User talk:Dapi89: Difference between revisions

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

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

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014

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

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

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

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

]

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014

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

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux

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

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

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

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]

I wasn't talking to anyone in particular - I assumed you had the intelligence to follow a simple thread. I see I was mistaken. :::::::::::You know, I had come here to try to calm the situation down and prevent you from being blocked - but you're too busy being a

dick to listen to reason. I'm done here. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You were. Confusing WP:Dick and logical argument is beneath even you. Dapi89 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to refer to me, please use my username. You are being deliberately condescending, and if I see it again, we're heading to ANI. Consider that your only warning. Parsecboy (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't warn me. Now disappear. Dapi89 (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give me anything to warn you for and I won't, simple as that. Cheers, Parsecboy (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to be smart doesn't suit you. You don't dictate to me. Das Ende. Dapi89 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about me dictating to anybody? My role in the issue is largely immaterial; what does dictate your behavior is policy. You can continue to act like an adolescent, but you won't like the result.

talk) 23:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

My behavior is adjusted to the attitudes of those in question. Stop telling me what I should and should not be doing, and don't presume what I like and don't like. For someone who seems incensed by condescension, you dish out a good deal of it. Bin the trash talk an walk. Dapi89 (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dapi, may I ask why so often a discourse with you, over topics with people taking on different positions then your own ends up in a personal dispute? My observation here is that a very normal discussion with you typically escalates as follows. In the beginning we have a very reasonable and normal issue to debate over. If you fail to convince others by means of reason you start questioning their intelligence. If this fails you take it to the next level by ridiculing them directly in an attempt to alienate them from the discussion and the rest of the community. What starts as a bagatelle issue ends up in a side tracked debate over personal conduct. Due note, I very much value your knowledge and expertise on military history. However it annoys me just as much how you handle this or similar situations. Don't alienate yourself from the community please MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion on the articles talk page.

G'day Dapi89. No-one is ever going to award me the civility barnstar, so take this from someone who can come across to others as a bit abrupt and brusque. Your wikibehaviour regularly goes outside the bounds of civility required on WP. If you continue to insult people and make personal attacks when other editors don't agree with you, you will shortly be reported at ANI, and likely censured. When an experienced and civil editor like MisterBee66 or Parsecboy suggests you "wind your neck in" or a similar message, they are saying that for your own good. If you can't see that your interaction with others is problematic, you need to develop some insight, because it is. I suggest you take a deep breath and consider your responses to other editors carefully before you hit enter. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was in favor of your addition so I have re-added it, but the book sources referenced are missing. Could you please add them?

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.

John Cunningham (RAF officer)

added links pointing to

Wing Commander and Flat spin

John Braham (RAF officer)

added a link pointing to Benson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to a page, specifically

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Cunningham (RAF officer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Marlborough, Cm and Arthur Harris. 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) 12:22, 19 November 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 Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Braham (RAF officer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jagdgeschwader 1 and Sagan. 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) 12:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please check if I got this at least partially right {{

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Braham (RAF officer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bath. 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, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Dapi do not undo my contributs in Pattle page or I shall charge You with vandalism. I had corrected many mistakes and You have put them back in the article --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That you brought the article to Good status does not mean that you have the property of the article itself and the right to delete the contributions that you do not like. The website that I quoted is a reliable source, I am in contact with historian Hakan Gustavsson in Facebook and the website has been written thanks to the contributs of another aviation historian (Italian), Slongo. The article that you have written had/has a lot of mistaken Italian words and ranks, not correct ways of writing Gruppo and Squadriglia, for instance, and it is not fair that you write as confirmed many Pattle's victories that are NOT confirmed by Regia Aeronautica sources, When you write in the main corp of the article that RAF destroyed 27 Italian aircraft while the truth is far from that, you give a distorted version of history. Anybody that offer only one side of the history should not be allowed to write historical article. And if he does so, he casts a bad light on the whole wikipedia. So please stop doing that and start to learn to be impartial. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dapi, when you write in the main corp this: On 4 March 1941, Pattle claimed three enemy Fiat G.50bis fighters (nos 22–24) belonging to 24oGruppo. He claimed the first while Nigel Cullen—another leading fighter ace—flew as his wingman. Escorting Blenheims to attack Italian warships, the pair were engaged by a lone G.50. Pattle engaged the Fiat and shot it down—its landing gear dropped down and it rolled over and dived into a mountainside just north of Himare. Pattle searched for Cullen, expecting him to be behind him but saw no sign of the Australian. He assumed Cullen had gone off to scout for more enemy aircraft after missing out on Pattle's victory. Now alone, he was attacked by another lone G.50bis while flying towards Vlorë. After a brief combat he shot down the Fiat. It crashed into the sea southwest of Vlorë harbour. He then became involved with a third such fighter over Valona harbour and claimed to have shot this down into the sea in flames on the west side of the promontory. After his returned to base he was informed Cullen had been posted missing in action. Pattle and the squadron considered he had likely been shot down and killed.[50], that is FALSE. As Gustavsson and Slongo reported in their website that day Regia Aeronautica did NOT lose any Fiat G.50! While Pattle lost his wingman shot down by a G.50!! The plane that Pattle reported to have seen with the landing gear down and crashed on a mountain could only be his wingman, NOT an Italian fighter! If you write that he shot down a Fiat G.50 you state it as certain, while you should write something like: "He reported to have shot down... he reported to have seen a Fiat G.50 et." You should write as dubious not as certain! The whole Pattle's article seems a propaganda issue that cast a very bad and not deserved light on Italian Royal Air Force. WHen people try to write history they should let aside their personal feelings and become ferociously objective, impartial! Doing what you and your mentors and friends do in wikipedia, awarding each other for their contributs in wikipedia does not hide that wikipedia has a very bad reputation in historians' community. ANd now many enthusiasts as well start to regard wikepedia as a very unrielable source! I have been banned by one of the main facebook WWII groups as I "dared" to quote wikipedia as a reliable source! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dapi 89 you make me smile when you say that as Pattle saw (he said that) two aircraft crashing, he actually shot them down! Aces' biographies are packed with statements of aircraft shot down that were never lost by the opponenents! Have You heard of George Beurling? I did a long research on this pilot, I went to Malta where he was based, visited the houses where he lived, saw his uniform and equipment... I collected a lot of English written sources... Please read his article that I contributed to write... there are many cases of Beurling's unconfirmed claims. One day, for instance, he claimed two victories against Bf 109s: one pancaked (crashed) in a field in Malta and one was so hardly hit that he lost a wing and (obviously) crashed! Actually that day Luftwaffe did not lose any fighter on Malta but Beurling was credited officially with two victories! And so on! Was he a liar? Was he drunk or addicted? No, he was a celebrated RAF ace... Bah... Ok, I shall look for written sources about that Pattle presumed victories and, with your permission, will modify the article. And You will not have anything to... claim, I hope!! Good luck! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...And you still do not grasp the truth that "winners' lies become history", but you are still very young it seems to me... You have time to grow up and learn... best wishes! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:50, 11 December 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.

Branse Burbridge

added a link pointing to Distinguished Flying Cross

John Cunningham (RAF officer)

added a link pointing to Mph

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:30, 22 December 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 armoured reconnaissance and German scientists, Nick-D on time travelling historians Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the World War I Christmas truce Timeline: This month in World War I

Dear Dapi89,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message promotes

WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4

(see "invisible note").

I just came across the info that Marseille also had a younger brother. According to this book he served in the Kriegsmarine. Have you seen this info before somewhere as well? I don't recall having come across this before. Cheers and HNY. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added what I found. I have to do some more searching MisterBee1966 (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good addition, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me honest here. Can please check if I added the correct Mason book to the reference section. You also cite from a Caldwell 1998 book, which is not yet listed, can you please add? The German sources would obviously state all times in CET, while British would probably use GMT. Are you sure that we are using the same time zones consistently? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2015 (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 on Hitler and Cliftonian on the Rhodesia Regiment Interview: 2014 Military History Newcomer Award nominees Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial Op-ed: TomStar81 on the birth of strategic bombing Timeline: This month in World War I

Do you know what made Peltz change his mind? In "Ziegler, Mano (2014). Hitler's Jet Plane: The ME 262 Story. Casemate Publishers. ISBN 978-1-84832-699-6." Peltz, in 1943, had expressed serious doubts about the Me 262 as a bomber, especially the ability to hit anything at high speed was questioned by him. According to your most recent edits on the Galland article you wrote "Peltz saw the aircraft as an ideal fast bomber which could evade the overwhelming numbers of Allied piston-engine fighters and attack the landing grounds." Was he forced into this change of mind? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I fixed a number of inconsistent implemented citations on the article. I found one reference "Murray 1983" not listed among the books. Do you know which one is referenced? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

The article

The article James McCudden you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:James McCudden 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2015 (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 the British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

Thanks, no I had not seen it yet. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fliegerführer Atlantik, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RM (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) 09:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, very nice picture MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding the image, I am no expert on the safe use of images. I suggest you reach out to user Diannaa who is much more knowledgeable about these types of questions. Regarding the two articles, I will see what I can dish out in the coming days. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My First Battle of Ypres revamp is done, (finally) hope you like it. Keith-264 (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

The article

The article

I added all I have on him, do you have more info? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the addition, can you add the book "Goss 2005, p. 50." to the list of references please? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article John Cunningham (RAF officer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Cunningham (RAF officer) 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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring John Cunningham (RAF officer) to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work!  — ₳aron 21:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Created, please augment if you have more info. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What info do you have on Edmund Daser? His name also pops up in German sources MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dapi89. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/John Cunningham (RAF officer).
Message added 08:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 — ₳aron 08:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Wanklyn, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Blyth, Holy Trinity Church and Mediterranean Theatre (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) 09:03, 24 March 2015 (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: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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 Revs (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) 11:41, 31 March 2015 (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 Trawler (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) 09:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2015 (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 landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Recognition where it is due

We visited the west side Ludendorff bridge buildings with a few like-minded chaps in Oct 2013. Obviously, we checked basic facts from Wikipedia. Returning now to recheck some thins - what do I see: a detailed and fleshed out article! A joy to read. I'll recommend my buddies to see the artice themselves. In short, this calls for....tada.....

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For tireless improvment on Battle of Remagen. Cheers, Rayshade (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see the Battle of Britain being well filled in

	The Original Barnstar
	For your hard work on Kanalkampf. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015

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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015

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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the new technology of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

I will look into this when back from vacation MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created the stub. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2015 (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: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Do you remember which Taylor you cited an edit to? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this article recently. Do you happen to know who (or what RAF unit) shot down Wiese on 25 December 1944? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, if you have a source I will add it to the article. Thanks again for checking MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again, I added the info MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you please not undo multiple copyedits there? If there are specific things you are unhappy with, please raise them in talk. Some of the changes you made contravene

It is evident from the talk page this morning I have already explained why they were taken out. In fact, it isn't even what I'm reverting. The edits from Shem1805 cannot be undone unless yours are taken out as well. This has to be done because he as added in faulty information through his own misunderstanding of the article. Can you find away to restore without re-adding his stuff? Dapi89 (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? If you are saying you do not know how to edit Wikipedia manually but can only revert, you may need to

take a long hard look at what you are doing here. I will have a look nevertheless, but try and get up to speed with editing here; it isn't fair to rely on others in this way. --John (talk) 10:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm serious. Are you????? It was far easier for me to do. As an experienced editor you know full well things are never really deleted and it won't be difficult for a self-professed Wikipedia expert such as yourself to put them back in, will it? Some of us don't have the time to read pages and pages of Wikipedia directives. Turn that mirror onto yourself. Dapi89 (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I said. You also appear to be a fairly experienced editor and part of what we sign up to here when we edit is to follow Wikipedia's norms. If you truly lack the time or ability to inform yourself of these you may wish to reconsider what you are doing here. If you are seriously saying that all you are able to do is revert, there may need to be further action, which may lead to outcomes that you will not be comfortable with. Think about it. --John (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't tell me what I may wish, or may not wish, to consider. You were given an explanation before you asked for one and something could have been worked out to correct everything but you reverted. So your criticism is a bit rich. There is nothing about this project that makes me uncomfortable, whatever happens. I detest Wikipedia bureaucrat wasting the time of editors who actually contribute meaningfully. If I hadn't contributed to this article you wouldn't be here. Think about that. Dapi89 (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm staggered.

• You reverted wholesale a bunch of edits which were not only made in good faith by a long established editor (that's me), but you didn't bother to drop me a line at my talk page explaining your reversion. Furthermore you reverted a set of edits by User:John at the same time. Have you read Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, particularly the part under the heading "unacceptable reversions"?
• You acknowledged that you used the revert function as a convenient alternative to editing the small fragment of my edits you didn't agree with.
• When User:John asked you to discuss, you tried to put the onus on him to fix your mistakes.
• You broke the spirit of
  WP:3RR
  by your reverts on 22 August.
• With this diff you removed the
  MOS:WORKS
  stating that the template can be used in bibliographies - and worse still, you inserted an incorrect ISBN that I had fixed in the first place.
• Finally, you have re-inserted into the article that "Wanklyn attempted to engage a cruiser but hit an Avieri–class destroyer, which he claimed damaged". I don't have access to your sources, but clearly you must. Please tell me where it says he hit a destroyer (which is what the article currently says) - not where it says he claimed he hit a destroyer.

You say "Some of us don't have the time to read pages and pages of Wikipedia directives." I suggest if you are so keen to use the revert function, you should first read the guidance (not directive) on when its use is, or is not, acceptable. Don't think I expect an apology. I've already worked out I'm not going to get one. Shem (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prepared to be staggered some more;

• Correct, you won't get one.
• A post was made to the talk page. I'm not obliged to talk to you directly. Courteous enough I think.
• It wasn't actually a small fragment was it? And anyway, if you'd read the article properly you wouldn't have made the edits that have caused all of this.
• No I didn't. The 'spirit' (ridiculous phrase) is irrelevant. I didn't go over the three revert rule.
• It is not for you to ghost in and decide how a bibliography should look. Hundreds, if not thousands of articles, including mine, make it to decent article status without them. And it does look messy. It is unnecessary. And it it does waste my time putting it back. And as for this ISBN: which one? Because I doubt it.
• And no. I have already put the citation in the article which links to this information. I won't justify it to you. Don't question my integrity again.

Goodbye. Dapi89 (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do a very eloquent job of abusing yourself. Shem (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me you don't have an argument left that is worthy of the name. You're embarrassing yourself. Dapi89 (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2015 (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 on the Second Schleswig War Interview: Featured picture participants Op-ed: TomStar81 on Indian nationalism during World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

According to Walter Schuck, Bartels had a serious alcohol problem and frequently got into trouble with his commanding officers. Maybe this has something to do with his "lack of promotions". MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2015 (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 Peter Townsend (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) 09:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please

I didn't say he wasn't editing in good faith. I said he was wrong. And opinions aren't relevant, unless it is uncivil to disagree? Dapi89 (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 18:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dapi89 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Do Wikipedia administrators usually block on behalf of involved admins as a favour? Do they read through the thread? This will not change anything. When I return, the article will be restored to how it should be. It is utterly pointless. Dapi89 (talk) 2:51 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

This in no way addresses the reason behind your block. Furthermore, continuing to edit war after your block expires will result in a much longer block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Did you read the thread? He has no support for his reverts. Several editors have expressed support for my edits. Please review the thread, think, and then return. It's stupid how the starter of an edit war can get away without sanction and the justified party gets blocked. The requesting Admin was also involved in the dispute. Dapi89 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the thread was read, as was your talk page and the various article and other user talk pages. You were blocked for your incivility to other users, threatening to continue edit warring no matter the reasoning. The basics of undoing the edits and your opposition to them are not the issue. You're continued threats to edit war are, but that's only a minor consideration. The main reason is your complete incivility to other users. Once would be a don't do it again, but your block log is replete with numerous incidents as is your talk page and edits. Feel free to request an unblock with a reason that covers the reason for your block and someone will take a look at it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITEVAR. Why didn't you address that? It would have stopped the problem. This is what happens when non-content creators are admins, we lose the use of a valuable editor because of civility BS. Your job should be to keep the riff-raff from screwing up the article and the citation style. GregJackP Boomer! 06:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Dapi89, let me echo what Canterbury Tail says--the last sentence anyway. I can't unblock someone who tells me they're going to continue edit warring, and I can't really unblock someone who was also blocked for incivility if they're still acting like a jerk. This stuff about involved admins, it's not helpful and it's not correct. I'm all for unblocking folks, but you need to make it at least a bit easier for me. Your point about the citation format and all, wage that war on the talk page, where you'll find at least a few editors on your side. I'll check in here every now and then. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Tail, thank you for unblocking Dapi89. GregJackP Boomer! 11:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Dapi89, I don't know you, but I understand your frustration and I advocated for unblock at ANI. While I think that the block was too harsh, I also don't think it was totally unreasonable: you have been acting like jerk. I can only echo Drmies's words. Please let the dust settle, and when the article gets unprotected I volunteer to merge the changes. Shouldn't the article be at nice and undisambiguated

No such user (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, I have started working on his article recently. Do you think I should add the Marseille story? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I made a small reference to Marseille. Sufficient detail can be found in Marseille's article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If time permits, may I ask you to review the Battle of Britain section? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on an expansion here User:Keith-264/sandbox5 but only by scraping bits and bobs together from divers sources. If you have any detail on air operations, I'd be grateful if you would add them when you're at a loose end. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors, coordinator elections have begun Articles: Abbasids to a Yugoslav monitor Book reviews: Economics of warfare, Japan, and light horse Op-ed: We can (not) advance Timeline: This month in World War I

I could use your help and opinion again. If time permits, please check section "Norwegian Campaign and Battle of Britain". I could also use some input on his conflict with Galland. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the air info, it's much improved the article, might it be better under a separate header? I think I've got the references right for your additions but I can't find Franks 2006, can I have a clue? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I'm impressed by your air war library, it makes my sources look rather ordinary. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2015 (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: Anotherclown and Sturmvogel 66 on war in the air and at sea Review essay: Auntieruth55 on the French Revolutionary Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the entry of Bulgaria in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, indeed very interesting. Following the award ceremony Hitler normally invited the recipients to lunch. Since these award ceremonies were typically held at the Führer headquarters, high ranking officials often attended lunch as well. I guess this time Himmler happened to be there. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you missed my earlier request, if you have time please review the "High command" section of the Gordon Gollob article. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2015 (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: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of the Bulge Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the collapse of the Serbian Army in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I