User talk:Georgejdorner
My present focus is completing the task of creating bio pages for all notable World War I flying aces. (Yes, there were lots of aces besides the Red Baron).
[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)
[edit] Magic
From long experience of my own foul-ups, I just read through it carefully! Nine times out of ten it's something the editor/author has written that is the cause. Have a nice dal y'all.Petebutt (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Pusher aces
You added some info from pusher aces to the R.E.8 article - I am quite sure (although I don't have a copy of the source concerned) that this information in fact relates to the F.E.8 and I have reverted your changes. It might be an idea to check - but the info DOES fit the F.E.8 very well, and doesn't fit the R.E.8 at all!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
(Copied from SOM's talk page) Thank you for catching my error concerning the FE.8 and the RE.8. I intend to go back to the original bio article, correct it, and then add the FE.8 info to the correct article (if it is needed).
Georgejdorner (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea about checking the F.E.8 article - make sure that any additional information is, as you say, "necessary" - i.e. new, apposite, and "likely" (compatible with what you know about aviation in general). The current F.E.8 article is largely based on Bruce - it is pretty accurate so far as it goes. Look for genuinely new angles in the "Pushers" book rather than what is already well covered. I have found that some quite good aviation books about people (as it might be aces) can be sketchy or even inaccurate about aircraft, and vice versa of course. Biographies can eulogise, and credit their subjects with things that were either well established before the case, or first discovered long after it! Look at all the pictures first, and check the captions - wildly incorrect captions (misidentifying aircraft, people and places for instance) are a dead giveaway for badly researched aircraft books that are simply NOT good sources at all. BTW I have acquired a copy of Hare's The Royal Aircraft Factory (this was published by Putnam which makes it an excellent source) and plan to revise the R.A.E. article's section on the "Factory" as well as the particular factory types in light of this. I prefer to own a book for a few months and read it cover to cover so I can assess its usefulness before I hop straight into the editing of articles in its light - nothing worse than good information out of context. So far Hare is looking really good - the insight into why the factory types were subject to such virulent criticism for instance - although it is just a little bit the other way. It also sorts out the wild and wonderful type numbers "system" for factory types, and just what was supposed to be a rebuild of what in a way I haven't seen done elsewhere! Happy editing, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- BTW "he who never made a mistake never made anything" !!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
(Also posted on SOM's Talk page)
Now that I have re-covered and amended those articles–Powell and the FE.8–you can see what I contributed.
Your comments were well chosen and are well regarded. I might mention that I doubt I will have much to contribute toward the "hardware" articles such as the FE.8 and such; probably more piping than anything. My prime interest is in the notable aces' biographies. I guess I am just a victim of my experiences. I am writing Biographical Order of Battle, just as I used to once upon a checkered past.
In the present case of the RE.8/FE.8, I happened to have a photo of the aeroplane in the source text, another photo on screen of same bird. I could see the dihedral in the photos, estimate wing width, etcetera. So I dubbed in that tech info because I could pretty much literally see its validity. Its just that, being in my sixth or seventh hour at the keyboard, I fell into the white line fever of the information highway, and the fine distinction between R and F blurred...and "tractor" and "pusher" bleared....
Anyhow, I lived through it.
Georgejdorner (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding patronising (NOT my intent!) being able to frankly admit a mistake is an extremely important (and, alas, rather rare) quality, that can only make people think the better of you in the long run. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Selden Long
George, Inoticed you have problems with articles proposed for deletion before you have completed them. I get round this by copying the template to a word processor and writing the article away from wikipedia, then copying the complete article into the new empty page. Just a suggestion, that would certainly stop you having premature deletion proposals. on another note, you mentioned in a message to me that you had problems with ISBN info being deleted from references. This sounds like vandalism as ISBNs are part and p[arcel of book and magazine details. Can you give me a couple of examples and I'll see if there is any magic to be had, or at least find out why they were removed.188.65.183.51 (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Apologies
Hi george, i have just read the section of your converstaion with Bearcat and now understand the ISBN situation and why you were understandably prickly at my innocent remark. No hard feelings keep up the good work. if you don't want to bother with the talk pages for your articles you could drop a link for the article onto my talk page and i'll do it for you and give initial assessments too if you like.Petebutt (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Awaiting ordure
(Copied from Ian Rose's talk page)
I just made some corrections to Manfred von Richthofen. Marvel of marvels, I even cited them. Now, let's see what type of ordure hits the automatic circular air-circulatory device (lol).
Georgejdorner (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Heh, I'll keep an eye on it... By the way, now I'm back from overseas, I will eventually return to the Albert Ball article -- still keen to see that at GA/A/FA, just taking a while to get back into the swing of things research-and-writing-wise... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I am tee-totally amazed. I got away with it. I had somebody shoot down their beloved Red Baron, and NO ONE noticed. If fact, I based a DYK on it, and got pretty much a yawn...fewer than 3K hits.
Well, if I can get away with that, maybe I dast sneak into the lion's den again...as in Tuskegee Airmen. I am gathering up reference materials right now. Would you care to Waltz Matilda with me on that one? With your editing and my writing, we might get a relatively easy FA out of it. Of course, we also stand a fair chance to catch some ethnic grief about it, cobber.
And, as a random FYI, the number of notable WWI fighter aces without bios is down to just over 200 of the approximate 1,850 eligibles. And I am closing in on them, too. Perseverance furthers.
Georgejdorner (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Hidden text
Hi, I'm intrigued as to why you added this hidden text <!-- This article is a part of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military]]. --> to a number of articles. NtheP (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
[edit] MVR
Hi George. Okay. I've reversed the revert. But I still insist that this requires referencing where ever it is written. Otherwise it just looks like someone has added a personal opinion, or someonelses view that they read in a magazine or a blog or something. Dapi89 (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- George, you go overboard! I'm not sure about the lack of ego either! If you say you have a source, then its all fine with me. You wouldn't know it from my edits, but I am a FWW fan (I mean of the subject of course). I have my eye on one or two of the British Empire ace articles. I may start editing them soon. I am generally interested in pilots and aces (British and German), units and aircraft themselves. If you are ever stuck for sources on either of things, or higher policy, anything like this, then note down my User name and give me a nudge. I have all sorts of weird and wonderful things - I spend too much time at Kew. Thanks again, good editing. Dapi89 (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I am doing a minimal job as a WP editor. Nine years in military intelligence for some fairly influential folks honed my chops as an information forager, and has accustomed me to attaching sources to my information. And I am a professional writer, so I am fluent. Over the last 26 months, I have created almost 1,000 new articles. More importantly, I have expanded and re-expanded hundreds of articles in the niche of WWI aviation. I am the prime producer of text in the niche.
HOWEVER, I have minimal wiki-editing skills. Wiki-editing comes hard for me. I am picking it up slowly, but to date have been so poorly skilled to have always been a cowriter on FA articles because of it.
Georgejdorner (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
[edit] References for articles about French fighters
Hi George. Thank you for your message on my talk page. I think I grasp the general idea but I am not sure to understand where specifically you need my help. I only made one edit that seemed obvious and legitimate (you can adapt this edit the way you like most). Was there something else you needed to see translated?
Perhaps are you referring to the military files found at http://www.memoiredeshommes.sga.defense.gouv.fr/ ? Those are very valuable information but I'm afraid I have no time to translate them (and I'm lacking the proficiency too: some of the abbreviations are kind of cryptic to me, and the handwriting is sometimes hard to decipher). What I can say is that you can consider them as a premium information source. I based myself on them to fix the birth dates and/or the names. You can search the database of WW1 aeronautical forces here but be patient as the search engine is quite terrible. — Xavier, 23:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
|
[edit] FM 100-20
George--I replied to your question on my talk page. I tend to be a little testy sometimes; hope I was both civil and courteous.--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
|
[edit] DYK nomination of LaVonne Salleé
Hello! Your submission of LaVonne Salleé at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Drmies (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Dallas' latest victory
Hi George, that chat at the Red Baron's talk page made me re-read Stan's article and I notice you've changed the u/c 20 Feb 1916 claim to confirmed using Above the Lines. Thing is, Newton says unconfirmed, and I thought Hellwig did too. For me, if it's two sources saying u/c to one saying confirmed, I'd stick with u/c in the table, but maybe add a footnote mentioning the Above the Lines assertion (I can do that) -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Manfred Von?=
See here. Bzuk (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Happy, happy
[edit] Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Fox260 (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
[edit] Caterpillar Club
You've put some nice information in this article, but it isn't at all about the Caterpillar Club. IMHO it probably belongs in the Parachute article. Please consider moving it there, or to a related article. --Lou Sander (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- From your response about what you 'should have done', can I take it that you will be reverting your edits? --Lou Sander (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
-
- It might be a good idea for you to post your concerns on the talk page of the article, where others can more readily see and evaluate them. --Lou Sander (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Do not get discouraged by the opinions of others. It is important that there is an article in Wikipedia about the Caterpillar Club, but that article should meet Wikipedia standards. What they are I do not know (and I doubt if anybody knows nowadays) but this does mean that it needs to be a well written and well resourced article. Feel free to contact me [1], if you need any help, I will see what I can do. In the mean time I have stated my opinion on the relevant talk page. 83.160.198.125 17:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
-
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010
|
|||
[edit] Frank Godfrey
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Frank Godfrey, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.frankgodfrey.com.
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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications 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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit] DYK for Clive Franklyn Collett
 |
On 28 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clive Franklyn Collett, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in January 1917, New Zealander Clive Franklyn Collett was the first British or Commonwealth military pilot to parachute from an airplane? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thank you for your contribution to the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit] UK/US English
Thanks for the tip - I mistakenly made the change on the MOS:TIES guidelines. Noted for future. Cheers. Denisarona (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit] DYK
It looks like something very strange happened to your latest edit at Template talk:DYK (that is, the computer may have eaten your edit). You may need to redo it. --Orlady (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit] DYK nomination of William Stanley Jenkins
Hello! Your submission of William Stanley Jenkins at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Yoninah (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I do not accept your withdrawal of the article—it's too good to pass up! I formatted the references for you. However, one reference, "aerodrome", is a malicious link. Do you have another link that verifies the information? Also, please add some categories to the article so it's complete for DYK. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- When I clicked on the link, a page came up saying that it was a malicious link and I was denied access. Perhaps I have a better firewall on my computer than yours? Anyway, if you can get into the link, please write the citation as follows: <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |date= |accessdate= |publisher= }}</ref>. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] DYK for William Stanley Jenkins
|
On 13 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Stanley Jenkins, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that flying ace William Stanley Jenkins scored his first two confirmed aerial victories while still posted to hospital? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] RAAF FAC merge proposal
Hi George, I've replied at Talk:No. 4 Squadron RAAF. cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
|
[edit] Photos/images of World War I aces
Hello,
The photos/images of World War I flying aces that you uploaded are most welcome. My interest in World War I aviators has led me to create a few hundred bio articles on aces, all of them lacking illustration. Additionally, most of the other WWI ace bios written by others also lack illustration. If you are enthused about illuminating some articles, you have literally a thousand opportunities here. If you limit yourself to Irish, Aussie, and British aces, you still have hundreds. In either case, your talents are extremely welcome in this niche. The key to the niche may be found at List of World War I flying aces.
At any rate, thanks for new imagery. It adds a new sparkle to the articles so adorned.
Georgejdorner (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- I only uploaded one image myself, all the rest I've just cataloged and sorted by surname so people can find them. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Arthur Rowe Spurling
Hallo. In reference to your query abour references for the Arthur Spurling article, I'll fill more in when I get a moment to look them up...if you check my contributions, you'll see I've been busy with other articles (I put quite a few up already on other areas of Bermudian history, especially military), and cleaning this one up. Thanks for your comments. Aodhdubh (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
|
[edit] Proposed deletion of List of World War I aces from Greece
The article List of World War I aces from Greece has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Moraitinis was the only Greek air ace in WWI. The list is redundant.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Constantine ✍ 11:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jan-Mar 2011
 |
Military history reviewers' award | |
| By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your help with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Mar 2011, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space |
[edit] Autoconformation RfC
A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] József Kiss
Hello!
In this list you wrote, József Kiss is the highest Slovakian ace. Sorry, but he was hungarian, the highest hungarian ace! Please correct the mistake, thanks! (Please answer in my hungarian Discussion. We say: Vitalap) -Frommer 97 (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello!
But I have a problem. There's a lots of reference about Kiss, in hungarian language. But I can't find any references in english. I'll try to find some references about him. I know Bratislavia was a hungarian city (Pozsony) until the Trianon peace treaty. I think Kiss must role in the list of austro-hungarian aces, and hungarian aces list, but in slovakian aces list... On that list there's a lots of other hungarian ace. I'll try to some references. Ok. -Frommer 97 (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Frommer,
I think you will find WP:NONENG helpful. As I read this section, you do not have to find an English-language source to quote if one is not available, although you must take all other precautions for accuracy.
I appreciate your help on this matter. Most especially, I appreciate your calmness about what can be a contentious matter; I realize there can be a lot of pride and emotion wrapped up in one's ethnic identity.
Georgejdorner (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories
This article arose from certain editors taking exception to the section in the "Air Aces" article about "Accuracy". They started bleating about "specific examples" - and ended up creating this article for containing some. The overall point, after the blatant seig heil POV of the original article had been (sort of) fixed, is that the generalisations in the "Air Aces" article are actually pretty spot on!
I am not entirely convinced that the article could not actually be made reasonably useful - but it would need a very drastic rewrite. The original purpose of the article (to "address" non-existent bias in the air aces article) was simply never valid, IMHO.
I don't however think that the concentration of "instances" in the 1939-1945 period is necessarily a bad thing - as I pointed out, instances from any other period are likely to be pretty meaningless.
If we are going to delete this one - there may nonetheless be a few snippets worth transferring to other articles - especially "Air aces" - but also (perhaps) articles on particular WWII campaigns? B.O.B. springs to mind - if the info about the degree of overclaiming by both sides is not already there? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
As I remarked on the article's talk page, it properly should be named Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II.
And while lacking the reading background to be able to cite any stats on my behalf, I did spend 18 months debriefing combat pilots once upon a long-gone time. Simply put, I believe because of my experience of the human factors involved, there is no such thing as an accurately reported tactical air campaign. And while I agree with your observations about the inaccuracy of WWI history, I have no reason to believe that The Big Deuce was recorded any more accurately than any other air war before or since. Georgejdorner (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- The point (from a Wikipedia point of view) is that "respected" researchers have looked into what WWII statistics exist, and there is a consensus about what these tend to show. We may well feel that the original documentation the research was based on is in some cases just as sus as that for other periods (in fact I fear that may be the case). I FEEL (emphasis because of course I don't, and we can't REALLY know) that WWII documentation may well be a little more accurate than earlier (and maybe later) conflicts - for various reasons - this seems to be the consensus among historians who have examined them.
-
- Having said this - I'd like us to moot a suggestion that would go like this:
-
-
- Delete this article altogether as over-speculative and unuseful - really, non-notable!!
- Rewrite the "Accuracy" section of the "Air Aces" article - so that it sets out more clearly just how futile pontificating about such questions as which airforce(s) have been guilty of most overclaiming, or if one ace's figures can be taken as more accurate than another's. These may well have inate fascination for some people, but are not the sort of thing that deserves encyclopedic authority.
-
-
- Sadly, this is a subject where many responses are shrill and hysterical, abysmally ignorant and childishly partisan to the point of nausea, and in which it would be possible to "cite" (respectably!) all too many incompatible statements. Is it any wonder that several well known books about the aces staunchly refuse to be drawn into this question at all? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes, I realize that Wikipedians believe that reliability of the researcher guarantees reliability of the said researcher's product. As I come from a military intelligence background, I believe just the opposite; the accuracy of the info proves the reliability of the source. Their viewpoint is somewhat undercut by such cases of plagarism among the respected as Stephen Ambrose. On the other hand, my point of view is flatly ignored and occasionally derided. Ah, well.
I agree with you about the juvenile chauvinistic fascination with individual ace scores and the purported superiority of some nations' fighter aviation. To me, the most important new fact I have discovered about WWI aviation is the Italian air superiority campaign at the end of the war that was instrumental to the defeat and disappearance of Austria-Hungary; yet, I think I have pretty much told you all that is known about it right now.
I also agree with you about deletion, which is rare for me; I would rather save almost any article, and have never sponsored a successful deletion.
I also agree that attention paid to the Flying aces article could take up the slack. Certainly, as you observed, the "Accuracy" section needs a revamp. However, I believe the World War sections could also use some help. I would suggest linking off to articles that give the victory verification standards for each air force in each War. I already have World War I covered in the text atop List of World War I flying aces; I would transplant that into a new article. Also, spin off "Ace in a day" section of Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories into a linked novelty article.
If we improve the Flying aces article sufficiently, then spin off useful facts out of Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories into allied articles, then we scotch most of the possible arguments for retention of the article.
Georgejdorner (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
|
[edit] Usage
(The original message, copied from s.o.m.'s talk page) Hey, soundofmusicals,
I thought I should correct a misapprehension of yours, in hopes of our working together more smoothly.
I am American, and I create articles in American usage. When the subject matter is Brit-centric, I am amenable to the usage being changed to British thoughout the entire article, per WP:TIES. When the subject matter is either non-British or only part-British, I expect my usage to be respected.
I mention this because of a recent rash of bogus tags being placed on articles I have created, either falsely claiming I write British usage and/or calling for conversion of my new articles on non-British subjects. As a result, I have started tagging my articles with a notice of American usage.
Georgejdorner (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Personally I wish they'd go for one or the other and standardise! As a "non-Brit/non-U.S." English speaker I recognise that many more countries use so-called "British spelling" but that the population of the U.S. (many of whom CAN speak English) outnumbers all other English speaking countries combined, so it is likely there are more people at home with U.S. spelling than otherwise (assuming American can spell anyway?). Perhaps we should just say "Wikipedia originated in America so we use American spelling/usage"? At least we'd know where we were.
Given the current (rather silly) situation of using both (and very often in the same article) - which at least irritates everyone equally, I suppose we just have to do the best we can. I wouldn't let it get me down, if I were you. P.S. I have never tagged an article of yours, to my recollection (which is less than brilliant nowadays). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Yup, some of us Amurikins kin even wrassle this here language inta articles and sech.
However, old chap, you are incorrect in your assumption that we ruddy Yanks are the largest English speaking population. The Indian subcontinent actually harbors an English speaking population several times greater than ours. And their usage, though based on a British origin, is now being recognized as a separate usage.
My policy has become, tag articles I have created in one of two ways:
1) Article with a strong national attachment, such as a bio of a British ace, gets tagged (in BOLD) "This article created in American usage. Conversion per WP:TIES should be in toto."
2) Other articles are slugged with the first half of the above tag.
I have started this ever since the Britophiles have begun claiming my newly created articles for their own usage and/or tinkering with them to produce that mixed usage we abhor. Dunno how much good it'll do, but a guy's gotta do what a guy's gotta do.
Georgejdorner (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] DYK for Clement W. Payton
|
On 2 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clement W. Payton, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Clement W. Payton won a British Distinguished Flying Cross and a Belgian Croix de guerre? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks from me and the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The bozo in the aces article!
I have had my ("little") say on this in the aricle's talk page.
It might be an idea to wait for the "Bozo" to go back to whatever he was doing first? Otherwise he really needs to be confronted. The ideal way to have done this would be with facts, but since (typically) he makes up his own as he goes and at best has no idea of the difference between a good source and "howler" filled trash, full of ignorant "errors" - facts do not have the effect they should. When cornered, he just comes back with "I didn't say that" (he did of course) and just shifts his argument a little. "Feeding the troll" by conceding more than is his just due is unproductive, although of course we do need to be strictly fair when he DOES have a point. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
|
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
|
[edit] Incomplete references in new article
G'day from Oz; I was just having a look at the article about Ferdinand Udvardy and noticed that the references are not complete, in that you have given authors and page numbers but not the actual titles of the books used as sources. Could you swing by the article at your convenience and add them? See ya. YSSYguy (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Arthur Randall
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Arthur Randall, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/scotland/randall1.php.
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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications 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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Luftstreitkräfte usage
(Consolidated convo: with copied material from Soundofmusicals talk page)
Hi,
Saw your latest edit revert and got curious. I began wondering how the subject of the Luftstreitkräfte squares up with WP:ENGVAR and WP:TIES. As the subject of middle European aviation doesn't seem to be tied to any particular English language usage, shouldn't usage in the article mirror that of the article's creator?
Georgejdorner (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Honestly - I sometimes wish we'd agree on one spelling or the other for the whole thing! I must admit I really hadn't thought this through properly - my own rough idea was that British, Commonwealth and European subjects were in British English (unless there was a very good reason for them to be otherwise - like an American connection) while Western Hemisphere and Eastern Asian subjects were in American - again, unless there is an obvious strong "non-American but English speaking" connection. This is based on the fact that British English is, by and large, the European standard - while American forms are more general in other American countries (except Canada) and in Asia.
What really gets me is the brigade that seem to have nothing better to do that rummage through articles changing words to their American spellings, in apparent ignorance of the fact that there IS such a thing as "British" English. If this is allowed to run unchecked we get a rash of articles that are neither one thing or the other.
Oh for simpler rules! Or just having the encyclopedia all in American even...
--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems there are two of those "better our way" brigades wasting their time and our patience. The "Brits are best brigade" has been trying to "claim" some of my newly created articles as being British usage. Those bogus tags (which they seem to have since changed) drove me to familiarize myself with WP:ENGVAR and WP:TIES. I came to the conclusion that my newly created articles about British and most Commonwealth aces could and should be changed to British usage AS A WHOLE. No nitpickers need apply; if you want to change a word, then change it all dammit.
American aces should be covered in American usage of course. I figured the same was true about Canadians, because the Canadians with whom I attended college seemed to write American usage.
It seems to me that French and other European ace bios should remain consistent with the original creator's usage. My original message to you was a hint that the original creator of Luftstreitkräfte is an American, therefore American usage should pertain.
As we seem to be the last two major contributors working this section, a concordance between us would seem in order. If British usage is indeed customary on the European continent, then I should prepare myself for someone possibly changing my usage while writing about a continental ace. May I hasten to add, I have no objections if that is the case, provided the conversion is in toto.
Georgejdorner (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps we need to put this discussion onto one of our pages (or even both?)
-
- I always assumed that Canadians preferred American spelling but I have recently been taken to task most severely by Canadian editors that this is not the case, so I don't know what to think about that one!!
-
- While the WP:TIES rule does not really cover this one I think my rule of thumb about using the variety of English most likely to be acceptable in the country concerned (British English IS generally regarded as "European English" - even by the French, who still blame the Brits for burning Joan of Arc). Much of the rest of the world outside the old British Commonwealth seems to prefer American spelling, or at least be more familiar with it. Some acknowledgement of this perhaps belongs in the MOS?? If nothing else - it doesn't seem to contradict the current guidelines, and (I think) is reasonably sensible, at least as far as this article is concerned.
-
- Another argument. The American military contribution to WWI (i.e. soldiers and military aircraft actually going into action) was effectively confined to the last few months - after the German offensive of Spring 1918 had been beaten, and the result of the war was no longer in doubt. Compared with the much longer, and far more problematic, commitment of the British Commonwealth forces this comes close to a justification for WWI articles in general (except of course those related specifically to American people, units or events) to stick to British spelling. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Selling the latter argument to the "all-American brigade" will be tough. We Yanks are taught that the war had staggered to a gruesome stalemate by 1917, and our entry into the war tipped the balance toward victory. This point of view is especially rabid among veterans of the United States Marine Corps, whose Sixth Regiment still boasts of its WWI feats.
I won't speak to the ground war due to my shortage of knowledge, but I am not particularly impressed with my fellow countrymen's aerial contribution to WWI. I cannot recall creating articles about any of the American aces for just that reason; besides, those articles absorb some of the energies of the "all-Americans".
On the other hand, the "Brits are best brigade" seem amazed that a mere Yank like myself can be literate. I niggled with one of them over converting an article's usage, and it turned out that adding a 'u' in the word 'honor' (er, honour, if you will) did the trick.
On the practical end, adoption of your standard means there are literally hundreds of articles I created that would have to be converted, as can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Georgejdorner/User_page:_The_brag_wall.
And lighten up; we Americans don't torture the language that badly. After all, we have won the Nobel Prize for Literature oftener than any nationality except the French, as can be seen at List of Nobel laureates in Literature, so some of us must be literate.
Georgejdorner (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
-
- You're right in a way - the point I was making is that WWI is very much more a Brit thing than a Yank one. The United States did indeed declare war in 1917 at the hight of the stalemate of the trenches - but at that stage they were totally unprepared to get actively involved, and when American troops did start to arrive in Europe Pershing was very keen to build up a totally American army rather than adding American batallions to French or British divisions. The result was (as I said) that American involvement in actual combat came very late - the battles that the marines are so proud of were all in mid/late 1918, a year or more after the U.S. declaration of war. The stalemate of the trenches had long ended and warfare had become much more "open". With or without the Americans - the Germans lost the war when their last great offensive stalled in May 1918. Having said all that I wouldn't get all silly and nationalistic about it - all I am suggesting is that where there is any doubt about which spelling to use for a WWI article (other than an obvious American one) history might be a consideration. I certainly wouldn't worry about it to the extent of flapping about looking for "inappropriately spelled" articles and changing them.
-
- And I hope you don't take me too seriously when I refer to "proper English" and "American". There are (when you boil it all down) not that many differences anyway - and while some American spellings are indeed barbarisms, others are in fact OLDER spellings than the "proper" standard (the -or/-our and -ize/-ise ones being cases of this). As I've said before - I don't really know why they just can't pick one or the other (I don't even care VERY much which, although my personal preference is obvious) and stick to it. The Britannica has been in Yank spelling for many years now and that hasn't stopped it being a standard reference both sides of the Atlantic. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I take your comments about "proper usage" and "American usage" about as seriously as we should take the "Yanks tipped the balance of the war" attitude of the All-Amurikin brigade. When I outlined that attitude, I may not have made it clear that I don't subscribe to it. Indeed, your explanation seems more fitting to the facts.
I will carry the torch for "proper usage", though. I have just had a big to-do with other contributors about sloppily using the term "kill" to describe an aerial victory in which no one perishes. I deem that usage sloppily inaccurate, misleading, slangy, and unencyclopedic. Their reply is, It's accepted aviation slang, and the non-aviation reader will figure it out somehow through context.
Georgejdorner (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
-
- Indeed, I think I was "upon the other side" in that one. Jargon it may be perhaps, but not really "slang" - certainly standard usage in aviation circles for many years. I do agree, however, that it's "ugly", as well as potentially misleading, especially for those people who are NOT aviation buffs (I know a few of them). All in all, "victory" wins hands down. I must stress however that I DO take issue with your use of "wins" or even "triumphs" in this context. TOTALLY not idiomatic, in spite of what a thesaurus might imply. Much better just to repeat the word "victory", if we really need to avoid "kill", or better if possible, rephrase the text concerned. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Aerial victory standards of World War I
As you must have noticed by now I have rewritten quite a lot of this one - this is very much "your" article in a way, at least you started it - so I would appreciate some reaction about my changes. Or should I take silence to mean unqualified approval? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Aces at the Wicnic
Just an reminder :-) I answered you question on my talk page. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Richard Jeffries Dawes
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Richard Jeffries Dawes, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/canada/dawes.php.
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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications 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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Vallejo
I finished uploads of photos I made in Vallejo. May be you'll be interested in adding some of the to relevant articles. See commons:Category:Vallejo, California (streets and buildings). Of course, there is much more of things not presented on Commons, especially on Mare Island. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Wow, those are close to home. I live only two blocks uphill from Georgia Street, and I recognize just about every building you photographed. You should have warned me you were coming; I might have been able to help direct you to photo opportunities. Besides, it would have been good to see you again.
You know, I have never thought of contributing to the article(s) on Vallejo.
Georgejdorner (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think Vallejo worth to come there for photo-hunt again, so may be in future :-) --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Albert Ball
G'day George, how's it going? Watched a doco on Oz TV the other night (Hunting the Red Baron or some such) involving two modern-day RAF pilots trying to re-experience some of the trials of biplane aviators in WWI. Quite a bit of time was spent on our old friend Ball, and it inspired me to return to getting the article into a GA/A-Class state no matter what! As it happens I've been able to access another source or two that should help us over the last humps referencing-wise, then it'll hopefully be all systems go... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi George, I notice you're updating the article with the victory list -- did you see my comments on the draft page? I think we can make it just one list like Dallas, not split, and did it all effectively come from Above the Trenches? Remember it's nominated for GA (and someone has agreed to review it) so we should get it clear quicksmart in case the reviewer's going over it now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi mate, see my comments here. I'm happy to make the alterations I've suggested if you're okay with them -- just let me know to do so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Okay George, thanks for all that. I tweaked a little bit and cited, reckon now we should be able to leave it alone unless one of us spots an absoloute howler in it, so the GA reviewer can do his thing... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi again mate, GA review is here. I'm happy to deal with all the points raised, except one I don't know. There's a disambiguation prob with Vaux, location of one or two of Ball's kills. There are a number of "Vaux-something" places in the Pas-de-Calais/Somme area but none simply called "Vaux" -- do you have any idea which exact one it is? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Another point which, though it hasn't been brought up in the GA review, I suspect will in ACR or FAC -- I don't think we actually have a citation for this from the lead: "At the time of his death, he was the leading Allied ace with forty-four victories, and second only to the "Red Baron", Manfred von Richthofen, among all First World War aces." I'm not so fussed about the leading Allied ace part as I do cite in the main body where he became the RFC's top scorer, however nowhere do we cite him being second only to the Red Baron overall. I've gone though the Osprey books but can't see any such connection made there -- does Above the Trenches mention it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Okay George, thanks for all that. I tweaked a little bit and cited, reckon now we should be able to leave it alone unless one of us spots an absoloute howler in it, so the GA reviewer can do his thing... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi mate, see my comments here. I'm happy to make the alterations I've suggested if you're okay with them -- just let me know to do so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, mate,
Georges Guynemer scored his 45th victory on 5 June 1917, two days before Ball's death; therefore, Ball was NOT the leading Allied ace at the time of his death. However, he was definitely the leading British/Commonwealth ace by a considerable margin. It seems you should reword and/or delete this passage. If you decide to retain it, Ball was #3 in the great World War I ace race at the time of his death. Sources: Above the Lines, Above the Trenches, and my favorite quick and dirty reference, the Aerodrome.
The question of Vaux is problematic. On 22 August 1917, Ball was credited with his 9th, 10th, and 11th victories. His 9th is at Bapaume at about 1900 hours. There was a half hour lapse before his 10th, which means he could not have flown more than about 50 miles from Bapaume in that half hour; which locates his 10th win within that flight radius. There is no "Vaux" within that radius. I searched for "Vaux-something" within that flight radius, and found Vaux-Andigny and Vaux-en-Amiénois. I then ceased that search (cripes, that was just the 'A's in that list), and made a last stab by locating Maurepas because his 11th victory was recorded as being between "Vaux" and Maurepas at about 1945 hours. However, Maurepas and Bapaume are close enough together that was no tie-breaker. Conclusion: no possible disambiguation based on this evidence. Sources: Crosschecking locations by following WP links, plus my own reasoning powers. (I might be crazy, but I am not stupid, as the old punch line goes.)
Given the fact you know how to deal with this ongoing assessment process, I will leave you to make changes. I'm afraid I may screw the pooch if I do.
Cheers, cobber. All the best from Vallejo, California.
Georgejdorner (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Tks for that George, I had a look at those same nearby Vaux-somethings and came to same {in}conclusion you did, so simply delinked it in the article. Also altered the lead per your info above -- good we caught that before ACR (which is the next stop, now we have a successful GA)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] New Page Patrol survey
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Georgejdorner! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Snoopy v Red Baron
It appears both of us have a strident tone & strong views, & not only on this page. I'm happy to see it settled on Talk, but I've seen no sign so far of bending, or even discussion, despite requests from others before me. I'm left with the impression "reliable sources" are supposed to be the be-all & end-all, with which I disagree, & my last was intended (probably less well-phrased than ideally) to invite defense of the opposing position for discussion. If you want to referee it... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Arthur Gould Lee and his writings!
Copied from ny talk page - where it is entered under your remarks on the above
- I don't agree. What is there to "appraise"?
- The quotation is literal - if you can get a copy of No parachute you can read it. (Topping read anyway, old bean!) The letter was actually sent near the end of Lee's "tour" on fighters in France - I have no idea what his wartime career was after that - for all I know, after a period on non-combat duties he went back to France, possibly as a squadron commander (something like this was the general rule for someone in his position) and quite conceivably shooting down one or two more E.A. "solo" to bring his "five" to seven. All we know for sure is that he remaned in the service after the war, eventually becoming (in RFC terms) a General Officer. The general tone of the letters to his wife is gentle and modest - and I'm quite sure he wasn't "blowing" when he gave his score as eleven (counting "shares"), and five ("solo"). There may well even have been a couple of "solo" victories in his log book that he forgot about when he wrote. He does mention in another place a two seater that "all of us had a squirt at" that was credited by "the Major" to the pilot who "got in the closest shot" - so maybe a couple of the seven victories he personally counted as "shares" had been marked down in the squadron record as "mainly" his. I fear that any attempt to reconcile what Lee wrote himself "on the spot" in early 1918 - and what this or that air historian may have concluded was Lee's final score is likely to be pretty futile - "empty" speculation, without much better documentation than we have. Incidentally - my older lists of RFC aces do not mention Lee at all!
- I know you find this quote disturbing, because it does contradict the "new authodoxy" about British victory claims that has been pushed lately. My own conclusion, for what it is worth, is that certain recent writers are pushing things a little, that the British "system" was quite a slack one that is (especially at this period of time) difficult to make (accurate) generalisations about, and that things were in practice much more chaotic. The example of Bishop is there to make us aware that once a pilot was an established ace his claims might be viewed in a different light to identical claims by a beginner (I suspect that this is true in all air forces and all wars!) - but there were other instances of much more modest people who may well have understated the likelihood of this or that "victory" actually crashing. The general culture in the RFC (and the RNAS) was more in the latter direction than the former - quite a lot of people who knew him seem to have looked down on Bishop a bit (I am being kind here), whereas everyone idolised people like Ball and McCudden.
- The Lee quote is a very clear indication that at least in his squadron "shares" were NOT counted in the same category as "solo" victories in the RFC (or, at the very least, in no. 46). In that context it is pretty irrefutable. It is also quite irrefuable evidence, regardless of how many E.A. Lee actually shot down, that there was no clear idea in the RFC that five victories made you an "ace". Lee himself probably couldn't have named a figure as such, but felt his own five victories was "far from" giving him the status of an ace.
- I have rabitted on a bit here - last paragraph is the only one that matters - the rest is my POV (far from neutral, of course, but I hope basiclly at least as well informed as most!!) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] DYK for Jean Alfred Fraissinet
|
On 13 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean Alfred Fraissinet, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Jean Alfred Fraissinet, who was credited with eight aerial victories during World War I, was elected to the National Assembly of France in 1958? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jean Alfred Fraissinet.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] re Théophile Henri Condemine
Hello, Emeraude,
In accordance with WP:RETAIN, I am requesting your cooperation with {{subst:uw-lang}} for this article.
Best regards,
Georgejdorner (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
But the policy does not apply in this case. This is not a question of consistency in usage of a "variety of English" but of correct usage. WP:RETAIN concerns itself with varieties of English (for example, differences in spelling between US and UK: color/colour, labor/labour, realize/realise etc.) or vocabulary (US chips and fries, UK crisps and chips). What is at issue here is the use of the interchangeable terms "World War I" and "First World War". The former is the common US name and, I belive, the official name there. The latter, in the UK, Commonwealth, Belgium and France (and, I believe, Germany and Italy as well) is the official name. Condemine was a French aviator, fighting in France, so First World War is entirely appropriate, while World War I is not just inappropriate but also wrong.
WP:RETAIN states, "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary." So, if an article starts off with US spelling/vocabulary, it is appropriate in terms of consistency for later editors, whether US or not, to keep with US spelling/vocabulary. But WP:RETAIN goes on to say, "With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change." [my emphasis] So, in this article, WP:RETAIN specifically says that my edits are acceptable as one of the few exceptions. I would argue further that, given the context (French flier, French war history, French territory), they also correct an error. [All of the preceding applies equally to World War II/Second World War.]Emeraude (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Emeraude,
I posted the tags and reverted your revisions because the policy does apply in this case.
The argument that a non-English speaking country without colonial ties to either the United States or Britain has a preference to either English or American usage is absurd on its face.
The differences in meaning between "World War I" and "First World War" are nonexistent, unlike the term "The Great War".The differences are solely a matter of usage, even as you have argued in the example of "fries" and "chips", etc. Your claim of ambiguity and incorrectness is thus mistaken.
There is a correct usage in this case. It is the American usage established in creation of the article.
There was no error to be corrected. There was an error to be made in "correcting" an article into mixed usage. And there obviously isn't a consensus for altering the usage of this article, because I, the creator of the article, object.
Best regards,
Georgejdorner (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed deletion of Norman McNaughton
The article Norman McNaughton has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mythpage88 (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Battle of Milne Bay
G'day George, I'm writing in reference to your post on the Battle of Milne Bay talk page, where you state: "I have a copy of Milne Bay 1942: The Story of Milne-Force: Japan's first military defeat on land ISBN 0-646-05405-8 that I will donate to an editor who will complete the citations to this article."
I am currently in the process of trying to add refs to the article and expand it. I hope to work with others to get it up to B class (and maybe even to GA in time). Can I ask if this offer is still open? If so, I wouldn't mind getting the book from you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Bad day, Rupert, unfortunately;
When I moved early last month, said book was disposed of as part of my downsizing effort pre-move. It was the size of a tombstone, and was the heaviest book on my shelves, even out-weighing my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. Unluckily, that, and its obscurity, made it a natural target for the grand heave-ho. I do believe I donated it to Vallejo, California's Friends of the Library organization. There is a slight chance they may still have it. Their email address is vallejofriends@gmail.com.
My sincerest apologies. I hope that, despite this handicap, you can still develop Battle of Milne Bay.
Georgejdorner (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, George, no worries at all. I've got quite a few sources, so I should have enough. I hope you've managed to settle in to your new place. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Just as well. I might have gotten a shocking surprise on the shipping charges for a tombstone.
Cheero.
Georgejdorner (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links 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.
- George Goodman Simpson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links to Distinguished Service Cross and Christ Church
- E. Graham Joy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link to Menin
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Dabbed 16 December 2011.
Georgejdorner (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Harold Ross Eycott-Martin
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Harold Ross Eycott-Martin, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/england/eycott-martin.php.
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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications 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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] My apologies
For editing without using edit summaries. I guess I am kind off used to making many small changes to articles, almost always relating to birth and death dates, that i forgo adding edit summaries. I will try to remember to add them in the future, even though I myself consider it quite a bother for the thousands of minute changes that Ive made in such articles over the years. I assure you that all changes I made to articles on your watchlist were confined to the birth and death-dates; I regularly find large groups of biographical articles that do not show the birth and death-dates as is considered standard and I simply try to fix that. Right now Im wading through the category for Recipients of the Military Cross. Omegastar (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Talkback
Message added 20:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.
- Harold Ross Eycott-Martin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Lindfield
- James Grant (aviator) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Captain
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Fixed on 23 December 2011.
Georgejdorner (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
[edit] Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.
- Frank Alberry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Port Arthur, Reading and British Expeditionary Force
- Gerhard Bassenge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Staff and Bravery Medal
- Samuel Kinkead (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to DFW
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
All were fixed.
Georgejdorner (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.
- Conway Farrell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Sea Island
- List of World War I aces credited with 7 victories (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Bravery Medal
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Fixed.
Georgejdorner (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
[edit] Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited List of Canadian flying aces, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Claydon and Malcolm MacLeod (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Dabbed above, plus others on this list. The list is thoroughly disambiguated.
Georgejdorner (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Jeffrey Batters Home-Hay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halifax, Nova Scotia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The confusion is caused by fact that other editors cannot decide what to do on the dab page. As a result, I will kill the link entirely.
Georgejdorner (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Reference removal
Hi there, I noticed you removed the reference to The Aerodrome at John Pinder (aviator). Judging by your contributions, you would know better than me about sources on British military history, but... Why have you removed this source? It is our only source for much of the data in the infobox and it has a lot of unused additional information. Apologies if I have said something stupid - I only found this article by hitting 'Random article' while bored last night, and have since renovated it a bit. Thelb4(talk) 21:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Alfred Alexander Leitch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Senlis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Fixed.
Georgejdorner (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
