User talk:Abraham, B.S./Archive 9

Terror Bombing
This article has been reduced to single point about the raid on dresden, I feel this should be a much larger and generally better article. Could you have a look and see what you recommend to improve the quality and flag it with the appropriate projects? Sherzo (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article obviously needs to be expanded to cover all points this topic is related to. However, before that can happen, youse must cease your edit warring and carmly and rationally discuss how to expand the article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think i'm edit warring, user PBS doesnt believe the article should be expanded beyond a single press conference about dresden, which has no context about the raid and he reverts any attempts to expand the article beyond and if you read the talkpage he is alone in stance. He also removes the tags without consensus, so how is reverting his actions edit warring, surely they constitute vandalism Sherzo (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also do you really think terror bombing belongs in the terrorism project? Sherzo (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can understand your stance, but continual reverts of each other's edits does constitute edit warring (see WP:3RR), so just be careful in that regards. I would advise that you refrain from making any edits to the page that would or could be regarded as controversial, and just continue to calmly, rationally and civilly discuss the issues with the article, and how to proceed forward. If you do add any tags to the article, remember to detail why they have been added on the talk page so there is less chance or grounding for them to be removed. I do think the article comes under the scope of WikiProject Terrorism as terrorism is violent or dangerous acts that instil and fester fear within people, which is what it appears the objective of terror bombing is. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm confused but consensus does mean unamity does it? Since except for PBS everyone else agrees it should be expanded, otherwise PBS can effectively Veto any change to the article. On the matter of wiki terrorism that is one definition (and it is certainly not universially agreed) but it has many and for the main the general consensus has to been to exclude the acts of uniformed soldiers and police from the wiki terrorism project. Sherzo (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does. If there is consensus among the editors involved that expansion should occur, and this particular editor is fighting, or going against, the consensus than the latter editor is in violation of guidelines. If you truly believe this editor is going against consensus then you might want to have a read through Consensus and see what processes you can undertake, such as posting a note on the WikiProject Military History talk page to gain further input into the article to achieve a concrete level of consensus. However, if this editor continues to disrupt the article then you might wish to post a note at WP:AN/I for an administrator to review the editor's actions, and take appropriate action if necessary.


 * I am not completely knowledgable in the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, so if you think I have tagged the article in error than feel free to remove the tag. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I will place an RFC, do you know which category it fall under? Sherzo (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it would come under History and geography. Good luck! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

?
"partial rv; blind users who alt text is aimed at are not going to know what the Port River is"

a) Blind users are blind, not stupid. They will know precisely that "the Port River" is a river.

b) "Port River" is FAR more descriptive than "a body of water", which can mean almost anything.

Pdfpdf (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said or hinted that they were stupid; don't put words in my mouth. It is discouraged to include text that refers specificly to a particular subject, but rather a description. A "body of water" is a description, "Port River" is not. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, per WP:ALT, the alt text is supposed to describe roughly what the picture looks like - and remember that when using a screen reader the text of the caption is also read out, so something like the specific name fo the river is better in the caption, becuase then it helps everybody, but the alt should stick to descriptive wording, so "body of water" is much better in this instance since in the picture it's not at all obvious that it's actually a river as opposed to a lake or whatever. David Underdown (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Bryce: I didn't, and don't, put any words in anyone's mouths. They're my words. To paraphrase your somewhat impolite response "I never said or hinted" that they were your words. Please stop putting words in MY mouth. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * David: in the picture it's not at all obvious that it's actually a river as opposed to a lake or whatever. - You confuse me. As it's "not obvious", would it not be better to clarify the fact that it is a river? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No because if it's not obvious even to someone who can see the picture, the place to clarify is in the caption, not the alt text. David Underdown (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I think I get the picture. (Pun intended ;-) Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Source for Derrick growing up in Port Adelaide region


"although born in Medindie in 1914, Sgt Thomas Currie "Diver" Derrick grew up on Lefevre Peninsula".....There is now a Derrick Memorial Reserve on Carlisle St, Glanville. pages 299-303  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it's strange that no other source seems to mention this. I will have another look through my sources to see if I missed anything, though. Does the above mention when the family moved to Port Adelaide? Thanks mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but it's implied obviosly  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry for the delay in reply mate, but I have been quite busy with some school related stuff and completely forgot about this. I have re-checked all of my sources and still nothing stipulates that Derrick lived/grew up in Lefevre Peninsula. Nothing, of course, states the opposite either; they are rather vague and lacking in his early years, really. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident
Hi, regarding your review comments here, I was wondering if you feel the issues you raised have been successfully resolved and if you'd consider giving the article a support !vote. Thankyou for your time. Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Wells guard inspection Malaya.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wells guard inspection Malaya.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Stifle (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

VC Source
It's not that informative, but just in case you haven't seen it, this is pretty well done. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'd never noticed or seen that site before. Thanks for bringing it to my notice, mate! :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request!
Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.

Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?

All the best for the new elections!

AshLin (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Take your time, its not urgent. I am interested in the details of your past experience. AshLin (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, I would like to thank you for your interesting question that has made me think, :-) and once again apologise for the delay in reply. I think, initially and primarily, the plan was, and is, to motivate and encourage editors to both join the project as something they are interesting in, but also in the sustained creation, development and cultivation of articles as a whole within the project‘s scope. This has been aided and assisted by the further development of the contest department&mdash;a major overhaul is currently underway, as well as the creation of a new, specialist contest&mdash;and the development of systematic and encouraging awards, such as the A-Class Medal and its extensions.


 * In regards to achievement, well, anything is possible really! However, I would be immensely proud and satisfied in a WikiProject that was/is encouraging and helpful to its members, has experience and knowledge, but is additionally focused on building, moulding a comprehensive and well developed encyclopaedia. In all truth, I believe Milhist does satisfy the majority of these criterion, but just requires a bit of a polish and further tweaking.


 * Naturally, as in life, things do and have irritated me on Wikipedia, but nothing I can recall has in my role as a Coord; I have been very happy, and proud, to have served the project in this role, particularly with the helpful and brilliant Coords I had the pleasure to work with. I cannot speak too highly of all of them. To the new team, I would suggest continuing in the footsteps of their predecessors, and for new Coords to follow their instincts and learn from the guidance and assistance offered and presented from their fellow Coords.


 * Thanks and cheers! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your most interesting response. I wish you all the very best for the elections and thank you for the effort you put in these last six months! AshLin (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tom! And the same to you, our mighty Lead! ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the vote of confidence as well; hopefully I will live up to everyone's expectations. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom, we are talking about you; I'm positive you will do well. Thanks for the barnstar, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

? #2
Regarding this edit and the associated comment: "(rv; unsourced):.

Please explain how: "According to his birth certificate, from Victorian Birth Death & Marriage Registra" (sic) qualifies as "unsourced". Pdfpdf (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing here, I believe, that specifically points to the exact source, which contradicts both itself and other sources. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt reply. However, I'm sorry, but I don't understand it.
 * "There is nothing here" - Where?
 * "that specifically points to the exact source" - "his birth certificate, from Victorian Birth Death & Marriage Registra" sounds specific and exact to me. Am I missing something?
 * "which contradicts both itself and other sources." - I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean here. Are you saying the birth certificate contradicts itself? If so, how could it contradict itself?
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the article. What I mean is that there is nothing pointing exactly to "his birth certificate, from Victorian Birth Death & Marriage Registra", nor anything that states that is specificlly the right Maygar. In contradicts itself by stating "not 1872 like his official documentation states", and what is stated in other sources. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it would seem I have made an error here. I just checked the ADB entry on Maygar, and also one of the sources present in the article, and they agree with the 1868 birth. I have no idea where someone pulled 1872 from then. I will revert my erroneous edit. Thanks for correcting my error. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That is very kind of you to credit me, but it is underserved. I am just confused. It is you who have sorted it out and fixed it. If my question was helpful for you, then I'm glad to have been helpful. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Annoying Talkback notice

 * Lol, already replied. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

mention
BTW, I hope its OK, I made mention of a discussion on your talk page in the comments section of the discussion here about date formats. Just thought (after the fact -- sorry) that I should mention it. Feel free to join in or follow the discussion of course if you like.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, that's okay. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Whew.  It was actually a good/helpful example of a point I was trying to make.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, I'm glad to hear it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Diligence etc

 * Lol, thanks Roger! What an unexpected delight! :)) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Lewis McGee / GA
Great article. Fixed a couple of typos, a punctuation problem, and clarified two things. Promoted to GA no problem. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
GA stuff Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Request for comment/mediation
I have made some comments at Talk:Tom Derrick. diff --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Robin Dalglish
Hi Byrce, hope all is going well. Thought this article on Robin Dalglish may interest you. Just created and will try and flesh out with more gazette information. Regards Newm30 (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, that's interesting; a rear admiral and Olympian! Thanks for the update! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Was there more to be done? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Officers Commanding HM Australia Squadron
Byrce, thought you may be interested that I am on another run of articles and have created Leonard Holbrook who was actually a Captain not a Commodore at the time of Commanding HM Australia Squadron. More to come. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Next - Wilbraham Ford Newm30 (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And next Wilfrid Patterson - I have more info to expand soon Newm30 (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have investigated further and all Leonard Holbrook promotions in the London Gazette up until he was appointed Rear Admiral clearly state "Captain". Not sure if the gazette can be trusted. Have consulted a British Naval subject matter expert. Will advise further. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both David and yourself for clarify things. Found this clarification in the wiki article for Commodore Royal Navy: ''There was a need for officers to command squadrons, but it was not deemed desirable to create new admirals (as Post-Captains were promoted to Rear-Admiral in order of seniority). Captains assigned squadron command were given the title of Commodore, but it was not an actual rank. The officer so designated kept his place on the list of Captains. In 1748 it was established that Captains serving as Commodores were equal to Brigadier-Generals in the Army. Commodores could revert to the rank of Captain at the end of their posting.'' Thanks once again. Kind Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And another one Richard Lane-Poole Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Hat Dich (Operation Camden)
Hi Byrce, wondering whether I can get your valued comment on Talk:Battle of Hat Dich regarding moving of article. See previous comments left by me. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. Hope the studies are coming along well, wish you luck and you will be fine.

Inner German border
Following feedback about the length of Inner German border, a featured article candidate on which you commented, I've revised the article to spin content out into six daughter articles with summary versions in the main article. Please take a look at the results (which are summarised at Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1) and let me know whether you would like to support the article being featured. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Roberts Dunstan
Just a thanks for help tidying up the Roberts Dunstan article I created and finding the image, being English my knowledge of Australian politicians is zero but I came across him in a book about Bomber Command and thought he was worthy of an article. Also thanks for the DYK nomination. MilborneOne (talk) 10:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Old honours citations
Hi, I'm currently working on the John Treloar (museum administrator) article which I'm considering trying to develop to A class. Treloar was awarded a MBE in 1918 and OBE in 1919, but none of the sources really say why (though I guess that it was almost certainly for his leadership of the Australian War Records Section). Do you know if the citations for these awards are available online anywhere? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mick Slater
Hi Bryce. I don't have time to sort it out at the moment, but as the IP editor "hinted", some of the links on the Slater page are now broken. It's my understanding that everything that ever was on the web is archived "somewhere", if you know where to look. (I don't. Do you?) I would expect that at least one of the members of the Milhist community must know something about these archives. If we can locate them, then surely they provide more durable URLs than does the Oz DoD website! I'll leave the problem with you until I'm back on-line. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to find an archive of the deadlink. Sorry. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, You may use [|webarchive.org] to see the webpages that have been archived at specific points including version updates. Regards Newm30 (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Roderic Dallas
COLLATED FOR EASE OF CONSIDERATION

While reading my old talk page entries, I realized that your suggestion for ranking Stan Dallas by victories is exactly opposite the method used for the other aces in these lists. When doubt exists, the ace is ranked by the number of victories confirmed by a reliable detailed list of victories (usually http://www.theaerodrome.com). The ace may then be annotated as having a disputed score.

If your method were applied throughout the list, Rene Fonck would become the top rated ace of World War I because there are French sources that claim his confirmed and unconfirmed victories total 140.

I did check your reference to the Australian autobiographical dictionary, and it agreed with http://www.theaerodrome.com's listing of 32. I have the other two books you referred to on order through interlibrary loan.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi George. As I stated before, the aerodrome is the only source I have seen that lists Dallas' score as 32 confirmed; all others I have seen state 39 confirmed with a possibility of 50. Also, as I stated before as well, the entry on Dallas with his score was previously unreferenced until I changed and referenced it, and the aerodrome may not quite be a reliable source in some areas and must be treated with care. I'm sorry, but the Australian Dictionary of Biography entry actually states "His official tally of 30 victories soon rose to 39". I will re-check the other sources, though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just re-checked the book source I cited, and it agrees with the score of 39, stating: "Australia's second highest-scoring ace, credited with 39 kills, was the Queenslander Rod Dallas ...". I must say, also, that everything that mentions Dallas on the Australian War Memorial website agrees that his official tally stood at 39. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you be kind enough to tell me in which of these sources there exists a victory by victory list, comparable to the ones on http://theaerodrome? And while you are at it, explain why Greg van Wyngarten is a reliable source in print, and not in the aerodrome?

I made the request of you for a victory by victory list back when you first typed that you were re-ranking Dallas. When you re-ranked him, I took it on faith that you had cited such a source. Now, it seems that you have not. So why is Dallas entitled to be an exception to the informal rules we have used in compiling this list?

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * George, you requested that I provide a reliable source, not a victory by victory list. I also said that the aerodrome may not quite be a reliable source as many of its assertions are unreferenced and several other editors have been weary of it in the past. May I ask what "informal rules" you are referring to, and why this should be baised on the assertions of one source as opposed to several? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I first mentioned a detailed list as proof of victories in our original exchange, now in your archives. You ignored it then; you are ignoring it now, just as you have ignored several questions of mine.

If the sentence you quoted as proof of 39 victories is continued, the rest of it reads, "...though in correspondence he claimed only 32 as certain." Awards of victories were based on a pilot's written claims, as contained in their after-action reports. Dallas would not receive credit for seven victories he never claimed. Thus, your own reference supports a victory total of 32.

The aerodrome list is based upon a compilation of those same after-action reports, squadron daybooks, and similar primary sources. It also totals 32 wins. On the other hand the airy claim to 39 victories is based on...what? An unsupported assertion.

The estimate of 50 victories is as worthless as any similar guess. Rene Fonck did not score 140 victories; Stan Dallas did not score 50.

I checked the Australian War Memorial website, and found no listing of Dallas's victories.

I do not understand your consistent insistence on violation of NPOV. In Stan Dallas's case, it is so unnecessary to steal valor for a hero of such stature. The Dictionary of Biography listing describes a military nonpareil. Working that into his article would burnish his name. Why not give that a try, instead of claiming a special exception for Stan Dallas?

Ah, yes, the informal rules....as the primary author of this list (and its companions), I set them. I needed some guideline for adding my 1500 or so entries to these lists. My guideline became a detailed list of victories; any other method renders the list impossible. As it is, the aerodrome is the only detailed list extant.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not ignoring anything, and I would ask you to please read WP:AGF, which you do not seem to be doing. I re-checked my archives, and I see nothing in there that suggests you requested a "victory by victory" list. I think that statement by the author of the ADB entry is wrong, as I have read some correspondence letters by Dallas to his father, which states that he scored more than 32 victories. Awards for victories are based on a senior officer's recommendation and witness reports from other individuals, not from the person themselves.


 * I am not violating WP:NPOV; I have provided sources which you do not accept. I am not "stealing valour", I am correcting facts, and I would ask you not to make such rude assertions without facts. I have provided several reliable sources that state the tally as 39.


 * In regards to the final paragraph, please read WP:OWN. In conclusion, I don't think I should even bother with this anymore. I have been fair, civil, patient and abided by Wikipedia policy, despite being accused of bias and ignorance. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems my memory played me false, if you did not find an original request for a detailed list. My apologies, if it seems my faulty memory impugned you. However, there is still that same request above, along with several unanswered questions. That request was made as a condition of equity with the other aces listed. If it is fair to rank all the other aces by that method, then it is fair to rank Dallas that way, unless convincing evidence to the contrary is shown.

As for the matter of good faith, scroll up and you will read, "...I took it on faith that you had cited such a source." How can you overlook that?

Now you have turned and are doubting your own supposedly reliable source. You also refer to several other reliable sources stating 39 victories. I have checked those I could, and have the others ordered on interlibrary loan.

The net result of your actions is to inflate the military record of one of your compatriots. I view this as a violation of NPOV. My background as a combat veteran colors my attitude toward stolen valor. However, I did not accuse you of such; I told you I considered it unnecessary to do so, as Dallas's record stands for itself. I did this as part of a plea to draw you into improving the biographical article on Dallas.

You asked for an explanation of the informal rules. I explained them, and my basis for them. I stake no claim to ownership of these lists; I have had way too much technical help along the way to even dream such nonsense. However, it is a matter of historical record I did most of the data entry work. It is a matter of common sense that I had to develop some guideline for that work. I did so, and informed you of such because you requested it.

As for civility and patience, I have patiently engaged in this lengthy exegis with you while refraining from reverting your change. I did this because I have no wish for an edit war, wished to avoid hurting your feelings, and have no intent to insult you. However, your answers have been evasive and your proofs unconvincing. For instance, your reply about the victory confirmation process ignores the fact that the very beginning of a victory claim had to depend on an ace's combat report. The confirming witnesses and vetting by a senior officer followed.

To summarize, you are ignoring two reliable sources (one your own) claiming 32 victims. To do that, you select an assertion that a higher number should be entered. Then you almost instantly repudiate a portion of that same source because it doesn't suit you. Might I mention that the source in question is a tertiary source, while a secondary source like the aerodrome is considered more reliable? My source for that is the very reliable sources you referred to above. It says, "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources..." And in this case, the secondary source lists 32 victories by date, place, and type of enemy aircraft.

Ball's in your court. I am still open to being convinced. You just have not done it so far.

Georgejdorner (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please point me to these supposed "unanswered questions", as I see none? That part of this may well have been in good faith, but, in all honesty, many of your comments and replies appear to be challenging and riddled in what boarders on the opposite from my view. I do not doubt my own sources, and even though you state you have checked them you appear to ignore them.


 * Please do not accuse me of having the motive of "inflat[ing] the military record of one of your compatriots"; that is one instance of what I believe to be the opposite of WP:AFG, and is far from the truth. My actions are motivated by presenting correct facts. If I discovered something simular with any of the other aces, no matter what nation they were from, I would do the same.


 * In all honesty, from my view, it feels like you have engaged some sort of "witch hunt" against me in this regards, requesting that I provide more and more sources for my claims. I'm sorry if that was not your intention, by due to some of your statements I do feel insulted. My answers have been clear and I have provided references; you just do not seem satisfied by any of this.


 * That source of "my own" I have addressed, which states that he had an official tally of 39, which you seem to ignore. I have also stated that many editors are weary of the aerodrome, and are not sure it meets the requirements of a reliable source. Are you aware, also, that Dallas' biography, Australian Hawk Over the Western Front, supposedly claims he scored 50 victories?


 * As I stated above, I am tired of this. I have provided multiple reliable sources, but am still being insulted and challenged. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)