User talk:Georgejdorner/Archive: Wiki editing

An Invite to join Aviation WikiProject
There's nothing set up to make translating easier for you, but if you do create a page that exists on another language wiki, they can be linked together in a standard way. For example Gustav Dörr has a link to the German Wikipedia page in the left hand column, at the bottom under all the navigation/search/interaction links, labeled "languages". You'll find that, in this case, the German page seems to have quite a bit more information, which, since it's on Wikipedia, is free to copy. If you want to add a link to another language version, check out InterWikimedia links. Specifically, you can add (for example) Gustav Dörr to the bottom of the page(that's where they usually go). - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Anything on other language Wikipedias is just as free to use as anything here, so feel free to translate and use at will. It definitely won't get deleted for any copyright reasons, and the question of notability is helped by having articles in other languages. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not possible to merge two created accounts, but should you ever wish to change your username, you can visit Changing username. As for the sinebot, you need to type ~ to sign your posts. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Air units
There are a lot of unit articles already created, see Category:Air force units and formations, and List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons. The Military aviation task force is a big force in creating these. More are created every day, as you can see at User:AlexNewArtBot/aeronewSearchResult. According to PAPER, "there is no practical limit to the number of topics [Wikipedia] can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and [notability]". So create all the red links you want, it'll help promote article creation in other editors.

Airfields
Airfield are under the scope of both WikiProject Airports and WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force. There are a lot of them, see Category:Military airbases. But, again, lots of redlinks at List of RAF stations, List of Royal Canadian Air Force stations, etc. still need to be created.

Account names
You may simply make a redirect from your old name to your new name. Just go to the talk page of the old account, edit it, select all and replace the text with #REDIRECT User talk:Georgejdorner. That will automatically point people to this account. Protonk (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You have to remove the old text to do it, but the text isn't "deleted" as anyone can look it up in the history. You also may move the contents to an Archive on your current talk page. Protonk (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Referencing
Sorry it took so long to get back to you. First off I changed the link in List of World War I flying aces for Hans Mueller to Hans Mueller (aviator). In the cases where more than 1 notable person has the same name the descriptor is added and a disambig page is created (Hans Mueller (disambiguation), which will need to be created as well). See Disambiguation for more on this.

As for referencing, its basics are very simple, but it has a lot of facets that make it complicated at the same time. I'd suggest reading Citing sources. I'll edit Harald Auffarth (Auffahrt) for examples of what I'm talking about. You have the basics of general references down, just adding a link to the "References" section. To add an shortened footnote, which is my personal choice for footnotes to do the following:
 * 1) In the case of book references, add the general reference to the end of the article just like you've been doing.
 * 2) In the case of web references, move the reference to after the first statement you're referencing and place it inside the tags. For an example of this see this edit.
 * 3) Add where you want the inline references to shot (also done in the edit above)
 * 4) If you want the web reference to be used on more than one statement, you can give it a specific name and, link this edit

There's a lot more, I'll add more later. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue is you gave the different references the same name In subsequent uses of the same reference you only need to use the name, but don't forget to add a forwardslsh, in this case,
 * 1) References generally go after the punctuation ending the statement you are referencing.

Otherwise pretty good. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC) == RE: Inquiry about clarification of article ==

Hey there.

I placed the wrong tag on the page. I have changed the tag, please let me know of any issues. By the way, please remember to put messages on one's talk page, not user page. :)

PoinDexta1 |  Talk to Me  | 08:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Messages
Don't worry about the message on Armand Pinsard. It is a cleanup template, one of many that people use to tag articles that could use attention. There are many different ones used for many reasons, see Template messages/Cleanup. They're not warnings to you the editor but calls for help, which is a good thing. If you feel articles you are editing could use some outside help, you can tag them too. Overall, see Template messages for more info. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Aces Bios
Hi George Thanks for your message on my talk page. I dip and out of the 'Aces' articles but I had seen you're doing some great work. I still consider myself very much a learner but I've managed to collect some good reference materials, I think, so I add to articles, as & when I can. I'll keep a look out for your articles. If you're happy for me to check if there are images to add, then I'll willingly do so. I've had permission from the webmaster of theaerodrome.com to use photos that they have on their site. That'll be where I carry on uploading images from, onto WP, as I know that I have the appropriate permissions. I wouldn't be quite so sure of the position, as regards other places where WW1 images are found. But thanks for the offer, anyway. The whole Flying Ace area of WP, I think, could do with more attention, so its great to see your involvement. Keep in touch. Scoop100 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've hit a problem as regards copyright issues for the images I thought I could use from 'theaerodrome.com'. Basically, I've been advised these would infringe WP's copyright policy, so they all have to go. That's a bit frustrating for me, I have to say, but I'm also sorry to have unwittingly misled you. Never mind, I'll just plug away with editing just articles (probably still on the general theme of 'Aces') and steer clear of images, from now on. I think an adminstrator will organise the deletion of the images, so at least one of your articles will be affected. I'm sorry about this. Scoop100 (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi George

Guidance - Assessment
Hi George. Regarding your note on my talk page, I do a great deal of tagging and assessing for the WP:Aviation and WP:Military History Projects. I would be happy to review and assess your articles. I found the following article names on MilBornes talk page as you suggested: Arthur Rhys Davids, Otto Koennecke, Karl Menckhoff, and William Lancelot Jordan. They appear to be good START class articles; my assessment will show what needs to be done to bring them up to B-Class. Drop me a note with the names of any other articles you wish to have reviewed. Cheers! - Canglesea (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * George, I reviewed the above four articles. All are assessed as C Class for WP:Aviation and START class for MilHist (MilHist doesn't use the C Class rating).  To get to B-Class, Arthur Rhys Davids needs a few more in-line citations, Otto Koennecke needs an infobox, the last two need a structure/opening sections. Assessments above the B-Class level require a formal assessment process and peer review, based on community standards. See the WikiProject Military history/Assessment page for details on assessment criteria, standards and the nomination process for promoting your articles. Nice work on the articles. Thanks for your contributions and persistence. Let me know if you have additional questions. - Canglesea (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Your message re Aces Images
Hi George

Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well. The website (theAerodrome.com) is OK about me using the pictures; the problems arise due to copyright issues as regards Wikipedia using them. The situation has been very helpfully explained to me by one of the Wikipedia Administrators on my Talk Page - including the position as regards German Copyright. Pleae have a look there, if you wish. Overall, the whole Copyright issue for images looks very complex and tricky, so I'm going to leave it all well alone now! But again, thanks for your interest.

As regards the Aces, coming, as I do, from the UK, perhaps I'll tend to concentrate on these articles. But, the whole area of World War I Flying Aces is interesting to me and all of them, whatever nationality, should, in my view, have good-quality WP articles. So, I think we're both doing worthwhile work in this area, as is anybody else sensibly contributing to these articles. I wish you well as you carry on with the good work. Scoop100 (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads-up
Hi, and great work on the WW1 flying aces. I tweaked a couple of articles you did some great work on. I just wanted to let you know that per WP:HEAD we don't capitalize words in headings, unless of course they're proper nouns. Best wishes and thanks again for all your great work. --John (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation of WWI Flying Aces list
We can disambiguate the names by appending "(aviator)" to the file name, i.e. Hans Klein (aviator). I am updating the links in the list and creating disambiguation pages this week. When you write the articles, please add the otherpersons template to the first line of the file. This will display a hat link to the disambiguation page, looking like this:

For names that do not have a "(disambiguation)" page, like John Todd (aviator) you can use the John Todd template to display a hat link, looking like this:

Cheers - Canglesea (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * George, you can double check me, but I think they are done. - Canglesea (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK Nomination process
Hi. I've nominated Frank Linke-Crawford, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit.

George, the DYK nomination process is not as complicated as it looks. See my example above. - Canglesea (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

WWI Centenary drive project
George, I wanted to be sure you saw this upcoming project: WikiProject Military history/World War I task force/Centenary drive. It seems to be right up your alley (and mine). - Canglesea (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Promoting articles beyond B Class
Regarding your question on my talk page, promoting articles beyond the B Class level requires adherence to community standards and a formal nomination and review process. To accomplish this:
 * 1) Review the GA and A class criteria and examples at WikiProject Military history/Assessment.
 * Here are more examples of A-Class Biography articles for reference: Category:A-Class biography (military) articles

- Canglesea (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Modify the article to meet the desired criteria.
 * 2) You can request an informal peer review at WikiProject Military history/Review.
 * 3) Nominate the article for GA status at Good article nominations or a formal A class review at WikiProject Military history/Review.

User Page
George, I've taken the liberty of giving you a basic User page to start. 'Hope you don't mind. - Canglesea (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Mind? It is most welcome indeed. Many thanks. Georgejdorner (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Two of the same article
Hi Georgejdorner. Don't worry, these things are bound to happen sometimes. I agree that the extra information and features in your version should remain, but I think it should be under the name of the existing article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've now merged all of the information into Alexander Pentland and redirected Alexander A. N. D. Pentland and it's talk page into the former. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Forward Air Controller
Hi there! There's a thread concerning your rewrite/expansion of Forward Air Controller at the Military History Wikiproject talkpage, link here. The primary concerns are that such a massive expansion, whilst in good faith, would probably be better done in your userspace and then discussed with other editors prior to moving it into mainspace, the inappropriate use of aircraft infoboxes, a certain non-encyclopedic style, and the obvious US bias at the moment.

I'd suggest taking yor expansion to a userpage and building it up there, soliciting help from various editors as you go from the MILHIST and Aviation wikiprojects. Keeping to the WP:Manual of Style for wikipedia in general and those projects would also be a good idea, as would ensuring that the article maintains a WP:Neutral Point of View, ie doesn't focus almost entirely on US exploits in FAC tasks. Good luck with the article building- on a personal note, I'd suggest looking at the British Army Air Corps, which did much of the same work during WWII and after. Skinny87 (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, once again I'd like to applaud you for your efforts, and I'll try and help you out here. Firstly, NPOV: you have a point that you've included several nationalities that didn't exist before, which is great stuff, as is any info on other nationalities you'll gather together; I'm guessing that's why it just looks a bit US-centric at the moment, because info is still going in - I'd suggest looking at the British Army Air Corps as I know they used to do a bit of FAC work. But I can't believe that most FACs were American-driven or conducted, as I'm fairly sure the British and Australians also had a go, as did the French if I remember correctly; contacting User:Climie.ca and User:Nick-D for further information on Canadian/Commonwealth and Australian FAC facts respectively might be a good idea.

Now, as to the lede, that should only sum up the entire article, and not have any points in it not covered by the rest of the text, which is what is occuring at the moment. I'd move the FAC definition into it's own section at the beginning of the article; unfortunately at the moment, as it isn't cited at all, it constitutes WP:Original Research, which isn't allowed on wikipedia. I'd suggest rewriting it with citations added to it, and removing any lists, as its generally better to condense them into prose. In terms of pictures, the actual pictures you've got are fine, but at the moment they're in infoboxes and should be just the pictures themselves - I'll do one in the article in a minute to show you what I mean. I think that should cover it for the moment - if you have any more questions, please feel free to ask me and anyone else at the MILHIST project. Good luck! Skinny87 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just reverted your move of the discussion of this article to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history - discussions of individual articles should be centralised on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of lines in talk pages
Hi George, could you please not use lines (eg, those added by placing at the start and end of your comments like in this edit) to separate your comments in talk pages? This makes it look like its a new topic rather than a comment on an ongoing discussion. The talk page guidelines recommend just leaving a blank line after your comments. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead citations
No problem - glad to help.

There's a relatively detailed discussion at Lead section, which might prove useful for reference; there's some specific cases where they're important to keep, but for most material it's simpler to just rely on the citations in the main body. Shimgray | talk | 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Forward Air Control
I tried to switch a message from my user page to here, and lost it in the process. The message was a request to refrain from editing Forward Air Control until consensus was reached, and was dated 29 or 30 May 2009, from Roger Davies. Georgejdorner (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have unprotected the article and hope that editors can proceed co-operatively, please discuss your changes on the talk page. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the answer is with the article I think it probably needs to go to project level for more inputs to see a way forward. MilborneOne (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Milbone, good sir,

I don't know what is involved in going to project level. However, if you feel that is what is needed, then do it. I only ask that I be allowed to continue to contribute to the article. I have interlibrary loans coming on the subject, and can develop the Vietnam section still further. Also, I am still looking for any other FAC info, regardless of era or nationality, but, geez, I am only one aging geezer with diminishing energies.

I feel that I have been flexible in considering different approaches to developing the article, but the process just doesn't seem to be working.

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Image
I have added the image to the Georges Madon article so you can see the code. To add it into the infobox you need to replace Image:Georges Madon.jpg with File:GeorgesMadonH18059.jpg MilborneOne (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I came across your article on Arthur Raymond Brooks, and thought it well written. If you are unfamiliar with the referencing/citation process, I might be able to help you complete that. I do believe that with citations in place, this article would be accessed as B class.

Also, as the main contributor to List of World War I flying aces, I am trying to recruit writers for this subject. One of my objectives is to complete the breakout of aces by nationality into national lists. For instance, the Canadians have already been broken out by Trevor MacInnes.

Is your interest in the American aces? If so, I don't know of anyone working on them. You could have your own little bailiwick by default.

Georgejdorner (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, George. As you can see by the date (16 June 2009) I don't make a habit of visiting on a regular basis. I am quite the novice when it comes to writing articles so any help in improving my article would be appreciated. I am a pilot as was my father-- who introduced me to Ray Brooks at a fraternal gathering of pilots in New Jersey in the 1980's. I discovered during this meeting that he is a true American hero. Subsequently, I began collecting any information I ever came across about him. I do not, however, consider myself qualified to be the editor you seek; I thank you for the offer. Regards: Thor21. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.4.106 (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ravens FAC
A great article. Hope you don't mind me tweekin' it just a bit.--Buster7 (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Assessment

 * Robert Ritter von Greim Georgejdorner (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Still Start, but nearly there. Could do with more references as many paragraphs are within any. Also, it might be good to decide what to call him as Ritter von Greim is a bit of a mouthful and it's unusual to refer to someone by their title. Greim before his knighthood, and von Greim after?  Roger Davies  talk 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Improvement of bio articles on flying aces
Ping!  Roger Davies  talk 06:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Aces
The "fractional lists", World War I aces credited with 5 victories: names beginning with A - F, etc. do not need to be deleted: they can be made into redirects. But it is your job to tidy up after yourself and create those redirects. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Spacing of inline citations
— AustralianRupert (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page banners
It would be very helpful for assessing editors if you can add the relevant project banners to the talk pages of articles that you've created. As long as you're working on WWI aces you could just copy the nested banners on the Frank Soden talk page, delete all the assessments, save it as a template and paste it in. Oh, and BTW, every paragraph does need a citation for B-class, even if redundant. Sometimes a missing citation might not get noticed. Your paragraphs seem to typically be very short, perhaps combining a few might be useful. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, what Sturmvogel said re. banners and short paras - also see my comment on citations at his talk page. Last thing, don't worry if your last few articles didn't get assessed in time for August's contest, you can put them towards September's instead...  Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding images to articles
Hi George, not sure if anyone has gotten back to you regarding your request for help with adding images. I resized the image for you on Flavio Baracchini per your request on the assessment page, but got caught up with work so I didn't get a chance to respond at the time and then later forgot all about it. Sorry. Anyway, the best way to learn how to insert, resize and caption etc is to practice, but I suggest reading WP:PIC first. It is basically a tutorial on how to insert images (face left, right, resize, caption, frame, etc.). Once you've read that, you can basically just copy the mark up code that they have there and use it in your articles. Hope this helps. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Stub templates
Instead of using stub templates like, you appear to be pasting html into articles that you create. There is a list of the stub templates available here. Hohum (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, you don't need to put something like the following in an article.


 * Just put instead, it also has the effect of putting the article in the relevant stub category. Hohum (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Article assessments
George, I don't know if you noticed this comment/advice from me on Milhist Assessement Requests a while back, but the offer to collaborate still stands.

I hope you'll reconsider things and remain with Wikipedia; your chevron and barnstar awards above are indications of how your value to the project is recognised. What people like Nick, David and I are interested in is helping make useful articles even better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not said I am leaving Wikipedia. I have decided on a sabbatical while I contemplate my future (or lack of it) with Wikipedia.

It's sobering to realize that after a year writing for Wikipedia I am a drag on the project because of my lack of editing skills. Writing is easy; I can just sit down and stitch together an article just as I used to collate intelligence reports. I can crank out articles that those with more information can develop into a Featured or Class A article. That's fine with me. I'm happy filling in the gaps in the bios of the World War I fighter aces. However, I am beginning to dredge the bottom of the information barrel; I can foresee a coming future of producing mostly Stubs on the lower-scoring aces. So my given field seems to be mined out.

And style? I can mimic any style, if need be. I had hoped Wikipedia would be written in a more engaging style than print encyclopedias....still, if you want me to mimic a Wikipedia style, I can do it.

However, Wiki editing, for whatever reason, is tough for me. This is where I fall down. After a year, I am still struggling to learn such basics as inserting graphics and converting bare URLs into something more acceptable. I have shuffled this self-knowledge aside as I have rushed to write articles.

It has become apparent to me that I must learn Wiki editing and cease to burden others with cleaning up after me. My sabbatical is a thinking time for me to discover whether I can, or will learn to, master Wiki editing. If I can't, then my contributions are at an end. It would be time to pass the torch.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed you removed your entries from the contest and began a leave of absence as I did, although my leaving was for a different reason. If your leaving is simply due to a lack of articles to create might I suggest creating and editing articles for Medal of Honor recipients. There are approximately 1300 that still need to be created and most need expanding. --Kumioko (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Formatting stuff
Easiest is to tackle new style things one at a time. Perhaps the most useful is "multi-ref" as it really tidies up references with very little extra work. Multi-refs are the ones that appear as:
 * ^ a b c Harper (1970), p 212

Here's how you make them:

If you're going cite, say, "Harper (1970), p 212", two or three times, you start by creating a special type of ref for it and giving it a unique name, like, "Harper212" or whatever. (I use author name and page number, with no spaces, as it's easy to see what it refers to.) You build up the multi-ref in a three-step process by typing:
 * 1 (comment: this "closes" the ref).

You use the "full" version above the first time you cite the book. To cite the same source elsewhere in the article, you create a shortened version and repeat it as necessary
 * 4 (Comment: this is just adding a "/" before the first ">".)

To create a new multi-ref, say for Harper p234, you repeat the process above, modifying the ref name and the ref material accordingly. Example:

You can make these quite sophisiticated with a bit of practice but even the basic one above will really tidy up the article. I hope this helps,  Roger Davies  talk 12:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: Kumioko's Medal of Honor idea is a very sound one.


 * Sorry if I soubded a bit pissed off the other day - I was a bit tired. Since you're mostly drawing on the same sources, one simple way is simly to copy a formatted ref for eg biogrpahical info from aerodrome.com from one of the articles where Rupert or I have tidied them up previously, and just change the url and title parameters in the template to be right for the new chap (and probably update accessdate too).  Similarly, London Gazette is pretty straightforward, you jsut drop in the issue number and startpage, and the date of the issue - there are full isntruction son the template page, or again just compare one before and after it's been tidied up (and I see now that perhaps I hadn't mentioned before the issues over changing urls).  For other sources - ask around, as I've said I have access to The Times archive, and can email pdf copies of articles to you.  You can search the archive at http://archive.timesonline.co.uk/tol/archive and though you won't be able to see the full contents of the article, the snippets you will see, should give you  areasonable idea if there's anything useful there.  David Underdown (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Stubs
Hi,

Just to let you know that when adding stubs, it is usually better to just add the template as a call rather than include the contents of the template. For example:

-- WOSlinker (talk) 10:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, It was just that in some of the new articles you created about a week ago, you used the following for the stub section.

where as it is better to use the shorter form above. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Project banners
When adding project banners to a talk page as you did here, can you please not use the category parameter? This has an undesirable effect in that it prevents the banner from categorising the page. Also, articles like Antoine Paillard with minimal content should be rated as Stub-Class, not Start-Class. Thank you. PC78 (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding articles of WWI aces, assuming the articles are similar to those you've already created then you should be OK creating the talk pages by pasting the following:


 * If you don't feel comfortable filling in the other parameters (which is perfectly fine), it's probably best to leave that job to others. Regards. PC78 (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really follow your last comment. The article content is not my concern here. What I'm suggesting is that you create talk pages for these articles by pasting the above as opposed to whatever you have been pasting. PC78 (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. :) But you shouldn't copy the   tags, just the text you see in the box above. Regards. PC78 (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I have created a subpage in your user area with these templates on. It's at User:Georgejdorner/templates. In order to use them, please do not just copy them, but instead substitute them. In other words, please type on to the page you want the templates to go on. (Without the pre tags!) If this doesn't make sense, please ask. Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter much which you use. Just copy the text from either of the boxes above, paste it onto a blank talk page, and save. Use whichever you prefer or feel most comfortable with; you'll get the same result either way. PC78 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I was actually groaning about fixing mistakes that I has made, not you. Regarding the above conversation you're having, I'm a fan of the "pre" tags. You could also use them to make it simpler to copy code off your user page. For example if you do this:

Formatting citations
Please don't post the raw URL of a Google Books result; that is inconvenient to the reader and deprives the actual writer of the work "cited" of any genuine credit. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  05:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"It is improper to include a reference from an intermediate source in a Wikipedia page without stating so. For example, on a Web page, you might find some information that is attributed to a book. Unless you examine the book yourself, your reference is then the Web page, not the book. You should, in turn, make it clear in the reference that the Web page cited the book."

This is a direct quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources. As a writer, I cannot say I am happy with this, but it is the situation that prevails. If you can get it changed, I will willingly change. In the meantime, I list every book so cited in the References section of the article.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting reasoning (and thanks for explaining); but I don't think the language you cite applies in the case of a Google Books result. These results give us direct access to an accurate reproduction of the original work, and I always footnote the text of the original work based on that access. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Unless you examine the book yourself, your reference is then the Web page, not the book." That's not my reasoning; that is the reasoning of the administrators. It's pretty clear. If you should manage to get this policy changed, please let me know.

In the meantime, when I Google a webpage of a book, I feel that the above policy applies. BTW, what policy can you quote to back your approach? (Which I might mention, I have used in the past, and prefer to use.) Georgejdorner (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am making a distinction between a random Google and the use of Google Books (or Google Scholar) to find a reference source. I don't feel that the policy you follow applies in the latter case. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If your distinction is based on a Wikipedia policy instead of Mike's opinion, I will be glad to follow it. If the distinction is based only on Mike's opinion, then I face the prospect of following the next administrator's opinion/whim/interpretation when the same questioning reoccurs. And it does. Boy, does it. Unlike about 90% of the articles on Wikipedia, mine are always fully cited; yet, I have dealt with a long line of complaints about my citations. It seems that the more effort I put into it, the more criticism I draw.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've raised this point at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources; please join us there. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphan tags
I see you are interested in "de-orphaning" articles, which is a worthwhile project! You were asking how to identify which articles have tags on them. One suggestion - to find articles that have orphan tags check the "what links here list" for the Template:Orphan, which can be found here. I hope that helps! - Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I am interested in creating a web of articles relating to World War I flying aces. It is rather a largish task (1,000 to 1,200 articles). The need for de-orphaning comes about because I haven't moved from article to article along the natural links between articles (i.e., between squadrons and aces, between aces who were friends and/or served together, between aces who fought one another, etc.). Given the amount of time I can waste comparing my list of 1,000 or 1,200 names against the backlog of tagged articles, I hoped for a more efficient and prompt solution.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - that sounds like an ambitious project! I have been going though something similar with aircraft engines - trying to link them all together by "similar engines" entries, but it gets harder as you go along and the lists get bigger. Would creating a master list article help you? - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Master list already exists: List of World War I flying aces. Because it grew so big, the list had to be sub-divided into nine sublists. Each sublist contains a couple of hundred names, for a total of about 1,850 aces. About 1,000 to 1,200 are notable--i.e., they have been honored with an award. About 800 of these have been covered by an article, although most are stubs. Therein lies the problem: all the articles have a link from a sublist. However, links from their squadrons may or may not exist. Cross-links from other aces may or may not exist. Heck, I didn't even know about the requirement for three or more links until recently.

Anyhow, I have hundreds of orphans in this project. Maybe it's better I don't know the gruesome details.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You might consider adding links to home towns with a notable people entry for the aces. MilborneOne (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you may be right on that count! - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jasta 4
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jasta 4, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://resources.ushmm.org/film/display/main.php?search=simple&amp;dquery=keyword(FOKKER+AIRCRAFT)&amp;cache_file=uia_kzavhI&amp;total_recs=2&amp;page_len=25&amp;page=1&amp;rec=2&amp;file_num=3354. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages
George, it's usual for the author to set up the talk pages. I have saved a lot of wp banners in a word processor file and copy/paste them as required, just annotating the required task-forces, see Talk:Jasta 26. What is frowned upon is authors assessing their own articles.Petebutt (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Vigers
You might want to look at reference footnotes 1, 3, 5 and 6 more carefully if you think the book title was "removed" from the article by my edit. Proper Wikipedia format really only includes having separate "references" and "bibliography" sections if the article is extremely long and the bibliography consists primarily of additional titles that haven't already been explicitly cited in the footnotes — the extra section is simply unnecessary if it lists just one book and four of the six footnotes are already to that very same book. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am familiar with the footnotes in question; I wrote them. I am unfamiliar with any format requirement that I eliminate any form of bibliography. The listing you eliminated contained information that would aid the reader in retrieving the book in question, such as the ISBNs and publisher. The footnotes you spared lack that info.

I am also familiar with the Wikipedia standard that succeeding editors follow the standards of the creating author. Are you? And do you intend to start following them?

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're quite simply wrong if you think Wikipedia has any expectations that articles contain "bibliography" sections. This is not academic writing here — the format that's followed on Wikipedia is to provide all the desired publication information in the footnotes themselves, which are listed under the section heading "References". There's a reason, for example, that cite book has spaces for "isbn=" and "publisher=".
 * And then, once that is done, there's no need to provide a subsequent bibliography section that simply repeats the same books that were already cited in the footnotes. If there's a desire to list additional sources that haven't been cited as specific footnotes, we do that in a section titled "Further reading", but we don't relist items that we've already cited in the footnotes.
 * There's also no requirement that subsequent editors are required to maintain every last bit of formatting that the original creator used, even if it's wrong; there are a few items of style, such as date formatting, where the rule is to maintain the first style that was used after the article ceased to be a stub, if and only if changes from one style to another would be an arbitrary decision between equally valid style preferences that could result in a needless back-and-forth edit war. This situation does not meet that standard, both because the articles in question have not graduated from stub status, and because it's not a matter of arbitrating between two equally valid formats. So there's no rule obliging anyone to submit to your own idiosyncratic preferences just because you started the articles.
 * And finally, if you're so concerned about Wikipedia's policies and procedures around article formatting, then kindly add the appropriate categories to your articles right away when you create them, instead of leaving them to be discovered by the uncategorized articles project six months to a year later. There is an actual Wikipedia policy requiring articles to be categorized. Bearcat (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And you were quite simply wrong to delete the ISBNs and publishers instead of changing the footnotes.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
 * If you have an idea for improving the project, we have a strategy think tank that provides a dedicated forum for discussing it.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Max Immelmann
I have just come across this article and noticed a lot of unusual citation notations. Do you want a quick primer on how to do a "clean" cite and establish a bibliographic notation? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Please take the following comment as constructive criticism not "carping." I have been slowly laying out the parameters of a Referencing 101 primer for you in various edit comments. I come by this knowledge by dint of 30+ years as a reference librarian and for neophytes to attempt to master the vagaries of bibliographic notation, it is almost an impossible task, and that is why templates have been used for decades in cataloging. However, these templates were scrupulously developed and contain none of the multiple errors in the Wikipedia citation templates. I have tried for years to get the developers to make a stab at dealing with the formatting errors. The response was a steadfast refusal to even discuss the issue.

In a few words, the issues are:
 * 1) Cite templates are presently incorrectly formatted and have "bugs" that were never addressed properly by their designers.
 * 2) Cite templates were intended for neophytes and newcomers (certainly not you!) to have a bibliographic and referencing tool that would make references available.
 * 3) Cite templates were written in the simplified American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide that was intended for short-cut editing and does not allow for multiple authors, changes in publication date/location or non-print media.
 * 4) Cite templates were never recommended, nor approved for use in Wikipedia, but were offered as an alternative means of referencing.
 * 5) Once a referencing style is in use and accepted as it was in this article, it is contingent on all other editors to maintain and follow that style guide consistently. It is a difficult thing to "mix" style guides for editing purposes and it is recommenced to establish a style guide, which was done and stick with it, unless there is an overwhelming reason to change to another style.
 * 6) The old canard that cite templates produced meta data that would be somehow in the future, melted into the templating systems to come is long discarded.

Please contact me for more information on the @%$#*# cite templates which I tried fruitlessly years ago to have their developers revise into the more standard publishing format of the Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide, most often used in the referencing of biographies, histories (aircraft profiles such as the Max Immelmann) and social sciences. I established the MLA style guide for the bibliographic notations of the Max Immelmann and Tuskegee Airmen articles so that further submissions would have a consistent style guide to follow. The actual cites themselves are written in Harvard Citation style of "author(s) (last name only) date (most recent publishing date), page accession format."
 * BTW, I can rewrite the cite templates into proper formatting, but it takes so much editing that it isn't worth it, so I find that writing in text is the easiest and most efficient solution: simple, identify all the key elements of the reference notation: author, title, publisher, date. FWiW, despite my earlier consternation with your "snippiness," I really appreciate your efforts to append and revise significant aviation articles and consider myself "in your corner." Bzuk (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I never meant to be snippy to you, just straightforward. I easily accept the fact that I err because I am human, and others also err because they are also. I also try to recognize that people tend to defend an error rather than admit to it, and mean no harm by it. In our personal case, I believe the communications failure came about because I was subconsciously working on the "silence lends consent" principle, and you weren't. At any rate, we aren't opposed to one another. I want a good clear umbrella article here, with links to the individual units that made up the Tuskegee Airmen, and I believe you want the same.

I can understand your frustration with the developers. I have already been the focus of a prior disagreement among editors concerning talk page templates. Myself, I have personally given up on the assessment system. When I pointed out a contradiction between WP standards and their assessment criteria, I was told that if I changed my paragraphing habits, the contradiction would disappear! So far as I am concerned, if they are not following WP standards in assessment, their assessments are irrelevant, and I am not going to waste time and energy worrying about them.

Please give me some time to think about what you have told me about the cites; it's a bit much to absorb.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No harm, no foul. I've got a "water on a duck's back" syndrome in effect. 'til later. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

I have cleared http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Georgejdorner/templates. It was previously a parking place for the talk page templates that other editors sent me, before they started contradicting one another.

If you would be so kind as to copy your example templates there, I will ponder them.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the edit history note on the article. As indicated above, all the Wikipedia cite templates have incipient errors that have to be reconfigured by the user before they will export the form properly. In lieu of any template, I have resorted to the following "scratch cataloging" (writing in text) formats that are still read properly. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibilographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloguing that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloguing is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record from an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: '''Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication'''. (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Further- the style employed for note citation is the Harvard style which one other editor had begun to use and even though it works well with the MLA style, it is a separate system. Basically, the first reference is completely cited as a bibliographic notation in MLA style and all subsequent references are provided in a brief format: "Author(s) Date, page."Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it only a "tweak." Sorry, I got off on a tangent in my earlier response, you merely wanted to know what style was being employed. FWiW, Bzuk (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't
Wait, I didn't remove Thailand as a combatant, it's still there. Always be prepared (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD and PROD notifications
Hi George. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swalling@undefinedwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   19:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A-list/class review
G'day George, I hope that I have interpreted your intent right and that you wish to nominate List of World War I aces credited with 10 victories for a Milhist A-list/class review. I have tweaked the html mark up code so that the review would transclude properly on the Milhist ACR page and have created the separate review page for you. It can be found here: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of World War I aces credited with 10 victories. If this wasn't what you intended, please let me know and I will rectify my mistake. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC) ==Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of World War I aces credited with 9 victories== Hello, George, I have just stumbled across this: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of World War I aces credited with 9 victories, which was created back in mid-July. It doesn't appear to have been transcluded at WP:MHACR, though, so it probably hasn't been seen by anyone to make comment. Did you want me to add to the A-class review page? Given the review of the similar list (10 victories) it might make sense just to withdraw the nomination for the list of aces with 9 victories. It is up to you, though, of course and I'd be more than happy to transclude the review page if you want. If you want to withdraw the nomination, I will simply archive the review page as "withdrawn" (it will then just sit in the background of the list's "article history" archive). Anyway, please let me know what you want to do. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should be withdrawn. If you would do so, it would be appreciated.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

G'day, George. I've done this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Flying Ace
Hi. According to the book "Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units In Comabat, by Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop" Jalil Zandi's shoot-downs are:
 * First: 15 May 81.
 * Second: Jan 1982.
 * Third: 10 Oct 1982.
 * Fourth: 10 Oct 1982.
 * Fifth: Sept 1983.
 * Sixth: Sept 1983
 * Seventh: Apr 1986
 * eighth: Apr 1986
 * ninth: Aug 1987
 * tenth: Feb 1988
 * eleventh: Feb 1988

Diako Zandi 09:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment
Hey - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The Fokker Scourge page
I spent a lot of (off-line) time and effort getting this rewritten - I really do think it is a better article now than the one that a certain person reverted it to. BUT could you have a look at my latest version and his (lord only knows which will be "up" when you look) and let us know what you think. I'm NOT trying to corral support, just to get a few third opinions, as I scent an on-coming edit war over this one.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for having a look, and your kind comments. Hopefully the "other party" will now feel able to express genuine concerns (if he has them) with constructive comments and edits rather than reversion to crap. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=556047730 your edit] to Hans Kummetz may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=556900391 your edit] to Karl Meyer (aviator) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
Hey George! I'm so happy to see you signed up to join the project - welcome. You can dive into our to-do lists here. I think we might have some aviators tossed in there someplace...Be sure to watchlist your favorites, as they will continue to grow as new content gets added to the WDL website. Also, you can always search i.e. "World War I" or "aviator" in the WDL website for something that you're interested in. And be sure to share your outcomes here. If I can help with anything just ask and welcome aboard! SarahStierch (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Zähringer Lion
Hi George - I saw you setting up this category, and wanted to let you know that the "a" in Zahringer should have an umlaut (per House of Zähringen). Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Parsecboy.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, hey, I just found that Category:Order of the Zähringer Lion was created some time ago. Might want to keep that in mind for future use. Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership Newsletter
Hi ! Thanks for participating in the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. Your contributions are important to improving Wikipedia! I wanted to share a few updates with you:
 * We have an easy way to now cite WDL resources. You can learn more about it on our news page, here.
 * Our to-do list is being expanded and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination here.
 * WDL project has new userbox for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement. Soffredo created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page here.
 * Our first batch of WDL barnstars have been awarded! Congratulations to our first recipients: ProtoplasmaKid, ChrisGualtieri, TenthEagle, Rhyswynne, Luwii, Sosthenes12, Djembayz, Parkwells, Carl Francis, Yunshui, MrX, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and the prolific Yster76!! Thank you for your contributions and keep up the great work. Be sure to share your article expansions and successes here.

Keep up the great work, and please contact me if you need anything! Thank you for all you do for free knowledge! EdwardsBot (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=565263279 your edit] to Werner Voss may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Voss was both slightly wounded and forced down on 6 June 1917 by Flt Sub-Lt Christopher Draper of that squadron, but soon returned to duty. On 30 July, Voss moved

Disambiguation link notification for February 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kong Le, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asylum. 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, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kong Le
Georgejdorner, you aren't supposed to add commentary to a DYK nomination template once it has closed, but since you have, I'll answer you here.

You say, I find it interesting that an article about Canadian rocker Ryan Peake can be nominated as a "new" article re above, but a nomination of a Laotian politician like Kong Le cannot. I'm sure you're perfectly aware that it has nothing to do with the subjects of the articles, but their very different Wikipedia histories.

When you nominated Kong Le, the article had been in constant existence since its creation in 2003, and had 4460 prose characters in it before you began your edits. It was a long-established article, and one of significant length. In no way could it honestly be considered new in 2015 at the point you made your first edits.

The Ryan Peake article hadn't truly existed since August 11, 2010. There were a few single-day attempts to bring it back: April 13, 2011; December 7, 2013; May 11, 2014. Either you count it as new, which after all this time it really is, or you can count it as a 5x expansion, which it easily qualifies for, since it was a redirect prior to February 25, 2015, when the article was started again.

If you truly don't understand the difference, or think I'm off base, you can always go to WT:DYK and make your case for Kong Le or against Ryan Peake. You've done good work on Kong Le, but as a 3x expansion it simply isn't eligible. You can always go the GA route; that is still open to you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phoumi Nosavan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In absentia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Patriotic Neutralists
Hello! Your submission of Patriotic Neutralists at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Simon Burchell (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thao Ma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salavan. 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) 09:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
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.


 * 1966 Laotian coup
 * added a link pointing to Factionalism


 * 1973 Laotian coup
 * added a link pointing to Factionalism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)