User talk:Bzuk/Archive 6

ISBNs
You edited the ISBN number in the reference entry for Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1971-72 in the De Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou article, adding 0- to the start to turn it into a normal 9 digit ISBN number. The reference actually states a "SBN" number (NOT an ISBN -presumably its not international) which is only 8 digits long (and no hyphens). I've noticed the 8 digit SBN number before in late 60s early 70s books published in the UK - is it the same as ISBN?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * At least for the Jane's example above, adding the extra 0 seems to work with things like Google books if you click on it, which seems to be of some use.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2009 Newsletter
The March 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Date autoformatting poll
Hi there, I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

article alerts
Would you like to elaborate a bit? Is this in regards to a certain editor banging on about how everyone is Irish/Scottish and not British?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat concerned about the Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain. After the discussion on United States Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan regarding the memorial rule i have noted that the former is now containing more and more names; especially the United States section where, which now contains names for the entire contingent. Do you feel that this may be a legitimate concern or am i worrying needlessly?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Paddy Finucane
Why did you reverse out my edit, saying he was not in the RAAF. He was. You also said I made contraversial edits on this article. What were they? Wallie (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So does that mean I can change it back? Wallie (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said he was Australian. I said his allegiance is Australian. He was with the RAAF. He remains Irish, but his allegiance is Australian. Wallie (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are saying exactly what I was saying in the past. I was later told that allegiance is tied to the country of the unit you are serving in, in this case the RAF then the RAAF. By your reasoning, someone who flew initially with the RAAF and transfered to the RAF would always have an allegiance of Australian. Wallie (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

you said: 452 Squadron had some British personnel during the Second World War, from the Royal Air Force as well as other British Commonwealth air forces and other nationalities, including Poles. One of these was the Irish ace Paddy Finucane. If a member of 452 would be serving with an RAF unit, it would be "on exchange" unless that individual actually became a British subject, and transferred to the RAF. FWiW, as much as I can determine... perhaps others can elucidate on the subject. Bzuk (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC). Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallie"


 * This is getting far too complex. As the current situation stands, and as it was explained to me over and over, if you are in the RAF, your allegiance is British. If you are in the RAAF, your allegiance is Australian. That is the way it works for everyone else. Wallie (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

He was still in the RAAF was he not. I can get references. It is even in his Wikipedia article. Wallie (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I say again. Was he in the RAAF or was he not? Yes or no? Wallie (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So his Service/Branch is RAF and RAAF. Correct? Wallie (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better if this was on the Finucane talk page! but Finucane was in the Royal Air Force I cant find any evidence that he was not, I have never seen officers change service and I am not sure why he would. Why does Wallie think he became Australian ? MilborneOne (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If you read his second bar to his DSO citation it says Acting Flight Lieutenant Brendan Finucane, DFC (41276), No. 452 (RAAF) Squadron. no mention of him being in the RAAF otherwise it would have said it would even mention if he was in the VR or any other branch but it doesnt. Reading the comments above 452 was for all purposes a squadron under British control and Finucane would not have to change service to command it. So it looks like him being in the RAAF is just made up conjecture. MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have asked Wallie to continue this on the Finucane talk page if he still has a problem. MilborneOne (talk)

User Be Bold In Edits
I put this in the B-36 page but you also put the original comments in my talk page so I thought I would put my response in yours:

Sorry if I seemed a bit unfriendly (and I agree I did this) I think I got a bit overly defensive when I woke up to a whole bunch of changes by one or two people but I think if we both view them as friendly and good faith we will be alright. Bzuk and Binksternet clearly have done lots of good work and when I've talked to you guys have been very reasonable and useful, my initial thoughts that I would have to invade a club of long time editors was mistaken. I think a lot of my problems was that before I thought that citations could be listed below or in-line, I didn't know they would always be deleted, and this is something I need to be more careful about. Its hard for me to express sometimes when I look at a source and it doesn't seem very good or doesn't say what is claimed. (for example a figure in millions was cited for some upgrades in the A-10 article but the cited article only talked about a figure in billions. Later in the A-10 page that same billion figure is used but the same citation wasn't used (from memory could be not quite right). Be Bold In Edits (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Fokker G.I. Page
Nice additions to this page, a lot of the changes you made (esp. the Firstly, sentences area) were ones I was thinking about but wasn't sure I could word much better. I think you really did well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeBoldInEdits (talk • contribs) 01:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Friendly reminder to substitute warning templates
Hello. Thanks for reporting to WP:AIV; I have blocked the vandal indefinitely. When leaving warning templates for editors, please remember to substitute the template by using the subst: prefix. Thank you again for helping keep Wikipedia clear of vandalism! — Kralizec! (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Antoni Glowacki
OK and thanks. Looks great. He was in the RNZAF (infobox). I'll leave someone else to put that in, and not get myself into strife. I'm learning... :) Wallie (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Well done. I did know him, as mentioned previously. You have done the man a great service. He was one of the most modest men I have ever met. I never knew he shot down five planes in a day, until I read it in the Telegraph in 1990 during the 50th aniversary. Every airman I have met from this period has a fixation on log books. Glowaki had a very large number of flying hours. It was him who told me he was an airfield inspector. Wallie (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Using Refs: Notes and Books
Hi author, filmmaker, historian, photographer and artist,

I saw the improvements you made to the references in Spirit of St. Louis. I have two questions, since I want to use refs (better) too. I suggest you RE here, and only if you can answer by heart (i.e. no sweat intended): 1. You write code like this: ;Bibliography : Could you tell me what the intended (rendered) effect is of the ";"? 2. The books (Bibliography) are positioned after the notes. Is it OK then to use references like "Johnsson, 2001 p. 123." before the book itself is mentioned? (in Harvard referencing)? Looks strange to me, now. Anyway, thanx. -DePiep (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 1. Found in Technical terms and definitions: e.g. for listing technical jargon. -DePiep (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * RE: Thank you. Great. A librarian eh? Cannot be a coincidence I posted my question here. ;-)
 * You also confirmed me feeling unsecure: why are there so many styles in referencing (gathering here on Wiki: Chicago, Harvard, etc)? We'll get them together. I will finish a new article (2000 wrds, Morton Stanley's first trans-Africa exploration), and improve the refs as learned. :-)

-DePiep (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Glowacki's Spitfire
Hi,

I think you should add a internet link or source information to the image you uploaded on the commons.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

F-107A
Alright, alright; I'll get out of your way. I did what I wanted to do in the article, anyhow. Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

CAHF
Hi. :) I'm following up on your note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. The contributor who may have pasted text from that book has declined to go through the verification process, apparently because he doesn't like the GFDL licensing requirement. Whether he was authorized to place the text or not, if he doesn't verify that he was, we can't use it. Hence, a number of articles that may contain text copied directly from that book have been listed at the copyright problems board, here. Would you be able to compare the text in these articles to the book to see if the language is verbatim or paraphrases too closely for us to use? I see you are occupied with a writing assignment, so you may not be able to assist immediately, but I would grateful to know if this is something you'd be able to help with when you have the time. I'll check back. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Short Sunderland
Thanks for that. I've only(!) been here two years and still have not got the hang of in line cites. must take a day to re-read the guidlines and see if i can get my head around it. --IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: 1941
Thanks for the well-thought out explanation. That makes sense and I won't tag it again. All the best. --Bobak (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ford
Please note you changed every reference to an incorrect citation/reference note and compounded that with errors in using templates. All your changes have been reverted although they are WP:AGF contributions. Please look at the changes in the edit mode. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC).
 * So if a reader wants to read more about the references in the article. How do they find the book based the short citation, Ford pp. 69?  And I'm assuming you reversed my changes to the bibliography section because you don't like the template format? -- Esemono (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Bibliographical notations
Cute. I appreciate the time you took to cut and paste that response on my page and to edumacate my poor ignorant self on the citation system used for old world media. I understand the Modern Language Association (MLA) style where a short note is used (i.e. 1 de Seversky 1942, pp. 212–214 ) and then a bibliography exists where the books full details are available. That is fine and dandy for static media like books, or journals but it fails on non-static media like wikipedia. Articles on this are constantly being updated, vandalized and half heartedly repaired. I've come across many articles (i.e. Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II) where the book details have been erased or didn't exist in the first place and that all that someone added to the article was 1 de Seversky 1942, pp. 212–214. Shouldn't the system be upgraded to take this into factor? -- Esemono (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to avoid emphasis, writing down just quotes and some more words... I am sicnere: if you find emphasis please cancel or correct it, leaving what is useful.... let me just say one last thing about the Macchi 200... No sorry Ethell will say it for me: The Spitfire was the only  fighter able to outclass the Macchi 200 pag. 69 of italian edition....

but I take your advice... I will write down these sentences on the Macchi 200 page Greetings from Rome! gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ma... tu parli italiano????????--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "No, ma io ho un dizionario", almost perfect... thanks for your welcome and your patience and your help in correcting my english and my wikipedia!!! I appreciate it a lot...anyway we seem to share one passion. historical planes!!

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ) The claims seem dubious? That's why i just reported the quotes from books. Please, tell me: they seem less dubious when claimed by Raf? :) I could show you many extact where raf claimed 4 or 5 times more claims that in reality... my father was an airmen and I have first hand account, sorry!

Saluti da Roma!! :) --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ) Ehi... :) I wrote fighters not 3 engined planes! The last fight of Gladiators wth italian fighters was that with tenente malvolti, according do Nico Sgarlato that I quote.... the S 79 was a bomber and the s 82 was a transport aircraft... the italian had only cr.42 at that time in Africa Orientale...

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good night... my eyes are buning... :) thanks for everithing... See you later!!

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC) gian piero
 * Good morning, thanks for cleaning my mistakes... Have a Good Easter!!

Saluti gian pier --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good evening... today I found in another books more informations about the tenente Malavolti... there is the motive of his golden mdal... it is incredible... it is a little big mister the death of that porr boy... I wonder where is his tomb... I am afraid thei buried it near the wreck of his planes... I hope is not too much to write down all those versions, opinions I dont know in englis...

regards from Roma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs) 22:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC) good night... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs) 22:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ) Thanks... I understand you are right....

Buon Giorno
Hello, how are You? Please could You check if my contrib on Me 109 page is (at least) in correct english and if it fits? It seems very interesting to me what happened on the first combat of italian pilots of Anr with the Me 109: it was a heavy defeat! Saluti da Roma! Gian Piero —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs) 10:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC) == Salve == Ok I will re write the quote about Marseille but I think it has historical interest to write some lines about his most succesful day... I understand that you worry about english speaking (and reding) readers that could not like to read the details ot the destruction of 17 Allied planes...I see the same thing in the documentaries of Histy Channel were they speak only on insignificant (historically speaking) Allied aces, ignoring the most renown german experten... but History is History... and 67 years passed by  since then... Dont you think? Saluti da roma gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, Bzulk... Come va? :) Always writing and chechimg? May I tell you that about fiat g 50 that was not just a single mission... I think it is significative that a fiat g 50 shot down the hurricane og an ace like Ape Cullen, it was not just a fighter mission... please let is stay, if you can :) Pages of pilots here are full of single action descriptions. Are you going to cancell them? Or I would do it for You? :) ... It would be nice if you would warn or ask before cancelling the contribut of some others. dont you think? Even if you are more experienced and you have more awards of the others wikipedia dont seem to be your private space... Sorry if I am frank...

with regards of your eventual authority position inside wikipedia... regards, gian piero--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

FIAT G.50 & NICLOT

 * gOOD EVENING...

YOU are right but... I had put the Niclot missions as it is the first air victory of one of the most pre-war most famous pilot of the world, with seven or nine flying records... it was not just a mission that I found somewhere, to show up... dont you think in this view it could be interesting? and what about writing a page about Flight Lieutenant Richard Nigel 'Ape' Cullen DFC? regards from Rome gian piero--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter
The April 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

New article page open for business
Good morning BZ..... When you have a chance, this article: Canadian Parliamentary Motion 37/1-1205 is now online. I'd like to bullet-proof it and would welcome constructive comments...... --HarryZilber (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Bill, thanks for your quick clean-up and assessment of the new motion/resolution article, and thanks for adding the bibliography as well. I was completely unaware of Professor Catania's previous association with Fossella; his interview in the Accenti magazine actually looked quite objective with its praise of the quality of Bell's initial patent. As to your valid comment on the referencing of a Wikipedia article, I realized that late last night as I was writing it, and when I have time I'll root through the original Garland article links (which is unfootnoted) to find them.


 * B.T.W., of interest to telephone historians is an article from the Fall 2008 edition (Vol.23 Iss.3) of American Heritage's Invention & Technology magazine, which unfortunately is not yet viewable online (all articles prior to 2008 are fully viewable). The pg. 14 article, titled "THE BELL-GRAY CONTROVERSY" (with an alternate title of "Controversy over the World's Most Lucrative Patent" on the contents page) was issued not long after The Telephone Gambit came out. The three page article by physicist Ralph Meyer and Prof. W. Bernard Carlson, both telephone historians, demolishes many aspects of the Gambit's criticisms of the Bell patent.  You can contact me if you need further details; I have the article's incorporation into the Bell vs. Gray wiki page on my mental to-do list. --HarryZilber (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Re-written articles on Italian World War II combat aircraft
Hi Bzuk, I've been engaged in some long discussions with a new editor on the subject of objectivity v subjectivity, and trustworthy sources amongst other things. The problem here seems to be a strong belief that other editors (especially Anglo-American) are out to "get" Italian aircraft and their pilots, and that there is an unreasonable amount of bias in the P-40, P-51, P-51, Gladiator, Hurricane and Spitfire articles, among others. I have tried to explain that these sorts of additions can create problems in Wikipedia, mainly because it leads to tit-for-tat editing. In two articles I have illustrated this by giving different versions of an engagement between Macchi C.205s and Spitfires. I do understand that this editor gets rather frustrated with some of the deletions/alterations being made to his editing, and I am trying to explain exactly why this is happening. In the meantime... a little campanilismo is involved. Minorhistorian (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bzuk, i just am curious to see if you noticed my re-entry. It seems not. BillCJ has already started to revert my contributions. Maybe you could explain to me if I am or not allowed to do anything in aviation sectors, or? If 2 kb with 2 sources is not 'enough' it seems not. And moreover, when contributions are removed it should be considered to move hem in the talk discussion page. Not as BillCJ does. What a shame.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i began and not by now. But you should get a look in the BAe Hawk page. I am quite amused by Bill's manners, he should be considered a problematic user, but he is not. I rate unacceptable that he deletes even the mex in his talks.. So what's the point to have a talk page? To accept only greetings? BTW ill'check the Caproni page. This was the one that i designed once. I am not so interested to write in wikipedia however, there will be never another flood of edits. The reasons are that i have not much things to write, nor i am confident to have deleted sistematically my poor written&unsourced edits, it's an arrogant manner to do (as Bill is doing), but it is done. Since i know how it can end (block), so the last thing is mixing again with guys like Bill, the one that can censor anything he likes. BTW, when B-50, G-91R and CF-104s talk page contributions (once removed but never discussed) will be discussed and implemented in the article? There seems nothing changed in 18 months.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Armagnac.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Armagnac.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Buon Giorno Italia
Hello bzulk i wanted to compliment you for your activity and your cultural back ground... I write to tell you that i stop writing actions on wikipedia english pages... i will put technical historical and similar datas if I have time to waste, as I see that if not You other people here have the arrogance to cancel what other people write like censors, and without even warning... to tell you the truth I am so disappointed by the attitudes of wiki englihs... it is a, sorry i feel very limited with my english, it is a "struttura di potere", structure of power (authority?) not a place were people democratically debate and try to create something of cultural interest... here somebody feels to have the power, the authority, to orient what is written... and what is written is always oriented to celebrate Allied aircraft or pilots like the best or at least superior to Axis forces... the Hurricane to give you a last instance, was inferior to Macchi 200, no match for the 202, not speaking of the 205, but if you read your page you can say only that: wow!! What a wonderful machine it was!! it Could destroy almost anything... and so on with Gladiators, the "unhappy" P 40, the national monuments Spitfire and Mustangs.. :(:( Nah...it is not useful, I waste my time... you should know that and if you dont know you should go to read some other books, or to talk with some former Axis pilots (there are still someone alive, let alive by so many allied aces and by the Time...) sorry, even with your impressive background. What some people try to do here is not culture, it is a kind or well organized propaganda... and if you wiki en contributors are happy with it, go on, but on this way wikipedia will never get the status of a scientifically valida aenciclopedia....For what concernes me, it lost a lot of the appeal it had before and I will tell my experiences here in wiki en whenever I will have the chance with my friends journalists, writers and teachers... You see, wikipedia is the "version" (?) in internet of what is History Channel when they produce documentaries: have you seen them of c ourse: Allied planes and pilots are alway the best and manage to shot down dozens of enemis just waiting to be destroyed... it is like a videogame... and the public, people that whatch and pay tv are glad and satisfied... but please try to find just a line to explain why the first 103 top scoring aces of the world war two are alll Germans with more thatn 100 air victories and the first allied has 40 if I remember even with the help of the radar and flying those wonderful, superior, machines... Saluti da Roma gian piero milanetti --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Couric, etc.
Thank you for your encouraging note amidst the recent sea of negativity. I don't know if he'll be found to be a sock or not, but that megillah that he started on the ANI page is likely going to come to nothing otherwise. Drama Queen city. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Armistice
Salute, Bzulk.... I apologize for the rude tones of some of my phrases about italian planes and fighters... let's sign an armistice and work to spread the knowledge of those wonderful machines and the marvellous men that flown them... Saluti da Roma, gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Say what
Bzuk, i have asked to you to come in the Hawk page. Am i banned to editing in aviation sector? Who is BillCJ to forbid me to editing 'anglo-american' stuff? Well, just tell me. I am not interested to mix with Bill, but in aviation sectors someone with a grain of salt should or not be in the position to expose without censorship a wise agreement? Maybe not. My problem with Bill is that: he don't allow me to write and he don't answer in his talk, instead he simply delete my questions. This is higly problematic behauvoir, but nobody cares.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to interesting. But i'd say that it's not a bad vice to write over-detailing. What i wanted to point was, that 15 years of virtually Macchi dominion in advanced trainers, the ball was held by Hawk and A.Jet, 'cause they got swing wing and turbofans, this add finally far greater performances compared to MB.339, that, as an advanced derivative of '326, wasn't capable to repete its success. A table with datas compared about these advanced trainers (MB.339, Hawk and A.Jet), or the difference datas in the Hawk series should be nice to add, not?

About over detailing, Bzuk, i don't think that 2 kb is an 'overdetailing', expecially not for me that usually write 40 kb a day. Apart this, the aviation to my mind -expecially the civilians- lack still a lot of 'details', that can be found in a decent magazine articles, but not in the mighty wiki.en. This should be corrected, rather than my contribution. Regards.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bzuk, forgive my boldness, but when you wrote this: 'Encyclopedia articles provide data but whenever a fuller description is required, then readers should consult books or magazines'

Then your ideal of an article what shall be? 2 kb? 5? Now, actually, thanks to God and the wikipedian-coalition of Willing, the Wiki.en is happily full of very complex and long articles. And i have IMMENSE enjoy to read 'hem. Your affermation could had been good enough let's say 3-4 years ago. Now it'outdated. This is no matter about 'magazine'. Yesterday i checked the King David hotel bombing. And the marvellous ZSU-57-2 page, or the mighty Bangladesh Military.

So their contributors, in your position, should had been banned for being 'too detailed'? Hell, i'd want an Army with those guys! Wikipedia now even allow to 'write a book', so your statement seems to me outdated a lot and far, far restrictive. And Jimbo could be in disagreement, since it implies wikipedia as a sort of 'rubbish, second hand-market'. That grew neverthless over 10 GB..

And nobody, nor you, Bill or i, can establish 'how' is superflous or not in the articles, nor the '5 pillars' speak nothing against a 'detail', the policy is simply to not write a too long articles without split it, and even so, there are articles with over 100 Kb size and nobody cries for, now over POV, grammar, style and references there are also 'superflous' details..

So not problem at all: i'll simply avoid aviation sectors, it's only a source of problem and with unnecessary limitations. This is not to say that Macchi 200 was better than Hurricane, it's just a mere consideration about the pratical impossibility to write something. In the meanwhile, civil aircrafts are languish in even worse shape than military ones. But who cares, after all? Regards--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you are right, but.. 1)-300.000 words are not matched by 2 kb or even 20; 2)- there is an easy solution: the splitting and linking to other articles, so some arguments becames to be x MBs heavies 3)- nobody cries if B-17s is 100 Kb. So what would be the problem with few kbs? Am i added dozen kilobytes to any recent articles? No. So i cannot understand that extreme valutations. Maybe it's a right reasoning, but the proportion you are meaning are exaggerated. More so, they are discarded by wikipedia itself. How much hundreds of 'details' are present in ZSU, as example? Do you find it an exaggeration? I find not, on the contrary, well interesting. Reduce it to 5 Kb and wikipedia will loose a good article, so about thousands other articles. Almost all the american aircrafts have 50+ kB size, why few kb adding are 'too detailed and similar to a book'? Sorry Bzuk, but it's lacking of logic.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Homerism? Who is this guy?

 * Salve!

Buon Giorno dall'Italia! Homerism? What is it? Is it referred to me, by chance? Grazie per il costante lavoro di editing dei miei testi... gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Italian Homerism?

 * Salve grazie for your answer... Now I know a new english word... but... may I not agree? Not that I think that what I think may matter here... as you seem to have the authority to change delete cancel what you think :)

I was saying... may I not agree? I am starting to learn how it works wikipedia english... Let's say that i read that an italian automobile is an old shoe... if i write that it is not true because of this and that, someone from wiki englihs suddenly block me or ask me insistently to quote with isbn and page... So I do it... but someone else then write that those authors are nationalist and dont fit in wikipedia... so I found some anglo-saxon historians that states that that car is great, even better than - let' say - a british one... so somebody starts to delete or cancel or modify saying: too many details, it is contradictory with what is written in the article, people could get confused...... if I complain I am nationalist and sick of "homerism".... ok... do what you want... but try to make this big effort: go and read the page about the Mustang and then come here and tell me that there there is not homerism, or worst... I think you have the intellectual honesty to tell the truth about it... You know I respect you for your knowledges and your activities but I think you express a cultural orientament here in wikipedia... the same ideological trend that showed the Allied command in Italy after war then they ordered that all military airplanes and engines were destroyed... you are a little in the same old tracks... Strange you dont realize it...

saluti da Roma gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Buon giorno (?)
Let's hope it will be a buon giorno, I woke up in the middle of (our) nigh with a painful cough... An article about Gorrini? Great... I alredy did it in italian... but I (we) could not get a picture of him... if You could help... and about the plane he was top ace of, please, could you delete the section about Capo Pula, that casts a negative light on the Veltros and a pilot such as Ennio Tarantola that was an honest pilot that fought against all the (allied) odds, and a worker with little pay after the war... At least if you write such a totally negative combat about italian pilots and planes you should give them another one, to balance the first.. You know what I mean... About Gorrini, I found some mistakes about his air victories and I correct them... but, you know?, I am thinking to go to ask to italian Defence ministry in ROme to check the Regia Aeronautica record of losses and victories about Capo Pula, Pantelleria and the itailan aces... Saluti da ROMA! GIAN PIERO --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Fly Away Home
You're welcome. Stay happy.... (Quentin X (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

File:Boulton Paul Balliol.jpg
If it is from a computer program how is it PD?Geni 22:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Buon Giorno, Canada!
Salve come va... Spero di... I hope not disturb You .... I wanted to tell You that I wrote the first draft of the page about Luigi Gorrini... and would like to hear form you about it... Is it ok? Saluti da Roma --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)



Hallo.... I would need your help for Gorrini page in wiki it... I can learn how to write copying the others but I dont understand how to put a photograph there... the other contributors here with whom i cooperate dont know how to do either... and it is a pity because pilots like Gorrini, Doglio, Petrosellini have pages without picture... ministorian kindly helped me but he knows how to put it only in wiki en... regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs) 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Douglas A-20 edits
Hi, I noticed you removed the period at the end of a caption on this page. The MoS dictates that sentence structure be maintained in full sentences. Koalorka (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC) I concur, but the caption in question was not stated in sentence form. See my answer on your talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC).

File copyright problem with File:Armagnac.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Armagnac.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC) == How many FIAT CR.32! ==


 * Good evening I always thanks you for editing my poor extracts full of mistakes...but i think there is mistake about number of CR.32 you put in the text...

I write you in italian: "Pietro Tonizzo: Fiat cr.32 Stem Mucchi Editore": Il 10 giugno 1940 per quanto riguarda la specialità da caccia è certo che ancora un buon terzo dei reparti 2montava" il Fiat CR.32: questi risultavano essere 294, contro 300 CR.42, 118 G.50 e 156 MC.200; altri 34 CR.32, assieme a 32 CR.42, erano in A.O.I etc. " SO, the 32 were only 294 plus 34. When Italy enters the war has about 3,600 planes, included everything with the wings and military insignia: School transport very old and not serviceable planes... Same numbers you can read on Nico Sgarlato monography: "Nel dicembre 1939, a sei mesi dall'entrata dell'Italia nella Seconda Guerra Mondiale, i Freccia apparivano ormai inesorabilmente datati anche se la Regia Aeronautica ne allineava 294 in Italia and 34in Africa Orientale'... I dont know were you get that information of more than 1000 CR.32... 1053' is the total number of Fiat cr 32 produced with Military Matricola... 1,212 is the total produced....... kindly regards, milanetti|talk]]) 22:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

--Gian piero milanetti ([[User talk:Gian piero


 * Ok... but in wiki italy they tell me to link everything.... I will --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but how told you, in wiki it they are very insisten in asking me to link everything... I agree with you and i will rembembere that. Grazie!

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Firth Helicopter
Hello. Unfortunately the copyright holder will not release the image and has expressly requested its deletion via OTRS. I have thus deleted the image. Best, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 13:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No Country
What relevance does describing the Texas landscape have to the plot of the film? It seems like a needless detail.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My reply via article talk page. Bzuk (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Spit-Fire GA!
Hi Bill, I am currently working on overhauling the references and some of the text for Supermarine Spitfire to see whether it can be brought up to GA status; would you have the time to be able to cast your experiened eyes over the article and point out where any improvements can be made? I'm also working on the (now) three Supermarine Spitfire (...powered variants). Cheers! Minorhistorian (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

XF-84H Thunderscreech
From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/retracts

re·tract (r-trkt) v. re·tract·ed, re·tract·ing, re·tracts v.tr. 1. To take back; disavow: refused to retract the statement. 2. To draw back or in: a plane retracting its landing gear. See Synonyms at recede1. 3. Linguistics a. To utter (a sound) with the tongue drawn back. b. To draw back (the tongue). v.intr. 1. To take something back or disavow it. 2. To draw back.

Do you mean that during an emergency the pilot would retract the turbine and do away with its function? I've never heard of ram air turbines with that capacity (that's not to say they don't exist), I think the word you are looking for is extendable, but that is redundant since it is explained in the following sentence.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Half Barnstar
Did someone else get the other half? Not sure how to trace that. Ring Cinema (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for the honor which I don't really deserve. Ring Cinema (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Watch yourself
Don't place 3RR warnings on my page without just cause. I am trying (along with other editors) to get a contentious user to seek consensus through discussion on some highly dubious, non-notable edits on the F-35 article. I also couldn't help but notice that you apparently didn't see fit to warn the other user. This is troublesome. ViperNerd (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

F-35
I'm currently running into a problem with an individual named ViperNerd (note his comment above). The appropriate Wikipedia staff have already been notified and are looking into the matter. The problem appears to be that he does not want any reference to Yakovelv Aircraft's work with Lockheed-Martin on the design of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to appear on Wikipedia. The information I added is fully cited and referenced, though ViperNerd's issue appears more racially-based than a result of any actual disagreement with the facts as presented. I had a similar problem with another fellow a few years ago when I added information to the An-225 article about the U.S. Air Force's use of the aircraft. There are people who just seem to think that any mention of the U.S. military employing Russian equipment or designers is unpatriotic. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Unfortunately ViperNerd has been deleting all reference to Yakovlev's involvement from the F-35 article as well. He has also followed every edit I have made since editing the F-22 page several days ago and vandalized dozens of unrelated articles with hundreds of erronious tags. He is essentially "spamming" me on Wikipedia. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Bellanca
Dear Bzuk, to say that I do not like to be called a vandal is a gross understatement. I'd appreciate your explanation what exactly in your eye/mind was an act of vandalism on the Bellanca pages. If anything I have added or put straight some apparently faulty or erroneous information.I definitely have not had an ego-trip, and neither I have so much spare time as to vandalize Wiki. Btw Iˇve written or updated/augmented a few of the articles in the wiki.

cheers, martin velek. ps: you may google me as an author... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Velek (talk • contribs) 15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Please see my reply as I am a bit mystified as to this note... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

New facts and citation found regarding Antonio Meucci
Hi Bill, for your reference, when you have a chance look at the talk page listed for the changes to this section on Antonio Meucci/The caveat, ref. the claimed $250 fee to file a full patent application (bogus). The real filing cost was $15 between 1861 and 1922. Inaccurate statements in the Meucci article have now been removed. The talk page section is tited: "Inaccurate facts removed (expensive of the patent as a reason for not obtaining it)" Ciao --HarryZilber (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

NCFOM
are you going to be annoyed if I continue to edit you on this aftermath of the firefight section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs) 12:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a bit, I consider it part of the collaborative/cooperative process... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC).

User_talk page problems
Just a courtesy note to make you aware of issues related to your "welcome" messages. Please see Help desk - thanks. 58.8.212.175 (talk) 22 May 2009
 * I think the problem was the formatting of your local copy of W-screen, which I've fixed for you. Let me know if you'd like any changes to protection. Rodhull  andemu  17:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Users unable to leave you messages
Linked in the section above is also a note that the user could not leave you a good faith comment. WP:PROTECT notes that, if one protects his/her talk page, the user should "have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users". That way, anyone who wants to contact you is able to do so. :)  hmwith τ   17:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued problems with unresponsive editor Indianwhite
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC) (Using )

Airspeed Horsa
Hey. Thanks for the heads up; that's not usually the way that I use references in the articles I write. Do you want to write the Horsa article yourself, or cooperate with writing it? Skinny87 (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that sounds like an eminently suitable solution! :) I'll continue to write and cite, as it were, and I welcome any and all help you can give in terms of references - I don't suppose you have any books on the Horsa itself, do you, or Airspeed, as the latter in particular seem to be quite lacking. For me, writing articles has always been the easier part - it's the tidying up later on that stymies me, so thanks! Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just ordered Mondey as it seems like a useful book to have, but I was wondering what resources you had on the Horsa? I've got about six books, seven if you include Mondey on order, that go into detail on it, and perhaps the same again that I can get info from concerning usage in each airborne op. I'm just wondering to figure out how we should go about writing the article. Skinny87 (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, my resources on UK glider aircraft seem woefully depleted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC).

(od)The Development section is done, at least for the moment; I'm not entirely happy with it and it needs further work, but I don't think there are any glaring gaps. I had to replace the definite citation about number produced with a note as every author seems to give a different number. Skinny87 (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why did you delete the section on the development problems? I agree it was a bit long and needed tweaking, but it needs to go in - just deleting it wholesale isn't on, and I would have appreciated a discussion first. Skinny87 (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, that must have been a mistake, sorry about that. I will restore any lost edits. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

(od)Erm, in terms of the Hotspur retake, I like some of it, ie the re-done references, but not much else really, sorry. The variants section is uncited completely and essentially duplicates in less detail what has been said, the final production figure is kinda randomly placed at the end as a single sentence, the sentence 'The Hotspur continued to be produced and when production ended 1,000 Hotspurs had been manufactured, in three variants. The production series was the heavily-modified Mk II (Specification X.22/40 and X.23/40) and Mk III.' is completely uncited and duplicates the production number, and the intro is far too short, two paragraphs is the minimum, even for an article as relatively short as the Hotspurs. I'll certainly re-do the references as you have at some point, however. Thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm taking a wikibreak, which will probably take a while, so feel free to alter the article as you wish. I'd simply ask that everything is cited properly and nothing is duplicated. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the wiki-break didn't last long! GAN has a heck of a backlog, but when the Hotspur gets reviewed, I'm worried a few things will get picked up by the reviewer to be changed before it gets passed; specifically, the lede, which seems to have become even smaller since I last saw it, and the bibliography, which you seem to have changed to take out the citation templates and put into plain prose. I know at the very least that the latter is frowned upon. What are your thoughts? Skinny87 (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

One of our Aircraft is Missing
In my view, the explanation was "needlessly contrived" and shouldn't have been necessary. But I am learning that that's how Wikipedia works. Someone gets a bee in their bonnet about some tiny little issue that hardly anyone cares about and makes wide ranging changes without any consideration for or knowledge about each individual case. I've had similar problems with the way they continually change the rules for the inclusion of images. You add an image and make sure it meets all the rules, and they change the rules. You modify the reasons why it should remain included, and they change the rules again. I've given up on any idea of being a major contributor while such nonsense is allowed. All I can do is to keep a watching brief and to try to protect the articles I'm particularly interested in and make sure that they aren't damaged too much by these zealots. In this case I protected the article by adding a needlessly contrived reason for including the quotes. I did it but I would rather that it hadn't been necessary. I think that some people's time would be much better spent in repairing the major flaws in Wikipedia, like in preventing anonymous edits which are the cause of most vandalism -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Production table for Spitfire?
I've added a Spitfire Production table at the end of Minorhistorian (talk)


 * Done with suggested revision; an intoductory paragraph gets rid of the multiple references. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hamilcar
I see you've put the Hamilcar in your sandbox and commented something about 'lots of work to do' or somesuch. I worked incredibly hard on that article, and I'm not sure what work you think the article needs. Can you clarify? Skinny87 (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to note, I intend to do some more polishing on the article, add a new source I have (Smith's history of the Glider Pilot Regiment) and then take it to FAC in a little while. Skinny87 (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the references seem to be a personal style thing, but no biggie, and I don't doubt it needs a copy-edit as my prose isn't usually brilliant - repetitiveness is a problem there. But I don't see the problem with it having a 'major' article, whatever you mean by that; though it was only used in three airborne operations, those were the three major Allied airborne operations of the conflict, and it was the only glider the Allies possessed and used to transport heavy cargo and airborne tanks. And I still don't see why the lede needs to be cut down; fair enough for the Hotspur it's a small article, but the Hamilcar is large enough, even if some repetitiveness is removed, to warrant a two paragraph lead. I've been yelled at before at GAN and FAC for not having a long enough lede, so this confuses me. Skinny87 (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, yeah, I have that; it's why most of my comments are invariably variations on 'ce', 'copy-edit', 'copy-edit lead' etc. Skinny87 (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's some nice experience! All I know is that I've always been told to do the lede per the guidelines; I always forget where they are, but you increase it by one paragraph per so many kbs of text in the article, and it's never steered me wrong while I've been on here. So how do you see the Hamilcar rewrite progressing? Like I said, I do want to take it to FAC soon (matching it up with the Tetrarch would be nice) once I've added in Smith's observations. Skinny87 (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope the speech goes well! Skinny87 (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter
The May 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

hi
yes - my edit was made in good faith but on further investigation it was clearly wrong so have delted it.Engineman (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Me209v18nb.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Me209v18nb.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. Nyvhek (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hotspur
Thought a new section would be easier to follow. Well, I guess those points are okay, then, and the article is looking good, although I do think there might be too many pictures. Just to let you know I've decided to forgo working on the Horsa - too much trouble, really. I'll be working on a couple of airborne articles in my sandbox insyead to try and get them finished. I see you've added another source for the Hamilcar - I think after I've finished one sandbox article I'll work on getting it to FAC, so I'll be taking a great interest in what you do in your sandbox. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Boeing 777 Promotion
Thanks for the information but I can't find myself!

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 3rd June 2009.

Talk:James Stewart_(actor)
Hi. I asked a clarification question at this topic and would appreciate your feedback regarding the question. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Dieppe Raid - your revert to my edits
Yesterday I went through this article, editing a number of grammatical errors, and replacing various jargon-like phrases or slightly odd passages with what I thought was cleaner, clearer writing. Yet you appear to have reverted my edits wholesale, rather than taking each one in turn. Why, for example, have you restored the words 'Roughly 252 ships'? This sounds odd, because 'roughly' should be combined with a broad figure in the 100s or 150s, not the figure 252, which is an EXACT figure. Another example is that you have restored 'paratroopers' in favour of 'paratroops'. 'Paratroopers' should be used to refer to individual soldiers or a small group of them, not when referring to them as a military unit or as a category of troops. Because they are individuals, 'paratroopers' should be followed by 'who'; 'paratroops' should be followed by 'which'. A third example is the paragraph in which a comparison is made between Dieppe and the Battle of Britain, from the point of view of the Allied and German air forces and the conditions under which they had to operate in each case. I thought I did a good job of restructuring the statements made, preserving the points, but making the paragraph cleaner and smoother, as opposed to awkward and convoluted-sounding (although I will concede that my edit in that section needs tweaking to make it clear that not all the German planes were flying from local airfields, but that all had recourse to them for refuelling purposes - I see now that that distinction was lost in my version).

In general all of my edits were carefully considered, although I am not claiming there is no room for further improvement. But, instead of improving on my efforts, of thinking about each edit in turn and whether or not it represented an improvement in clarity, it seems you chose to undo the whole lot, with a reference in the edit summary to 'wordsmithing' (what is that supposed to mean?). Dubmill (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. As I said, I was not claiming that there was no room for improvement. However, I provided an explanation of the distinction between 'paratroopers' and 'paratroops'. Would you care to comment on the distinction I made, rather than simply dismissing it as 'moot'? As for my other edits, what is wrong with 'wordsmithing', as you put it, if it improves the clarity of the article - not clarity of facts, but of delivery, avoiding repetition and awkward phrasing, not to mention military jargon that might be suitable for communications between troops but not for an encyclopedia article aimed at a general readership (eg referring to troops 'taking fire' as opposed to 'coming under fire'; the former sounds like what soldiers might say to each other in the field).

Thanks for the invitation to participate in the discussion page for the article but, to be honest, I expended quite a time in editing, all in good faith, only to see it all casually reverted instead of given proper consideration. Therefore I see no point in wasting my time submitting editing suggestions for approval, with no guarantee of their acceptance based on the last, ill-considered blanket revert. You clearly wish to 'run' the page without outside 'interference' so I'll leave it to you. Dubmill (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Arilang say Hi
If you are interested in this discussion, please leave some comments.

commons:File talk:Flag of the Republic of China.svg

  Arilang  talk  21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Charles Lindbergh
I saw you made a lot of edits to it so I wanted to let you know that I submitted the Charles Lindbergh article for peer review. Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. --Kumioko (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes
Sorry I didnt know about the numbers and something else... we dont have the same rules... But some mistakes are for distraction, I apologize sorry I will be more careful... regards from Roma --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Macchiing around
I see you're still cleaning up after me! There is still a lot of work neded on the C.202 page; I'm reluctant to delete too much, including Visconti's claim of two Spitfires lest I tread on some sensative toes (eg: I decided to pull back on imposing too much on Gian Milanetti's work because I have been causing him some unintended frustration). Personally I think the paragraph on the action belongs on Visconti's page with perhaps a general comment about his claims as a Macchi pilot in the C.202 article. I'll leave that to your good judgement.

On to something more vexing; as you are probably aware I have once again been at loggerheads with Kurfust - I admit this is partly my fault and I could have handled things better; however he continues to insist on using self-published websites as a source, when he insists that others stop using them, and contrives to bait me with ridiculous comments. Personally I think they are more of an embarresment to KF than they are to me. All I can do right now is let it ride and continue to attempt to bring some order to the disputed articles. I have removed as many of the websites I have used in the past and replaced them with secondary, published references where possible. Any other thoughts on referencing? Minorhistorian (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, calm again. Good to see you've completed your new book, congratulations! Minorhistorian (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

BoB
I see you have protected your page - havn't the idiot vandals got anything better to do?

About the BoB article: I really don't want to become involved in yet another battle against people who don't understand the words mainstream and consensus and constantly POV-push in a rather unsettling pro-German way. I think I am right in saying that the consensus on wikipedia and the historian world is, at the very least, a British victory. I have given my sources and I hoped this would speak for it rather then having to explain why they merit inclusion. An unbiased source (not an ex-Nazi's memoirs) is usually acceptable enough.

I hope you are finnished that assignment, it has taken some time! Dapi89 (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. Another has joined and it seems editors and books have reached consensus: Three now support victory, while most literature supports it as decisive.
 * Should I look for your book? What's its subject? Can I expect it to appear in a JSTOR review!? Dapi89 (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reader digest! Damn them. So the hawks do the choosing? Oh well, in 8-10 years I might do one myself, depending on a few of things of course! If they try that with me I'll kick up a stink as much as I can! Congrats and see you on the battlefield. Dapi89 (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)