would suggest linking off to articles that give the victory verification standards for each air force in each War. I already have World War I covered in the text atop List of World War I flying aces; I would transplant that into a new article. Also, spin off "Ace in a day" section of Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories into a linked novelty article.
If we improve the Flying aces article sufficiently, then spin off useful facts out of Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories into allied articles, then we scotch most of the possible arguments for retention of the article.
Georgejdorner (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Usage
(The original message, copied from s.o.m.'s talk page) Hey, soundofmusicals,
I thought I should correct a misapprehension of yours, in hopes of our working together more smoothly.
I am American, and I create articles in American usage. When the subject matter is Brit-centric, I am amenable to the usage being changed to British thoughout the entire article, per WP:TIES. When the subject matter is either non-British or only part-British, I expect my usage to be respected.
I mention this because of a recent rash of bogus tags being placed on articles I have created, either falsely claiming I write British usage and/or calling for conversion of my new articles on non-British subjects. As a result, I have started tagging my articles with a notice of American usage.
Georgejdorner (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Personally I wish they'd go for one or the other and standardise! As a "non-Brit/non-U.S." English speaker I recognise that many more countries use so-called "British spelling" but that the population of the U.S. (many of whom CAN speak English) outnumbers all other English speaking countries combined, so it is likely there are more people at home with U.S. spelling than otherwise (assuming American can spell anyway?). Perhaps we should just say "Wikipedia originated in America so we use American spelling/usage"? At least we'd know where we were.
Given the current (rather silly) situation of using both (and very often in the same article) - which at least irritates everyone equally, I suppose we just have to do the best we can. I wouldn't let it get me down, if I were you. P.S. I have never tagged an article of yours, to my recollection (which is less than brilliant nowadays). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Yup, some of us Amurikins kin even wrassle this here language inta articles and sech.
However, old chap, you are incorrect in your assumption that we ruddy Yanks are the largest English speaking population. The Indian subcontinent actually harbors an English speaking population several times greater than ours. And their usage, though based on a British origin, is now being recognized as a separate usage.
My policy has become, tag articles I have created in one of two ways:
1) Article with a strong national attachment, such as a bio of a British ace, gets tagged (in BOLD) "This article created in American usage. Conversion per WP:TIES should be in toto."
2) Other articles are slugged with the first half of the above tag.
I have started this ever since the Britophiles have begun claiming my newly created articles for their own usage and/or tinkering with them to produce that mixed usage we abhor. Dunno how much good it'll do, but a guy's gotta do what a guy's gotta do.
Georgejdorner (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The bozo in the aces article!
I have had my ("little") say on this in the aricle's talk page.
It might be an idea to wait for the "Bozo" to go back to whatever he was doing first? Otherwise he really needs to be confronted. The ideal way to have done this would be with facts, but since (typically) he makes up his own as he goes and at best has no idea of the difference between a good source and "howler" filled trash, full of ignorant "errors" - facts do not have the effect they should. When cornered, he just comes back with "I didn't say that" (he did of course) and just shifts his argument a little. "Feeding the troll" by conceding more than is his just due is unproductive, although of course we do need to be strictly fair when he DOES have a point. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Incomplete references in new article
G'day from Oz; I was just having a look at the article about Ferdinand Udvardy and noticed that the references are not complete, in that you have given authors and page numbers but not the actual titles of the books used as sources. Could you swing by the article at your convenience and add them? See ya. YSSYguy (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Arthur Randall, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/scotland/randall1.php.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Luftstreitkräfte usage
(Consolidated convo: with copied material from Soundofmusicals talk page)
Hi,
Saw your latest edit revert and got curious. I began wondering how the subject of the Luftstreitkräfte squares up with WP:ENGVAR and WP:TIES. As the subject of middle European aviation doesn't seem to be tied to any particular English language usage, shouldn't usage in the article mirror that of the article's creator?
Georgejdorner (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Honestly - I sometimes wish we'd agree on one spelling or the other for the whole thing! I must admit I really hadn't thought this through properly - my own rough idea was that British, Commonwealth and European subjects were in British English (unless there was a very good reason for them to be otherwise - like an American connection) while Western Hemisphere and Eastern Asian subjects were in American - again, unless there is an obvious strong "non-American but English speaking" connection. This is based on the fact that British English is, by and large, the European standard - while American forms are more general in other American countries (except Canada) and in Asia.
What really gets me is the brigade that seem to have nothing better to do that rummage through articles changing words to their American spellings, in apparent ignorance of the fact that there IS such a thing as "British" English. If this is allowed to run unchecked we get a rash of articles that are neither one thing or the other.
Oh for simpler rules! Or just having the encyclopedia all in American even...
--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems there are two of those "better our way" brigades wasting their time and our patience. The "Brits are best brigade" has been trying to "claim" some of my newly created articles as being British usage. Those bogus tags (which they seem to have since changed) drove me to familiarize myself with WP:ENGVAR and WP:TIES. I came to the conclusion that my newly created articles about British and most Commonwealth aces could and should be changed to British usage AS A WHOLE. No nitpickers need apply; if you want to change a word, then change it all dammit.
American aces should be covered in American usage of course. I figured the same was true about Canadians, because the Canadians with whom I attended college seemed to write American usage.
It seems to me that French and other European ace bios should remain consistent with the original creator's usage. My original message to you was a hint that the original creator of Luftstreitkräfte is an American, therefore American usage should pertain.
As we seem to be the last two major contributors working this section, a concordance between us would seem in order. If British usage is indeed customary on the European continent, then I should prepare myself for someone possibly changing my usage while writing about a continental ace. May I hasten to add, I have no objections if that is the case, provided the conversion is in toto.
Georgejdorner (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps we need to put this discussion onto one of our pages (or even both?)
- I always assumed that Canadians preferred American spelling but I have recently been taken to task most severely by Canadian editors that this is not the case, so I don't know what to think about that one!!
- While the WP:TIES rule does not really cover this one I think my rule of thumb about using the variety of English most likely to be acceptable in the country concerned (British English IS generally regarded as "European English" - even by the French, who still blame the Brits for burning Joan of Arc). Much of the rest of the world outside the old British Commonwealth seems to prefer American spelling, or at least be more familiar with it. Some acknowledgement of this perhaps belongs in the MOS?? If nothing else - it doesn't seem to contradict the current guidelines, and (I think) is reasonably sensible, at least as far as this article is concerned.
- Another argument. The American military contribution to WWI (i.e. soldiers and military aircraft actually going into action) was effectively confined to the last few months - after the German offensive of Spring 1918 had been beaten, and the result of the war was no longer in doubt. Compared with the much longer, and far more problematic, commitment of the British Commonwealth forces this comes close to a justification for WWI articles in general (except of course those related specifically to American people, units or events) to stick to British spelling. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Selling the latter argument to the "all-American brigade" will be tough. We Yanks are taught that the war had staggered to a gruesome stalemate by 1917, and our entry into the war tipped the balance toward victory. This point of view is especially rabid among veterans of the United States Marine Corps, whose Sixth Regiment still boasts of its WWI feats.
I won't speak to the ground war due to my shortage of knowledge, but I am not particularly impressed with my fellow countrymen's aerial contribution to WWI. I cannot recall creating articles about any of the American aces for just that reason; besides, those articles absorb some of the energies of the "all-Americans".
On the other hand, the "Brits are best brigade" seem amazed that a mere Yank like myself can be literate. I niggled with one of them over converting an article's usage, and it turned out that adding a 'u' in the word 'honor' (er, honour, if you will) did the trick.
On the practical end, adoption of your standard means there are literally hundreds of articles I created that would have to be converted, as can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Georgejdorner/User_page:_The_brag_wall.
And lighten up; we Americans don't torture the language that badly. After all, we have won the Nobel Prize for Literature oftener than any nationality except the French, as can be seen at List of Nobel laureates in Literature, so some of us must be literate.
Georgejdorner (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're right in a way - the point I was making is that WWI is very much more a Brit thing than a Yank one. The United States did indeed declare war in 1917 at the hight of the stalemate of the trenches - but at that stage they were totally unprepared to get actively involved, and when American troops did start to arrive in Europe Pershing was very keen to build up a totally American army rather than adding American batallions to French or British divisions. The result was (as I said) that American involvement in actual combat came very late - the battles that the marines are so proud of were all in mid/late 1918, a year or more after the U.S. declaration of war. The stalemate of the trenches had long ended and warfare had become much more "open". With or without the Americans - the Germans lost the war when their last great offensive stalled in May 1918. Having said all that I wouldn't get all silly and nationalistic about it - all I am suggesting is that where there is any doubt about which spelling to use for a WWI article (other than an obvious American one) history might be a consideration. I certainly wouldn't worry about it to the extent of flapping about looking for "inappropriately spelled" articles and changing them.
- And I hope you don't take me too seriously when I refer to "proper English" and "American". There are (when you boil it all down) not that many differences anyway - and while some American spellings are indeed barbarisms, others are in fact OLDER spellings than the "proper" standard (the -or/-our and -ize/-ise ones being cases of this). As I've said before - I don't really know why they just can't pick one or the other (I don't even care VERY much which, although my personal preference is obvious) and stick to it. The Britannica has been in Yank spelling for many years now and that hasn't stopped it being a standard reference both sides of the Atlantic. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I take your comments about "proper usage" and "American usage" about as seriously as we should take the "Yanks tipped the balance of the war" attitude of the All-Amurikin brigade. When I outlined that attitude, I may not have made it clear that I don't subscribe to it. Indeed, your explanation seems more fitting to the facts.
I will carry the torch for "proper usage", though. I have just had a big to-do with other contributors about sloppily using the term "kill" to describe an aerial victory in which no one perishes. I deem that usage sloppily inaccurate, misleading, slangy, and unencyclopedic. Their reply is, It's accepted aviation slang, and the non-aviation reader will figure it out somehow through context.
Georgejdorner (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, I think I was "upon the other side" in that one. Jargon it may be perhaps, but not really "slang" - certainly standard usage in aviation circles for many years. I do agree, however, that it's "ugly", as well as potentially misleading, especially for those people who are NOT aviation buffs (I know a few of them). All in all, "victory" wins hands down. I must stress however that I DO take issue with your use of "wins" or even "triumphs" in this context. TOTALLY not idiomatic, in spite of what a thesaurus might imply. Much better just to repeat the word "victory", if we really need to avoid "kill", or better if possible, rephrase the text concerned. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
As you must have noticed by now I have rewritten quite a lot of this one - this is very much "your" article in a way, at least you started it - so I would appreciate some reaction about my changes. Or should I take silence to mean unqualified approval? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: Aces at the Wicnic
Just an reminder :-) I answered you question on my talk page. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Vallejo
I finished uploads of photos I made in Vallejo. May be you'll be interested in adding some of the to relevant articles. See commons:Category:Vallejo, California (streets and buildings). Of course, there is much more of things not presented on Commons, especially on Mare Island. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Wow, those are close to home. I live only two blocks uphill from Georgia Street, and I recognize just about every building you photographed. You should have warned me you were coming; I might have been able to help direct you to photo opportunities. Besides, it would have been good to see you again.
You know, I have never thought of contributing to the article(s) on Vallejo.
Georgejdorner (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think Vallejo worth to come there for photo-hunt again, so may be in future :-) --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Snoopy v Red Baron
It appears both of us have a strident tone & strong views, & not only on this page. I'm happy to see it settled on Talk, but I've seen no sign so far of bending, or even discussion, despite requests from others before me. I'm left with the impression "reliable sources" are supposed to be the be-all & end-all, with which I disagree, & my last was intended (probably less well-phrased than ideally) to invite defense of the opposing position for discussion. If you want to referee it... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Battle of Milne Bay
G'day George, I'm writing in reference to your post on the Battle of Milne Bay talk page, where you state: "I have a copy of Milne Bay 1942: The Story of Milne-Force: Japan's first military defeat on land ISBN 0-646-05405-8 that I will donate to an editor who will complete the citations to this article."
I am currently in the process of trying to add refs to the article and expand it. I hope to work with others to get it up to B class (and maybe even to GA in time). Can I ask if this offer is still open? If so, I wouldn't mind getting the book from you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Bad day, Rupert, unfortunately;
When I moved early last month, said book was disposed of as part of my downsizing effort pre-move. It was the size of a tombstone, and was the heaviest book on my shelves, even out-weighing my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. Unluckily, that, and its obscurity, made it a natural target for the grand heave-ho. I do believe I donated it to Vallejo, California's Friends of the Library organization. There is a slight chance they may still have it. Their email address is vallejofriends@gmail.com.
My sincerest apologies. I hope that, despite this handicap, you can still develop Battle of Milne Bay.
Georgejdorner (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, George, no worries at all. I've got quite a few sources, so I should have enough. I hope you've managed to settle in to your new place. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Just as well. I might have gotten a shocking surprise on the shipping charges for a tombstone.
Cheero.
Georgejdorner (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
My apologies
For editing without using edit summaries. I guess I am kind off used to making many small changes to articles, almost always relating to birth and death dates, that i forgo adding edit summaries. I will try to remember to add them in the future, even though I myself consider it quite a bother for the thousands of minute changes that Ive made in such articles over the years. I assure you that all changes I made to articles on your watchlist were confined to the birth and death-dates; I regularly find large groups of biographical articles that do not show the birth and death-dates as is considered standard and I simply try to fix that. Right now Im wading through the category for Recipients of the Military Cross. Omegastar (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Season's tidings!
Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
Hi. I found an error in the article (see photo). Copernicus was not a German, he was from Poland. --Top811 my talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC).
You have (surely) noticed my rather heavy attack on your work in this article. I greatly appreciate your efforts to incorporate a more recent source (Colin Pengelly) - but the fact is that while his work as a biography of Ball is excellent his technical information about the A.F.B.1 needs at times to be taken with a pinch of salt. "More recent" often means "better", but there are many exceptions to this rule, alas. Anyway - I DO want your comments, assuming you are still interested in this topic. I may very well have either misrepresented Pengelly - or misjudged the hisorical accuracy of some of his technical information. In either case I'd appreciate your corrections, if any. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hello,
- Actually, I somehow failed to put this article on my watch list, and was unaware you were working upon it. Probably because it is not of much interest to me.
- I can lay no particular claim to being expert about the hardware used in WWI. However, if you are adjudging Pengelly unreliable, I hope you are doing so direct from his text. By so doing, you can screen out any distortions that may have been caused by my ignorance, and thus increase the accuracy of the article.
- Carry on, my tuneful friend.
- Georgejdorner (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- N.B. Pasted in your reply from my talk page to keep this exchange clear in at least one place! Most of the Pengelly stuff I have rejected (we have to be constructively critical of our sources, if only because our articles would be a nest of contradictions otherwise) is technical rather than autobiographical - he does (alas) make some plain bloopers that could have been avoided by examining the photographs - on the other hand where he is working from documents that (say) Bruce probably didn't have access to I have in fact done my best to reconcile any apparent contradictions, and largely in favour of Pengelly at that. No intention whatever to denigrate your "ignorance" - rather I felt that having made so many changes to the work of a fellow editor I know to be highly consciencious and (on the whole) the very opposite of "ignorant", I wanted to see what you thought of the result. Best wishes, as always. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
My Judi Bari edit of ...a couple of days ago.
I received a communication about an edit I made to the Judi Bari article. The communication requested verifying data to the edits. Is the correct page that I may use to respond to that communication, or am I more lost (or more dense) than usual?
Thanks. Sorry for the delay; didn't get the message until today.
If this is sent to the wrong person...my apologies. I have no idea in hell what I'm doing...but my edit was correct, and I shall gladly provide what is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.49.18 (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Aviator images
Are you interested in adding images to the articles you have been working on? I found a trove of images at Flickr Commons that correspond to your articles. You will need a yahoo email account. http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/8091917878/in/photostream/ I just added a photo at Wilhelm_Fahlbusch. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- What a shame. Is it a lack of time to devote to writing or did you have a bad experience at Wikipedia? If you do not want to add photos to Wikipedia, you can help identify the people at Flickr. Most pictures have the name of the people on them, so I add the link in Flickr to the Wikipedia biography. Flickr Commons could use your expertise. Lt. Veltjens begs you to help his colleagues be remembered by history. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- We are like the anonymous monks toiling to hand-copy the extant literature in the middle ages. Like them, we get to choose what gets preserved and what gets lost to history. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- You have to be thick skinned. Follow my travails Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, scroll to you find it. If you are worried about biographies getting deleted you can always transfer a copy to Familypedia. It is another Wiki designed for non-notable as well as notable people for genealogy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- We are like the anonymous monks toiling to hand-copy the extant literature in the middle ages. Like them, we get to choose what gets preserved and what gets lost to history. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Any help deciphering this name --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. I just used Google Image search where you drag a photo to the search bar, and it looks for a match. It found two exact matches there and one here at Wikimedia Commons. It only seems to work for an exact match. The similar pictures have the same tonal qualities, like sepia, but look nothing like the original.
Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Once again, the question of usage arises
I'm duplicating this one here - in case you're not watching my talk page. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I noted your latest edit summary on Manfred von Richthofen. In hopes of finally finding a basis for affixing a {British-English} or {American-English} tag on the Talk page, I followed edit History back to the article's founder. As you recall, WP policy is that if a Brit began it, it should follow British usage; if an American, then American usage. (And please recall from previous chats, I hold no brief for either usage.)
The result was one unforeseen by the policy makers. A Brazilian began this article, not a Brit nor a Yank. Back to square one. So I suppose the only solution for the usage confusion in this article is a consensus on one way or another.
Georgejdorner (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I really think they should pick one or the other and keep Wiki to that. I would prefer "standard" English - but look, I could live with (good) Yank usage, if they can agree what it is, be consistent, and steer clear of illiterate barbarisms. At least you'd know where you were. Consistency is after all the name of the game.
- The policy of not changing the usage of an article - and leaving it in the usage of the author does have a certain logic to it, but it's essentially a rule of convenience and (I think) it should only apply for subjects that don't have a a strong cultural, historical or geographical context. The object is (I think) probably just to avoid people switching articles from one to the other, or changing the odd word. In fact I would be happy to have it relaced with a blanket rule that all such articles be in standard English (or, if you like, U.S. usage) - see above.
- The "ties" rule, if we must have it, is clear as to U.S. and British subjects, although even here we are in a bind - should Scottish subjects be in Scots, for instance - there is a perfectly good rationale for this - but the result would be that almost nobody, even most Scottish people, would be able to read these articles. On the whole, I favour the use of U.S. usage for all clearly "American" subjects (in the widest sense) including Canadian, Mexican, Brazillian etc etc. Similarly - "European English" should apply for European subjects. Including this one. Personally I don't like the ties rule at all - but if we're going to have it - let's stick with it.
- That's my vote anyway FWIIW. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thank you for your attentions.
Diako Zandi 20:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Georgejdorner, and thank you for your contributions!
Some text in an article that you worked on List of World War I aviators who shot down two observation balloons, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, List of World War I aviators who shot down one observation balloon. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.
It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on List of World War I aviators who shot down two observation balloons at any time. MadmanBot (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
merger proposal
Merge discussion for List of World War I aviators who shot down two observation balloons
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of World War I aviators who shot down two observation balloons , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Petebutt (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Merge discussion for List of World War I aviators who shot down three observation balloons
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of World War I aviators who shot down three observation balloons , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Petebutt (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Merge discussion for List of World War I aviators who shot down one observation balloon
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of World War I aviators who shot down one observation balloon, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Petebutt (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eduard Pulpe may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Lieutenant '''Eduard Martynovich Pulpe''' 22 June 1880 - 2 August 1916) was a World War I [[flying ace]] credited with five aerial victories. He was a schoolteacher
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
World War I Air Service Aero Squadrons
I saw your comments about the 28th Aero Squadron and I've taken your notes and put them on my to do list for updating the articles I've written. I'll be going back to them in a week or so, and if there are any other items that I've missed, please feel free to add them to the list User:Bwmoll3/sandbox. Warmest Regards Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
My famous "Synchronization gear" article!!
Thought you might be interested in this, as it has been brewing up for a long time and is now almost finished. I plan to be bold (to put it mildly) by pasting this lot straight over the existing "Interrupter gear" article, and then moving it to the new (more appropriate) title. I have used Australian spelling (the best and purest form of English, of course) with the notable exception of the word "synchronize" and its derivatives, which while not the preferred Australian spelling seems to be listed as "acceptable".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Soundofmusicals/sandbox
The main things still missing and/or obviously imperfect:
1. References - these are VERY thin on the ground at the moment - I have a large pile of books and serial articles all ready to go through the article improving this aspect - but I am waiting on this until the first draft of the new article is more or less complete. A few things might get changed or even deleted to fit what the sources say as the references (there will be a lot of them!) go in - but doing it this way round will make the article less derivative, while permitting it to avoid any hint of undesirable OR.
2. Post 1919 history of synchronized guns - I very simply can't find sources!! Although there must be some info somewhere, after all they went on synchronizing guns to fire through the propeller well into the fifties!
Your comments would be very welcome.
ISBN
The International Standard Book Number is a means of identifying production and sources for published material. From approximately 1968–2007, ISBN-10 (a 10-digit number) was in effect. After that point, due to the proliferation of new titles, only ISBN=-13 (13-digit) codes were used. In some cases, books appear with both coding systems in place but gradually, except for older volumes that are not re-designated, only ISBN-13 applies. Prior to 1968, no codes were applied and even after that point, the use of ISBN-10 was not standard throughout the publishing industry. There are still occasions when you can pick up an older book and find only ISBN-10, going to publishers' data, and you will find only the older coding as it was unlikely that the older book will be re-issued. If it was, then ISBN-13 would apply after 2007. Then there is ISSN! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
H.G=
George,
I gave the full citation originally. Can you re-read that edit, then revisit me here and tell me exactly how it is 'vague'? You seemed to understand it perfectly, so I don't think was George, was it? A tad disingenuous I must say.
Kilduff does not offer a conclusive score - he merely takes the reader through the likely result of each claim. He and at least two others have conclusively ruled out two claims, so I'm afraid it makes a nonsense of 22 'confirmed victories', a term which should be kicked out of these articles altogether. I don't really care what you think the definition of a "confirmed victory" should be, to be frank, and neither is this about what methods each service used to decide upon them in the FWW or any other conflict. Confirmed victory implies no doubt and inescapable proof given. There is doubt. Its continued use is an insult to ones intelligence and is entirely misleading to the lay reader, for whom this article is written. From what I'm hearing your argument is this; "A confirmed victory is a kill credited to a pilot by the standards of ones own service, but may not actually be a victory at all". That is a mouthful, and probably why us 'ignorant' WWII enthusiasts stick to clear, if simplistic terms. At least the casual reader won't be led down the garden path.
That said, it maybe a relief for you to know that I'm resigning my interest in this article, since I don't have the time to spare here anymore. All the best. Dapi89 (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you did give a full citation referring to a source not listed in the article bibliography. And yes, I did take the bother to try to trace that source for you in an attempt to salvage your edit—something that probably no other editor would do. And yes, I failed to find it using the information given, discovering only that it is in some book or another by Peter Kilduff. Full citations don't fail that way. Yours did.
It may surprise you to discover that I share your attitude toward aerial victories. However, the number of victories an ace is credited with is about the first thing readers want to know. The sources used for writing about World War I aces rely on the term "confirmed victories". You may hate the term, but, to give an example, when a victorious World War I pilot retrieved souvenirs from the wreckage of his victim or the corpse of his enemy, a victory is definitely confirmed. Thus, your imputation that no aerial victories were ever confirmed is obviously false. I could add some further similar examples, but am not to embarrass you.
However, I must admit that "A confirmed victory is a kill credited to a pilot by the standards of ones own service, but may not actually be a victory at all" is not a bad summation of the process of reporting all aerial victories, regardless of conflict; there are no neutral referees keeping score. In fact, I would add that any other approach is leading the casual reader down that agricultural byway. Certainly, when I read about an aerial victory by a World War II aviator, I can have no idea what is entailed. Was it verified by gun camera? Or was the victim's wreckage found afterwards? Or were there independent witnesses? Or was it just a case of the pilot returning to base and saying, "I shot at him, and he dived into the clouds below, so I know I got him"? That is why I placed a request (thus far ignored) for an article on Aerial victory standards of World War II. And that is why I made the remarks I did about the lack of foundation for the World War II articles that refer to aerial victories. Without that missing article, the editors in the World War II aviation niche literally do not know what they are writing about.
Georgejdorner (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
George, I have no reason to feel embarrassed but you do. At the third time of asking, review my initial edits and you will see it was added to the bibliography. If you can't get that simple fact right, what hope is there for resolving this issue?
George, 'confirmed victories' cannot exist in list form. Your example is rather woeful; you've simply given me a couple of instances where a victory can be proven. How does this help us? Confirming one victory by the said means is not the same as stating a pilot achieved '22 confirmed victories' - the implication being the German (and possibly opposing side) were able to verify all of them. Evidently the proof was not provided. It is difficult to confirm one let alone 22. 'Confirmed victories' on this scale cannot exist so it isn't a false statement and you have caused no embarrassment to me.
Finally, I always make an effort to use the word "claim" or "was credited with" in the lead. A reader can be under no misconception then about the term "air victory" wherever it appears. I haven't seen a WII article with 'confirmed victories' for some time. I would say those minority articles should be re-worded, but then again I don't edit them. Perhaps now you can understand what "aerial victory" means. Besides, I could pose the same question about "confirmed victory" - camera film? wreckage? a corpse? Surely one cannot say Hermann shot down 22 'confirmed' victories - since there is no evidence of 22 separate confirmations. A rather uncomfortable fact for all aces.
I commend your efforts over there, but I really don't think its us (the WII 'ignorants') that are misunderstanding the point. Dapi89 (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi George.
- It is the word itself more than anything. The person(s) who slung that phrase together in the first place and used it to express a claim granted to them by their air service - which is what it is - should have been shot for their stupidity in my humble opinion. Personally I'll insist on using claim or credited with in the articles I do. I am going to, and do, make efforts with pilots' articles to produce a victory table - filled out as much as possible. I think that is an even more effective step in the right direction. I can then say; claim made, no evidence, possibly a victory, or a dead cert'. Until next time, all the best. Dapi89 (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Escadrille 3, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Scout, Bleriot and Edward Parsons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Escadrille 3 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- 1916, the unit had had been amalgamated into ''Groupement de Combat de la Somme'', along with ''[[Escadrille N26'', ''[[Escadrille N73]]'', and ''[[Escadrille N103]]''.
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Escadrille 26 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- '. As the year ended, the ''escadrille'' restocked with ''[[SPAD]]s'', becoming ''Escadrille Spa26]]''.
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Escadrille 12 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to SPAD
- Escadrille 67 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to SPAD
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I have done a bold merge!!
The old "CC gear" article promised to be very comprehensive, although what was completed of it was very "word-for-word" from the source! The main point is that it hadn't been worked on for a good while, and was very little use in its current form - so I have merged it to the relevant section of the new synchronization gear article. Having done it, do you think I am right? I have written diplomatically (I hope) to the editor who started the article concerned. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
George, you are under the mistaken belief that the templates you were employing were providing a positive improvement to the listing of bibliographic notations. I struggled with trying to adapt your templates to output the proper coding but each time, you went and made another error. Regardless of the hours you may have spent in trying to wrangle the bibliography into a sensible order, you undid all the hours I had spent in creating an accurate bibliographic file. What I had laid out was the exact bibliographic record according to the style guide of the Modern Language Association (MLA) Style Guide that is the most commonly used format to cite sources for the liberal arts and humanities, including history and biography topics, which is what the Werner Voss article represents. When Wikipedia decided to have a template system provided to assist non-experts in sourcing material, they chose the simpler, American Psychological Association (APA) style guide which is a commonly used system for science and business, but certainly not for the wider range of non-fiction publications such as historical works. When APA was first introduced, it was taught at universities as a "dumbed" down system but one that was easier to use. There are lots of advantages to using a template but citing complex sources is not one of them. The use of the Chicago style and Turabian is also used for research papers, but are adaptions of the MLA style. If you wish to know more about referencing materials, I can provide some additional background as my work as a reference librarian and cataloger, and lately, editor for publication houses, over the last 33 years + involved all manner of cataloging and referencing, FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- You may also recognize that citation templates are neither sanctioned, approved nor required for Wikipedia editors. Many experienced users do not employ templates, as they can cause just as much harm as good, under the old computer dictum of "garbage in, garbage out". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
During my A Class Review, I received some very strong hints that I had better change this citation system if I wanted Werner Voss to progress to Featured Article status. I was attempting to teach myself the wikicode to do so when you destroyed my work. If you had told me the cites were incorrect, I could have copied them back to my workspace, restored the old cites, and continued my struggle to learn wikiediting. As it is, you are just the latest editor to destroy my attempts at teaching myself wiki markup.
Georgejdorner (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Then you need to use WP:SANDBOX or a sandbox in your userspace to learn, you should not be teaching yourself wikimarkup for templates in articlespace, speaking honestly - because it leads to broken articles and reverts such as has happened here. As (from your words) multiple editors have "destroy[ed] my attempts at teaching myself wiki markup", then you need to consider that perhaps the method you are using to teach yourself is causing issues and, therefore, you need to do it on a sandbox page to avoid this issue. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Then you need to actually read my above post, where I state I was in workspace. The difficulty came during my transfer of the results into the article. You also ignored my offer to unilaterally restore the old version after saving my work.
The only issue I see here is your lack of good faith in a fellow editor, inattention to what is actually written, and a tendency to lecture.
Georgejdorner (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Groupe de Combat 12, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of the Aisne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 15:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Erwin Böhme may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- of continuing on to neutral Switzerland, he returned to Germany to enter military service.{cn}}
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lists of World War I flying aces may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- * [[:Category:American World War I flying aces|List of World War I aces from the United States]] (incomplete}
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Pavel Argeyev (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Pfalz
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Enemy ace
If you've got sourcing to back up the missing names on the Brit & U.S. aces lists, add them there. Or post the fact on the respective talk pages. Putting it with the cats is unhelpful. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, but posting a notice of incompleteness in conjunction with the cats on the main list page isn't accomplishing anything. A posting on the talk pages at least has a chance of attracting more information & sourcing. It's also usual practise. What you've done could be considered vandalism. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not disagreeing with you, as I've said. And I applaud the effort. As for whether it could be considered vandalism, yeah, it can. It's adding junk text on a page, rather than posting warning comments on the appropriate talk pages, which, as said, is the correct approach. It's well-intentioned, but if it keeps happening, it's going to get you smacked for being disruptive. Somebody's not going to see it the same way I do--& certainly somebody won't see it the same way you do. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ''Escadrille SPA.57'', you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SPAD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of World War I flying aces from the British Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Wilkinson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
George, you opened this review on October 6 with a single comment, and haven't continued in over two weeks. Are you planning to finish the review soon? Or would you prefer that we return it to the reviewing pool? Please let us know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Where are we up to with this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Albert Ball (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Seize
- Rudolph Berthold (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Order of Military Merit
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations
Hi George. Congratulations on the Albert Ball article being promoted at FAC! I've left a follow-up message on Ian's talk page as well. I'm sorry I wasn't able to get back again in time, but I agree with what he said at that FAC. You've put an immense amount of work into this over the years and the article is excellent. Carcharoth (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2014
Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Italicizing titles
Hi George, and thanks for creating Escadrille SPA.57. Just so you know, wiki markup doesn't usually work in titles. If you want an article to be italicized, just add {{italic title}} in the article itself. In this case, I don't think the title really needs to be italicized, though. We have an article Escadrille where it it's italicized inconsistently. I've de-italicized the name in your article, but if you'd prefer it that way, I wouldn't object to you changing it back. If you do, you'll want to add {{italic title}} so the title displays that was as well. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rudolph Berthold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DFW (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rudolph Berthold, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Memel, Marchais and Ligature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Probables
Would "unconfirmed" or another term be a better word? Let me know, would be more than happy to make the article better Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rudolf Berthold may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- | Captain Alwayne Travers Loyd, of [ who was killed.<ref name=Lines/><ref>Aerodrome listing for Loyd [http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- List of World War I flying aces from France (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Marcel Bloch, Paul Petit, Georges Blanc and Paul Sauvage
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Berthold ACR
G'day, George, I think you might have been having some trouble creating the ACR for Rudolf Berthold so I created the page for you. It can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Rudolf Berthold. If that wasn't your intent, please let me know and I will try to rectify my mistake. Take care. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kurt Schneider (aviator) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- | awards = [[Iron Cross]] (both first and second class]]<br>[[Albert Order]] (Knight 2nd class with swords)<br>[[Military Order of St. Henry]] (Knight's
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of World War I flying aces from Germany, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Karl Schlegel, Georg Meyer and Theodor Rumpel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Murder of Dwayne Jones GAR
Much appreciated George! All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories
I left some remarks to address before I can support your nomination. Good progress so far MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- James McKinley Hargreaves (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Gommecourt
- James Victor Gascoyne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to DFW
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't give up
Review process for high level ratings like A-class and FA-class do have a tendency to get long and frustrating, but it would be unwise to throw in the towel and leave Wikipedia altogether. I would implore you to reconsider your position, and if you need it, I would be willing to do what I can to help out with your nominated list. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- ditto to above, George. I'll help out too. MrBee is a very good and very thorough reviewer and I've been on the receiving end of his analysis. Hang in there. If there are no sources, there are no sources. We'll work it out. :) auntieruth (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi George, I regret your decision and I truly feel instrumentally at fault for this situation. Please reconsider, you have added so much to Wikipedia. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
If you folks ever develop a written checklist(s) of A-List, A-Class, Featured Article, and Featured List requirements that can be referred to, I would give serious consideration to returning because I could pre-edit my work. However, I am not about to undergo any more "assessments via ambush".
The last assessment I was involved made no changes perceptible to our reader. For this, I spent five years accumulating data to ensure a complete list, and a month's unsuccessful monkeying with code.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- George, Wikipedia is fundamentally based on the voluntary contribution of free and available cognitive capacity. Conceptually it is an evolutionary ecosystem, the information and expectations it holds morph over time. Nothing is static in Wikipedia, neither the articles nor the criteria against which they are written. Your most recent feedback "Assessment by ambush" gives me the impression that you feel unfairly treated, either by the reviewers, in particular me, or by the system itself. When I reviewed your article I believe to have echoed the experience and knowledge I gathered over the time I have contributed to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an evolutionary process which if you want to participate is better served from the inside than the outside. The lesson learned here is that we all have to embrace the fact that helping each other write and contribute to Wikipedia should be an enjoyable experience, which in the end is in benefit for all. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
"Assessment by ambush" is basically an unfair system of random requirements, for which the newbie cannot prepare. If the excuse for not codifying requirements is that they are constantly evolving, well, so are Wikipedia's articles. If the articles can be written down subject to change, so can the checklist.
Right now, the assessment system is swamped. A checklist would help alleviate that problem. Reading through the checklist would give pause to the unprepared, and delay nominations that are bound to fail until they are truly ready. The actual assessments that are nominated could be processed much more quickly. Better prepared nominations would lessen the assessors' work loads, and speed up the assessment process. Cripes, assessments might even become sort of fun.
And, Mr. Bee, we do agree that writing for WP should be enjoyable. That's why I moved on when it became unenjoyable.
Georgejdorner (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Good Tidings and all that ...
Hope you haven't REALLY gone for good!!!
Just in case you're still around, albeit on the edges, this is a post I put on the user page of the gentleman who is working on McCudden's article (and with whom I have clashed in the past). Mainly for your interest. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Congratulations on your work on this article! Most impressed. Hope you will take the following quibble in the spirit in which it is meant, in spite of earlier disagreements and my notorious lack of diplomacy.
- On the whole, historical consensus still says that Richthofen's 15th victory was the F.E.2b of Quested and Dicksee. There IS a major time discrepancy here, and Guttman's case for it actually being McCudden's D.H.2 IS persuasive, but it remains essentially (Guttman's) speculation. The account of McCudden's close call of the 27 December 1916 in Cole (pp.73-74), the obvious source for Guttman's account, makes no suggestion that Richthofen might have been involved, so the link IS purely down to Guttman.
- From Richthofen's point of view, dogfighting a nimble little D.H.2 and a lumbering great F.E.2b would have been very distinct experiences, so if it was McCudden rather than Quested it does seem strange he would have misidentified the aircraft concerned - he was familiar with, and distinguished between, the two types, even though he thought they were both "Vickers" products. British and German combat reports ARE sometimes very hard to tie in with each other - viz. the German account of Voss' death! Even if Quested and Dicksee can be ruled out there are very probably other possibilities.
- All in all - while Guttman's notion that Richthofen very nearly shot down McCudden, especially at such an early stage of both aces' careers, is very interesting - and certainly deserves a mention - I don't think it is quite certain (or important) enough to rate a mention in the lead - nor does it warrant the degree of certainty implied in the text. Perhaps the odd "may have", and "might"?? We may even like to specifically mention our author here - "Guttman speculates that ..." ??
- Once again, well done - have you asked the people who brought up the Ball article to "FA" for their comments and assistance?' --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
TFAR notice
Please see Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#May_7. I nominated to WP:TFAR an article you had successfully co-nominated at FAC, Albert Ball.
Thank you for your high-level quality improvement contributions to Wikipedia,
Request for comment
Hello Georgejdorner, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by Technical 13. Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Backlog drive
Hello Georgejdorner,
WikiProject Orphanage is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive to de-orphan articles which have orphan tags!
The goal is to eliminate the backlog of orphan articles. There are currently 58545 articles which have orphan tags. The drive is running from April 12, 2014 to May 12, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all editors participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. To add your name in the participants list click here.
So start de-orphaning articles! Click here to see the list of articles need de-orphaning.
Visit Suggestions for how to de-orphan an article to know more!
Reference Errors on 9 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the List of bombs in the Vietnam War page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Operation Pierce Arrow may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Frankum, Like Rolling Thunder: The Air War in Vietnam, 1964-1975. Rowland & Littlefield, 2005), p. 15.</ref> which was conducted on 5 August 1964.{{cn}}
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Lima Site 85, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hmong and Air America. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in an interview
Hi George, I'd like to invite you to participate in a group interview in the upcoming August issue of The Bugle with editors who work on articles concerning World War I. We're conducting this interview to mark the centenary of the war, and it forms part of a semi-regular series of interviews on thematic topics. If you're able to participate, I'd be grateful if you could post responses to the questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/August 2014/Interview by next Sunday 17 July. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Richard Secord may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- combat missions between March 1962 to January 1963, flying [[North American T-28 Trojan|AT-28]]s). Also during this time, he was temporarily assigned to the Iranian air force as an adviser (
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Secord, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Department of Defense and Air America. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Georgejdorner. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Thomas "Tom" Fosmire, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Thomas "Tom" Fosmire to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.
If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.
Disambiguation link notification for September 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Bacon (CIA), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Soldiers of fortune and Green Beret. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/George Bacon (CIA) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gar Thorsrud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air America. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- James William Lair
- added links pointing to Army War College, Kip, William Young, Hmong, Air America and H-34
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Tick mark
Hi there, I just noticed that in your review of Template:Did you know nominations/Red whip snake, you stated the DYK nomination was "good to go" but did not provide a tick mark. Could you add the relevant mark to your review so it can be promoted. Thanks. Mindmatrix 16:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Georgejdorner, something went wrong with your creation of this template. I think you somehow deleted the "}}" at the end of it, and since the template had no closing braces, the substitution of the NewDYKnomination template did not occur—so instead of a proper nomination's DYKsubpage template being created, it's still the old, unfinished template form.
I've had to remove the transclusion from the nominations page because it's causing a bit of havoc there with the format; once you've fixed the template so the substitution can be made—you can preview it before saving to be sure you have it right—then you can restore the transclusion. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Luang Namtha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Green Beret. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of George Bacon (CIA)
Hello! Your submission of George Bacon (CIA) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
DYK reviews
George, I just wanted to give you a tip about icon placement in reviews: when you do a review, the icon should go at the beginning of that review—literally immediately before the first word you type. (I leave a single space between the icon and the first word of text.) You've been putting the icon at the top of the page, which actually sets it outside of the template: when you're reviewing, you should stay below the top section and above the bottom line with the closing braces. I've moved icons from above the template to the beginning of your review a couple of times now, so I thought I'd let you know where they should be placed. Also, as long as I have you here, thanks for the barnstar! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Ambush of the steamboat J. R. Williams
George, Thank you for your initial comment. I think the point you raised about the Did You Know nomination for the above article has been resolved. The tag apparently was an orphan, since nobody took responsibility for having placed it on the article. You said you are interested in reviewing the DYK nom, so I hope you will feel free to proceed. I look forward to your comments. Bruin2 (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Interview for The Signpost
- This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Orphanage
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Orphanage for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (state) @ 18:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Operation Momentum
- added links pointing to Desmond Fitzgerald, White Star and Padong
- Operation Pincushion
- added a link pointing to Cadre
- Table of organization and equipment for an ADC company
- added a link pointing to Cadre
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned from Vietnam
Hello! Your submission of Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned from Vietnam at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Georgejdorner, Needs a tick if it is GTG. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not entirely sure if you did a review or not. If so, then you need to add
- Review with the appropriate comment. Or if you intent was just to
- Coment then it helps to so indicated
- You could also use the following DYK Checklist:
{{DYK checklist |newness = y |length = y |eligibilityother = |sourced = y |neutral = y |plagarismfree = y |policyother = |hookcited = y |hookinterest = y |hookother = |picfree = y |picused = y |picclear = y |qpq = y |status = y |comments =
- And if you in fact did a WP:DYK review it is GTG, then you need to add
I don't mean to be pushy here, but your intent is not totally clear. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Categories
Hi. Thanks for your contribution of articles about the Laotian Civil War. I'd like to suggest giving a little more attention to the categories. It's much better to include only categories directly relevant to each article, rather than copying the whole batch to every article. Many categories are only relevant to the entire war as a whole, and it would be inaccurate to use them to describe every battle and operation which was part of the war. For example, the Wars involving Thailand category is appropriate for Laotian Civil War, but not Requirements Office, which itself isn't a war, though it is part of one. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Template for Homecoming
Hi, I know you're very close to the subject matter, and you did a great job on the article, but according to Wikipedia rules, this is a book review and not a BLP. The templates for WikiProject Books and WikiProject Military History are really all that's required here. Yoninah (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Sigma I-64 war game
- added a link pointing to War games
- Sigma II-65 war game
- added a link pointing to Attrition
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Operation Triangle
Hello! Your submission of Operation Triangle at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Sigma II-64 war game
Hello! Your submission of Sigma II-64 war game at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Battle of Nam Bac
Hello! Your submission of Battle of Nam Bac at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Battle of Lak Sao
Hello! Your submission of Battle of Lak Sao at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ¿3family6 contribs 04:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Battle of Luang Namtha
Hello! Your submission of Battle of Luang Namtha at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ¿3family6 contribs 04:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Battle of Nam Bac
Hello! Your submission of Battle of Nam Bac at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ¿3family6 contribs 04:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello
Welcome to Wikipedia. Do you happen to like the sport of cricket? --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Auto Defense Choc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xieng Khouang. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Ban Naden raid
- added links pointing to Classified and Air America
- Project Hotfoot (Laos)
- added a link pointing to Irregular
- Yankee Station
- added a link pointing to F-100
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hillmer?
Hey. You just added a statement to the article on Lee Lue, citing "Hillmer, p, 5". You did not, however, say what source by Hillmer you're quoting. Could you fix that? Thanks. DS (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Campaign Thoan Thang
Hello! Your submission of Campaign Thoan Thang at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! RHM22 (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
DYK problem for Sigma I-64 war game
Hello! Your submission of Article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Auto Defense Choc
Hello! Your submission of Auto Defense Choc at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! - Evad37 [talk] 04:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Table of organization and equipment for an ADC company
You did an article Table of organization and equipment for an ADC company that is currently linked from the main page - well done.
There are a couple of things that are unclear:
- The nine pallets of munitions - should that read "each including" instead of "including"?
- The resupply package includes "ammunition for M1 Carbine" - were M1 Carbines in the nine pallets of munitions?
Happy New Year!
DYK nomination of Operation Raindance
Hello! Your submission of Operation Raindance at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Maky « talk » 23:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Diamond Arrow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air bridge. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Diamond Arrow at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Vientiane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cadre. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Operation Off Balance
Hello! Your submission of Operation Off Balance at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Astro interest (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
DYK nomination of 1967 Opium War
Hello! Your submission of 1967 Opium War at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1964 Laotian coups, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dalat. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
DYK nomination of 1965 Laotian coups
Hello! Your submission of 1965 Laotian coups at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Allen3 talk 11:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Missing reference supplied.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Conill
Hi. Are you planning to continue your review of the DYK for Conill? Thanks. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The article Wilbur "Will" Green has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
fyi.... you created a redirect to itself. Bgwhite (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
unstick?
Hi George, can you have a look here? I thank you for your approval, however I suspect its not getting chosen because it doesnt have a dyktick symbol. Could you make the position clear? cheers and thx again Victuallers (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
James (Jim) Glerum
Okay so I was looking at the page for articles of blps eligible for deletion and found James (Jim) Glerum you have him as a living person-but are you sure the guy is alive? I put him as possibly living as I can't find proof if he is living or not. Wgolf (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
A Walk Across America
There are a lot of reviews for this books at Google News Archive and http://fultonhistory.com. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hey Georgejdorner, I took the suggestion of this editor and tried out http://fultonhistory.com/ as recommended above. I found a few articles; some of these may be good. I searched for "A Walk Across America" (in quotes) and "1979" and the search result returned 32 newspaper articles. I looked at the first few and they may be good; e.g. this and this. Prhartcom (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
DYK nomination of A Walk Across America
Hello! Your submission of A Walk Across America at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Prhartcom (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of James J. Stanford for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James J. Stanford is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James J. Stanford until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gbawden (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/James J. Stanford at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Request for comment
An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Charles Larimore Jones
Hello! Your submission of Charles Larimore Jones at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
ALT1 Dorsey
- Do you think an additional green tick should be given for ALT1? Leaving it up to you. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Shortened footnotes
You're right; some of these Wikipedia pages look like they were written for programming geeks. Shortened footnotes are actually incredibly simple. You make a list of the Sources at the bottom of the page with the regular citation templates, only adding an extra parameter for |ref=harv. For example:
{{cite book|ref=harv|url= https://books.google.co.il/books?id=dGVnlS0YcPsC&pg=PA123|title= Dummy Up and Deal: Inside the Culture of Casino Dealing|first1=H. Lee|last1=Barnes|first2=John L.|last2=Smith|year=2005|publisher= University of Nevada Press|isbn= 0874176220}}
Then, in the body of the article, whenever you cite the source, you use this format: {{sfn|author1 last name|author2 last name|publication year|page number}}, e.g.: {{sfn|Barnes|Smith|2005|p=123}}
This also works for magazine and journal articles. If you have any questions, just drop me a note on my talk page. Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Accidently came across this conversation, and DO fully agree with Yoninah on the use of "ref=harv". William Donald Scherzer is an example of this. In conjunction with that I use Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Apology
I owe you an apology, I had posted something and intended to add my post and your post at the same time, but for some reason your message which I had intended to post to the primary talk page didn't save. I suspect that may be due to either my computer or my internet connection, both of which are iffy these days. In any event, this is inexcusable - all questions asked deserve an equal chance for an answer or a solution. For this oversight, you have my sincerest apologies, and I will make it a point to double check this from now on. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- I would suggest Wikipedia:Merging, there is a process there for merging articles. Alternatively, if you think that the two are one in the same you could redirect one of the two pages to the other and simply move the redirected article's information to the one that is kept. Before doing that I would suggest seeing if anyone replies to the post at the Milhist talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you can recall the text you deleted, I am truly looking for proof or disproof that they are the same person. Then I will know whether or not to merge. As you suggested, I will try at the Milhist Talk page.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- I can. Here is your text, verbatim, below:
- If you can recall the text you deleted, I am truly looking for proof or disproof that they are the same person. Then I will know whether or not to merge. As you suggested, I will try at the Milhist Talk page.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, all. Calling for a bit of help here. Question at hand is, is Donald Nichols (spy) the same man as Don Nichols, the racing team manager?
Little is known about the military Nichols after his 1962 retirement except that he died in Alabama in 1992. The racing Nichols bio basically begins at this point. A link at the racing article [2] claims they are the same, but is an unreliable source. A photo comparison between this article's photos and a photo in Apollo's Warriors is inconclusive to my eyes. Also, the military Nichols had the reputation of being sloppy in dress; pictures of the racing Nichols show him to be somewhat dapper, with a thinner face.
I am posting this in hopes that someone will prove/disprove the connection between these two.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hope it helps. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
DYK issue
DYK nomination of Operation Honorable Dragon
Hello! Your submission of Operation Honorable Dragon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Manxruler (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Spy versus racer?
Your points on Nichols are well taken, & if you've made them under the propsosed move header too, I'll make no objection to the page staying where it is. Provided it doesn't turn out they're evil twins, or something. ;p Dean Winchester curse you, Crowley! 06:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
German aces
Hello, I doubt that the same level of detail can be achieved on every article, nevertheless, over time, I will try. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar! Yoninah (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
| | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |