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)[reply]

In reference to my edit, you said I misunderstood the point that was about scale and longevity. Just to make clear what my thinking was; in terms of longevity, British armies served continuously on the continent for seven years during the war of Spanish succession, five years during the seven years war and six years during Peninsular war, all three longer than the first world war. And in terms of scale, the numbers vary with different eras. So I don't think it is accurate to say the British army had not fought a prolonged campaign on the continent before, it should just reflect that the BEF at that time was not prepared for it. I have changed it again, but don't want to get into an edit war, so revert if you don't agree. cheers! Thecitizen1 (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Operation Gisela 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:

• [[Nachtjagdgeschwader 2]]'', ''[[Nachtjagdgeschwader |NJG 3]]'', and ''[Nachtjagdgeschwader |NJG 4]]'', were in existence by April 1941. Lacking specialised night fighter aircraft existing types

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Gisela, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Midlands, Newcastle and Lancaster (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) 11:49, 19 September 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 American Civil War

Greetings- I appreciate your help getting some info added to the Archie McKellar article. However, I am of the opinion that you just do not get it. The lead-in is too brief for the man we are talking about here. Sure, he was just a man, but some pretty amazing things seemed to have converged in his brief life during war. Two and a half months in the BOB, 75 days, and he averages a kill every four days. I do not have the source handy, and I am not trying to get it in the article now, but this ace has been compared to all other BOB aces, and for the amount of time he lived he shot down more than any other. So much for his proclivity in battle against the Luftwaffe. The phoney war: Only one British ace gets to say he shot down the first enemy combatant of the war. In this case McKellar gets to claim that along with Pinkerton. In this case the first Luftwaffe plane shot down in the war splashed in British Waters. Air Marshall Hugh Dowding sends congrats for first blood to McKellar's squadron (an auxiliary squadron at that) for his actions. Congrats for first blood of the air war from Dowding is a very big deal. Dowding is still considered a larger than life leader in Britain, you know? Add to that the fact that this same pilot who splashed the first nazi into the British drink is also the pilot who shared the honor of knocking down the first enemy onto British soil. Sandy Johnstone actually claims most all of the honor belongs to McKellar for that kill, but we needn't be petty. Add to that the fact that during the height of madness during the BOB McKellar manages to shoot down five Bf 109's in one day with his Mk 1 Hurricane. Only 24 allied aces in WW2 managed ace in a day status. He was never shot down. His death came one day (hours actually) after the "official" end date of the BOB, so he was not included in the British memorial to English, I mean British BOB aces KIA. So Mysterious. Odd how the German historians of the BOB feel it ended much later than October 31. What we have here, and what you appear to be unaware of is that we are talking about one of the most amazing stories in the history of Allied Aces, and of the BOB and WW2 air warfare. These things need to be at the beginning of the article so that interested readers do not need to read the whole thing to piece together that we are talking about some very amazing occurances linked to this ace. I hope you have a chance for some quiet reflection on the general gist of my point here, and perhaps realize that this is not just another wikipedia article on just another high scoring British Ace. Something very unique, very special, and almost unexplainable occured with Archie McKellar. Grapestomper9 (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2013 (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.

Ludwig Becker (pilot) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Czech

Operation Gisela (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Welton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Gisela, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Reading, Aqueduct and Canal boat (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) 11:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he is a KC recipient. I am travelling right now. I give you the details when I am back MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created a stub article with everything I found on him so far. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

― 200.219.132.105 (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Gisela, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lincoln and Waddington (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) 10:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edgar Kain, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British and Rugby (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) 12:02, 21 October 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 Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marmaduke Pattle, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Captain, Swimming and Combustion engine (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) 14:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marmaduke Pattle, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Captain, Swimming and Combustion engine (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) 20:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marmaduke Pattle, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Irish and Air raid (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) 09:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. You recently reverted a minor edit I had made to the de Havilland Mosquito article. I had inserted production numbers for one of the Marks. Might I ask for the reason for the revert?

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.

Kanalkampf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Portland, Bow, Wing Commander, Jagdgeschwader 1 and Falaise

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 16 November 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: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

I will check, but I don't recall seeing one MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kanalkampf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yarmouth (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) 08:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kanalkampf, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rochester, Cornish and Chatham (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) 09:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you sure about Friedrich-Wolfgang Graf von und zu Castell? Could it not be that it was Gustav Friedrich Graf zu Castell-Castell? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 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: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

I will check MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wübbe on page 374 (different newspaper clipping than the one in Tate's book) states the same address. Does this confirm what you need? MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, no I did know this. However, the film "Der Stern von Afrika", alludes to some of this. I am speculating here, Marseille's mom, thanked Joachim Hansen for his role in the film Der Spiegel 35/1957. I saw the film a while ago and I believe there is a scene with Marseille playing the piano (not sure), I do recall that the film depicts him critical towards the Holocaust. What I read so far always reads as if this bit of his story is pure fictional. Nevertheless she probably knew her son better than anyone else and may have influenced the film makers respectively. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kanalkampf, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jagdgeschwader 1 and John Dundas (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) 08:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Dapi, I've left a comment on the talk page, perhaps we can discuss it there? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marmaduke Pattle 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:

• On the 27 (or 28) February<ref name="Boyne">Boyne 1997, p. 81.</ref>), British pilots in Greece celebrated their biggest day of combat. No. 80 Squadron claimed 27

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marmaduke Pattle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air raid (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) 08:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HNY, if you have time I would like you to review the article up to and including the section "Channel Dash and night fighter pilot". The "Later life and death" section is also ready for review. Any feedback is appreciated MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your last review! I made some more progress, so I think. Can you please have a look at section "Rumpelhardt is absent". Please comment if I misrepresented the facts. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Bob Braham, it reads "Five had taken off under the command of Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer. Schnaufer led his flight out toward the echo." That is not fully true. Schnaufer aborted the mission due engine problems. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info on Marseille. I finished the first draft of the Schnaufer article. Let me know what you think. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2014 (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, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

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 McCudden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Rouvroy, Fontaine, Flers, Vitry and Houthem

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Dapi, had a doodle on the R2tS page here, User talk:Keith-264/sandbox3, any thoughts?Keith-264 (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] User talk:Keith-264/sandbox5 been doodling here too. Keith-264 (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, glad you like them. On the subject of great War battles I think that most suffer from not enough description rather than too much. When I took the plunge with the 3rd Ypres pages I was quite apprehensive of the controversial and polemical aspects crowding out everything else but found that just by describing events, much of the travesty view of GW battles was untenable and could be put into the analysis section, where people could judge for themselves after reading what happened and why. I'd keep going like that if I were you, although obtaining the sources is a pain, particularly French and German ones.Keith-264 (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more sections and a drastic edit and it'll be finished. I got a little confused about the definitions of Picardy and Artois though, it seems like Artois is in Picardy but is a later geographical term.User talk:Keith-264/sandbox3Keith-264 (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of German battleship Bismarck know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 14, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 14, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Bismarck was the first of two Template:Sclass-s built for the German Kriegsmarine. Named after Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, the primary force behind German unification in 1871, the ship was launched on 14 February 1939 and commissioned in August 1940. Bismarck and her sister ship Tirpitz were the largest battleships ever built by Germany, and two of the largest built by any European power. Bismarck conducted only one offensive operation, in May 1941. The ship, along with the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen, was to raid Allied shipping from North America to Great Britain. The two ships were detected several times off Scandinavia, and British naval units were deployed to block them. At the Battle of Denmark Strait, Bismarck destroyed the battlecruiser HMS Hood, the pride of the Royal Navy, and forced the battleship HMS Prince of Wales to retreat. After two days of relentless pursuit by the Royal Navy, she was attacked by torpedo bombers from the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal and her steering gear was rendered inoperable. In her final battle the following morning, Bismarck was neutralised by a sustained bombardment, was scuttled by her crew, and sank with heavy loss of life. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2014 (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 a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axel (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) 08:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice article. Before the review starts you may want to convert all the ISBN numbers to the 13 digit format. You can use this tool. I have seen this request quite often recently. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have a look at this please. I spent a lot of work to uniformly cite the information, especially providing the translations as well. It makes me upset when someone just steps in in reverts everything I do without adding any meaningful content. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James McCudden, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rochester, Aire and Herne Bay (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) 08:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, can you have a first glance at my new project? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and contribution. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting subject. I have read Ueberschär's chapter on Lütjens and Gaack & Carr's book. I have not yet found any further printed media (in German or English) talking intensively about his early years, family or ancestry. What little I found, I believe to have put it in the article. My next attempt would be to get hold of the publications by the German Armed Forces Military History Research Office. They were involved in post war destroyer Lütjens discussion. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found this book Hitlers "jüdische Soldaten" [Hitler's Jewish Soldiers] ISBN 978-3506701152. I ordered the book, let's see what it reveals. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have the book now. Both Margarete Backenköhler (Lütjens wife) and Otto Backenköhler (his chief of staff and brother of Margarete) were half Jews. This confirms the what is said in the film, that Günther Lütjens (son of Lütjens) has a Jewish grandmother. page 120MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ascher, Lütjens staff officer on Bismarck, was also half Jewish. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across the following info (Hümmelchen p. 412.): Lütjens personal military files in the German National Archives were removed and destroyed on orders of the British Admiralty in 1947. Do you know why this was done? MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assessment. This story is also interesting. Do you think it is trustworthy? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 "GA" for their comments and assistance? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A single battle is not enough so I've replaced it in the lead with a period of time omitted altogether. I've added a more cautious tone to the MVR-related fight.

I havn't asked the Ball-ites yet. I had a mind to do so. I will when I think that I have done all I can do with it. Then I'll leave it to others. Dapi89 (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Günther Lütjens, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Greek and Norwegian (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) 09:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Günther Lütjens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page War games (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) 09:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added a link to the WWI page as a x reference. Did you know that the Bibliography section has a lot of red on it?Keith-264 (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2014 (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: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

I'm not sure why it matters to you whether or not Prestfelde is a "public" school, but I know the school and I can assure that it is not and would not claim to be. It is and always has been a private, independent preparatory school. Poshseagull (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Günther Lütjens, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Swede and John Leach (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) 08:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is copyvio in Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer). I just took one phrase at random: "Johnson's first contact with enemy fighters did not go as planned" - this is word for word as it appears in Johnnie Johnson: Spitfire Top Gun. Unless you admit to this and do something about this, then I will close the GA review as a fail and report the article as a copyright violation. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That there is copyvio doesn't mean it was deliberate, so please don't feel I am accusing you of anything. Copyvio can happen accidentally. But it does need looking into as it has legal implications for Wikipedia, and can harm our reputation. If you don't wish to look into the matter yourself, then let me know, I'll put a copyvio notice on the article, order the book, and check it out myself. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright violation. I have no idea what mechanism/research tool you are using on the internet, or however else you are trying to look things up, but I can assure you there is nothing in that book on page 50 (citation number 37 given), or in ANY surrounding pages, that REMOTELY matches the wording in the this article. The joke of it is, it isn't even paraphrased!!! I put that together from the information on the page!!!

So, I have nothing to admit to (and that language is a bit offensive). Especially so since the reviewer acknowledges he/she has not got the book and cannot prove what they say.

With that in mind, if you feel I am inherent liar, get the book and look for yourself. But I object to any copyright violation tag being added in the meantime. But as I say, I won't be doing anything about it in the meantime, because there is nothing to be done. Best. Dapi89 (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this German Spiegel article interesting. At the bottom it talks about Johnson's view on the F-104 Starfighter. According to the article he said "Don't go to war with it". MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, there are serious issues concerning the alleged copyright violation. I have put that allegation to the sword, and I would urge you, for the sake of an easy and more harmonious review, to get a copy of the book and look at. There is no such wording in the entire book and not around the pages cited for that paragraph or concerning that information. I hope you can appreciate the frustrating position of someone who is not guilty of a copyvio here. Please see my comments on the GA review. Dapi89 (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. OK, I will do that. My response to this situation is informed by my experience on Talk:Roman Dacia/GA1 where I raised concerns regarding copyvio, but didn't follow up on it, and then it later turned out there was a lot of it. As I said, I don't think the copyvio is deliberate, but it can happen that when using a source, an editor remains too close to the original text for one reason or another. When I raised the concern on this review I was assured there was no copyvio, then my first random check revealed there was, so my concerns remain; and I feel slightly disappointed that a more thorough check was not done by yourself before those assurances were given. I would have preferred that the checks are done by yourself as you have the source material, but I am comfortable doing it myself, though we'll have to wait for the book to be delivered. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tried out a few more phrases, and keep getting the same results for Johnnie Johnson: Spitfire Top Gun and Wing Leader - indeed, too many results for accidental copyvio, and it would be highly unlikely to be deliberate copyvio given your history on Wikipedia. I have got an email address for Dilip Sarkar, so have written directly to him. That may be quicker than waiting for the book to be delivered. I am now suspecting this is an odd glitch on Google Books. You can try it yourself - cut and paste some sentences at random from the text, then paste them (within "quotation marks") into a Google Books search - you'll note that Sarkar's book often comes up as a result, but if you change one of the words within the quoted sentence, then the book no longer comes up as a result. Odd. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be sure I did it again and it does not appear. I searched for Johnson's first contact with enemy fighters did not go as planned. Bader undertook a patrol with Dundas as his number two manually and cannot find it. I checked from pages 44-54. I just want to be vindicated on this point as a matter of principal. I have tried your search and it brings up Wikipedia, his own biography Wing Leader and, as you say, Sarkar's book. This is weird. Dapi89 (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may be a glitch. How would you like to proceed? I have already emailed Sarkar and we can wait for his reply, or you could scan or take a photo of, say, pages 44 - 45, and email them to me, and we could clear this up today. I understand the frustration you must feel, and - given your history, and your clear assertion that you have checked carefully - I would be prepared to continue the review without further checks, but if you wish to be more clearly vindicated (and I understand that) I am quite willing to wait a little longer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkar has got back to me, and is comfortable with the article provided some points are corrected, such as that Pauline Johnson is still alive. I will forward his email to you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't received the e-mail yet. Dapi89 (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked, and the email was sent to you on March 6. have you changed your email address since you registered it on Wikipedia? Worth checking that the email is correct, as that is the only way you can recover a lost password. I'll resend it today. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over the article again, and all seems to be fine bar two minor issues. It doesn't look like the sourcing for the lead photo has been resolved yet, and there is a query regarding which of Dilip Sarkar's books was used as a source. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user helped promote Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer) to good article status.

Sorry that this got dragged out. And sorry again for the confusion over the copyright issue. Keep up the good article work! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:22, 25 March 2014 (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.

David Wanklyn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to English, Irish, Scottish, Newport, Queen Mary and River Plate

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Wanklyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whale Island (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) 08:55, 16 March 2014 (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: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

Hi Dapi, Ian Rose and I, the two editors of the Military History Wikiproject's newsletter The Bugle are hoping to run a group interview with editors who work on German military history topics in next month's edition. Based on your work in this field, we'd like to invite you to participate. If you have time, it would be great if you could post responses to some or all of the questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2014/Interview. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2014 (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: Hawkeye7 looks at Britain's War Machine Interview: Article writers discuss German military history

On the off-chance you haven't already seen this, Battle of Belgium has made it into a good topic: Brigade Piron (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

edit | discuss

Belgium in World War II

8 articles

German invasion of Belgium

German occupation of Belgium during World War II

Belgian Resistance

Free Belgian forces

Belgian government in exile

Belgian Congo in World War II

The Holocaust in Belgium

Hello Dapi89. You have added some material to Normandy landings using as sources books Murray (1983) and Hooton (1994). However, we don't have these books currently listed in the bibliography. Could you please add material on these sources (title, publisher, ISBN, etc)? Thank you. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2014 (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 Lost Boys of Anzac Op-ed: Peacemaker67 on Featured Articles involving Yugoslavia in 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 life aboard a US aircraft carrier and Hawkeye7 considers the role of food in World War II

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Gisela you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MisterBee1966 -- MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into this. Do you think this is true about Hallensleben? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for response. I have been contemplating the idea of retiring from Wikipedia for some time now. It was fun while it lasted, I have finished what I had hoped to achieve. I will probably hang around until all my open ends are closed but I will not guarantee this. You know how to reach me. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2014 (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: Jonas Vinther and Nick-D look at examples of electronic media Op-ed: TomStar81 on the shot heard around the world

The article Operation Gisela you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Gisela for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MisterBee1966 -- MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Dapi, I've managed to resist the temptation to start many things and finish none, for long enough to get most of the things in my sandboxes into articles. 1st Ypres remains (having stood over for six months) so I'm going to try to get a few more things finished. Is there anything you'd like to see progress on? The operations south of Ypres look like they can be finished quickest so I'm minded to start there.Keith-264 (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage, my opinion. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2014 (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: Wrap-up of some recent external reviews Interview: World War I editors Op-ed: TomStar81 on the outbreak of World War I

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.

Kanalkampf

added links pointing to Coke, Newhaven, Aces and Thorney Island

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done quite well in sorting out lots of unfinished articles and have made a start on the draft 1st Ypres page here User:Keith-264/sandbox5 and started three pages for the three named battles on the other sandbox pages. I'm having a bit of a struggle to work out which aspects of the existing page should go in the Langemarck, Gheluvelt and Nonne Bosschen pages. Any suggestions? Regards,Keith-264 (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you did a large number of edits on the above page early in 2011 adding around 140 citations to the text. Unfortunately these were "short citations" such as "Levine 2008, p. 30" which don't include the title of the book etc. I've updated the page to use templates which give a direct link to the references and in some of the commoner cases such as Hooton and Jellison it was easy to find the titles. But there are a dozen other works that have no title. Could you please supply them, or at least those that you gave the citations for. To simplify it I've put a list out of alphabetic order in the list at the bottom. Thanks, Chris55 (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for what you've done so far. I've been cleaning up a few obvious typos - e.g. Shore 1985 instead of Shores 1985. Chris55 (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you assist sourcing the article? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kanalkampf, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Yarmouth and Goodwood. 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) 09:20, 5 September 2014 (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.

James MacLachlan

added links pointing to Fleury, Moissy, Houssay and Mourmelon

Kanalkampf

added a link pointing to Deal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2014 (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: Hawkeye7 looks at the military history of Austria-Hungary Timeleine: This month in World War I

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James MacLachlan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bretigny. 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) 09:16, 20 September 2014 (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! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marmaduke Pattle 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:

• .<ref>{{LondonGazette|issue=35110|startpage=1601|date=18 March 1941|accessdate=3 June 2008}}</ref>}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James McCudden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Farnborough. 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) 09:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marmaduke Pattle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wing Commander. 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, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically you may be correct but it lacks the respect for those who died on both sides. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, than I can't help you. Sorry MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Marmaduke Pattle you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Marmaduke Pattle for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2014 (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 review: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

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 on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

Regarding your post[2] on my talkpage: I removed[3] the statement you removed in previous edits as "not accurate"[4] because it was complicated to fix the blanket-revert of my copyedits regarding italics and use of German. Then you put that unsourced statement back.[5]

Peter ^Isotalo 09:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dapi, there is no tie to English other than the fact that he fought against England. As primary editor I chose US English. Please stop reverting. Thank you. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German battleship Bismarck, was also written in US English although one can argue that it also fought the British exclusively. However the primary editor, Parsecboy, also chose US English MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dapi, I noticed this while checking for a reply above and reverted you. MisterBee is perfectly right. MOS:RETAIN is there to stop these disputes before they even start. Practice and guidelines are crystal clear on this: unless the topic is obviously British/American/Australian/whatever, a clearly established English variety stays.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider changing how the {{Convert}} spells English meter versus metre, etc. to use exclusively use British English as well. Half a change does not look professional. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A small point of fact - Bismarck and Tirpitz are both written in British English, because that's the way I found them, but they are the only German warships to use BrEng (as far as I can remember anyway). Please see my comment on the article talk page, Dapi, and please stop edit-warring. I'd rather not see you be blocked over this issue. Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they were. How is my understanding of WP:TIES is flawed? Perhaps you could correct it? Bearing in mind this foreign (in this case non-English speaking) airmen has only a connection to the English speaking British, and not those in the Americas, I would have thought it was logical and proper that the creator should write the article in the appropriate (proper) variant. Given that he claimed 83 British bombers containing hundreds of British occupants, I would say that counts as a rather strong national tie. Wouldn't you? I'd bet if this man had been responsible for 83 B-17s you and the rest would be equally insistent. And if that were challenged, no doubt there would be a banding together of the like-minded. This illogical rule is being used an excuse for editors to write how and which ever way suits them. There is no defence for this stupidity and bloody mindedness.

To round off, Parky, I'd hope you'd realise that such commentary has no effect. It doesn't change anything, and usually I find away to get my point across whatever happens. It won't work. Dapi89 (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misterbee said that Bismarck was written in AmEng earlier in this thread. Do please pay attention.

Your smug condescension would really have been more effective if, you know, you had actually bothered to read anything I said. I'll bold it for you. Parsecboy (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dapi, we just had an exchange over Ju 87 which actually also involved the Manual of Style (MOS). If you get involved in disagreements over prose in the future, I recommend that you consult the MOS first before imposing your own views on language. MOS has recommendations on most things that matter. They're not mandatory, but they are intended to avoid "which every way suits them"-disputes. The matter of English spelling in this case simply allows for more choices than you're aware of.

For example, articles I've written on the thoroughly Swedish topics of Vasa (ship) and battle of Öland are in US English. Mary Rose, however, is British English whether I prefer that or not. The point is that if the main topic is inherently non-English, the style choice automatically defaults to whatever was established first (or that of the primary contributor). Obviously non-English topics can't get "tagged" by merely associating with something related to English (such as killing British people). So battle of Öland will be kept in US English, even if there was minor involvement by England.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Parky. You didn't make it clear who you were talking to. I had to make the assumption that it was me. Understandable since it is a struggle to make sense of what you say. Careful how you write.

Second, if my replies appear condescending have you considered that the weakness of your argument might be responsible ? Have your ducks in a row next time. Dapi89 (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]