User talk:Dapi89

Work and other things

The midnight oil has been burned and my exams for the first semester are OVER!!!! Taking a break for a few days then it'll be nose to the g-stone as I go into the second (winter) semester. I also have a part-time job so I won't be visting Wiki as much as I have done in the past. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

More like a few weeks, but I'm spending a few days to prepare (ie, find text books, ensure I'm up to date with enrollment etc...). Minorhistorian (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary of Lions led by donkeys

Please try not to draft edit summaries that can be construed as personal attacks on other editors such as the ("You obviously ..") in this one. [1] The information you provided after the first sentence is useful to other editors. See WP:CIVIL for more info. Thanks. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Strategic bombing during World War II

Please see Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Industrial capacity and production -- PBS (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are good friends with Stor stark7 comments such as "no way pal" are confrontational and disruptive as they do not help foster a cordial relationship on the talk page and hence make building a consensus for the content of the article more difficult. I suggest that you strike the phrase out. -- PBS (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Do 217 production.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Do 217 production.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Do 217 M1 cockpit.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Do 217 M1 cockpit.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blablaaa

This is a courtesy note to bring your attention to the above RfC/U where you've been mentioned in relation to your work with Blablaaa on the Kursk article. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, respond to any of the views, highlight any inaccuracies in the "Statement of the dispute" etc, your input would be welcome. EyeSerene^talk 09:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed the thread below - I'm sorry for dragging you into this unpleasantness, Dapi. EyeSerene^talk 17:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

wondering

when i saw eyeseren asked u i thought you will not respond because your source faking of glantz. I intially planned to not to respond to kursk because i wanted not to damage you reputation but now the case looks different. Blablaaa (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

iam glancing through the kursk discussion and edit history of battle of kursk. I will need about 30 minutes. Then i will present the facts and also the prokhorovka thing. Before i present the fact i will see if you updated your version. Thats no threating iam not afraid of anything what you can say that is an attempt to avoid damaging your reputation because i like your contributions. Hi eyeseren is this edit worth a presentation at the RFC? :-) Blablaaa (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It was proven at the time I was being honest and I did not 'fake' any source. You're a disgrace Bla'. I actually defended you there. I won't do it again. Dapi89 (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Your last word dapi ? You wont strike that i tried to claim kursk was a german tactical victory ? iam near ready with my response. you want to see some diffs of you? i will tell you when i finished you can decide then. Blablaaa (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

He has been warned and I have added a comment on the discussion page. Not good enough from Blablaaa. Minorhistorian (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

iam ready to post. do you want to update your description of our "problems"Blablaaa (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested Bla'. The only thing I am remotely interested in is your accusation of 'faking', which I am ready to destroy in one swoop. Keep it short, as I don't intend to waste time on it. Dapi89 (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

still wondering. I offered the possibility to strike your comments regarding my plan to make kursk a "tactical german victory" and that i have a "blatant bias". Why did you choose this way? Blablaaa (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

i finally striked my comments and tried to ensure minimal amount of readers will read. We both know who is correct but its long ago and attacking your reputation feels too heavy, despite your " a wanted to make kursk a tactical german victory". My heaby response will be turned against enigma and eyeseren. It was a failure to attack you :-) . But next time choose your words with cautionBlablaaa (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

btw my decision was not affected by any of your edits.... Blablaaa (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Blitzkreig

Hey Dapi,

I see you reverted (ahem) an IP edit at Blitzkreig with this change. I imagine from your edit summary "appalling edits by IP" you were deliberately excluding my edit after it to augment the ref – which was vague (the journal of cancer research? I did think there might be more than one). Since the article says at the top it's about the military term, I have no problem with your revert.

In British English, at least, I would think the term "blitz" covers most general-purpose uses, but the IP does have a point if it is being used outside that sphere, and the blitzkreigs in the DAB don't seem to cover it. So your suggestion of creating a new article is valid but perhaps unhelpful as to practical advice about how to go about it. What would you suggest, for example, as a title?

This is not meant as sarcasm. It seems to me that one would end up with an article such as "Blitzkreig (variously spotted being used wrongly)" or something like that. Your revert was right and I think you tacitly accepted that my augmentation of the ref made it better than it was (but not good enough) – I do this sometimes to make it clear why it is inappropriate for others to judge.

To my own eyes, it seems a little that Blitzkreig as primary topic for the military use perhaps is dominating the use and that Blitzkreig should be the DAB and Blitzkreig (military) the article, but that's coming from my POV as a linguist, and I imagine has been discussed over and over so many times that I tend to take the view that if an article is settled where it sits, there is consensus for it being there.

But a good linguistic article I might start from there, since nothing quite seems to cover it. For example how it was abbreviated to "Blitz" in the WWII, when the term became common in British English Usage (shortened from Blitzkreig) – which of course overlaps with Blitz but it is a peculiar thing that it seems to dash back and forth with people using the longer word so as not to imply the bomber raids over London specifically or the UK generally. It's very interesting linguistically, and that certainly does not belong in this article. All the IP has done, beyond the edits you reverted, is to give me one more WP:RS to add to my list of uses in an article of that kind.

Is that OK with you? Sorry to ramble on, bad habit of mine. Si Trew (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, Simon.139.48.25.60 (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, thanks for your yours.

I've no encounter with this IP before, because this is very much on the edge of my area of interest but more in the centre of yours I guess. I'm a bit of a jack of all trades and do some translations, some of which come into the ambit of WP:MILHIST, wher I then link them thus because I know that the people there will throw them out or assess them usually as start class but that's just fair from their perspective but gets it on their radar, so to speak.

So I guess you see this IP more than I do.

I still stick with my habit of improving any IP's edits and dropping a friendly word to them via {{welcome}} and so forth, and WP:AGF.

But from your tone if this particular IP editor is consistently making WP:VANDALISM you are quite right to revert and so on; I would myself have made a revert rather a polite undo, but if you undo, you could do well by leaving the IP a note. I guess that is past that time, but if it had been done before, a ban would probably have been issued by now.

I add in conclusion this IP's edits I think although wrong and misguided were done in good faith; essentially (as your ES said) just at the wrong article.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Atlantic

You posted a comment about aircraft losses; I’ve replied here, if that's any help. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

File:DornierC-Legion.jpg

This image was tagged as replaceable, as I'm sure you saw; but as I'm not sure whether it really is replaceable or not, I've nominated it for deletion at WP:FFD. Please see the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 August 2. Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Orbat Coastal Command

A few whoopsies in there, I'm afraid. Firstly flying units numbered 1300 to 1970 were Flights not Squadrons (fixed). Secondly some of your squadrons don't reconcile with a source that I have, for location and in some cases equipment, but this may be because the equipment lists and base info is not exhaustive in the source (Flying units of the RAF by Alan Lake ISBN 1 84037 086 6)Petebutt (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

All worked out in the end, and have added the parentheses names where appropriate, hope it's OK, have a look now:- Coastal Command Orders of BattlePetebutt (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Two more gliches, the US Navy squadrons don't appear on any of the Wikipedia squadron lists and don't throw up hits on Yahoo. Have you got a reference for them?Petebutt (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Found a reference on the net.Petebutt (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Unternehmen Bodenplatte

Sorry, didn't notice you were editing it at the same time as me, I'll back off to avoid edit conflicts. (Hohum ^@) 13:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Werner Kreipe

Sorry but my only fact I could cite from a book would be regarding his German Cross. Have you seen the following webpages on him?

• [2]
• [3]

Sorry but that is all I have/found MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen this book? "The Fatal Decisions: General of the Air Force Werner Kreipe; General Gunther Blumentritt; Lieutenant General Fritz Bayerlein; Colonel General Kurt Zeitzler; Lieutenant General Bodo Zimmerman; General Hasso Von Manteuffel"? MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review of Bodenplatte

Sure, I will have a look. It will take some time to read in thoroughly. Did you add alt text to all the images? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also check for dabs MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about the command chain on the German and Allied side. The infobox list Peltz and Schmid but in the plan section it seems that Kreipe was in charge? Also what roles did Coningham and Doolittle have? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

what is a "recce" mission? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the German Wiki Gotthard Handrick was also tasked with planing elements of Bodenplatte. Do you know what he did? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Paula

The article looks very nice. Some comments: The start of section "Forces involved" is difficult to read. Geschwader X escorted by Y, etc. Could a table resolve this? I have difficulties with the overall assessment of the result of the operation. Since the article should be self sustaining the assessment should be explained to the casual reader. Why was it a tactical victory and a strategic failure? This I don't fully comprehend from the article. It should be covered in more detail in the "Aftermath" section. Since France surrendered three weeks later I would somehow assume that the strategic element was irrelevant, but this only shows my lack of knowledge. This is even more apparent when I compare the lead of the article with the lead of the Battle of Britain article. In both cases winning air supremacy seems to have been the main goal. In both cases the Germans failed to achieve their goals but the strategic implications were different: France surrendered but England prevailed. Nevertheless I suggest to submit the article for a peer review prior to going to GA review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Adolf Galland

It's worth a try. If you don't mind I would want to focus on his private life. You do a much better job on the military aspects. I will dig out my books on him and start reading a bit first. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I will read the article later today MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am still reading Toliver and Constable again. I also want to reread "The First and the Last" before I give my final opinion and start editing. According to Toliver and Constable, Galland already learned the lesson that superior technology can defeat superior quantities in Spain. Do you have

• Isby, David C (1998). The Luftwaffe Fighter Force The View from the Cockpit. London: Greenhill Books. ISBN 1-85367-327-7.

The book focuses on the interrogation reports of Bär, Galland and some other pilots. I think I will have a look at this book again as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please recheck "Sturmbock" versus "Sturmböck"! The plural variant of Sturmbock is Sturmböcke. A single Sturmbock is Sturmbock without the Umlau. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am travelling right now (again) and I did not take my Galland books with me. I will be back on September 29th. I have to excuse myself until then. Sorry MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dapi89. You have new messages at SimonTrew's talk page.
Message added 06:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Walter Ohmsen

Please let me know what you think of the article. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Heligoland Bight (1939)

Are you referring to the infobox size? If so the problem was with the image in the infobox. You can't use attributes like thumb, right, left etc. in the image of the infobox. The only attribute which works without causing issues is the image size attribute. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dapi89. You have new messages at Talk:Battle of the Heligoland Bight (1939)‎‎.
Message added 21:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Unternehmen Bodenplatte (2)

Nice edits. Thanks especially for replacing a season with a date, and sorry if it seemed nitpicky to change it. Having lived in the Southern Hemisphere, I'm particularly sensitive to "spring", "summer" meaning different things in different locales. --John (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Will add this on here. First of all the new edits are going well I have seen the GA review.

The table in the Unternehmen Bodenplatte#Results of raid section is very large. Looking at it if you created new article for the RAF wings No. 146 Wing RAF for example. They may only be stubs but it would cut the size down some what. Only a suggestion but it might work. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In the Result of Raid section the Brussels—Grimbergen line is unreferenced. You might want to check the bibliography some books don't have locations and the ISBNs area a mixture of different styles some with dashes ISBN 0-9526867-0-8 and some without ISBN 1580970060. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• At 46,000 bytes this is the largest GA review ever WELL DONE --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Fw 190

The article is really starting to come together now. I might be able to borrow a book which will help flesh out wit cites the section on fighter/bomber variants; I'm in the middle of a precious mid-semester break so I've been able to spend a little more time here. Won't be for long though, I have some major essays to work on. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Ian Rose (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

190 unforgiving stall characteristics

You are welcome --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

RAF coastal command during WWII

There are some UKGOV images already uploaded that you could use in this article

• 
  217 Sqn Beauforts
• Shorts Singapore
  Shorts Singapore
• 
  Bolton Paul Defiant

and as you seem to have an interest in aircraft I wondered if you had seen one of theses I had never heard of one.

Spitfire floatplane

. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Operation Donnerkeil

Question: Wasn't Oberst Max Ibel Galland's second man in the operation and fighter leader on board one of the ships? MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, saw it now. By the way, it is Jagdfliegerführer Schiff abbreviated to Jafü Schiff, which stands for fighter pilot leader ship or fighter controller ship.

Luftwaffe War Crimes

I'm really busy at the mo' - will get around to adding info when I have lottsa spare time. Minorhistorian (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Operation Paula

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Stukas!!

Ehi, where did you put my contribut about the Stuka?? What is the appropriate location, for you? The... bin? --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah... ok... I saw it... Dankeschen...

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Operation Flax

Was it your intent to edit Operation Flax into one be block 'o text? I would monkey with it, but I suspect you are just in mid-edit.Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Otto Kittel

Kittel was never mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht. The German version of Kurowski's book does not go much into detail about his personal life either. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I made some minor copy edits and added some links. Hope you don't object. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: According to Fellgiebel Kittel was deputy leader of the II/JG 54 at the time of his death MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Günther Specht

First off glad to see you around. Secondly thanks a ton for taking the Article to GA. It was only a half hearted attempt at nomination really as the article is not even halfway complete in terms of coverage. We don't even know why he was nicknamed Gulle. No credible references for his personal life.

As far as my elongated absence from wikipedia is concerned, it was/is a Wiki Break fuelled by frustrations over being big time let down by certain people in high places who get selective amnesia especially to their own promises. Also fuelled by really dim questions people get to ask just because they have right to review an A class article. You do all the right things and along come people asking really dim questions already answered and provided access to. After you answer again they drop the face of the earth without taking ff their oppose. You are left with a failed nomination only because some people either are not prompt enough or keep developing selective amnesia.

Sorry didn't mean to vent on you. I genuinely appreciate your time in fixing the article. I owe you one. You can call on it any time.  Perseus 71 ^talk 00:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

NZ pilots and Focke Wulfs

Yeah, I have heard that one before - still cracks me up though! Minorhistorian (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW Have you come across this site? Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

24.180.106.119

I've issued another iw-delete4im as that was the only removal post block expiry. Mjroots (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Germany versus German Reich or Greater German Reich

I have a question regarding the use of the term Nazi Germany versus Greater German Reich. Technically Germany was at the time the "German Reich" and in 1943 it called itself "Greater German Reich". Are we making a fundamental error in referring to Germany in this timeframe as Nazi Germany? Shouldn't Wiki use the legally correct term of German Reich instead, even though it is referred to as Nazi Germany by the English speaking community? Again I am just questioning what is technically correct here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I posted this question on the Wiki project discussion page as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. But two wrongs does not make one right as we say in Germany. I was just thinking about this, that's all MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Bader

According to Adolf Gallands biography

• Toliver, Raymond F. and Trevor J. Constable. Fighter General: The Life of Adolf Galland The Official Biography. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 1999. ISBN 0-7643-0678-2.

Galland attended Bader's funeral raising some eyebrows in England. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert Stanford Tuck

Did you know that Tuck was the godfather of Galland's son? I already added this to both articles. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Galland

I think that early gliding career could use some more coverage. Basically I have to criticize the parts that I said I would take of which I haven't. Otherwise it is nicely done apart from lacking alt text for the images. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Enough for GA? yes! Complete? I think one can find more info moving forward MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Totalise

Dear Dapi, must you put 'key' in your amendment? Elements are fundamental and keys open doors not fronts. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for replying, my point is that elements are in the periodic table, they are the fundamental particles of existence. If we use the term in a literary sense 'key' implies that there are things more fundamental than elements (as well as being a door unlocking device) ;O). Keith-264 (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Adolf Galland/GA1

Hi see Talk:Adolf Galland/GA1 its quite good but I believe a copy edit by the Guild is needed I can put it on hold no time limit until done ? The request page is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the citations need fixing. You use both the – and —. I think only the – should be used when denoting page ranges. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the dashing! I think. Note: The Diamonds to the Knight's Cross were not awarded for his service as General der Jagdflieger. I do acknowledge that his position at the time was General der Jagdflieger but all my sources, especially Scherzer and Fellgiebel, are very explicit that he received the Diamonds as Geschwaderkommodore of JG 26 and not as General der Jagdflieger. Sorry to disagree here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

done! congratulations on GA MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure add it. I think he entertained his guests with this story in his post war life. One note: I read somewhere that his Spanish was fluent but coloquial at best. He also claimed "I have never learned to speak English, I just spoke it" he referred to his English as his Oxford English. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bader

Re: The quotes in Lucas I cannot find on the pages given. The other was uncited and Brickhill's quotation no longer fits the section. Dapi89 (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Made a Wikiquote instead; can't be sure that the section applies either, but it was a back up. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

Yup. I reacted too quickly, my apologies! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

Marseille

You are the experten about the subject. I put it as there is no sentence about the Allied point of view about Marseille. You dont think that war bulletin quoted Marseille? Italian Bulletins quoted some Pilots, i.e. Luigi Gorrini or Adriano Visconti, on the radio when they accomplished some outstanding feat... I think the same in German bulletin. but I have not any prove about it... regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you did a good job. But you know, I am not sure about what Tate states... I am studying Soviet Pilots and Aircraft, lately, and some pilots stated that they knew who they were fighting, for instance, the "Moelders boys" how they called pilots from his unit. I cant believe that with all the propaganda about him, the Allied pilot did not know about Marseille. Then, if a pilot states that they know about Marseille, why not to believe to him and to believe to Tate, that was not there? Anyway...

Regards from Italy --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

About the Red Baron's flying ability

My edit concerning Manfred von Richthofen's flying skills was aimed at internal consistency. As noted elsewhere in the article, he barely made it through pilot's training. I know through my reading that from the time he could do so, he forbade the pilots in his Jasta from flying aerobatics because he believed they added nothing to fighting ability. However, Richthofen did not have to be a great pilot to forge his record; he only needed to be able to maneuver his airborne gun platform to bring the guns to bear.

Richthofen's great talent was his marksmanship; he also had the advantage of using the most advanced fighter tactics in the world, as taught to him by Oswald Boelcke. Backed by the pilots of his Jasta, the Red Baron was indeed formidable in a dogfight. However, he was a mediocre pilot.

I am neither an admirer or a detractor of Richthofen. However, I believe the article should have a good grasp of his skills.

Georgejdorner (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your humility in reverting yourself. Too many WP editors are bound up in their own egos to do as much.

Take another look. I do not think you will find I have added any uncited material to the article; it is not my custom. I work on the principle that I park my ego before I start writing for WP, give a source for anything and everything I place in an article (vice the info box at the top of my talk page), and promptly and willingly mend my errors. In many cases, I will even cite sources for talk page statements such as this. (I might add, I did not have the books to hand this time to do such.)

I am glad to see a trained historian on board here at WP:Aviation. Certainly, if you wish to come over into the niche of WWI aviation, there is a lot to do. There are still about 200 biographies of WWI fighter aces yet to be written; most of the approximately 1,200 that have already been written need more work. And if you don't like writing about people, there are entire WWI air forces needing coverage, along with their airplanes, etc.

In short, I am glad to make your acquaintance, wherever you should set up your home in Wikiland.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert-Georg Freiherr von Malapert

Can you please have a look at the newly created article and make corrections you deem necessary. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Black Friday (1945)

Hi Dapi, I've effectively undid several of your changes to this article's infobox and explained my rationale at Talk:Black Friday (1945). I'd be very happy to discuss this with you. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Heer

I reply on your talk page as well as mine.

Mosier relies on a number of other sources as seen in his footnotes to the concluding chapter: Dupuy, Marshall, many others. He address the accusations of 'idealization' of the Germans as implicitly degrading the performance of their opponents and refers them to Dupuy's work. He argues that the high German officer cadre to soldier ratio meant the leadership was "more than able to compensate for the growing parity" also quotes Dupuy as to the relative merits of American to German leadership, perhaps he only means superior rather than larger for the Americans, he doesn't give the American absolute numbers or the ratio of officers to men. He is measuring 'success' by several standards besides the final result, and not just during the 'happy times', again he relies considerably on Dupuy. But what I wrote seems to be the gist of his conclusions, I may be conflating larger and superior in regards to the Americans - I don't know the ratio and he doesn't say, but 'superior' would be a fair representation - summing up that chapter in a single concise sentence might be an overreach on my part. I did add 'larger' later as he specifically states that in regards to the French. Its an American army and has tons of everything, including officers, not nearly as many as in Viet Nam where there was something like 2 or 3 officers per private- if my friends' reminiscences are correct, a very long tail as they say- but I'm sure plenty. Maybe I'm extrapolating from his deriving this from WWI and the German larger retained cadre - which, presumably, applies to the Americans as well since, I think, its doubtful the Americans retained a large WWI cadre being, as you say, smaller in the first place.Tttom1 (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Eduard Tratt

You have such a eloquent way with people when comes to behaviour such as this User talk:MisterBee1966# Major Eduard Tratt. How would you handle this? I had left him a message here User talk:Eduard Tratt MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Richard John Cork

Hi there you may be interested in this guy Richard John Cork and his connection to Bader.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter Storp

I have a question regarding Walter Storp, which you may be able to answer. According to two sources Storp sank the British destroyer Fafnir on 9 April 1940 during the Norwegian campaign. I can't find a ship called Fafnir sunk on 9 April 1940. The name to me suggests that it may be a Scandinavian ship and not British. However the only Norwegian ship sunk on that day was the Æger. Note: Storp was assigned to the III./KG 4 and was Staffelkapitän of the 8th Staffel at that time. Do you know what might be wrong here? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Presume your watching so will add this here ROYAL NAVY VESSELS LOST AT SEA, 1939-45 - BY DATE [4] --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Fluid Six fighter formation?

This formation was used by Spitfires (in particular) of 2 TAF during the last couple of years of the war and has been described in Spitfire operational history. I have seen it mentioned somewhere else in Wikipedia, but can't think where. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah ha, Thomas and Shore mentioned that it was developed after combat experience in Africa...I'm pretty sure it was described in 'Dust Clouds over the Middle East' and 'Spitfires over Sicily'. Minorhistorian (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

November '41 and 112 Sqn? Good one - I don't have the book so I was working in the dark a little. I've just googled "fluid six fighter formation" and, apart from Wikipedia: 'Supermarine Spitfire operational history' it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else - this seems to be the closest. Shaw's book on "Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering" is worth having Minorhistorian (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

I am looking for reviewers for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1942) and List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941). Both articles had passed A-class earlier but are not attracting any reviewers for FLC review. Maybe you can have a look and provide some feedback. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Galland

I catagorized Adolf Galland as a "World War II prisoners of war held by the United States". Would you say that this is technically correct? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Battle of France

Sorry, but who are Buckley and Gunsberg?Volga2 (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Gunsberg? Do you mean Gunsburg? And here, 1993 or 1992?Volga2 (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In cite note 43, 44, 83, 84, why you write Gunsberg? Gunsberg or Gunsburg?Volga2 (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you add Ellis?Volga2 (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about the unsourced paragraph below?

"They had to cover a considerably larger field than what they should have considering their training and equipment, and thus formed the weak point of the French defense system. This comes from the fact that the French High Command was blinded by their belief that the Ardennes forest was impassable by tanks, even though intelligence from the Belgian army and from their own intelligence services warned them of long armour and transport columns crossing the Ardennes and being stuck in a huge traffic-jam for some time. French High Command simply refused to believe this was of any importance, as it did not suit their convictions on the matter."Volga2 (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

New project

I have found a new project, Ernst Lindemann. I remember that you were at one point interested in the Bismarck. Maybe you can tweak my awkward English once in a while. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Lütjens?! Maybe, one at a time though, I want to finish Lindemann first. I found it rather interesting that he went to University in England. He probably made some friends in London, and then he has to fight England in two wars. This got me interested in him as a person. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have some time I would like you to have a first look. I think I have the general structure established with a lead, into the Navy and Personal life section. Missing is WWI, more info on the between the wars section, the Spanish Civil War and of course expanding the Bismarck section. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review for Battle of Sedan (1940)

Hi, Dapi89, I've started the GA review for Battle of Sedan (1940). I've only posted a few initial comments so far, but would you mind taking a look? Once these have been addressed, I will go through the rest of the criteria. The review page can be found here: Talk:Battle of Sedan (1940)/GA1. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I ended up having the evening to myself, so I went through the rest of the article. I think it is fine in terms of most of the GA criteria but am a little concerned by the prose. I found a few issues with grammar which I think need to be sorted out before it passes for GA. I've listed a number of them on the review page. You are welcome to try to fix them yourself, but I think the best approach would be to make a rest with the Guild of Copy Editors for someone with fresh eyes to take a look. I know that sometimes I can't see the issues with my own writing, but when someone uninvolved comes along they are quickly found. Anyway, I've placed the article on hold pending these changes. I'm willing to leave it on hold for a fortnight or even longer if need be due to the backlog at GOCE. Just let me know what you want to do. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, your changes look quite good. I've read over the article again today and am happy that it meets the GA criteria. I've made a few minor tweaks, though, so before I pass it could you please take a look and see if you agree with my changes? Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Passed. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of France

dapi89, I apologize for barging in while you are working on article. The place of the two photographs bothered and, since I have only a few minutes, I broke into your work - now I am out... Cordialement,

--Frania W. (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Dapi89, you are doing tremendous work on the article... FW

I would not call it a "shot in the arm", but a "blood transfusion". Please feel free to continue ! FW/--Frania W. (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Bühligen

Question, most of my sources spell Kurt Bühligen's last name with the "n" before the "g". These sources include Obermaier, Scherzer and Fellgiebel. However, some do spell his last name with the additional "n", thus making it Kurt Bühlingen. What do your English sources say? MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Dunkirk

Can you edit cite note 3? Volga2 (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sinyavin offensive

Thanks for the expansion. I do however have a query about the Soviet Air Force size. Glantz mentions nothing of the soviet airforce activity, only noting during the description of the subsequent Operation Iskra that the Soviet forces had air support and superiority, unlike earlier operations. Isayev says the same and gives the number of aircraft available to the Volkhov Front on September 26th: 62 bombers and close assault aircraft and no fighters. Moreover, the order of battle (which I still think belongs near the end of the article rather than the middle) says nothing of the German 8th Air corps. I think the statements like "opposed by 3 air armies" are misleading as no number of aircraft for these armies is given. The outnumbered 2 to 1 claim also seems dubious.

• Reply on article talk page, perhaps D2306 (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Christer Bergström has built a reputation as an expert author on Eastern Front aviation and he is not stranger to the German and Soviet archives. While Mr Glantz is an exceptional source for these articles, he is so on army sources rather than air power. I notice he pays scant attention to aerial battles and air power's contribution (as do most others) in his work.

Even as early as August 1942, the Soviets conserved their aviation considerably. On the quiet sectors they amassed nearly 600 aircraft (near Leningrad), and even more in the Polar Regions. This was against a German air force which was spread thin in North Africa, struggling to knock out Malta, involved in a battle at Stalingrad which alarmingly depleted its strength, was being sucked into action in the RAF's night campaign over Germany costing it even more resources and generally being worn down. Moreover serviceability rates were very poor in Russia. The German logistical 'system', was ill-thought through and they proved themselves to be thoroughly incompetent at supply and re-supply. So their number of operational aircraft was far lower than overall strength.

Around 100 operational German aircraft faced 550 Soviet machines. When assessed for serviceability this worked out 2:1 n the Soviet favour. Still, they gained air superiority.

I don’t know what you mean by the German 8th Air Corps. I know it was not on this part of the front.

Orbats should be in logical order! I've never read an article where they come after the aftermath! Overwhelmingly they come after 'plan' or 'prep' sections. Dapi89 (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I see, the improvements make the article better. 8th Air Corps=VIII. Fliegerkorps and, according to Isayev, it was redeployed during September to this sector of the front to originally participate in Nordlicht, but was used in the German counteroffensive. D2306 (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

On another note, most articles have the order of battle near the bottom of the article. Why move it to the top?D2306 (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I accept your point about OoB. Thank for the responses. Are you reviewing the article? D2306 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas Bader/GA1

Douglas Bader is being reviewed for GA listing. It has been put on hold for an initial 14 days to allow issues such as prose, inline citing and detailed coverage to be addressed. SilkTork *^YES! 16:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Manfred Von?

See here. Bzuk (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Noo Yar

Happy New Year From The Southern Hemisphere... Where it is Mid-Summer...All the best for 2011Minorhistorian (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Meilleurs vœux !

Bonne Année 2011 !

Bonne Année 2011 ! --Frania W. (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Oui, a real photograph. --Frania W. (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Epic Barnstar
		Awarded to Dapi89, for their work in 2010 around the topic of aerial warfare. Keep up the hardwork! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you've received a Barnstar from User:AustralianRupert too! It makes us feel special doesn't it? User:AustralianRupert is good to know and I feel he appreciates our help. Adamdaley (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I was 12 when I received my grandfathers World War II medals, Z Special lapel symbol and Z Special Unit tie. Even his Signal sheet. Wasn't until the age of 15 or 16 when I became interested in World War II. Months after when my father died, I started to get into Wikipedia, Z Special Unit article and it started from there. Adamdaley (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Douglas Bader

Hi. I am not going to be around much for the rest of January. So I don't have the time to make the massive changed required in the time left. Sorry. I think GA should be stopped. Thanks anyway. Dapi89 (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look and bear in mind that you are not able to contribute much. There are other people, though, who seem to be editing, so we'll see how it goes. It's useful if someone is around to do the work, but it doesn't need to be the nominator. And if the work is not much, the reviewer can (and often does) do it if nobody is available to do the work. GA is not actually an award to an individual, it's a peer-reviewed assessment that an article has met minimum quality standards - so it is article focused, rather than person focused. However, I tend to also think that the process is a motivating one for people involved, so I do drop a well done and a {{User Good Article}} template on the talkpages of the significant contributors (regardless of how long ago they contributed - some articles may have had their most substantial work done a while ago). Who knows, anyway, we may still be tinkering with it when you come back in Feb. Have a good break. SilkTork *^YES! 16:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have closed it as a fail. SilkTork *^YES! 16:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Photos

Thanks, but too much money for a piece of paper, I think MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyGian Piero milanetti (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Gian Piero milanetti (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review of Operation Donnerkeil

Hi Dapi, I've started the GA review of this article and left comments at Talk:Operation Donnerkeil/GA1. My main comment is that the article needs a fairly though read through and copy edit. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The OH for 1917 vol III

In a footnote does mention a US railway construction unit that got caught up in the Cambrai battle on 30th November; p.187, fn3. "A detachment of the 11th Engineer (Railway) Regt, USA was employed on railway construction at Gouzeaucourt. Later in the day it was assembled at Fins, where it dug reserve trenches. Casualties amounted to one officer and 27 other ranks of whom some were captured."Keith-264 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ernst Lindemann

I am close to finishing the article. Do you have some time to give me feedback please? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 12:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Adalbert Schneider

Hi, I have a question regarding Schneider. According to Jackson, Robert (2002). The Bismarck: Weapons of War. London. ISBN 1-86227-173-9 page 91 (I don't have this book) the article currently states that Schneider was killed by an 8-inch shell from Norfolk. When I read Müllenheim-Rechberg I get the impression that the fatal shot was fired by Rodney. Could you please check your sources on this? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to be sure MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Dorniervictoriastation.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dorniervictoriastation.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

GAN

Please respond for your GAN Aldertag soon, or I will be forced to fail it (say, 3 more days?). I've already waited a week. Wikicopter _{what i do} s + c cup|former 23:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Adolf Galland

Well, to some people that would still count as "service"

But yes, It does mention his alligience to Argentina in the late 40s and 50s so im satisfied.

Flag Order

Well most battles and ectera which ive looked up it also shows the belligerents in order of battle, i.e whoever participated the most is at the top; and personally it looks better and clearer on print - Care to explain?

Here as some examples off the top of my head- and as you can clearly see they ALL have whoever participated the most at the top, and thats how most of wikipedia is if you havent noticed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Somme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic_(1939%E2%80%931945)

Also, if your going to be that tight up about it; Why havent you put the commanders in alphabetical order?

Alois Lindmayr

I created his stub! I don't have anything else. If you have more info please add it. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I nominated the article for DYK on behalf of your and my name MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

US / UK/Euro spelling

revert Ip changes, NO US spellings - the Americans had nothing to do with this campaign, the British did.

You should note the IP was correct in regards the spelling change. World War II is the American spelling whereas Second World War is the British and CW spelling. In addition, as far as am aware, the latter term used by Germans etc when directly translated of course. Cheers --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, per your comments ill try and free up some time later to reinsert the missing info you cited.

However in regards to American English: Second World War is British ;) Canada, Oz, New Zealand all use the term as do the Germans. The Americans use the term World War II/Two. Granted this variant of English is not always followed in the UK ala the BBC and its World War Two history sections. Cheers --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

BATTLE OF FRANCE

hELLO, yes I have... but now I am out of my place... the losses were some Fiat CR.42s and some FIAT BR 20s bombers... this the section of the Fiat in wikitaly that I contributed a lot to write... Can You read Italian?

I Falco ebbero il battesimo del fuoco il 13 giugno, quando 23 aerei del 23º Gruppo del 3º Stormo scortarono dieci bombardieri Fiat B.R.20 sul porto di Tolone. Dodici caccia mitragliarono gli aeroporti di Fayence e Hyères, colpendo al suolo circa 50 aerei francesi e distruggendone almeno 20. Il 15 giugno, 67 C.R.42 attaccarono gli aeroporti della Francia meridionale. Ventisette biplani del 150º Gruppo, del 53º Stormo, mitragliarono l'aeroporto di Cuers Pierrefeu incendiando una quindicina di Vought V-156F; sette dei caccia che effettuavano la copertura a 500 m di quota furono intercettati dai Bloch MB 151 dell'AC-3 che abbatterono un C.R.42 e ne costrinsero un altro all'atterraggio. I piloti italiani si attribuirono l'abbattimento di quattro caccia francesi. Altri 25 CR..42 si diressero contro l'aeroporto di Cannet des Maures colpendo al suolo circa venti aerei francesi, alcuni dei quali risultarono distrutti. Altri aerei francesi, però, erano riusciti a decollare e nello scontro con gli italiani risultarono abbattuti un Falco e due caccia francesi, mentre un secondo Falco riuscì a rientrare all'aeroporto benché gravemente danneggiato. Nel frattempo, la caccia francese aveva intercettato i 25 biplani del 18º gruppo in missione di copertura sopra Beuchamp: due CR.42 furono abbattuti. Il 18º Gruppo dichiarò l'abbattimento di tre aerei nemici, mentre l'Armée de l'Air ammise per quella giornata solo due perdite. L'Adjutant Pierre Le Gloan del GC.III/6 sul suo Dewoitine D.520 riuscì nella stessa giornata ad abbattere quattro C.R.42 ed un B.R.20, ottenendo in un sol giorno la qualifica di Asso..

Hello... unfortunately I dont have any information about ground forces... it is not my favourite subject... the only specialistic information about them regards tanks and snipers, mostly on Eastern Front...but I will write down the section of "Battle of France" for the two Italian aircraft involved in the campaigne...

kind regards...

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Defence of the Reich

I still dont know why they arent in order of who participated the most as if you look in almost every other battle or conflict they always show them in order. Still youve been on here longer than i am, Suit yourself

Goldblooded (talk)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ernst Lindemann A-Class review

Are you interested in commenting? I would like some feedback on quality of content not just style. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I can't judge your last remarks. It was a comment on the review page here Ernst Lindemann. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Britain Day

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Battle of Britain Day you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Harrison49 (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've placed the article on hold as there are a few things that need fixing. It's very nearly there though. Harrison49 (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Britain Day

The article Battle of Britain Day you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Britain Day for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Harrison49 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

RAF Northolt

That would be great. There's a peer review on at the moment you may like to take a look at but if there's anything you have which can be added in, that would help greatly. My aim is to nominate this for GA in the next few days. Harrison49 (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Malta

Well am sorry to disapoint you but the "home team" would be the United Kingdom ... the fact that the people on the island were mostly Maltese is pretty much irrelevent. The island was British, was developed as a British military base and manned primarly by British weapons and forces. The MILHIST guide to infoboxes states that nations should be in order of importance/forces supplied etc or alphabetical order. The current list shows predomance to a colony that just happened to be the battleground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

By your own logic, the lead combatant on the Battle of Waterloo article should be the United Kingdom of the Netherlands for providing the playing field regardless of the fact British and Prussian forces provided more troops etc ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

A "blatant lie", really? It is sad that you have stooped to name calling when you cannot read the guidelines linked to. For your conveniance, once more: Template:Infobox military conflict, from which i now quote:

[quote]combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles. Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article.[/quote] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Now you are making a fool of yourself, i suggest you go find out what country the battle took part in. It was then part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands since Belgium did not exisit. I suppose you would also suggest American Revolution battles took place in the United States ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your logic is suspect: who do you think provided the largest military contribution to the battle? The largest political contribution to the battle? Or the chain of command to the battle? Here is a tip, it was not Malta. British command, primarily British contribution, and the British who ensured the island did not fall and was supplied. Your logic is compeltly suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, further evidence that your logic is suspect: i would suggest re-reading what you wrote, you actually confirm i was right and you were wrong and furthermore see Battle of Waterloo. By your own admission you would be suggesting inaccuratly that Austria would be at the top of the list of combatants in that article ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, it is absurb as are you, your logic and this entire conversation spanning from the fact you cannot read the simple strightforward guidelines and have attempted every possible way to wriggle from them and the mocking examples give to you. No wonder people critise the wiki with editors like you!

3rr at Siege of Malta (World War II)

Watch the 3rr, please, at Siege of Malta (World War II). Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)