I see that you put a refimprove tag on this article. Obviously you did not actually read the article, otherwise you would have seen that it has five citations already, despite being only four paragraphs long. Do try to read articles before ignorantly slapping tags on them. And try to date them correctly. You might have heard that this is August, not July. M Van Houten (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I can still see only one reference, although it is cited two or three times. The article could very well be improved (and even gain some additional interesting detail) with an extra reference or two - and the tag seems to me perfectly justified. This kind of tag is aimed at an article, not the last person to edit it, as you should know. I am profoundly mortified for being a day or two out with the date on the tag (not). I have tagged a lot of unreferenced and under referenced aircraft articles lately - as well as adding references and cites to others myself. This is a valuable activity that I would have thought a keen and productive enthusiast like you would have wanted to cooperate with rather than going into a sulk over. Look up "ignorant" in a dictionary - this may help your tendency to use this word as an all-purpose insult rather than in a meaningful manner. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I used the word “ignorant” in precisely the intended manner.
1) Try counting the citations. As I stated, there are five. Do not misrepresent the article by claiming that there are “two or three.” I am not fooled by your cheap tactics.
2) You state that you “have tagged a lot of unreferenced and under referenced aircraft articles lately - as well as adding references and cites to others myself.” Really? So you didn’t just slap a tag on the last five articles I edited after you found edits you didn’t like on the Albatros D.III article? I find your sudden interest in correct citation to be rather amusing. On this page [], you stated, “personally I ‘respect’ indiscriminate footnotes spattered everywhere for the sake of it much less than a sound basic knowledge of the subject concerned.” Your own words make it difficult to take your newly proclaimed interest in citations very seriously.
3) Why not candidly admit what really happened? You’re pouting because I keep deleting your absurd claims regarding the Albatros D.III and D.V. I’m going to add the footnotes now. Then you can alleviate your ignorance by reading the cited references. M Van Houten (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I rest my case. Very glad you have found some cites to improve the Albatros articles - that was all the tag was there for, although what that has to do with this I fail (no doubt due to my "ignorance") to see. I stand by my original comments as quoted above - references and cites do not, in my opinion, make a bad article good - but they can very well make a good article better, as I am appreciating more and more as I do more Wiki editing. Perhaps I should in future check if an article has been changed at any time by you and take it off my watchlist in anticipation of sulky behaviour from you if I have the temerity to touch it? I would rather not, especially as on the whole I respect your work, and would like to be able to treat you as a fellow enthusiast rather than a sulky child - which seems to be the image you are determined to project. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)