User talk:Georgejdorner/Archive: Aces

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Georgejdorner. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

World War I aces

Well, you've got a lot of good questions. But before I get to those I'll give you some information to alleviate your concerns about being an inexperienced editor. There's a lot of good information on how to edit, particularly at Help:Contents. Our various aviation related projects also have links you can use. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation is the best starting point, the navigation box on the right links to many pages such as our (in progress) style guide. The talk page of the Aerospace biography task force is a great place to ask questions, but the talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation is much more actively watched.

Now, as for everyone on List of World War I flying aces, I believe that according to Wikipedia:Notability (people) everyone on the list is notable, based on the fact that "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." (DFC, DSC etc.) I personally am in the process of creating an article for everyone on List of World War I aces from Canada. I wouldn't pay too much attention to the kb article size for now. If the article gets too large, it is usually broken into smaller articles, such as List of World War I flying aces (A), List of World War I flying aces (B), etc. or, as will probably happen eventually, List of World War I aces from Australia, List of World War I aces from Canada, etc. At that point List of World War I aces will cease being a list and become a list of link to the country lists. List of airports is now this type of page.

When you get into creating biography articles there is a template for you to use, Template:WPAVIATION creator. For aces just enter the name in the "Create military aviator biography article" box and hit the "Create new military bio" button. The page will be preloaded with the standard templates and information all bio article should have, you just have to enter the info you have.

Anyways, don't worry, nothing here is permanent and no mistake can't be fixed. Happy editing! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. If someone ever does suggest dividing the page up, there is one thing that I would do. It's pretty technical but on this page I took a bunch of sub-lists and had them combine on one page. The beauty of this is people can view things in two ways, as sub lists or as a whole. -Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the page was a bit messy. I added some divider lines to make it clearer, the box is the line below the "Create military aviator biography article" header. This should be clearer now. If you wish to do some test creations, you can create them in your userpage. For example you could enter User:Georgejdorner/testbio in the box. When you save it it will be at User:Georgejdorner/testbio, a subpage to your userpage. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:InterWikimedia links. Specifically, you can add (for example) [[de: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:PAPER#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, "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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports and Wikipedia: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.

Nationalities of WWI aces

Thank for your comment on my talk page George, I dont have a problem with the Irish/Welsh/Scots being identified it was just the presumption that the English were by default British and not identified in the same way. I understand you comment about the Irish would prefer not to be identified as British and rightly so but during the first world war all of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom so should be treated the same as other home nations (Wales, Scotland, Ireland and England). Under the same logic we should not really say Top Scottish ace. flew for the UK as it is in my opinion a bit of a daft statement as they were all UK citizens, we dont say French flew for the France. Dont think we need to use flags other than the national flag (Union Flag) but when I get time I will add English to the table! and perhaps suggest we remove flew for the UK from home nation guys. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No I will not edit while you are sorting out George - happy with your approach that you outlined. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

John Inglis Gilmour

I've done a few minor edits to John Inglis Gilmour. As I do more, I'll add them to this list.

I moved the links to his medals to immediately after the name, and piped the links to make them Post-nominal letterss per WP:PIPE. I changed the link from Military Cross & Two Bars (which doesn't exist) to Military Cross (which does).
I linked to the squadrons he was in, again with the piped link for readability, and added a few other links to relevant, interesting pages.
I removed a couple of peacock terms (spectacular, well-deserved) per Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms.
I categorized the page in Category:Scottish flying aces (see Wikipedia:Categorization).

I'll do some more soon, but for now it looks like a pretty good article. It could use an infobox and inline references, but that'll come eventually. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

5. I just added an infobox, for this just copy the code from Template:Infobox Military Person, and fill in the blanks. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ulrich Neckel

I've updated the article. Tell me what you think on my talk page. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 01:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to adopt you (help you out with aspects of Wikipedia). If you wish, the page can be created at this page. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 15:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this page. This is your coaching page. Leave future questions here, and finish the 'assignments' that I will and have written up. You can probably add it to your watchlist. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 15:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Rhys Davids or Rhys-Davids?

Thanks for the message about Rhys-Davids, his surname is shown as hyphenated on the General Register Office index of births and also in the official London Gazette (where all the promotions and medal citations are sourced), although the war graves commission show it unhypehnated! This leads me to believe that officially he was hyphenated but perhaps in general use it was dropped. Perhaps we should just make a note of that in the article. Still to look at the other articles you asked me to review but I am away for a couple of days so I will look at them later in the week. Just a minor point in the talk page of Rhys-Davids you mention that I researched facts and reached my own conclusions based on them strictly speaking you are not allowed to do that as it is called original research all conclusions should really be referenced from a reliable source. Regards MilborneOne (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation on conclusions, it was just the way the talk page comment was worded. Perhaps we need to move R-D to the hyphenated version with the original as a re-direct. Regards MilborneOne (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Coningham

George, can you confirm whether or not Arthur Coningham (RAF officer) is the same Arthur Coningham in the List of World War I flying aces? Their WWI experiences are very similar. - Canglesea (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, regarding George Thompson, there is a George Thomson (pilot) in the List of World War I aces from Canada with 14 kills. Can you confirm the spelling of his surname? - Canglesea (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I received your message regarding the above two people. Along the same lines, can you confirm if Robert M. Gordon and Robert Gordon (RAF officer) are one and the same? - Canglesea (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Hans Kirschstein

A tag has been placed on Hans Kirschstein requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Scapler (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hans Kirschstein

I didn't find you terribly uncivil, you were just frustrated. Though since you learned of the under construction tag, I suppose the situation ultimately led to good, so there no worries and no hard feelings! Cheers! Scapler (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A good way to work on an article without interference is to do so in your user space. In article space, even with an under-construction tag, others will edit. If you create a /page in your userspace, no one is likely to mess with it unless it's highly controversial or draws attention for some reason. When you are ready to put it in article space you just move there. Happy New Year. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I will withdraw my nomination. For future reference, add {{underconstruction}} to the top of pages which are works in progress. When this page lacked this template, I assumed that what was there was intended to be the article's content. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter Carpenter

I've added [1] to the above article and mentioned this on its talk page. If this is not what you are looking for please let me know and I'll have another look! Regards. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 10:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Claude Marcel Haegelen

A tag has been placed on Claude Marcel Haegelen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. FlyingToaster 07:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Richthofen and probability

I have been treating this one as dead - as we have had no murmurs about reinstating the "statistics" conclusions about Richthofen's "score" lately. I think the original proponent either "saw the light" or gave up. As you will have noticed, I concentrated my argument against including this in the article on the grounds that even if the statistics were reliable and accurate (and we know they are not) the conclusion drawn had no direct relevance to Richthofen himself. Like most statistics based on groups of people, they cannot be applied to individuals. In the course of the discussion I deliberately left the statistics themselves more or less alone - although as you rightly point out, they are very questionable anyway - in order to avoid straying into what would have been very murky territory.

The statistic that a fighter squadron (even some British ones) loved to quote was total victories vs. squadron pilots killed in action. This is really comparing two different things. Most experienced WW I fighter pilots (whether or not they eventually survived the war) crashed or "force landed" as a result of enemy action (that is, they were shot down!) at least once, and sometimes several times. Therefore they were, or could legitimately have been, the subject of a victory claim or claims from the other side! The statistic that would have given a more accurate (although often less impressive) idea of a squadron's success would have been the victories scored compared with the victories conceded by the unit - which would have included all squadron aircraft shot down - not just pilots actually killed. Since, especially on the German side, the statistics concerned were compiled as much for propaganda and morale boosting purposes as legitimate military intelligence ones this is not a statistic that any one seems to have been interested in keeping.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Georgejdorner. You have new messages at Hamiltonstone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Harold Alfred Whistler

A tag has been placed on Harold Alfred Whistler, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Waacstats (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an Admin so can't delete an article, I requested it for speedy deletion because the only things on the page where an empty infobox and 3 stubs. There was nothing to say who he was or what he had done. I'm just as surprised as you are that it was deleted that quick, but the article was essentially empty. My best guess is that it was created from a template and the infomation was not added for some reason. I hope this doesn't put you off creating stubs but I don't think you could consider the article a stub. If you want to see for yourself what was on the page I'm sure User:The Wub (the admin who deleted the article) is able to restore the article, either to where it was or possibly your user space. Waacstats (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've replied at User talk:The wub#Harold Alfred Whistler. the wub "?!" 13:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad everythig turned out alright. Waacstats (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just created an article on Harold Whistler didnt realise you had already had a stub deleted until I did a redirect from Harold Alfred Whistler. Thought you might be interested. MilborneOne (talk) 17:07, 13 April 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)

Bruno Loerzer

Sorry, that passage does not come from my pen. I'll check what references I have. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Gass et al

No problem, the London Gazette is a key source for subjects related to the British Armed Forces, in theory you should be able to find the official notification of every decoration or honour awarded, and for officers, their initial commission and every promotion aftre that. In practice it can be more difficult, as the paper copies have been scanned in and converted to searchable text, a process which is not error free, and you need to know a little about how entries were generally formatted. Decorations and honours will normally use the full name, as will an initial commission, subsequent promotions tend to only use initials and surname, though in the period up to and including the First World War, you do also find entries of the form firstname initial(s) surname (and even more rarely, if a person didn't use their first forename, initial(s) forename (initials) surname). Occasionally oddities like the space between a forename and th surname getting missed out occur, so that's a variation worth trying to, and if someone has an unusual surname, it's worth just searching on surname.

Decorations and honours for the armed forces of other British Empire countries were also gazetted, but not officer promotions etc. (generally, some for higher command were). David Underdown (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Gazette hits are now beginning to show up in Google, viz http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBS_enGB310GB310&q=%22basil+aubrey+coad%22 but they haven't been indexed by Google fr long, and of course they don't link out anywhere, and they are so many pages there (just about every Gazette back to the first in 1665 is online) so they probably don't fair very well in google's algorithm. David Underdown (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Roderic Dallas

Thanks -- that makes more sense now. If you're editing his article, you might also want to check the link to Hans Werner. The linked person is a gymnast. I didn't remove the link because the time period and nationality are right, so it could be the same person. On the other hand it's a very common name. Pburka (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re: About Stan Dallas

Hi George. Dallas was officially accredited a tally of 39 aerial victories—which I am sure you are aware of—which is the tally he should be listed under, as all of the aces should. It has been debated by some editors in the past about whether the aerodrome is truly a reliable source, as it only lists its source for some of its claims on some pages, and not on others, although I do see that Dallas' page is sourced. The list is also not referenced/cited for the aces per se either, so it was hard to tell the source was the aerodrome, so I would advise adding in the "References" section on the end something similar to that on the Victoria Cross lists, such as List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign, in which it has the main sources listed—in this case the aerodrome—and then the citations if you get what I mean. In regards to Dallas, I'm thinking he should be listed under 39, but added to the "Disputed" note for him should be something like "Officially accredited with a tally of 39 aircraft, although his score could be as high as 50 and some sources list him with 32". However, this is just all friendly advice, and I'll leave it up for you to decide what to do with the list in this matter as you are the primary contributor. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of Wikipedia's guidelines in regards to referencing. I appologise for my assumption. I will go and add a few references and a note in now. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

re: Once again, Roderic Dallas

COLLATED FOR EASE OF CONSIDERATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE:Albert Ball

Sorry for the gap between my reply, I have only just seen your comment on my talkpage. I am very sorry if my comment on the Albert Ball talkpage offended you, that was certainly not its intention. I am happy to help you create the subpages etc if you still want to go through an ACR. I have left a comment on the talkpage which I hope you can clear up. I think you have done excellent work on the article so far, I just don't think it will pass an ACR at the moment. I suggest you put it up for a MILHIST peer review which I can help you with if you would like. My sincerest apologies again if my comments didn't come across as being helpful, Regards, Woody (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do we ever improve articles on Wikipedia? I wouldn't say that A-Class is unattainable, it certainly can be attained, you just have to know what the criteria are and how to meet them. The B-Class criteria are very rigid and fairly easy to meet, the A-Class are a lot more expansive and more subjective. The main issue for A-Class is the quality of the prose and whether it is comprehensive. I think that the end result of a great article usually is reward enough though everyone has their own motivation. You don't have to do all the work yourself, there are plenty of people who are happy to colloborate with you on VC recipients articles, and I wouldn't put yourself down, you have done a lot of work on Albert Ball. Woody (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Heinrich Gontermann

I created the redirect Heinrich Ritter von Gontermann. As for moving his page to that one, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) says to use the most common English language name of a person. I'm not familiar with him, but if all the books and websites call him Heinrich Gontermann more often than they call him Heinrich Ritter von Gontermann, then you should leave the page where it is. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 06:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Edward Darby

A tag has been placed on Edward Darby requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Nezzadar (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lewis Collins (aviator)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lewis Collins (aviator), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/scotland/collins1.php. 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.

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) 19:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

James Victor Gascoyne

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of James Victor Gascoyne, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/england/gascoyne.php. 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.

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) 03:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

New Stan Dallas victory list (update 23Nov09)

Hello, Georgejdorner. You have new messages at Ian Rose's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dallas

Happy New Year, George... I notice you've found yet another source for our friend - well done! I haven't forgotten the plan for me to give it the GA/A/FA-style 'treatment', with a view to co-nominating at those levels, just been getting a few other articles out of my system first... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Henry Dolan

Hello. Per your removal of the notability tag on this page, I've posed the question to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Henry_Dolan to see outside clarification on the matter. Thanks and happy editing.--v/r - T P 22:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see it in the infobox. Thanks for pointing it out. Happy editting.--v/r - T P 04:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I saw the article and saw the massive improvements. Great job. I struck out my comment on the military history wp talk page several days ago. Happy editting.--v/r - T P 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I just put on Staff several months ago. I've got 2 years before I can even test for Tech ;) Happy editting.--v/r - T P 20:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Roy Cecil Phillipps

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Roy Cecil Phillipps, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/australi/phillipps.html. 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.

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) 00:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well George, great minds think alike... I was actually about to start this article myself today as I've put together a swag of sources and images for it - are you happy for me to take it from here or were you particularly keen to continue it yourself? Pls let me know ASAP...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, mate, you should do a much better job than I, because you have better sources. Give me a few minutes to wrap this up, and you can continue. In the meantime, I will move on to the next 15 victory ace. Although, given Trevor's withdrawal from WP, I don't know why I continue working this list; it won't be the next candidate for a featured list as I hoped.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Have at it. I am going offline.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Georgejdorner. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Willi Rosenstein

Hi George. You're the main man on the German WWI Aces, so I thought I'd just check something out. I created a stub article on Willi Rosenstein tonight, which has almost immediately taken a bit of a hammering on expert-needed and notability issues. Whilst I can accept it's very basic as the start to an article, I think however the references are available to build it up, in due course. In your experience, are there notability issues on the Aces, generally? Maybe its not worth creating an article for the 'minor' aces; in this instance 9 victories? What do you think? Scoop100 (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the article's talk page. I think I have thwarted their over-hasty tags.

Yes, Rosenstein is notable. He was honored by his government with an Iron Cross. I have used this provision in the past to defeat AFD proposals; I will use it again here if I have to.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention - and advice. Scoop100 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Walter G. R. Hinchliffe

I think the book you cite has made an error, I've checked Hinchliffe's original RAF service record, and it does not mention an AFC, it does record the DFC. I think the author perhaps confused the two decorations - does the book give any details as tot he date fo the award and so on, which would help confirm this? David Underdown (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The sentence stating he won an AFC came immediately after a description of his disfiguring accident. In its entirety, it reads, "For his services, he received the DFC and AFC."

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

Dallas, at last

George, believe it or not I think I've got all those niggling projects like Pentland, King, Little, Phillipps, and Watt out of my system and have arrived at the place where Stan Dallas is yelling "write and/or edit me!" the loudest... ;-) So I'll soon begin working your great effort into the WP/MilHist "house style", which gradually we can jointly nominate for B, GA, A and (why not) FA consideration. I'll try editing in bite-size chunks so it's easier to follow what I've done and you can let me know if you think I've mangled anything too much. As well as editing I have a few other sources I can trawl for further info, plus I'll upload some more images from the Australian War Memorial. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Have at it, mate. Georgejdorner (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Completed my first pass at the whole thing and had it assessed as B-Class by a peer just now. I'll co-nominate for MilHist A-Class and also GA soon but pls feel free to let me know your thoughts... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, cobber,

A most excellent editing job. Well done!

I was surprised to find a destroyed balloon among the victories, most especially as it was credited to Hellwig. I thought I had pretty much absorbed that book, but somehow I missed the balloon.

And on the subject of victories...you are going to have to grasp the nettle and make the number of victories stated in the lead match the victory table at the end of the article. You can't let the contradiction slide. Someone evaluating the article for GA, A, FA will call you (us) on it. It's such a basic fact that the contradiction could defeat the nomination(s).

I was sorry to see the facts comparing Dallas's squadrons with Richthofen's and the Storks disappear, but I can't blame you. Even though I know these facts are true, I couldn't find a source to cite for them, and they were secondary anyhow. However, I still wish the leadership portion of this article were still stronger. As an impartial American, I have no stake in the evaluation of Allied aces versus Entente Uberkanones, and I conclude that Dallas was as effective a combat leader as Richthofen or Mannock.

Cheers.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, we've passed our MilHist A-Class Review - I still have a GA nomination in the system, the result of which I'll await before nominating for Featured Article status. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, yourself. I would never get an A-Class on my own. I had hopes you would do the wiki-editing that would slide us through, but you went above and beyond that with your proofreading, line editing, and rewriting.

Good on yer, mate!

Have you ever looked at Albert Ball? His is a heart-wrenching tale.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

We have our GA rating now, thanks to a review by Hawkeye today, so I've nominated for FAC (with you named as co-conspirator!) right here. As ever, happy to field comments in the first instance, but feel free to watchlist the review page and wade in as needed... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, we've achieved FA status for Dallas! If you check out the review, you'll note more than one comment on the comprehensiveness and clarity, which I believe is in major part a tribute to your work on the article. It turned out to be one of the most trouble-free FACs I've ever been through, a good sign for further collaboration on other articles... I have a few more of my own in production, but looking forward to working on Albert Ball in the not-too-distant future and seeing if we can't repeat the trick... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

George, congratulations on the FA for Dallas! I know how much time, work and heart you put into your articles. Thanks for all you do! -Canglesea (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No. 29 Squadron RAF Aces

I can understand your last edit to this article. That glaring scarlet wasteland of aces' names is offensive to the eye. However, articles will be written for these aces (most likely by myself). Listing all the notable aces in squadron history supplies a link, and chases away the horrid "orphan" tag.

I have reverted your edit as part of my effort to keep the aviation wing of the wiki-orphanage unpopulated. Please do not be offended.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a matter of me being offended. And while I agree that a lot of red ink is unsightly that is not the main point either. More a matter of notability - an air ace is not necessarily notable enough for a wiki article - in fact unless he has an exceptionally large "tally" (considering time and place) it is reasonable to expect him to have a real notability independent of his actual "acehood". Many WWI aces (both sides) went to the front pretty well straight from school, shot down their eight, nine or ten enemy aircraft, and were either killed before they had a chance to make any further impact on this world, or survived the conflict to lead postwar lives of more or less complete obscurity. They will never have a wiki article, any more than you or I will. I take your point about orphans, but on the other hand - when one adds a new article, even a stub, it is sensible to add wikilinks both ways at that time rather than rely on "red links" waiting in the ether to take up the slack. Never mind - not important enough to get heated about - I'll leave it up to you to either delete the "non-notable" names altogether, leave them there but remove the "link" brackets, or, if you really believe there is enough notability (and enough published information) to warrant an article in the future, leave them as they are. I suspect in the current red desert there may even be particular names in all three categories. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is the proviso that any individual honored by their government is considered notable by Wikipedia standards. All of the aces in question qualify under that standard. That is not to say all aces qualify, however. While vetting the names for this project, I "bumped" several aces from the list for lack of proof of their acedom. I am closing out all the remainder (probably 300 or 400) that were not decorated as being non-notable. Those that are left qualify for bios.

So that has been my aim all along--to have a bio for every notable ace. I did not know about, nor count on, the orphan tag. When that was sprung on me, I began linking aces to home squadrons to alleviate orphandom. And I take your point about linking as you go; in future, I might use that method. However, I don't feel like spinning my wheels defending orphans against deletion; it seems simpler to deal with the orphan problem from the front, rather than chasing after it.

What's a guy to do? Well, I intend to continue churning out basic articles for others to expand and improve. Even a stub on a subject beats a blank, and editors seem more likely to expand a stub than to start from scratch.

And incidentally, a lot of guys first got the crap shot out of themselves in the ground forces before going flying. The majority of them were not the ingenuous dewy schoolboys of legend.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Albert Ball

Hi George. Having now got Brian Eaton and Les Clisby out of my system, apart from their respective A and GA reviews, I think I'm ready to work on Albert Ball and see if we can't do the same for him that we did for Stan Dallas. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Cobber, I read the Clisby article, skimmed the Eaton article. Nice work indeed.

I don't know of any more articles after Albert Ball, but I am looking for others to suggest. One of my goals is to see any and all of the aces on the List of World War I aces credited with 20 or more victories represented by an "A" Class article. Yeah, I am a bit of a dreamer...but then I am anticipating having some sort of article for every notable ace on every list. It just might take me another year or two...and then there are the squadron histories needed to link to the aces--say 60 or 70 German jastas, the same number of French escadrilles, a couple of dozen Italian squadriglias, a couple dozen more Austro-Hungarian Fliks, 22 American aero squadrons, five Belgian escadrilles. I would not be shocked if I have laid out another five years' Wikipedia writing in the process.

At any rate, could you please send me a link to the review(s) of Ball? I will try to be more involved in the review processw than I have been.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, never stop dreaming, George! Certainly will send links for reviews of this one. As well as formatting to get it into the 'house' style, and digging up more images, I've checked the Osprey 'aircraft of the aces' series and there's useful stuff among them on Ball that I'll make use of as required; I can also access an earlier biography plus Chaz Bowyer's Air VCs so that should be plenty to go on with. Let me say that I don't think the article needs more detail particularly, it's quite adequate in that regard and you've done a great job with Albert Ball VC, but some of the other sources won't pass muster at A/FA level, e.g. TheAerodrome and Colonel Frank Seeley School. With all the other sources I've got, I should be able to replace those without too much trouble. Not sure of another for us to collaborate on after Ball either, but I'm sure we'll come up with something -- I'm almost tempted to suggest the Red Baron himself, as his article's only Start/C-class at the moment and he surely deserves better, plus it would be an even bigger challenge than Dallas and Ball if only for the fact that his name is so much better known to the general public than the others... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh, the Red Baron bio is a snakepit of an article; it's always drawing vandalism and dissension. There's a lot of grief waiting there, and not much glory. Not that the article itself is the problem, but the attention it draws, and the audience. The average person can't name any World War I ace EXCEPT Richthofen, and too many have absorbed the myth instead of history, and will insist upon the veracity of the myth.

If I were to suggest a German ace's article to upgrade to A Class, it would be Oswald Boelcke. The man was a tactical genius and a strategic visionary. As I see it, Richthofen simply carried out Boelcke's program after the latter's death. And while Richthofen was an inspiring leader, he was mentored by an inspiring leader. Boelcke simply died too soon, else he (probably in tandem with Richthofen) would have reaped the adulation the baron received.

Ah, well, back to data mining Early German Aces of World War I. Ta.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yep, potential for grief is what I meant when I said a challenge because of his fame, on the other hand my compatriot Hawkeye has collaborated with others in getting Albert Kesselring and Douglas MacArthur to a level of stability—as well as quality—sufficient for A/FA-Class, so there may be hope for the Baron yet... However I have no prob working on Boelcke so if you want to continue putting meat on that one while I polish the Ball article, that could be next... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate, just wanted to let you know that while I've taken a breather from Albert Ball to get a few WWII articles up to scratch, I will be back 'on the job' eventually. I'm going overseas on vacation early/mid-June and won't be back till mid-July, so won't get much done till then but rest assured that after that I'll finalise it so we can nominate for GA/A/FA-Class, which it richly deserves. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh, mate,

I was beginning to think that (as we say up on top here), you fell in the trough and the pigs ate you.

No hurries, no worries. I have been scouting about, and haven't yet come across anything near ready for editing into an A-Class article. However, yesterday I came across a copy of "Under the Guns of the Kaiser's Aces" for $4 US. Maybe in there, I can find enough to beef an article to A standards.

In the meantime, only about 275 of the 1840 aces bios remain red-linked. I'm closing in on my goal to have at least a stub for every WWI ace. And, as I data mine these books, I am fleshing out the bio of every ace I come to.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Arthur Laumann

I just happened upon the article using the Random Article button, so I don't know anything more about the proper placement of rank in an article than you do. I'm sorry if I made an error; I was just under the impression that the title of an article should be as close as possible to the very beginning, though now that I look, I can't seem to find anything in WP:LEAD that says that. Because of the problem with ranks over time, I just thought that Laumann's rank should go somewhere else. Briefly scanning some of the featured articles on military officers, I can see that some do put the rank before the name in the lead sentence. When they do that, though, it looks like they always use the highest rank the officer reached—even if (as with Peter Heywood) the officer is better known for things he did earlier in his career.

I wasn't the one who spelled Laumann's first name without an "h"; apparently that was this person, as seen here. A. Parrot (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Moraitinis

Hello there! I have lots of stuff about Greek aviators of that time, so feel free to ask me anything you need.Alexikoua (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(Convo copied from Mezod's talk page) As the self-appointed overseer of World War I fighter aviation, I have spent two years chasing rumors of a Greek World War I fighter ace. I had given him up as mythical. After I found one for WWII, I became convinced that he was the rumored ace and gave up. Now you have delivered him to me, complete with a nice little article. Moraitinis has been added to the List of World War I aces credited with 9 victories. Why not take a look and see if the listing is correct? I have misgivings about the Greek flag.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

About his name, I know that especially older books mention him as 'Aristides' or 'Aristide'. It's about Greek spelling: according to archaic Greek, 'Artistides' is the right form (like the ancient one), but according to modern Greek he is spelled 'Aristidis'. I've just followed this, where the Greek letter 'η' becomes 'i' in English. By the way, feel free to ask everything about the subject, or any other Greek aviator of that time.

Alexikoua (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

great to hear this

Hi, i'm really happy i was something close to useful with my appearance here. I consider myself quite a beginner about wwi aviation. I suppose you read the message i posted to Soundofmusicals about the greek aviator. I find the need to tell you what i told him "You maybe would like to check the correctness of Aristeidis Moraitinis (aviator) article's name. I have found many documents refering to it as "Aristide" or "Aristides" ". About the greek flag i think http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%91%CF%81%CF%87%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BF:Flag_of_Greece_%281828-1978%29.svg is the one you should be using :). I'll update the catalan list! You did a great job there. Thanks again! --Mezod (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Moraitinis

Hello again George,

as Alexikoua wrote in your talk page there's a difference between old and modern greek. What I felt weird is that Aristeidis isnt any of those formations (Aristides - old, Aristidis - modern). I also checked that in theaerodrome website they refer to Moraitinis only as Aristides. To sum up, wikipedia (and linked) is the only one caling him Aristeidis. I just wanted to know the reason, as my knowledge of greek is close to null.

nice to hear again from you, --Mezod (talk) 13:50, 25 June 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)

Speedy deletion nomination of Selden Long

A tag has been placed on Selden Long requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kudpung (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an early speedy delete proposal that I have made. You are welcome to contest it in the prescribed manner. If you address the reasons, I will be more than happy to remove the CSD.--Kudpung (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

William Frederick James Harvey

I have never edited William Frederick James Harvey. I was editing Anismus and was reverted (rollbacked?) by User:Docboat. I saw Docboat also reverted another editor's contributions to William Frederick James Harvey. Docboat has now undone their reverts on Anismus, but not on William Frederick James Harvey. What needs to be reviewed is not the article as it stands now but the recent edit history of the article; Docboat's reverts should be corrected, to restore the other editor's contributions that were appropriate. Don't you agree? 66.167.43.31 (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

== 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)

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)

==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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Talkback

Hello, Georgejdorner. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umberto Calvello.
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)

Talkback

Hello, Georgejdorner. You have new messages at AnomieBOT's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

George Buchanan Foster

The Canadian Parliament website has a complete listing of all Senators past and present. He's not on the list.

Go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/lists/senators.aspx?Language=E&Parliament=1924d334-6bd0-4cb3-8793-cee640025ff6&Name=&Party=&Province=&Gender=&Current=True&PrimeMinister=&TermEnd=&Ministry=&Picture=False
In the "Parliament:" field, make sure you select "--ALL--"
In the "Current senators only" box, make sure it is un-checked.
In the "Name starts with:" field, enter "Foster"
Click on the "Refresh List" button at bottom right

You will find "Foster, George Green" (his father) in the resulting list of four names, but not him.

Also his Quebec parliamentary biography (I'm not sure if you read French?) at http://www.assnat.qc.ca/fr/patrimoine/anciens-parlementaires/foster-george-buchanan-169.html would have mentioned it if he had been a Senator. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Lionel Ashfield

George, as you can probably tell, I don't know my way around talk pages yet. Wikipedia blocked me last night and this morning, apparently due to an open proxy. I spent many hours on the phone with various specialists, and apparently I've successfully quarantined three viruses (on a new Mac for heaven's sake!!!) and also trashed Firefox (embedded with lord knows what), never to be used again. I'm sticking with Safari. I made some changes to my article on Lionel Arthur Ashfield, to reflect the fact that he apparently had seven aerial victories, and added another photo. If there's a list to put him on, I'll be happy to do it. Just let me know. Also, I'd like to double-check with you, just to make sure that we agree on the dates of his victories. Thanks. ACP2011 (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Allegiance for Canadian aces

George, as you're knowledgeable about the military, I thought you might have the answer to my query. I'm creating my first article for a Canadian ace. I wasn't certain what to put for allegiance. I though that I would check what others have done, but after looking at about a dozen, it seems all very inconsistent. What is the standard text/code for allegiance for a Canadian in an info box? Thank you. Anne (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

George, I answered you on my talk page. Thank you again. I am definitely interested in the victory template. I'd like to use it for an article I'm working on. It's John Herbert Hedley. When I was more than halfway done with the article I found this cool You Tube video that had just been made last year about JOHN!!! Take a look at it. I think you'll get a kick out of it. I wrote this article a little differently than my others. I actually started it in article space instead of user space yesterday. So far it's going pretty well, with no one interrupting me. I tried the new (for me) way of doing it because I realized that you couldn't directly use the cite template in the wizard. Since I learned how to do references a couple of weeks ago, I've been using the cite template on a different page and transferring all the references. It was a bit annoying. I like the direct way better. More efficient. I only have to do Hedley's victories and then I'll pretty much be finished with the article. On a related note, when I expanded your stub on Hans Goerth more than a month ago, I had no clue how to do references properly. Over the weekend, I revised all of Hans' references and expanded the article itself a little more. Take a look when you have the chance. While I only have experience reading French and Spanish, and absolutely none with German, I was able to use Google translate to get some more info on Hans. He was in Kusta III and MFJ I, in addition to MFJ III. I also found a couple of additional awards for him, although I'm having a little difficulty learning details of the awards. The Goerth article hasn't been reviewed since it was a stub. How do I request that someone review it? Hope you had a nice Easter/Passover. Anne (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Victory list

George, I used your template for John Hedley's victory list. I think it turned out pretty well. Thank you. However, in Norman Franks' book and on the Aerodrome, under the location column, there was an odd notation: 28K 5C. Are you familiar with this? I haven't been able to figure it out as yet. Thanks. Anne (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

John Herbert Hedley

George, I'd appreciate it if you would take a look at my article on the aviator. I examined the talk page after it had been reviewed and noted that it indicated that it needed immediate attention and a photograph. So, I set about tracking one down and wound up finding two! Also, I found a treasure trove of newspaper articles as part of my paid Genealogy Bank subscription and, as I read them, I'm adding them as references. There are two issues: 1) Which, if any, of three items can I use in the article (all three included in the external links): a) Page 1 of two page brochure/flyer that includes photo, the brochure 1920-1930, most probably 1928-1930, b) Photograph from 1930 Milwaukee newspaper, c) sketch from 1930 Milwaukee newspaper. (Another Wikipedian-see talk page-has seen the photo from the brochure and thinks it can be used.) 2) Second issue: My children have already left for school, so I can't check the Genealogy Bank URL's on my daughter's computer. Since Genealogy Bank is a paid subscription like Ancestry, I don't think the URL's will work. Could you possibly click on one of my Genealogy Bank newspaper URL's and tell me whether it takes you to the newspaper? I think I'm going to have to get rid of the URL's anyway because I think they include my name. Probably not a good idea. Also, I think that this article could potentially be a fun one for a DYK nom. I started the article on April 8th in regular article space (I'm trying different ways of doing things) and I have to submit the nom by April 13th, so I have a little bit of leeway. I just have to find another nomination that I can relatively quickly review. (By the way, with me being relatively new to Wikipedia, and totally new as a DYK reviewer, it feels like a case of the blind leading the blind!!!) Thank you. Anne (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Digby-Worsley

Hi George. I was wondering whether you could intercede for me, or at least take a look at my DYK nomination for Bruce Digby-Worsley. It's on the Template talk:Did you know page for March 30. A reviewer is being critical because short phrases from my article are found in the original source material. I don't think that people who don't have anything to do with articles on aces realize that there is certain terminology like out of control, destroyed, destroyed in flames, flying ace, and credited with # victories that is part of writing about aces, and that you don't just make up new terminology. It's as though this reviewer thought I could make up a whole new vocabulary for articles about aces, including new terms for the names of the aircraft and the places they went down. Thank you. Anne (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

George, thank you so much. This morning I searched for my Bruce Digby-Worsley nomination and couldn't find it on the DYK page. Initially, I thought that it had been deleted and was somewhat dismayed. However, I realized that it would have been a really fast deletion and perhaps the nomination was sitting somewhere else. So, I did a search for the nom and found that it was archived with a good to go! Excellent! Thanks so much for your discussion of ace articles. I had been thinking that perhaps I couldn't submit ace articles anymore or would even have to withdraw the ones that I had already submitted. I plan on adding the link for Aerial victory standards of World War I to all my ace articles. Thanks again. Anne (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:User talk:GrindtXX#Carl Menckhoff

Hello, Georgejdorner. You have new messages at GrindtXX's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emile Regnier

Hi, just adding a little to your article from 2009. Do you know if place of death "Pozzi" is the Pozzi near Valeggio sul Mincio? (and was he shot down?) Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, there is a pdf with a photo linked now at the bottom of fr:Émile Régnier. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"Transferring" Albert Ball into a Featured Article

Hello,

It's good to hear from you, my tuneful friend.

I am aware of the British custom of holding a commission in a "home unit" while serving with the RFC. I used the term "transfer" because Ball had given up his commission in infantry and carried his commission only in the RFC. Thus he was no longer "seconded". However, he transferred from unit to unit. So, you see, there can be a slight difference between "seconding" and "transfer".

I am trying to bring Albert Ball up to Featured Article status as part of my cleanup effort. At present, I am wrapping up all my WP projects, so that I leave no mess behind. After that I don't know...the assessment rules of the WP game make for a game I feel is not worth playing, and being only a mere writer among all the code monkeys is wearing. And I do have a final draft of a novel to work upon, and the concept of another....

But, as I said, good to hear from you.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

My point was simply that while one source may say "transferred", and another "seconded" there is in practical terms no real difference between what happened in either case, and hence no need to either edit or revert an edit to switch beween the terms. "Transfer" is possibly the clearest term for modern readers, although original sources generally prefer "seconded" when they talk about transfering between branches of the service rather than specific units. Never heard of anyone "giving up a commission" in the army to join the RFC - it wasn't a separate service until after Ball's death so this just doesn't make sense. Never mind - not as if any of this matters, it was just a thought.

Sorry to hear you are getting WP burnout - happens to us all sooner or later I fear. Good luck with the novel. Is it based on your own service years?

Best regards --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that I do not quite fully understand the vagaries of the British military system, with its repeating serial numbers for personnel, and its predilection for acting ranks and secondment. Upon re-reading Pengelly, I realize that you are indeed correct. I had taken secondment as being a British version of the American military practice of Temporary Duty.

As for WP burnout...it's more like bore-out. When I began in WP, there was a sense of community and interaction. Now I can go months without interaction with anyone else...only bot messages on my talk page. Such messages as I do get are error messages telling me this or that code is wrong, or that I have failed to follow some rule.

I have become so disgusted with the rigid inadequacy of the assessment procedure that I seldom bother referring anything for assessment. I see no point in an assessment process dedicated to slapping hard-copy articles up into cyberspace, with no notice taken of linkage. It's a parody of hypertext usage.

In short, I feel that I am isolated within a vast communal bureaucracy, with no real source of satisfaction. I feel neither needed, necessary, nor quite welcome; instead, I feel barely tolerated.

So, I am going to finish up the sequel to the novel I wrote about my service years. The original novel about my service is http://www.amazon.com/Black-Joe-Lerner/dp/0595407145/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348846981&sr=1-2. The novel I am turning to has the working title of Back in the World.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I am just totally NOT into having any article (no matter how much high quality work I might have put into it) "assessed" any higher than start (or even stub) - at least not unless it happens "spontaneously" without any pressure of any kind from me. I edit articles in three (main) subject areas - Baha'i Faith, Music (especially musicals, operettas etc.), and aviation (especially First World War) - I also have some "folklore" and history type articles I hang around. I often get "burned" or "bored" with one or two areas - in which case I simply "unwatch" the article or articles haunted by the person or persons who happen to be giving me the shits at the time. In some cases I pop back after a year or so to see what has transpired in my absence but generally I don't really care very much. Must say I will miss our little chats if (when) you (or I) depart Wiki forever. Might even have a closer look at your book sometime. Hang in there. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hope you're still around!!!

Someone put a template up that the Albert Ball article had an overlong lead. Reading it I could see at least an element of truth in that one - so I have pruned it back a bit. I believe that everything I have cut is well covered in the main text of the article - that the lead is if anything still quite long for what is after all an introduction - and that this "good" article is perhaps even better with a lead that leaves some incentive for the reader to read on!

On the other hand I feel very diffident about having made such a big cut from something rather magnificent (talking about the article as a whole) - and I will certainly not argue if you disagree with me, and reinstate some or all of the original lead. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Keen - Aviator

Ref: Hello, Hotstart,

It appears that you are new to Wikipedia. I wanted to thank you for the interest you have shown in Arthur Keen's biography. I want to help you get off to a good start here in Wikipedia.

I am moving your remarks about the error in his death date around onto the Discussion page for this article, where such information customarily belongs. Also, I intend to add a citation to justify the source of your information. Although other reputable sources give 12 September as his death date, I agree with you that his service records are more reliable.

I am also re-linking his Military Cross award to the article on this medal. I will leave the linkage for the Humane Society Medal for Bravery for later, when you have supplied details. The source of your information concerning this award will be useful in adding a citation for it. If you are not yet comfortable with building a citation, please leave the information on the Discussion page.

Please do not be offended or defensive about my editing. It's all part of the process of constant improvement of articles, to make Wikipedia a more reliable text.

Once again, welcome aboard. Thank you for your contribution.

Thanks for the comment George, I agree with your points.

We have most, perhaps all the significant documents relating to Authur's military life along with his medals and awards. I can confirm that his middle name was William, the 'Willan' was a clerical error and its existence has been perpetuated by researchers looking at his RASC commission document. His date of death is of course the one written on his gravestone and as you say, recorded within his service records. As for the RHS award, the citation/award documents, the plaque and the medal are amongst his personal effects and in our possession. As for offense at editing - not at all, clearly you are as passionate about this subject as many of the people I come across who have close proximity to the guys involved. It is wonderful to see, I have popped up a small photo of Arthur on his 'bio' corner, this was within his personal effects.

Kind regards, Norman Hotstart54 (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Aviator images

Are you interested in adding images to the articles you have been working on? I found a trove of images at Flickr Commons that correspond to your articles. You will need a yahoo email account. http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/8091917878/in/photostream/ I just added a photo at Wilhelm_Fahlbusch. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What a shame. Is it a lack of time to devote to writing or did you have a bad experience at Wikipedia? If you do not want to add photos to Wikipedia, you can help identify the people at Flickr. Most pictures have the name of the people on them, so I add the link in Flickr to the Wikipedia biography. Flickr Commons could use your expertise. Lt. Veltjens begs you to help his colleagues be remembered by history. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

We are like the anonymous monks toiling to hand-copy the extant literature in the middle ages. Like them, we get to choose what gets preserved and what gets lost to history. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You have to be thick skinned. Follow my travails Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, scroll to you find it. If you are worried about biographies getting deleted you can always transfer a copy to Familypedia. It is another Wiki designed for non-notable as well as notable people for genealogy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Any help deciphering this name --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I just used Google Image search where you drag a photo to the search bar, and it looks for a match. It found two exact matches there and one here at Wikimedia Commons. It only seems to work for an exact match. The similar pictures have the same tonal qualities, like sepia, but look nothing like the original.

Rhys-Davids and Mannock

Hi George. First of all thanks for amending the list to reflect Davids official total. I am wondering about Mannock's total. Most sources credit him with 61 not 73. Do we have any more detail on the additional 12 that were apparently omitted? Dapi89 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, dapi,

Thanks for the heads up. I did not realize that Mannock was still listed with an inflated number of victories.

Mick Mannock, as can be seen by the credibly sourced victory listing in his article, had 61 victories confirmed. Mannock's close friend, James Ira Thomas Jones survived the war. Jones detested Billy Bishop as much as he adulated Mannock, so when Jones wrote Mannock's biography, he jacked up his friend's score to one above Bishop's score (which is a whole another cauldron of contention). (Does this incident remind one of some sort of military soap opera?)

Looks like Mannock must be re-ranked. There will probably be a chorus of howling protest about it from the fanboys.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. I hope it doesn't develop into a fight but the issue has to be confronted. That sort of sh*t can't be allowed to stand. Jones' claims stink of deception. Dapi89 (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

All very well - but what, in that case, do we do about Bishop? There is a very widely accepted assumption nowadays that HIS total is grossly inflated by outright fraud, and to the extent of something close to 50 "victories" out of 70 odd. Just imagine what the loyal little Canadians would say if we reduced his score down to (say) 27! There are two possible approaches here - one (and I think this is probably best in keeping with normal wiki policy, I really do) is to list the conventional totals - adding notes about doubtful cases (as we currently do with Roderic Dallas for instance). The other is to attempt to get all the scores standardised to the "most historically correct". Frankly, that is NOT the Wiki way - impossible to avoid OR, since it is pure OR from top to bottom. If Mannock (or McCudden for that matter) had had Bishop's attitude to victory claims they'd probably have had a couple of hundred each, but so what. And just where do we stop? Why not edit the Red Baron down a bit to reflect the British airmen he "shot down" that really got home after all? This isn't a fancruft site, and I really think we need to be a bit detached about the victory claim mess, not set ourselves up as score re-assessors. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I don't personally intend to get involved in the Billy Bishop bun fight.

With rare exception, I list aces in WP by the number of confirmed victories on an itemized list. Said list contains date, location, and ID of enemy aircraft. I do this just to avoid all the dithering and nattering and niggling about the scores. When I ran into an editor who would not even discuss the victories scored by his favorite ethnic champion, I compiled the Stan Dallas list from several different reliable sources, victory by victory. As it turned out, previous compilers had all missed some victories somewhere.

Dallas, Mannock, and Rhys-Davids all have these itemized and cited lists as part of their articles, as proof as their acedom.

I don't reassess history here. I do uncover and use the most reliable sources in a consistent manner to compile these lists. Then too, I don't have any sympathy for these whining little "disputed" notes that get hung about. At least eighty percent of WWI aces have disputable victories in their lists. So what? Are you going to tag them all disputed, with little explanatory notes? No, get the ace's itemized list, count the confirmed victories, add him to the WP list with a cite. Then move on to the next ace.

That's exactly how I compiled Lists of World War I flying aces. At one time, it was the second largest article in WP. There are no reassessed scores here, only reported historical fact.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I was concerned Georgie, a lot more with the Dapi89 resolution that "Sh*t can't be allowed to stand" than your patient (and not un-fruitful) efforts on confirming "scores" (hate that word, it wasn't a cricket match!!) When I suggested that (by and large, at least) we ought to "recognise what's recognised", mentioning, even discussing "disputed" versions of the "traditional" scores rather than substituting them. This applies more to articles than lists perhaps, in fact I was thinking of the way this is actually done in the Dallas article - rather than an asterixed note just saying "disputed". If you don't make an effort at least on Billy Bishop the the bunfight continues. Do we need to say "Officially Credited" (lovely weasel phrase that when you think about it) with seventy whatever it was and then briefly mention that this has been pushed as low as 27 (as I believe it has) by some modern assessors? Mannock, on the other hand, got his "score" inflated by his first biographer. He (and even more so McCudden) were the sort than very possibly underclaimed a bit. The difficulty with "reported historical fact" is that the reports differ, (and, perhaps more misleading still, records differ in accuracy and completeness) history is doubtful (even when it isn't "bunk") and as for "fact", well... I suppose what I am saying is that sh*t sometimes has to stand if only in the interests of avoiding OR. Sorry if what I said got up your nose - as I think you may have noticed I have a lot of time for your work, on the whole. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Libby

I've just had a real battle with this article - came into it when I finally worked out what the old fellow was on about when he described his "invention" of a rifle-style stock for the Lewis gun. Of course the great majority of Lewis guns (as used on the ground) had just such a stock, it was the stripped "aircraft" version that had a spade grip substituted. Found a very good confirmation of a theory I have had for a while that this is an instance where Libby's memory was playing tricks on him - what he (and several other F.E.2b observers) did was to just get the rifle style stock (a standard Lewis gun spare part) and screw it in, replacing the spade grip. It freed a hand so they could hang on to something fairly solid instead of falling out of the F.E.2's cockpit. Nice move.

So far so good - now the hairy bit - the references on this article were done in at least three different styles. It all looked pretty awful when I added mine (in a fourth style!). Being a good little boy (o.k. then, a conscientious old duffer) I thought it might be a good idea if I got the references all in the correct style. This took ages, and my fuses blew twice during the operation!

Could you just have a look at the bloody thing and make sure I haven't arsed it up, please.... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

William Ernest Shields

Copied from the Talk page of Cjrother (talk), in the interests of clarity:

Hello,

Least you think my ascription of allegiance was a random one:

1) Shields' attestation papers bear his signature under his pledge of allegiance to the king.

2. Many of Shields' Canadian contemporaries self-identified as British.

3. Canadian citizenship was not fixed by law until 1947, some three decades after World War I.

And what facts, pray tell, can you muster for your edit?

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the allegiance of William Earnest Shields.

To be clear I am not disputing any of your facts. The reasoning behind my change was twofold:

1 - The meaning of the Allegiance field. To me this field shows what "side" a person was on in a particular conflict. It is usually a country or other political entity.

2 - The oath. I am sure that Shields did swear allegiance to George V but to me this is a technicality. Members of the Canadian Forces to this day swear allegiance to the reigning monarch but I think that for those with wikipedia entries the Allegiance field should say Canada. I assume you aren't suggesting those should all be changed? Similarly American soldiers swear allegiance to the US constitution but I think their Allegiance field should say USA.

Regards. Cjrother (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You pose a false analogy above. Allegiance to a set of common laws (the U. S. Constitution) is not analogous to allegiance to an individual (a King and Emperor) who (theoretically) is considered God-ordained to set laws. Now, if Americans swore allegiance to their President...that would be roughly analogous to the Canadian oath to a Monarch. Except our headman would be a live-in, while the Canadians' would be an ocean away.

Now as to your deletion...it is a paraphrase of Shields' Oath of Allegiance that can be viewed at http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/canada/attestation/shields.php. I generalized the paraphrase, so as to place Shields' oath as being ordinary, simply because it is. A quick search at http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/canada/index.php will show the truth of that.

By the way, what proof can you offer that, during this era, Canadians referred to themselves as such? It seems to me I am the only one offering proofs here.

Georgejdorner (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused about where you think the issue is. Maybe some questions will help clarify that.

1) What do you think should go in the Allegiance field of the infobox generally speaking?

2) Do you agree that there is nothing unusual about Shields's oath? (I think that is what you are saying in the second sentence of your second para above.) If so then are you proposing that all other Canadian (and presumably British and other Commonwealth) military members have their Allegiance field changed from their country to the name of the reigning monarch?

3) Not really a question but I don't follow your last paragraph above or to be more precise I don't see how it relates to the discussion. In my edit I changed his allegiance to say British Empire not Canada.

Regards, Cjrother (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, again,

My dictionary defines allegiance as "the obligation of support and loyalty to one's ruler, government, or country." Shields swore allegiance to his ruler, King George V, not to a government or country. I felt I owed that explanation to readers. You deleted it because you did not understand the explanation.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I know what the word allegiance means but, as above, that has nothing to do with this discussion. We aren't talking about what a word means, we are talking about what goes in the Allegiance field on a military person infobox.

Since you didn't answer my questions to help me understand your thinking, I will lay out my reasoning here.

Firstly, there is nothing even remotely unusual about Shields's oath. Nearly 700,000 Canadians served in the First World War. All of them would have sworn the same oath.

Secondly, there is no practical difference (especially for the purposes of a Wikipedia infobox) between swearing allegiance to the reigning monarch of Canada and swearing allegiance to Canada.

Thirdly, the Allegiance field usually contains the name of a country or country-like entity. I can't recall seeing any other types of entries especially in modern day entries.

Basically you are suggesting a change that will affect hundreds, possibly thousands of pages for what strikes me as a triviality. It is clear what it means when the Allegiance field says Canada or British Empire or New Zealand. It is less clear when it says George V. (There are also various practical issues such as people whose careers span multiple monarchs.)

I hope this clarifies the reasoning behind my edit, Cjrother (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I have presented the sources for my factual reasoning behind the original edit. You have presented your opinions, unbacked by any reliable sources.

You feel a hero's oath of allegiance is a mere technicality that you can ignore and reassign willy-nilly. I respect it as proof of his patriotism.

Most glaring to me is your ignoring the question of Canadian citizenship not being established until 1947. You are willing to ignore that to falsify history by retroactively granting Shields' that citizenship.

Unless you are willing to actually do anything more than vent your personal opinions and offer specious arguments, this dialog is over. I am not going to waste my writing efforts here, when I could be working on the article.

Georgejdorner (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with the dialog being over though I wouldn't personally call it a dialog as you have continually refused to respond to anything I've said. Every time I ask a question you go off on a strange tangent.

The citizenship issue is a perfect example of that. I asked you about this in my question 3 above but you never responded. I have never said Sheilds was a Canadian citizen. Also, his citizenship is irrelevant to the issue under discussion.

All I'm saying is this page should be the same as all the others. I don't see why that is a controversial point of view.

Cjrother (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Shannon

Hi, I thought I should let you know as a courtesy that I have moved Christopher Shannon to the page Christopher Shannon (aviator) as most people searching will probably be thinking of the contemporary fashion designer by the same name. Also, most of the links that were added to Christopher Shannon were in reference to the designer (hence why I created the designer's page originally), whilst the ace only has two links to him from specifically related pages. Hope that's okay by you, I've fixed the two article wikilinks to the page too. Best wishes, Mabalu (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

RE:Gottfried Freiherr von Banfield‎;

I was waiting for that inquiry from you. So first of all I didn't add any (dead or not) link to the article. Second of all:

Yes I'm 100% sure. Imagine the pre-WW and inter-WW era amateur tennis life. Amateurism - that is no financial benefit could be gained from tennis - was characterized and dominated by nobility, who could afford the costs of international tennis competitions. Traveling, racquets, courts fees, a problem that is nowadays solved by professionalism where each and every of these are sponsored. It was a blueblood hobby. Some examples, I've created/contributed recently : Count Ludwig von Salm-Hoogstraeten, Count Mikhail Sumarokov-Elston (Russian Royal Family scion), Don Rodrigo de Castro Pereira (Portugese Royal family scion), Edward Murray Colston, 2nd Baron Roundway, George Cholmondeley, 5th Marquess of Cholmondeley, Wollmar Boström (Swedish minister) and also aviators/flying aces Constantin Cantacuzino (aviator) and Roland Garros (aviator). Heck even Miklós Horthy, WWII governor of the Kingdom of Hungary won tournaments at the Adriatic (sources for that in the Rolf Kinzl article).
The links I've included in my edit summaries all shows Baron Goffredo de Banfield, his Italian name as an Italian pre-WWII competitor in e.g. Wimbledon, which according to his wikipedia article here is correct, he switched to Italian nationality around 1926. Do you know any other Gottfried who was the Baron of Banfield, who lived at the same time and had the same noble rank and was also Italian? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 16:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The dead link could be an unintentional side-effect of my revert so feel free to remove it. If I'll have time I will add some info on his tennis career as you requested. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 19:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That's him on the website of the Triest Tennis Club. It mentions that he won the closed championships in Triest in 1927. There's also a picture of him that perfectly matches the one in the article. So a brief sentence could be easily added that he was an Italian tennis champion based on this source. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 12:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I found two more (Slovene) sources that might come handy as his article lacks any information between the period 1930-1970. Here's one about him participating in a Ljubljana tournament in 1935 and that he represented Triest in 1937 against Ljubljana in an intercity team match. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 16:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Werner Voss

I am sorry that your experiences of the assessment process has been so bad. Hopefully I can help you a little bit on how to navigate the intricacies of the nomination process. It is really quite easy when you get the hang of it. It was absolutely never my intention to stop you nominating the article in any way. I thought you had forgotten about it which is why I removed the parameter.

The first problem seems to have come from when you first put the article up for A-Class review. You put the A-Class=current parameter into the Biography banner. The popup bit wouldn't have therefore popped up. When "A-Class=current" is in the Milhist template, you should see an additional line of text in the additional information section. The text is "This article is currently undergoing an A-Class review." The "currently undergoing" is a red hyperlink and takes you to this page. Once you've edited that page and added your reasons and comments, you then transclude it on the Milhist review page. The A-Class parameter is there at the moment so you should see it now.

I have found the review process to be a very useful process to refine articles so I hope you are not too discouraged and give it a try. If you have any questions about it then please let me know. Woody (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

George, I saw your comment on Woody's talk page after I noticed him re-adding "A-Class=current" to the Voss page. No-one is trying to refuse help, I'm afraid I didn't notice your follow-up comment after my so-called "useless" advice when you first asked me -- it was a busy week professionally and WP-wise. I stick by my suggestion that GAN might be preferable before ACR but if you want to go with ACR, no problem. Let me or Woody know how you go with this attempt (preferably as a new section at the bottom of my talk page, it'll be harder to miss)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi looks like the nomination is there, just needed some fixing in the heading area -- you might want to sign your name at the end of the nom statement though... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Voss

I think it is better practice to document them on the review page. This way all reviewers have the option to comment on whether the info needs to be included prior to supporting A-class. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Nicely done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Albert Ball

This is a note to let the main editors of Albert Ball know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 7, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 7, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Albert Ball (1896–1917) was an English fighter pilot during the First World War. At the time of his death he was, with 44 victories, the United Kingdom's leading flying ace. Raised in Nottingham, Ball was commissioned as a second lieutenant in October 1914. He transferred to the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) the following year, and gained his pilot's wings in January 1916. He then joined No. 13 Squadron RFC in France, flying reconnaissance missions before being posted in May to No. 11 Squadron, a fighter unit. From then until his return to England on leave in October, he accrued many aerial victories, earning two Distinguished Service Orders and the Military Cross. He was the first ace to become a British popular hero. After a period on home establishment, Ball was posted to No. 56 Squadron, which was sent to the Western Front in April 1917. He crashed to his death in a field in France on 7 May, sparking a wave of national mourning and posthumous recognition, which included the award of the Victoria Cross for his actions during his final tour of duty. His most renowned enemy, Manfred von Richthofen, remarked upon hearing of Ball's death that he was "by far the best English flying man". (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Georgejdorner. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.