User talk:Dapi89

Hiya Dapi, good to see you back - good work on Johnnie Johnson. BTW worth a laugh Cheers ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 21:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Surveyor and Territorial Army (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) 12:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dieppe and Fassberg (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) 11:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I am currently travelling in the land of milk and honey. I can help out once I get back from the USA MisterBee1966 (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in...;) ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 00:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, nice to see an article I started getting a significant improvement.... I did another BoB ace, in case you're feeling bored.  :) Catsmeat (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. As it is, you've definitely pulled it up to B. And GA looks quite dooable. Catsmeat (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I done a bit of poking around, but couldn't find much. There's an account of the flame-thrower carrying, Dornier 17 (Wrk Nr. 2555) here though I think a forum posting can't count as a reputable source. The poster does say it's a piece he/she had published in Flypast. So I assume if it can be tracked down there, then it can be cited as a source.

The gist of it is that a large number of pilots from different squadrons shot at the Dornier, several thinking they'd set it on fire on account of the flamethrower. It seems Dundas and his wing-man (P/O E.Q. Tobin) may well have finished it off, but the matter is confused and other pilots have plausible claims. Apparently, some parts from the Do 17 survive at the Shoreham Aviation Museum though I got that from another forum posting. The actual Shoreham Museum website only says they have some Do 17 bits, but doesn't say what, or from which aircraft.

I found out something about Richard Pape, the fellow journalist who knew Dundas at the Yorkshire Post, and subsequently a Lancaster navigator and a PoW in Germany (though he is peripheral to the Dundas article). He seems to have been quite a brave, daring and charming man. But also an egotistical, deceiving, back-stabbing, murderous piece of s***. I'm tempted to do an article about him as he was a somewhat successful author in the 50's and 60's and so passes the Wikipedia notability threshold. His obituary is a fun read.Catsmeat (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! And well deserved as it looks like you put plenty of work into it.Catsmeat (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I just feel tremendously complimented that somebody thought an article I started was worth their time and effort. To be honest, I only did it because I was poking around on the Imperial War Museum site and randomly found a picture of Hugh Dundas, which I uploaded as his article was un-pictured. This led me to writing up his brother as he was without an article and seemed to deserve one. That in turn made me do Noel Agazarian, a squadron-mate of Dundas who sounded an interesting character. Finally, that in turn led me to beefing up the article on Herbert Edward Douglas Blakiston, the racist so-and-so who refused to admit Agazarian to Trinity College Oxford because he was half-Armenian (though, in fairness, Blakiston seems to have had a peculiarly tragic life). So it all seems infinitely recursive, but despite this, if some project catches your eye, let me know and I'll see if I can spare some time to pitch in.

PS. Regarding Dundas, it is curious that somebody (apparently called Graham Alderson, so not a family member) put up a monument to him on the Isle of Wight in 2000. As you say, he's not a well known figure. Perhaps this Alderson bloke though similarly to you.

Catsmeat (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Dundas (ace), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weymouth (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) 15:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Eric Lock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Rochester, Deal, Gravesend and Dungeness

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Arthur Rhys-Davids (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Belle Vue

John Dundas (RAF officer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Godfather

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, dapi,

Thanks for the heads up. I did not realize that Mannock was still listed with an inflated number of victories.

Mick Mannock, as can be seen by the credibly sourced victory listing in his article, had 61 victories confirmed. Mannock's close friend, James Ira Thomas Jones survived the war. Jones detested Billy Bishop as much as he adulated Mannock, so when Jones wrote Mannock's biography, he jacked up his friend's score to one above Bishop's score (which is a whole another cauldron of contention). (Does this incident remind one of some sort of military soap opera?)

Looks like Mannock must be re-ranked. There will probably be a chorus of howling protest about it from the fanboys.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fokker Scourge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French Empire (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) 12:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wonder if you can help out. I started expanding the Otto Weiß (pilot) article and according to Brütting, Weiß was awarded the Knight's Cross for repulsing strong French tank forces north of Cambrai. Battle of Arras? But this took place after May 18th. Since the Knight's Cross was awarded on 18 May the action must have taken place before that date. Do you happen to know more about this? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes it makes sence. Re-reading the book it seems that this action took place on the 17th. Regarding the approval, it says that he received the award in the "field". I recall that Adalbert Schneider's KC was approved within two hours. So in theory it was possible. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time on addressing my review comments on the Dundas article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to every source I have and I could look up the Knight's Cross was awarded on the 18 May 1940. (see Das Ritterkreuz as an example). Let's assume that the Germans did not hand out these awards in expectation of what might be. Let's also assume that they documented the hand-out date of the award correctly. I can therefore only conclude that the action must have occurred before 18 May. Thanks for double checking. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

Good question, I have to go digging into a few books but if my memory doesn't fail me, Viktor Mölders was shot down and was taken POW. Give me some time to verify this please. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to google I don't have to go looking very far. If you can read a little German you will find out that he was shot down by a Spitfire on 7 October 1940 and had to make a forced landing in England. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The web-article says he was taken POW by the Home Guard, questioned and in 1941 he was sent to a Canadian POW camp. He returned in 1946. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archie McKellar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Staffel (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) 10:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found some minor missing references. Please check MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to know something about LG 1, especially III. Gruppe and better yet 8. Staffel, involvement in North Africa? I am looking for info on Hogeback and he may have been involved at Sallum and Tobruk. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. Schumann claims they were Brewster (Hermann Hogeback section) in the Willy Lehnert section he states they were Spitfires. So he contradicts himself. Does Brewster make sense? MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Dapi89! I just wanted to let you know that I will be reviewing your GA nomination for Arthur Rhys-Davids. I'll leave a link to the review page here, for reference. Good luck! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Greetings Dapi89! We don't have a White Christmas here in NZ 'cos it's SUMMER! We have Barbeques on the Beach! Have a good 'un and don't let Santa get to the rum under the tree - he's driving! ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 23:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

Hello again, Dapi89! I'm sorry I've not been attending to your GANs lately, but I've been trying to cover all of the GANs I selected for the drive as best as I can. I got back to Archie McKellar just now, and I've noticed some issues with the content which need addressing. Further details can be found in the comments section of the review page. I hope you can come by and help fix the issue, so the article can be passed! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check some of the edits made by Kleinsma80 (talk · contribs). He made some changes to a number of articles you have been involved in. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not wish to cause confusion to most users, I suggest that you stick to PBS as in user:PBS rather than any part of an older user ID. -- PBS (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment though it appears that you and another editor are in a disagreement over a selection of words at the Battle for the Hague article. I've reverted to your edit solely on grounds that at the moment the two of you are in a disagreement and the disagreement concerns words cited to a source, and you added the source so you should know what it says. I welcome you to discuss on the article's talk page the reason(s) for the disagreement in a civilized manner with the editor in question before re-adding the material so we can avoid reverting any future additions (in particular, your edit summary stating "think before you act" was a little harsh). Note that you are not in trouble, nor am I accusing you of any wrong doing at this point, this is merely a recommendation to employ diplomacy in the form of a conversation on the talk page before taking action so that you and the other editor will be in agreement about the course of action in advance. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns you are welcome to leave me a message and I will respond.

Your Sincerely and Respectfully,

TomStar81 (Talk) 22:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having observed the situation for the last 24 hours I now have my course of action. I see some attempt at dialogue, so I am going to wait another 24 hours and see if the two of you can't have a civilized conversation on the talk pages for the articles you disagree on. This is being done in accordance with WP:AGF, since I am seeing a little good faith, I'm going to wait a little longer to see if it will grow into something useful. If this does not happen, then 24 hours from now I'm gonna start protecting the pages, and if the contested issues do not move toward a resolution in that time then I will make a move to start blocking editor(s) for civility issues. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI see this posting to User talk:TomStar81, and consider if you would like to strike your last comment to that section and engage in a constructive discussion. -- PBS (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on your talk page. Constructive discussion requires constructive criticism. Comment justified and based on the fact I have received no constructive complaints from you. Dapi89 (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is response to this post on my talk page about your comments at Battle of Berlin (air)#Operational commander

For an editor as experience as you are in am surprised that you do not seem to follow the guidance given in Talk page guidelines please see the section Good practices and note the bullet point:

• Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.

-- PBS (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip, you are wasting your time and mine. Content is a product of edits. Edits are a product of editors. One cannot comment on an edit without questioning the wisdom of the editor who made it. Contributions and contributors are closely allied. I'm not interested in you Phillip. It is your edits I'm focused on. But they follow a pattern. And that pattern seems to me to be a resistance to the addition of any worthwhile content. If you were not opposing each and every edit then I would have nothing to say.

With regard to the particular instance you mention, one question: Does someone who reads about this subject, like yourself, and who quotes the British official history so often, really need to ask someone like me why Group Commanders need to added to the infobox? You know why Phillip. Dapi89 (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

Sure go a head. From a top down perspective, I believe to have covered everything from childhood to service in Romania and invasion of Greece. I will check if I can find more info about his after the war life. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you broke up the childhood section too much. If you/we take this to a review, a section with one paragraph only, will be critized, my opinion. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I don't know what the correct process for taking over the GA review from another editor. Can you please double check first? I don't want to get into any procedural problems here. Once we have procedural clearance I will gladly have a look at the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there are two open GA reviews on this article Talk:Archie McKellar/GA1 and Talk:Archie McKellar/GA2. I think it would be best to address these (close or withdraw them) before I start a third. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean what I said. It is a review no more no less. What I point out is for you to consider and assess whether or not it makes sense to you. In very rare cases does the reviewer know more about the subject than the editor does who had written the article in the first place. Every editor has a certain degree of style which he or she is entitled to (my view). You very well know that I cannot challenge you on linguistical elements, my English is just not that solid. However, I can point out some aspects which I believe work better than others. Having said that, I will gladly have a look at the article once it is officially closed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some comments that I would have made/will make

• "This did not suit Archie, who preferred an open–air life style." Too colloquial for my taste
• "During this time he was given no special privileges despite being the boss' son." So what are privileges a boss’ son has? This needs a bit of context for me
• Regarding German military ranks, it is good practice to provide the English equivalent rank in brackets after the first occurrence.
• "The pilot Oberleutnant Viktor Mölders—brother of the famous ace Werner Mölders—was posted as missing in action by the Luftwaffe." Famous ace is probably considered POV, strike famous
• "Helmut Pohle" or "Helmut Pohl" you have both variants
• "attributed to a particular Squadron" Is this correct capitalization, I believe not?

Dapi, I posted a request for someone else but me to review the article. I fear that given the history of this article I may be burned on this one. Sturmvogel said he would address this GA review. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually a little offended you branded my review of your article a troll and wiped the entire page without first contacting me. Please restore the page and answer the questions i left for you. I am conducting a review of your page and there were numerous faults, so please address them so I can pass the article.Retrolord (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The only faults are yours.

Your requests are beyond contempt and it seems you have little understanding of how a review is conducted, especially on a fighter ace. If you are not a troll, sit back and watch an experienced edior take over, and learn from him. Dapi89 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your repeated insults and derogatory comments. I am basing my review of your FIGHTER ACE based off the article on Erich Hartmann. Which for your information IS a good article, unlike yours. If you persist in your insults you will be reported, consider this your final warning. Retrolord (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ever leave this kind of post on my talk page again. And for your information I wrote Erich Hartmann, along with Hans-Joachim Marseille and a number of other GA/FA articles. How embarrassing. Dapi89 (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to brag but I believe that I had contributed as well. Or is my memory failing me already? :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. It was written in the context of my contributions to them; I think on HJM you may have actually been the greater contributor! Its been nearly four years since we collaborated on a an article in depth (Hartmann). Graf should be equally smooth. Cheers + appologies Bee. Dapi89 (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dapi89. Thanks for your note and explanation on my talkpage. If I've correctly interpreted your comments, you appear to have a misunderstanding of the purpose of GAN/GA. We do, however, seem to have similar view on the appropriateness (a horrible word!) of at least one of the last reviewer's GAN reviews.

I will be reviewing the article against the requirements for Good Articles, to be found at WP:WIAGA, as that is the only valid approach for assessing it.

I certainty will not be assessing the nomination by comparing it against other "RAF" articles that are listed as GA-status articles, some of which you list on my talkpage, and it is entirely inappropriate for you ask for this to be done. I accept that there may be, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and/or other WikiProjects guidelines for RAF "personalities" articles, but that is all they are: other wikiproject guidelines. They not part of the mandatory requirements for GA (nor FA) i.e. on whether or not an article is listed as a GA, but the reviewer could make use of them in assessing GA requirements such as "scope" and "broadness" if the reviewer wishes to do so. I (re-)state it's at the reviewer's choice: it is most certainly not at the nominator's choice. Pyrotec (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dapi89. Thanks for the clarification. My reviews can be found via User:Pyrotec/GA reviews. You seem to have had two bad reviews in a row. Well, there was a backlog drive and the first reviewer signed up to do "10 reviews" in one month and then opened a further nine reviews (including yours) - none of the last 9 reviews were ever completed. The second reviewer appears to be both a new editor and a new reviewer with a dozen reviews this year and in some of these reviews comes across as less than competent as a reviewer and somewhat belligerent in correspondence, but the most recent reviews are somewhat better. One "problem" of the GA review process is that any user with a username (that rules out IP users) can undertake a review, provided that there is no "conflict of interest", even when they should not being doing, or are not yet read to do, reviews. A few reviewers cause sufficient "problems" to result in a topic ban, but I'm aware of only two such users banns in the last four years, so they are rare.

As I was trying to say above, but I might not have done it too well, reviewers should not be reviewing against "personal preferences" only against the GA requirements, but there is leeway on the reviewer's discretion. Going "off topic", WP UKGEO for instance has written a guideline on how to write about town/cities and WP Rivers has one for rivers (and MILTHist probably have some), so a reviewer "could" use those guidelines to determine whether such an article is compliant with GA in respect of "scope" / "broadness" / "detail", but such an nomination should not be "failed" for non-compliance with the towns or rivers WP guides, etc, it should only be failed because it is not compliant (in such a case) with WP:WIAGA clause 3 (a) or (b). So to recap, the second reviewer "could" have used non-compliance, in his opinion, with WP:WIAGA clause 3 (a) or (b) as "justification" for not awarding GA-status. I'm not saying that would have been the right decision, or not, since I've not yet read the article, but it could have been "right" for a specific reviewer. Unfortunately, that whole review reads like an expression of personal preferences, that was never properly justified against the criteria for Good Articles, followed by a breakdown in nominator - reviewer relations. Pyrotec (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next weekend will be fine. I'd just been looked at your editing history and you seemed to have done only one edit since Thursday/Friday, so I was happy to wait. Pyrotec (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have noticed, but I've started my review of your nomination at Talk:Arthur Rhys-Davids/GA1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

Recently, I've been busy with the Blitzkrieg article, and I came across this subsection that was very sloppily written (and wrong on one or two counts) but cited. It didn't add up, but I decided to proceed carefully instead of just deleting away. My quest brought me here. Apparently, it seems the paragraph had lingered around from as far back as 2005 before you plastered the citation on it.

- Before I delete anything, I want to confirm with you if the current state of the subsection is indeed reflective of the cited source.

- And since I plan on reconstructing the subsection to look more like how it looked when you put the citation on it, I want to confirm that the cited source indeed supports the passage.

-If yes, then please can you clarify the name of the author? Is it Holmes or Homes, since it seems you used both names in the article.

-And if it is Holmes (which I believe would be Richard Holmes), which of his books was cited; since, as you might not have noticed, Holmes published at least two books in 2001. (All this could have been avoided if you had placed the citation of the book in the Bibliography section, and give your edits a better chance of escaping deletion sometime in the future).

Thanks. EyeTruth (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

Hi Dapi!
Thanks a lot for you comment! I'd be grateful for any help on my wider project on Belgium in WWII (see my user page) since the coverage of Belgium 1919-1945 is atrocious at the moment, but I've gone for breath rather than depth. I'm not a military historian by education, and I've had some difficulties on the Free Belgian Forces (GA candidate) article I wrote for that reason so if you could do anything on aspects of the military history, that'd be great! I'd particularly ask if you could do anything to the Battle of the Lys (1940) - surely the most important military engagement fought by Belgium which is a stub at the moment! Thanks! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donald Kingaby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Staffel (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) 22:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently travelling and will have a closer look when I am back. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Louvain (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) 13:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dapi,

The re-evaluation of Göring's victory score that you posted was so vague that I could not discern your purpose in posting it. If you are trying to say that an aviation historian tried to match Göring's victories with aircraft losses, lots of luck with that. A later researcher using such incomplete and scanty records as still exist is not likely to arrive at any truer score than the intelligence officers who were on the scene originally. However, if Peter Kilduff makes a differing later claim, then why not come out and say so, and back it up with full citation? In the meantime, you cannot shrug off the source given for his 22 confirmed victories; it is a reliable standard reference on the subject, used widely here in WP. And if you doubt the term "confirmed", let me point out that while World War II aviation enthusiasts here in WP write about aerial victories without bothering to define the term, the World War I niche here has an article giving the exact methods used by aerial services to confirm victories by their pilots. That is a factual foundation to which you may be unaccustomed, but it exists.

You may think the above is a bit harsh, but I am trying to explain some quirks that will aid you in writing about World War I aviation. If you wish some help in this niche, you can call on me.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Color me embarrassed, though not for the reasons you posit. Because of your insistence, I rechecked the bibliography, and lo and behold.... (though I might mention that my book search did not uncover this book). At any rate, I wholeheartedly apologize for my error.

Nevertheless, the aviation historians who write about World War I do use the term "confirmed victories". If you had clicked the link to read Aerial victory standards of World War I, you would have read further examples of how the victories were confirmed then. The Germans were strictest on their confirmations; as I pointed out, the German victors sometimes went through the pockets of the dead or dying losers, and souveniring of serial numbers, machine guns, decorations, etc was common. And while you ignored this in my prior note, you also failed to mention a single way in which WWII victories were conf...checked upon.

So, yes, there were 22 confirmations for Goering's 22 victories. Another victory claim went unconfirmed, so he made 23 claims for 22 confirmed victories. So sayeth Above the Lines, p. 117. Your guy Kilduff probably went a step further with the incomplete records still surviving after 95 years, and tried to match Goering's victory claims with losses reported by the Brits and French. I am dubious that his conclusions are any more valid than that of the intelligence officers who were on the spot in the first place.

However, without a basic definition of just what constituted an aerial victory during World War II, the lay readers of articles concerning WWII must supply their own or stay baffled. How well this vague unfocused approach of writing on a subject without defining it suits an encyclopedia is certainly a mystery to me.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

---

Hello again, Dapi,

When one reads Aerial victory standards of World War I, it is quite easy to visualize the following table of victories for aces of various nationalities credited with five victories each:

A German ace: five destroyed=most probably just that.

A French ace: pretty much the same as the Germans.

A British Commonwealth ace: five driven down out of control=may translate into no harm done to Germans.

An Italian ace: five victories approved by a postwar committee from military intelligence=who knows for sure?

A Russian ace: five victories approved by somebody or other by no known standards=again, who knows for sure?

So you can see the differences in "confirmation" (note quotes to soothe your sensibilities) even when you have reference to the individual air services' victory standards. Moreover, with most aerial combat confined to a relatively small static battleground in Europe compared to World War II's roving global span, it would seem that aerial victories could be more easily traced in World War I. Given the geographic differences, I can see grounds for your dubiety about WWI, based on your background in WWII.

I also compile victory lists for aces' bios. I try to refer them all to the aerial victory standards article. The fanboys can read the list of "confirmed" victories; diligent readers can click over and discover what it all means.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

I beg your pardon if it seems I am whacking a dead equine, but I hope the above bit proves useful to you.

Best regards,Georgejdorner (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

Let me check, may take some time. I am reading and working on the Heinz Schnaufer article at the moment. Have you seen that Werner Voss is up for A-class review? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bob Braham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wing Commander (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) 11:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bob Braham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hull (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) 12:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several years ago you inserted a paragraph at Last battle of the battleship Bismarck referencing only ‘Jackson 2002 p. 91’. Could you please fill the details?

― Lgfcd (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I am working on the list. I have the book from Hichliffe. He identified roughly 60% of his claims, with names and details. I have started working on the list in my sandbox. I think I will transfer the list later this weekend. Feel free to add any data you have. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know about the British Air Commodore Roderick Aeneas Chisholm? He was a fighter ace and was repsonsible for the interrogation of Schnaufer. I think it would be good to have his article. Can you help? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! I move the info to the article Roderick Aeneas Chisholm. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helmut Woltersdorf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (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) 11:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hinchliffe states that Gisela was Schnaufer's idea, who planed it but was not authorized to participate in the mission. I will cover that bit in a while. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! On a first glance, you are sometimes using the wrong dash on dates. Example: March—July 1943, it should be March–July 1943. I will read it carefully MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article and here some comments MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• dashing is a problem, you need to fix that
• "Below is likely only an incomplete record of claims submitted by German crews during Gisela. It is certain that some of the crews that did not return from the operation also would have filed claims for air victories." I agree but it is speculation. To keep a sentence like this it would have to read: Author/historian X states that ....
• Section "Aftermath" reads more like "what if"
• abschüsse, I think you could do without, aerial victory works just as well
• what is a "scram" order?
• colour coding of the tables: some editors may feel that you need to include some kind of symbol as an alternative to the colour scheme. Some readers could be colour blind.

There is no problem with the aftermath section. The content is very appropriate. I just felt that the title of the section, given that the content is more a military post mortem analysis, could be different to reflect more the lessons learned. By the way, did you see the most recent changes to the Erich Hartmann article? MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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] 17:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[