User talk:Grapestomper9

Archie McKellar

Hi

Your efforts are appreciated, but they are adding nothing to the article at present. This article is classified as GA (Good Article) and reckoned to be so because its quality has inched over that threshold. In the introduction an article of this type does not require excessive detail, specially since it is already included in the main body. Also, the citations have not been correctly added - they have not been added to the bibliography and possess no page numbers. Thus the citation cannot be verified. Consequently, these things, if left unchecked, can threaten GA status.

I have no objection to you adding more detail to the main body, as long as it is properly cited. It can be a pain in the ass getting used to Wikipedia, so if you want, I can help. Is there anything in particular you wanted to change in the main article? Regards, Dapi89 (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was an error, thank you. It was two missions; four and one victory. Dapi89 (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"Credited with" is not appropriate. 21 were never verified/confirmed, so "credited with" is not an accurate description. Since we have a list, where all cannot be verified, claimed is a much better word.

On another note, if you want to add a source, please do it properly. I've taken the time to do cite sources properly since it is a basic requirement in a good article. That means; bibliography; inline citation with Author, year and page number. I have looked for the book you added but can't find it anywhere.

Please try to copy others. I'm not asking you to do anything I don't. Regards. Dapi89 (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding [your comment here]: This article was just a stub, with nothing more than a few lines. I wrote all of what you see there now, and I have all the sources. So it hasn't been damaged. Perhaps it was another article you were thinking of. Dapi89 (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm afraid I have had to revert your changes from the lead. I have mentioned before that that excessive detail in the lead, particularly insignificant information like that, is not appropriate. I have reinserted the contribution into the main body after the main battle. Of course, it would look odd if that information appeared in the introduction, yet not in the main article.

Please follow through my changes. I have corrected the format of the inline citations and added the books to the reference section. I hope you can see now how it is done. The additions are appreciated. Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe I don't not get it! I've contributed to quite a few articles and comments from other editors tend to complain that my intros are too long or excessively detailed. For A Good, A-Class, or Featured article the lead requires only a very brief summary. It also depends on the size of the article. The sources available on British aces are pitifully scarce, out of print, or damned expensive. This in part explains why the article is so small. Having a long intro looks out of place with a relatively compact contribution.

I agree that McKellar and British aces are neglected which is why I have moved over to these articles in an effort to improvement them. But the length of the article depends on the information available. If I could do it, the article would be twice the size that it is now.

If you have the sources, why not make a big deal of the Dowding-related stuff it in the main article? At the moment all we have is a single line put into it. If you can manage to expand that information, information that exists within the confines of your sources of course, then I'm all for it.

With regard to the status of McKellar, I don't think that I've missed anything. I mentioned he died one day outside the BOB; I mentioned his victories were claimed in a time frame of only two and one-half months. I have mentioned that he achieved ace in a day status. If you like the first air victory in the SWW and that stat about the 24 Allied aces can be added, but will need to be very brief. I'll insert that, but will need you to add the citation quickly. Dapi89 (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm Binksternet. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Day of Deceit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Grapestomper9. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Operation Gisela

Once again, I agree, but the article requires a citation that explicitly states these crashes can be partially attributed to inexperience. Get that and there is no issue. The problem with adding statements like this without citation is that it now appears the citation at the end of the paragraph supports that statement when it doesn't. We have to be careful to avoid that, as it undermines the point of citations. I'm not opposed to it though. Regards. Dapi89 (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Day of Deceit, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

WELCOME TO Grapestomper9's TALK PAGE

Just so everyone knows what's what, this is my talk page. You are welcome to put your comments and outrages or whatever else you like, but do not expect that I will keep anything on MY TALK PAGE that I find offensive, outrageous, stupid or otherwise not to my liking. Remember, this is MY page and not yours.Grapestomper9 (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)