Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:59, 26 April 2017

Gidday

Hiya Dapi, good to see you back - good work on Johnnie Johnson. BTW worth a laugh Cheers ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 21:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Surveyor and Territorial Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dieppe and Fassberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back

Nice to see you back here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure! I am currently travelling in the land of milk and honey. I can help out once I get back from the USA MisterBee1966 (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in...;) ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 00:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

John Dundas

Heh, nice to see an article I started getting a significant improvement.... I did another BoB ace, in case you're feeling bored.  :) Catsmeat (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. As it is, you've definitely pulled it up to B. And GA looks quite dooable. Catsmeat (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I done a bit of poking around, but couldn't find much. There's an account of the flame-thrower carrying, Dornier 17 (Wrk Nr. 2555) here though I think a forum posting can't count as a reputable source. The poster does say it's a piece he/she had published in Flypast. So I assume if it can be tracked down there, then it can be cited as a source.

The gist of it is that a large number of pilots from different squadrons shot at the Dornier, several thinking they'd set it on fire on account of the flamethrower. It seems Dundas and his wing-man (P/O E.Q. Tobin) may well have finished it off, but the matter is confused and other pilots have plausible claims. Apparently, some parts from the Do 17 survive at the Shoreham Aviation Museum though I got that from another forum posting. The actual Shoreham Museum website only says they have some Do 17 bits, but doesn't say what, or from which aircraft.

I found out something about Richard Pape, the fellow journalist who knew Dundas at the Yorkshire Post, and subsequently a Lancaster navigator and a PoW in Germany (though he is peripheral to the Dundas article). He seems to have been quite a brave, daring and charming man. But also an egotistical, deceiving, back-stabbing, murderous piece of s***. I'm tempted to do an article about him as he was a somewhat successful author in the 50's and 60's and so passes the Misplaced Pages notability threshold. His obituary is a fun read.Catsmeat (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic! And well deserved as it looks like you put plenty of work into it.Catsmeat (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I just feel tremendously complimented that somebody thought an article I started was worth their time and effort. To be honest, I only did it because I was poking around on the Imperial War Museum site and randomly found a picture of Hugh Dundas, which I uploaded as his article was un-pictured. This led me to writing up his brother as he was without an article and seemed to deserve one. That in turn made me do Noel Agazarian, a squadron-mate of Dundas who sounded an interesting character. Finally, that in turn led me to beefing up the article on Herbert Edward Douglas Blakiston, the racist so-and-so who refused to admit Agazarian to Trinity College Oxford because he was half-Armenian (though, in fairness, Blakiston seems to have had a peculiarly tragic life). So it all seems infinitely recursive, but despite this, if some project catches your eye, let me know and I'll see if I can spare some time to pitch in.

PS. Regarding Dundas, it is curious that somebody (apparently called Graham Alderson, so not a family member) put up a monument to him on the Isle of Wight in 2000. As you say, he's not a well known figure. Perhaps this Alderson bloke though similarly to you.

Catsmeat (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Dundas (ace), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weymouth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Eric Lock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Rochester, Deal, Gravesend and Dungeness

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Arthur Rhys-Davids (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Belle Vue

John Dundas (RAF officer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Godfather

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

MIck Mannock's actual victory score

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) 20:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fokker Scourge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

II./LG 2 in early May 1940

Hi, I wonder if you can help out. I started expanding the Otto Weiß (pilot) article and according to Brütting, Weiß was awarded the Knight's Cross for repulsing strong French tank forces north of Cambrai. Battle of Arras? But this took place after May 18th. Since the Knight's Cross was awarded on 18 May the action must have taken place before that date. Do you happen to know more about this? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

yes it makes sence. Re-reading the book it seems that this action took place on the 17th. Regarding the approval, it says that he received the award in the "field". I recall that Adalbert Schneider's KC was approved within two hours. So in theory it was possible. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Take your time on addressing my review comments on the Dundas article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

According to every source I have and I could look up the Knight's Cross was awarded on the 18 May 1940. (see Das Ritterkreuz as an example). Let's assume that the Germans did not hand out these awards in expectation of what might be. Let's also assume that they documented the hand-out date of the award correctly. I can therefore only conclude that the action must have occurred before 18 May. Thanks for double checking. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Viktor Mölders

Good question, I have to go digging into a few books but if my memory doesn't fail me, Viktor Mölders was shot down and was taken POW. Give me some time to verify this please. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to google I don't have to go looking very far. If you can read a little German you will find out that he was shot down by a Spitfire on 7 October 1940 and had to make a forced landing in England. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The web-article says he was taken POW by the Home Guard, questioned and in 1941 he was sent to a Canadian POW camp. He returned in 1946. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archie McKellar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Staffel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Eric Lock

I found some minor missing references. Please check MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hermann Hogeback

Do you happen to know something about LG 1, especially III. Gruppe and better yet 8. Staffel, involvement in North Africa? I am looking for info on Hogeback and he may have been involved at Sallum and Tobruk. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Schumann claims they were Brewster (Hermann Hogeback section) in the Willy Lehnert section he states they were Spitfires. So he contradicts himself. Does Brewster make sense? MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

GA nomination for Arthur Rhys-Davids

Greetings, Dapi89! I just wanted to let you know that I will be reviewing your GA nomination for Arthur Rhys-Davids. I'll leave a link to the review page here, for reference. Good luck! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Have a Great Christmas

'Greetings Dapi89! We don't have a White Christmas here in NZ 'cos it's SUMMER! We have Barbeques on the Beach! Have a good 'un and don't let Santa get to the rum under the tree - he's driving! ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 23:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Archie McKellar's GA review.

Hello again, Dapi89! I'm sorry I've not been attending to your GANs lately, but I've been trying to cover all of the GANs I selected for the drive as best as I can. I got back to Archie McKellar just now, and I've noticed some issues with the content which need addressing. Further details can be found in the comments section of the review page. I hope you can come by and help fix the issue, so the article can be passed! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Kleinsma80

You may want to check some of the edits made by Kleinsma80 (talk · contribs). He made some changes to a number of articles you have been involved in. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Confusion

If you do not wish to cause confusion to most users, I suggest that you stick to PBS as in user:PBS rather than any part of an older user ID. -- PBS (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle for the Hague

At the moment though it appears that you and another editor are in a disagreement over a selection of words at the Battle for the Hague article. I've reverted to your edit solely on grounds that at the moment the two of you are in a disagreement and the disagreement concerns words cited to a source, and you added the source so you should know what it says. I welcome you to discuss on the article's talk page the reason(s) for the disagreement in a civilized manner with the editor in question before re-adding the material so we can avoid reverting any future additions (in particular, your edit summary stating "think before you act" was a little harsh). Note that you are not in trouble, nor am I accusing you of any wrong doing at this point, this is merely a recommendation to employ diplomacy in the form of a conversation on the talk page before taking action so that you and the other editor will be in agreement about the course of action in advance. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns you are welcome to leave me a message and I will respond.

Your Sincerely and Respectfully,

TomStar81 (Talk) 22:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Having observed the situation for the last 24 hours I now have my course of action. I see some attempt at dialogue, so I am going to wait another 24 hours and see if the two of you can't have a civilized conversation on the talk pages for the articles you disagree on. This is being done in accordance with WP:AGF, since I am seeing a little good faith, I'm going to wait a little longer to see if it will grow into something useful. If this does not happen, then 24 hours from now I'm gonna start protecting the pages, and if the contested issues do not move toward a resolution in that time then I will make a move to start blocking editor(s) for civility issues. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI see this posting to User talk:TomStar81, and consider if you would like to strike your last comment to that section and engage in a constructive discussion. -- PBS (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

See my response on your talk page. Constructive discussion requires constructive criticism. Comment justified and based on the fact I have received no constructive complaints from you. Dapi89 (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

This is response to this post on my talk page about your comments at Battle of Berlin (air)#Operational commander

For an editor as experience as you are in am surprised that you do not seem to follow the guidance given in Talk page guidelines please see the section Good practices and note the bullet point:

• Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.

-- PBS (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Phillip, you are wasting your time and mine. Content is a product of edits. Edits are a product of editors. One cannot comment on an edit without questioning the wisdom of the editor who made it. Contributions and contributors are closely allied. I'm not interested in you Phillip. It is your edits I'm focused on. But they follow a pattern. And that pattern seems to me to be a resistance to the addition of any worthwhile content. If you were not opposing each and every edit then I would have nothing to say.

With regard to the particular instance you mention, one question: Does someone who reads about this subject, like yourself, and who quotes the British official history so often, really need to ask someone like me why Group Commanders need to added to the infobox? You know why Phillip. Dapi89 (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hermann Graf

Sure go a head. From a top down perspective, I believe to have covered everything from childhood to service in Romania and invasion of Greece. I will check if I can find more info about his after the war life. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you broke up the childhood section too much. If you/we take this to a review, a section with one paragraph only, will be critized, my opinion. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Archie McKellar review

Hm, I don't know what the correct process for taking over the GA review from another editor. Can you please double check first? I don't want to get into any procedural problems here. Once we have procedural clearance I will gladly have a look at the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that there are two open GA reviews on this article Talk:Archie McKellar/GA1 and Talk:Archie McKellar/GA2. I think it would be best to address these (close or withdraw them) before I start a third. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I mean what I said. It is a review no more no less. What I point out is for you to consider and assess whether or not it makes sense to you. In very rare cases does the reviewer know more about the subject than the editor does who had written the article in the first place. Every editor has a certain degree of style which he or she is entitled to (my view). You very well know that I cannot challenge you on linguistical elements, my English is just not that solid. However, I can point out some aspects which I believe work better than others. Having said that, I will gladly have a look at the article once it is officially closed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are some comments that I would have made/will make

• "This did not suit Archie, who preferred an open–air life style." Too colloquial for my taste
• "During this time he was given no special privileges despite being the boss' son." So what are privileges a boss’ son has? This needs a bit of context for me
• Regarding German military ranks, it is good practice to provide the English equivalent rank in brackets after the first occurrence.
• "The pilot Oberleutnant Viktor Mölders—brother of the famous ace Werner Mölders—was posted as missing in action by the Luftwaffe." Famous ace is probably considered POV, strike famous
• "Helmut Pohle" or "Helmut Pohl" you have both variants
• "attributed to a particular Squadron" Is this correct capitalization, I believe not?

Dapi, I posted a request for someone else but me to review the article. I fear that given the history of this article I may be burned on this one. Sturmvogel said he would address this GA review. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

wiping my review of your article

I am actually a little offended you branded my review of your article a troll and wiped the entire page without first contacting me. Please restore the page and answer the questions i left for you. I am conducting a review of your page and there were numerous faults, so please address them so I can pass the article.Retrolord (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No. The only faults are yours.

Your requests are beyond contempt and it seems you have little understanding of how a review is conducted, especially on a fighter ace. If you are not a troll, sit back and watch an experienced edior take over, and learn from him. Dapi89 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou for your repeated insults and derogatory comments. I am basing my review of your FIGHTER ACE based off the article on Erich Hartmann. Which for your information IS a good article, unlike yours. If you persist in your insults you will be reported, consider this your final warning. Retrolord (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't ever leave this kind of post on my talk page again. And for your information I wrote Erich Hartmann, along with Hans-Joachim Marseille and a number of other GA/FA articles. How embarrassing. Dapi89 (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to brag but I believe that I had contributed as well. Or is my memory failing me already? :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course. It was written in the context of my contributions to them; I think on HJM you may have actually been the greater contributor! Its been nearly four years since we collaborated on a an article in depth (Hartmann). Graf should be equally smooth. Cheers + appologies Bee. Dapi89 (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Archie McKellar

Hi Dapi89. Thanks for your note and explanation on my talkpage. If I've correctly interpreted your comments, you appear to have a misunderstanding of the purpose of GAN/GA. We do, however, seem to have similar view on the appropriateness (a horrible word!) of at least one of the last reviewer's GAN reviews.

I will be reviewing the article against the requirements for Good Articles, to be found at WP:WIAGA, as that is the only valid approach for assessing it.

I certainty will not be assessing the nomination by comparing it against other "RAF" articles that are listed as GA-status articles, some of which you list on my talkpage, and it is entirely inappropriate for you ask for this to be done. I accept that there may be, for example, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history and/or other WikiProjects guidelines for RAF "personalities" articles, but that is all they are: other wikiproject guidelines. They not part of the mandatory requirements for GA (nor FA) i.e. on whether or not an article is listed as a GA, but the reviewer could make use of them in assessing GA requirements such as "scope" and "broadness" if the reviewer wishes to do so. I (re-)state it's at the reviewer's choice: it is most certainly not at the nominator's choice. Pyrotec (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dapi89. Thanks for the clarification. My reviews can be found via User:Pyrotec/GA reviews. You seem to have had two bad reviews in a row. Well, there was a backlog drive and the first reviewer signed up to do "10 reviews" in one month and then opened a further nine reviews (including yours) - none of the last 9 reviews were ever completed. The second reviewer appears to be both a new editor and a new reviewer with a dozen reviews this year and in some of these reviews comes across as less than competent as a reviewer and somewhat belligerent in correspondence, but the most recent reviews are somewhat better. One "problem" of the GA review process is that any user with a username (that rules out IP users) can undertake a review, provided that there is no "conflict of interest", even when they should not being doing, or are not yet read to do, reviews. A few reviewers cause sufficient "problems" to result in a topic ban, but I'm aware of only two such users banns in the last four years, so they are rare.

As I was trying to say above, but I might not have done it too well, reviewers should not be reviewing against "personal preferences" only against the GA requirements, but there is leeway on the reviewer's discretion. Going "off topic", WP UKGEO for instance has written a guideline on how to write about town/cities and WP Rivers has one for rivers (and MILTHist probably have some), so a reviewer "could" use those guidelines to determine whether such an article is compliant with GA in respect of "scope" / "broadness" / "detail", but such an nomination should not be "failed" for non-compliance with the towns or rivers WP guides, etc, it should only be failed because it is not compliant (in such a case) with WP:WIAGA clause 3 (a) or (b). So to recap, the second reviewer "could" have used non-compliance, in his opinion, with WP:WIAGA clause 3 (a) or (b) as "justification" for not awarding GA-status. I'm not saying that would have been the right decision, or not, since I've not yet read the article, but it could have been "right" for a specific reviewer. Unfortunately, that whole review reads like an expression of personal preferences, that was never properly justified against the criteria for Good Articles, followed by a breakdown in nominator - reviewer relations. Pyrotec (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Next weekend will be fine. I'd just been looked at your editing history and you seemed to have done only one edit since Thursday/Friday, so I was happy to wait. Pyrotec (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

GAN

You may not have noticed, but I've started my review of your nomination at Talk:Arthur Rhys-Davids/GA1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg

Recently, I've been busy with the Blitzkrieg article, and I came across this subsection that was very sloppily written (and wrong on one or two counts) but cited. It didn't add up, but I decided to proceed carefully instead of just deleting away. My quest brought me here. Apparently, it seems the paragraph had lingered around from as far back as 2005 before you plastered the citation on it.

- Before I delete anything, I want to confirm with you if the current state of the subsection is indeed reflective of the cited source.

- And since I plan on reconstructing the subsection to look more like how it looked when you put the citation on it, I want to confirm that the cited source indeed supports the passage.

-If yes, then please can you clarify the name of the author? Is it Holmes or Homes, since it seems you used both names in the article.

-And if it is Holmes (which I believe would be Richard Holmes), which of his books was cited; since, as you might not have noticed, Holmes published at least two books in 2001. (All this could have been avoided if you had placed the citation of the book in the Bibliography section, and give your edits a better chance of escaping deletion sometime in the future).

Thanks. EyeTruth (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Belgium in World War II

Hi Dapi!
Thanks a lot for you comment! I'd be grateful for any help on my wider project on Belgium in WWII (see my user page) since the coverage of Belgium 1919-1945 is atrocious at the moment, but I've gone for breath rather than depth. I'm not a military historian by education, and I've had some difficulties on the Free Belgian Forces (GA candidate) article I wrote for that reason so if you could do anything on aspects of the military history, that'd be great! I'd particularly ask if you could do anything to the Battle of the Lys (1940) - surely the most important military engagement fought by Belgium which is a stub at the moment! Thanks! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donald Kingaby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Staffel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

I am currently travelling and will have a closer look when I am back. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Louvain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The Göring edits

Hello, Dapi,

The re-evaluation of Göring's victory score that you posted was so vague that I could not discern your purpose in posting it. If you are trying to say that an aviation historian tried to match Göring's victories with aircraft losses, lots of luck with that. A later researcher using such incomplete and scanty records as still exist is not likely to arrive at any truer score than the intelligence officers who were on the scene originally. However, if Peter Kilduff makes a differing later claim, then why not come out and say so, and back it up with full citation? In the meantime, you cannot shrug off the source given for his 22 confirmed victories; it is a reliable standard reference on the subject, used widely here in WP. And if you doubt the term "confirmed", let me point out that while World War II aviation enthusiasts here in WP write about aerial victories without bothering to define the term, the World War I niche here has an article giving the exact methods used by aerial services to confirm victories by their pilots. That is a factual foundation to which you may be unaccustomed, but it exists.

You may think the above is a bit harsh, but I am trying to explain some quirks that will aid you in writing about World War I aviation. If you wish some help in this niche, you can call on me.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Color me embarrassed, though not for the reasons you posit. Because of your insistence, I rechecked the bibliography, and lo and behold.... (though I might mention that my book search did not uncover this book). At any rate, I wholeheartedly apologize for my error.

Nevertheless, the aviation historians who write about World War I do use the term "confirmed victories". If you had clicked the link to read Aerial victory standards of World War I, you would have read further examples of how the victories were confirmed then. The Germans were strictest on their confirmations; as I pointed out, the German victors sometimes went through the pockets of the dead or dying losers, and souveniring of serial numbers, machine guns, decorations, etc was common. And while you ignored this in my prior note, you also failed to mention a single way in which WWII victories were conf...checked upon.

So, yes, there were 22 confirmations for Goering's 22 victories. Another victory claim went unconfirmed, so he made 23 claims for 22 confirmed victories. So sayeth Above the Lines, p. 117. Your guy Kilduff probably went a step further with the incomplete records still surviving after 95 years, and tried to match Goering's victory claims with losses reported by the Brits and French. I am dubious that his conclusions are any more valid than that of the intelligence officers who were on the spot in the first place.

However, without a basic definition of just what constituted an aerial victory during World War II, the lay readers of articles concerning WWII must supply their own or stay baffled. How well this vague unfocused approach of writing on a subject without defining it suits an encyclopedia is certainly a mystery to me.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

H.G=

George,

I gave the full citation originally. Can you re-read that edit, then revisit me here and tell me exactly how it is 'vague'? You seemed to understand it perfectly, so I don't think was George, was it? A tad disingenuous I must say.

Kilduff does not offer a conclusive score - he merely takes the reader through the likely result of each claim. He and at least two others have conclusively ruled out two claims, so I'm afraid it makes a nonsense of 22 'confirmed victories', a term which should be kicked out of these articles altogether. I don't really care what you think the definition of a "confirmed victory" should be, to be frank, and neither is this about what methods each service used to decide upon them in the FWW or any other conflict. Confirmed victory implies no doubt and inescapable proof given. There is doubt. Its continued use is an insult to ones intelligence and is entirely misleading to the lay reader, for whom this article is written. From what I'm hearing your argument is this; "A confirmed victory is a kill credited to a pilot by the standards of ones own service, but may not actually be a victory at all". That is a mouthful, and probably why us 'ignorant' WWII enthusiasts stick to clear, if simplistic terms. At least the casual reader won't be led down the garden path.

That said, it maybe a relief for you to know that I'm resigning my interest in this article, since I don't have the time to spare here anymore. All the best. Dapi89 (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you did give a full citation referring to a source not listed in the article bibliography. And yes, I did take the bother to try to trace that source for you in an attempt to salvage your edit—something that probably no other editor would do. And yes, I failed to find it using the information given, discovering only that it is in some book or another by Peter Kilduff. Full citations don't fail that way. Yours did.

It may surprise you to discover that I share your attitude toward aerial victories. However, the number of victories an ace is credited with is about the first thing readers want to know. The sources used for writing about World War I aces rely on the term "confirmed victories". You may hate the term, but, to give an example, when a victorious World War I pilot retrieved souvenirs from the wreckage of his victim or the corpse of his enemy, a victory is definitely confirmed. Thus, your imputation that no aerial victories were ever confirmed is obviously false. I could add some further similar examples, but am not to embarrass you.

However, I must admit that "A confirmed victory is a kill credited to a pilot by the standards of ones own service, but may not actually be a victory at all" is not a bad summation of the process of reporting all aerial victories, regardless of conflict; there are no neutral referees keeping score. In fact, I would add that any other approach is leading the casual reader down that agricultural byway. Certainly, when I read about an aerial victory by a World War II aviator, I can have no idea what is entailed. Was it verified by gun camera? Or was the victim's wreckage found afterwards? Or were there independent witnesses? Or was it just a case of the pilot returning to base and saying, "I shot at him, and he dived into the clouds below, so I know I got him"? That is why I placed a request (thus far ignored) for an article on Aerial victory standards of World War II. And that is why I made the remarks I did about the lack of foundation for the World War II articles that refer to aerial victories. Without that missing article, the editors in the World War II aviation niche literally do not know what they are writing about.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Dapi,

When one reads Aerial victory standards of World War I, it is quite easy to visualize the following table of victories for aces of various nationalities credited with five victories each:

A German ace: five destroyed=most probably just that.

A French ace: pretty much the same as the Germans.

A British Commonwealth ace: five driven down out of control=may translate into no harm done to Germans.

An Italian ace: five victories approved by a postwar committee from military intelligence=who knows for sure?

A Russian ace: five victories approved by somebody or other by no known standards=again, who knows for sure?

So you can see the differences in "confirmation" (note quotes to soothe your sensibilities) even when you have reference to the individual air services' victory standards. Moreover, with most aerial combat confined to a relatively small static battleground in Europe compared to World War II's roving global span, it would seem that aerial victories could be more easily traced in World War I. Given the geographic differences, I can see grounds for your dubiety about WWI, based on your background in WWII.

I also compile victory lists for aces' bios. I try to refer them all to the aerial victory standards article. The fanboys can read the list of "confirmed" victories; diligent readers can click over and discover what it all means.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I beg your pardon if it seems I am whacking a dead equine, but I hope the above bit proves useful to you.

Best regards,Georgejdorner (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Heinz Vinke and Georg Kraft

Let me check, may take some time. I am reading and working on the Heinz Schnaufer article at the moment. Have you seen that Werner Voss is up for A-class review? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bob Braham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wing Commander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bob Braham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hull (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Last battle of the battleship Bismarck incomplete reference

Several years ago you inserted a paragraph at Last battle of the battleship Bismarck referencing only ‘Jackson 2002 p. 91’. Could you please fill the details?

― Lgfcd (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Heinz Schnaufer

Hi, yes I am working on the list. I have the book from Hichliffe. He identified roughly 60% of his claims, with names and details. I have started working on the list in my sandbox. I think I will transfer the list later this weekend. Feel free to add any data you have. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you know about the British Air Commodore Roderick Aeneas Chisholm? He was a fighter ace and was repsonsible for the interrogation of Schnaufer. I think it would be good to have his article. Can you help? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I move the info to the article Roderick Aeneas Chisholm. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helmut Woltersdorf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Operation Gisela

Hinchliffe states that Gisela was Schnaufer's idea, who planed it but was not authorized to participate in the mission. I will cover that bit in a while. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Will do! On a first glance, you are sometimes using the wrong dash on dates. Example: March—July 1943, it should be March–July 1943. I will read it carefully MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I read the article and here some comments MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• dashing is a problem, you need to fix that
• "Below is likely only an incomplete record of claims submitted by German crews during Gisela. It is certain that some of the crews that did not return from the operation also would have filed claims for air victories." I agree but it is speculation. To keep a sentence like this it would have to read: Author/historian X states that ....
• Section "Aftermath" reads more like "what if"
• abschüsse, I think you could do without, aerial victory works just as well
• what is a "scram" order?
• colour coding of the tables: some editors may feel that you need to include some kind of symbol as an alternative to the colour scheme. Some readers could be colour blind.

There is no problem with the aftermath section. The content is very appropriate. I just felt that the title of the section, given that the content is more a military post mortem analysis, could be different to reflect more the lessons learned. By the way, did you see the most recent changes to the Erich Hartmann article? MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill  17:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ypres

In reference to my edit, you said I misunderstood the point that was about scale and longevity. Just to make clear what my thinking was; in terms of longevity, British armies served continuously on the continent for seven years during the war of Spanish succession, five years during the seven years war and six years during Peninsular war, all three longer than the first world war. And in terms of scale, the numbers vary with different eras. So I don't think it is accurate to say the British army had not fought a prolonged campaign on the continent before, it should just reflect that the BEF at that time was not prepared for it. I have changed it again, but don't want to get into an edit war, so revert if you don't agree. cheers! Thecitizen1 (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Operation Gisela may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ]'', '']'', and '']'', were in existence by April 1941. Lacking specialised night fighter aircraft existing types

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Gisela, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Midlands, Newcastle and Lancaster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the American Civil War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

British Ace Archie McKellar

Greetings- I appreciate your help getting some info added to the Archie McKellar article. However, I am of the opinion that you just do not get it. The lead-in is too brief for the man we are talking about here. Sure, he was just a man, but some pretty amazing things seemed to have converged in his brief life during war. Two and a half months in the BOB, 75 days, and he averages a kill every four days. I do not have the source handy, and I am not trying to get it in the article now, but this ace has been compared to all other BOB aces, and for the amount of time he lived he shot down more than any other. So much for his proclivity in battle against the Luftwaffe. The phoney war: Only one British ace gets to say he shot down the first enemy combatant of the war. In this case McKellar gets to claim that along with Pinkerton. In this case the first Luftwaffe plane shot down in the war splashed in British Waters. Air Marshall Hugh Dowding sends congrats for first blood to McKellar's squadron (an auxiliary squadron at that) for his actions. Congrats for first blood of the air war from Dowding is a very big deal. Dowding is still considered a larger than life leader in Britain, you know? Add to that the fact that this same pilot who splashed the first nazi into the British drink is also the pilot who shared the honor of knocking down the first enemy onto British soil. Sandy Johnstone actually claims most all of the honor belongs to McKellar for that kill, but we needn't be petty. Add to that the fact that during the height of madness during the BOB McKellar manages to shoot down five Bf 109's in one day with his Mk 1 Hurricane. Only 24 allied aces in WW2 managed ace in a day status. He was never shot down. His death came one day (hours actually) after the "official" end date of the BOB, so he was not included in the British memorial to English, I mean British BOB aces KIA. So Mysterious. Odd how the German historians of the BOB feel it ended much later than October 31. What we have here, and what you appear to be unaware of is that we are talking about one of the most amazing stories in the history of Allied Aces, and of the BOB and WW2 air warfare. These things need to be at the beginning of the article so that interested readers do not need to read the whole thing to piece together that we are talking about some very amazing occurances linked to this ace. I hope you have a chance for some quiet reflection on the general gist of my point here, and perhaps realize that this is not just another wikipedia article on just another high scoring British Ace. Something very unique, very special, and almost unexplainable occured with Archie McKellar. Grapestomper9 (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ludwig Becker (pilot) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Czech

Operation Gisela (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Welton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Gisela, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Reading, Aqueduct and Canal boat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Werner Husemann

Yes he is a KC recipient. I am travelling right now. I give you the details when I am back MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I created a stub article with everything I found on him so far. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Last battle of the battleship Bismarck incomplete reference

Thank you!

― 200.219.132.105 (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Gisela, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lincoln and Waddington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edgar Kain, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British and Rugby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marmaduke Pattle, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Captain, Swimming and Combustion engine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marmaduke Pattle, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Captain, Swimming and Combustion engine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marmaduke Pattle, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Irish and Air raid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit revert

Good day. You recently reverted a minor edit I had made to the de Havilland Mosquito article. I had inserted production numbers for one of the Marks. Might I ask for the reason for the revert?

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kanalkampf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Portland, Bow, Wing Commander, Jagdgeschwader 1 and Falaise

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Misplaced Pages

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hans-Joachim Göring

I will check, but I don't recall seeing one MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kanalkampf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yarmouth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kanalkampf, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rochester, Cornish and Chatham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Kanalkampf

Hi, are you sure about Friedrich-Wolfgang Graf von und zu Castell? Could it not be that it was Gustav Friedrich Graf zu Castell-Castell? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Marseille

I will check MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Wübbe on page 374 (different newspaper clipping than the one in Tate's book) states the same address. Does this confirm what you need? MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, no I did know this. However, the film "Der Stern von Afrika", alludes to some of this. I am speculating here, Marseille's mom, thanked Joachim Hansen for his role in the film Der Spiegel 35/1957. I saw the film a while ago and I believe there is a scene with Marseille playing the piano (not sure), I do recall that the film depicts him critical towards the Holocaust. What I read so far always reads as if this bit of his story is pure fictional. Nevertheless she probably knew her son better than anyone else and may have influenced the film makers respectively. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kanalkampf, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jagdgeschwader 1 and John Dundas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

1st Ypres

Greetings Dapi, I've left a comment on the talk page, perhaps we can discuss it there? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marmaduke Pattle may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• On the 27 (or 28) February<ref name="Boyne">Boyne 1997, p. 81.</ref>), British pilots in Greece celebrated their biggest day of combat. No. 80 Squadron claimed 27

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marmaduke Pattle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air raid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Schnaufer

HNY, if you have time I would like you to review the article up to and including the section "Channel Dash and night fighter pilot". The "Later life and death" section is also ready for review. Any feedback is appreciated MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your last review! I made some more progress, so I think. Can you please have a look at section "Rumpelhardt is absent". Please comment if I misrepresented the facts. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Bob Braham, it reads "Five had taken off under the command of Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer. Schnaufer led his flight out toward the echo." That is not fully true. Schnaufer aborted the mission due engine problems. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on Marseille. I finished the first draft of the Schnaufer article. Let me know what you think. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

James McCudden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Rouvroy, Fontaine, Flers, Vitry and Houthem

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Race to the Sea

Greetings Dapi, had a doodle on the R2tS page here, User talk:Keith-264/sandbox3, any thoughts?Keith-264 (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

] User talk:Keith-264/sandbox5 been doodling here too. Keith-264 (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you like them. On the subject of great War battles I think that most suffer from not enough description rather than too much. When I took the plunge with the 3rd Ypres pages I was quite apprehensive of the controversial and polemical aspects crowding out everything else but found that just by describing events, much of the travesty view of GW battles was untenable and could be put into the analysis section, where people could judge for themselves after reading what happened and why. I'd keep going like that if I were you, although obtaining the sources is a pain, particularly French and German ones.Keith-264 (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A couple more sections and a drastic edit and it'll be finished. I got a little confused about the definitions of Picardy and Artois though, it seems like Artois is in Picardy but is a later geographical term.User talk:Keith-264/sandbox3Keith-264 (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: German battleship Bismarck

This is a note to let the main editors of German battleship Bismarck know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 14, 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 all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/February 14, 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 Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Bismarck was the first of two Template:Sclass-s built for the German Kriegsmarine. Named after Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, the primary force behind German unification in 1871, the ship was launched on 14 February 1939 and commissioned in August 1940. Bismarck and her sister ship Tirpitz were the largest battleships ever built by Germany, and two of the largest built by any European power. Bismarck conducted only one offensive operation, in May 1941. The ship, along with the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen, was to raid Allied shipping from North America to Great Britain. The two ships were detected several times off Scandinavia, and British naval units were deployed to block them. At the Battle of Denmark Strait, Bismarck destroyed the battlecruiser HMS Hood, the pride of the Royal Navy, and forced the battleship HMS Prince of Wales to retreat. After two days of relentless pursuit by the Royal Navy, she was attacked by torpedo bombers from the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal and her steering gear was rendered inoperable. In her final battle the following morning, Bismarck was neutralised by a sustained bombardment, was scuttled by her crew, and sank with heavy loss of life. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Johnnie Johnson

Hi, nice article. Before the review starts you may want to convert all the ISBN numbers to the 13 digit format. You can use this tool. I have seen this request quite often recently. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like your thoughts on this

Can you have a look at this please. I spent a lot of work to uniformly cite the information, especially providing the translations as well. It makes me upset when someone just steps in in reverts everything I do without adding any meaningful content. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James McCudden, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rochester, Aire and Herne Bay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hans Philipp

Sorry to bother you again, can you have a first glance at my new project? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and contribution. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Lütjens

Interesting subject. I have read Ueberschär's chapter on Lütjens and Gaack & Carr's book. I have not yet found any further printed media (in German or English) talking intensively about his early years, family or ancestry. What little I found, I believe to have put it in the article. My next attempt would be to get hold of the publications by the German Armed Forces Military History Research Office. They were involved in post war destroyer Lütjens discussion. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I found this book Hitlers "jüdische Soldaten" ISBN 978-3506701152. I ordered the book, let's see what it reveals. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have the book now. Both Margarete Backenköhler (Lütjens wife) and Otto Backenköhler (his chief of staff and brother of Margarete) were half Jews. This confirms the what is said in the film, that Günther Lütjens (son of Lütjens) has a Jewish grandmother. page 120MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Paul Ascher, Lütjens staff officer on Bismarck, was also half Jewish. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I just came across the following info (Hümmelchen p. 412.): Lütjens personal military files in the German National Archives were removed and destroyed on orders of the British Admiralty in 1947. Do you know why this was done? MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment. This story is also interesting. Do you think it is trustworthy? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

McCudden vs Richthofen?

Congratulations on your work on this article! Most impressed. Hope you will take the following quibble in the spirit in which it is meant, in spite of earlier disagreements and my notorious lack of diplomacy.

On the whole, historical consensus still says that Richthofen's 15th victory was the F.E.2b of Quested and Dicksee. There IS a major time discrepancy here, and Guttman's case for it actually being McCudden's D.H.2 IS persuasive, but it remains essentially (Guttman's) speculation. The account of McCudden's close call of the 27 December 1916 in Cole (pp.73-74), the obvious source for Guttman's account, makes no suggestion that Richthofen might have been involved, so the link IS purely down to Guttman.

From Richthofen's point of view, dogfighting a nimble little D.H.2 and a lumbering great F.E.2b would have been very distinct experiences, so if it was McCudden rather than Quested it does seem strange he would have misidentified the aircraft concerned - he was familiar with, and distinguished between, the two types, even though he thought they were both "Vickers" products. British and German combat reports ARE sometimes very hard to tie in with each other - viz. the German account of Voss' death! Even if Quested and Dicksee can be ruled out there are very probably other possibilities.

All in all - while Guttman's notion that Richthofen very nearly shot down McCudden, especially at such an early stage of both aces' careers, is very interesting - and certainly deserves a mention - I don't think it is quite certain (or important) enough to rate a mention in the lead - nor does it warrant the degree of certainty implied in the text. Perhaps the odd "may have", and "might"?? We may even like to specifically mention our author here - "Guttman speculates that ..." ??

Once again, well done - have you asked the people who brought up the Ball article to "GA" for their comments and assistance? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A single battle is not enough so I've replaced it in the lead with a period of time omitted altogether. I've added a more cautious tone to the MVR-related fight.

I havn't asked the Ball-ites yet. I had a mind to do so. I will when I think that I have done all I can do with it. Then I'll leave it to others. Dapi89 (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Günther Lütjens, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Greek and Norwegian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Günther Lütjens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page War games (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Belgium

Added a link to the WWI page as a x reference. Did you know that the Bibliography section has a lot of red on it?Keith-264 (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Prestfelde

I'm not sure why it matters to you whether or not Prestfelde is a "public" school, but I know the school and I can assure that it is not and would not claim to be. It is and always has been a private, independent preparatory school. Poshseagull (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Günther Lütjens, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Swede and John Leach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer)

There is copyvio in Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer). I just took one phrase at random: "Johnson's first contact with enemy fighters did not go as planned" - this is word for word as it appears in Johnnie Johnson: Spitfire Top Gun. Unless you admit to this and do something about this, then I will close the GA review as a fail and report the article as a copyright violation. SilkTork 09:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That there is copyvio doesn't mean it was deliberate, so please don't feel I am accusing you of anything. Copyvio can happen accidentally. But it does need looking into as it has legal implications for Misplaced Pages, and can harm our reputation. If you don't wish to look into the matter yourself, then let me know, I'll put a copyvio notice on the article, order the book, and check it out myself. SilkTork 09:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation. I have no idea what mechanism/research tool you are using on the internet, or however else you are trying to look things up, but I can assure you there is nothing in that book on page 50 (citation number 37 given), or in ANY surrounding pages, that REMOTELY matches the wording in the this article. The joke of it is, it isn't even paraphrased!!! I put that together from the information on the page!!!

So, I have nothing to admit to (and that language is a bit offensive). Especially so since the reviewer acknowledges he/she has not got the book and cannot prove what they say.

With that in mind, if you feel I am inherent liar, get the book and look for yourself. But I object to any copyright violation tag being added in the meantime. But as I say, I won't be doing anything about it in the meantime, because there is nothing to be done. Best. Dapi89 (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You may find this German Spiegel article interesting. At the bottom it talks about Johnson's view on the F-104 Starfighter. According to the article he said "Don't go to war with it". MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, there are serious issues concerning the alleged copyright violation. I have put that allegation to the sword, and I would urge you, for the sake of an easy and more harmonious review, to get a copy of the book and look at. There is no such wording in the entire book and not around the pages cited for that paragraph or concerning that information. I hope you can appreciate the frustrating position of someone who is not guilty of a copyvio here. Please see my comments on the GA review. Dapi89 (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. OK, I will do that. My response to this situation is informed by my experience on Talk:Roman Dacia/GA1 where I raised concerns regarding copyvio, but didn't follow up on it, and then it later turned out there was a lot of it. As I said, I don't think the copyvio is deliberate, but it can happen that when using a source, an editor remains too close to the original text for one reason or another. When I raised the concern on this review I was assured there was no copyvio, then my first random check revealed there was, so my concerns remain; and I feel slightly disappointed that a more thorough check was not done by yourself before those assurances were given. I would have preferred that the checks are done by yourself as you have the source material, but I am comfortable doing it myself, though we'll have to wait for the book to be delivered. SilkTork 08:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just tried out a few more phrases, and keep getting the same results for Johnnie Johnson: Spitfire Top Gun and Wing Leader - indeed, too many results for accidental copyvio, and it would be highly unlikely to be deliberate copyvio given your history on Misplaced Pages. I have got an email address for Dilip Sarkar, so have written directly to him. That may be quicker than waiting for the book to be delivered. I am now suspecting this is an odd glitch on Google Books. You can try it yourself - cut and paste some sentences at random from the text, then paste them (within "quotation marks") into a Google Books search - you'll note that Sarkar's book often comes up as a result, but if you change one of the words within the quoted sentence, then the book no longer comes up as a result. Odd. SilkTork 17:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to be sure I did it again and it does not appear. I searched for Johnson's first contact with enemy fighters did not go as planned. Bader undertook a patrol with Dundas as his number two manually and cannot find it. I checked from pages 44-54. I just want to be vindicated on this point as a matter of principal. I have tried your search and it brings up Misplaced Pages, his own biography Wing Leader and, as you say, Sarkar's book. This is weird. Dapi89 (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this may be a glitch. How would you like to proceed? I have already emailed Sarkar and we can wait for his reply, or you could scan or take a photo of, say, pages 44 - 45, and email them to me, and we could clear this up today. I understand the frustration you must feel, and - given your history, and your clear assertion that you have checked carefully - I would be prepared to continue the review without further checks, but if you wish to be more clearly vindicated (and I understand that) I am quite willing to wait a little longer. SilkTork 07:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sarkar has got back to me, and is comfortable with the article provided some points are corrected, such as that Pauline Johnson is still alive. I will forward his email to you. SilkTork 12:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't received the e-mail yet. Dapi89 (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just checked, and the email was sent to you on March 6. have you changed your email address since you registered it on Misplaced Pages? Worth checking that the email is correct, as that is the only way you can recover a lost password. I'll resend it today. SilkTork 09:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I've looked over the article again, and all seems to be fine bar two minor issues. It doesn't look like the sourcing for the lead photo has been resolved yet, and there is a query regarding which of Dilip Sarkar's books was used as a source. SilkTork 17:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This user helped promote Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer) to good article status.

Sorry that this got dragged out. And sorry again for the confusion over the copyright issue. Keep up the good article work! SilkTork 14:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

David Wanklyn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to English, Irish, Scottish, Newport, Queen Mary and River Plate

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Wanklyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whale Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in an interview for the upcoming edition of the Bugle

Hi Dapi, Ian Rose and I, the two editors of the Military History Wikiproject's newsletter The Bugle are hoping to run a group interview with editors who work on German military history topics in next month's edition. Based on your work in this field, we'd like to invite you to participate. If you have time, it would be great if you could post responses to some or all of the questions at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2014/Interview. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at Britain's War Machine Interview: Article writers discuss German military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Belgium

On the off-chance you haven't already seen this, Battle of Belgium has made it into a good topic: Brigade Piron (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

German invasion of Belgium

German occupation of Belgium during World War II

Belgian Resistance

Free Belgian forces

Belgian government in exile

Belgian Congo in World War II

The Holocaust in Belgium

Normandy landings

Hello Dapi89. You have added some material to Normandy landings using as sources books Murray (1983) and Hooton (1994). However, we don't have these books currently listed in the bibliography. Could you please add material on these sources (title, publisher, ISBN, etc)? Thank you. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at The Lost Boys of Anzac Op-ed: Peacemaker67 on Featured Articles involving Yugoslavia in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at life aboard a US aircraft carrier and Hawkeye7 considers the role of food in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Gisela

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Gisela 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MisterBee1966 -- MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Rudolf Hallensleben

I ran into this. Do you think this is true about Hallensleben? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for response. I have been contemplating the idea of retiring from Misplaced Pages for some time now. It was fun while it lasted, I have finished what I had hoped to achieve. I will probably hang around until all my open ends are closed but I will not guarantee this. You know how to reach me. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther and Nick-D look at examples of electronic media Op-ed: TomStar81 on the shot heard around the world

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Gisela

The article Operation Gisela you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Gisela for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MisterBee1966 -- MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

1st Ypres et al.

Greetings Dapi, I've managed to resist the temptation to start many things and finish none, for long enough to get most of the things in my sandboxes into articles. 1st Ypres remains (having stood over for six months) so I'm going to try to get a few more things finished. Is there anything you'd like to see progress on? The operations south of Ypres look like they can be finished quickest so I'm minded to start there.Keith-264 (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Jacket

Garbage, my opinion. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Wrap-up of some recent external reviews Interview: World War I editors Op-ed: TomStar81 on the outbreak of World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kanalkampf

added links pointing to Coke, Newhaven, Aces and Thorney Island

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

1st Ypres redux

I've done quite well in sorting out lots of unfinished articles and have made a start on the draft 1st Ypres page here User:Keith-264/sandbox5 and started three pages for the three named battles on the other sandbox pages. I'm having a bit of a struggle to work out which aspects of the existing page should go in the Langemarck, Gheluvelt and Nonne Bosschen pages. Any suggestions? Regards,Keith-264 (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Links on Siege of Malta (World War II)

I notice that you did a large number of edits on the above page early in 2011 adding around 140 citations to the text. Unfortunately these were "short citations" such as "Levine 2008, p. 30" which don't include the title of the book etc. I've updated the page to use templates which give a direct link to the references and in some of the commoner cases such as Hooton and Jellison it was easy to find the titles. But there are a dozen other works that have no title. Could you please supply them, or at least those that you gave the citations for. To simplify it I've put a list out of alphabetic order in the list at the bottom. Thanks, Chris55 (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for what you've done so far. I've been cleaning up a few obvious typos - e.g. Shore 1985 instead of Shores 1985. Chris55 (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

James MacLachlan

Can you assist sourcing the article? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kanalkampf, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Yarmouth and Goodwood. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

James MacLachlan

added links pointing to Fleury, Moissy, Houssay and Mourmelon

Kanalkampf

added a link pointing to Deal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at the military history of Austria-Hungary Timeleine: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James MacLachlan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bretigny. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed  22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marmaduke Pattle may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• .<ref>{{LondonGazette|issue=35110|startpage=1601|date=18 March 1941|accessdate=3 June 2008}}</ref>}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James McCudden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Farnborough. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marmaduke Pattle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wing Commander. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Learning curve

Technically you may be correct but it lacks the respect for those who died on both sides. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, than I can't help you. Sorry MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I know MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marmaduke Pattle

The article Marmaduke Pattle you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Marmaduke Pattle for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ju 87

Regarding your post on my talkpage: I removed the statement you removed in previous edits as "not accurate" because it was complicated to fix the blanket-revert of my copyedits regarding italics and use of German. Then you put that unsourced statement back.

Peter 09:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein

Hi Dapi, there is no tie to English other than the fact that he fought against England. As primary editor I chose US English. Please stop reverting. Thank you. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

German battleship Bismarck, was also written in US English although one can argue that it also fought the British exclusively. However the primary editor, Parsecboy, also chose US English MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Dapi, I noticed this while checking for a reply above and reverted you. MisterBee is perfectly right. MOS:RETAIN is there to stop these disputes before they even start. Practice and guidelines are crystal clear on this: unless the topic is obviously British/American/Australian/whatever, a clearly established English variety stays.

Peter 01:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You may want to consider changing how the {{Convert}} spells English meter versus metre, etc. to use exclusively use British English as well. Half a change does not look professional. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

A small point of fact - Bismarck and Tirpitz are both written in British English, because that's the way I found them, but they are the only German warships to use BrEng (as far as I can remember anyway). Please see my comment on the article talk page, Dapi, and please stop edit-warring. I'd rather not see you be blocked over this issue. Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say they were. How is my understanding of WP:TIES is flawed? Perhaps you could correct it? Bearing in mind this foreign (in this case non-English speaking) airmen has only a connection to the English speaking British, and not those in the Americas, I would have thought it was logical and proper that the creator should write the article in the appropriate (proper) variant. Given that he claimed 83 British bombers containing hundreds of British occupants, I would say that counts as a rather strong national tie. Wouldn't you? I'd bet if this man had been responsible for 83 B-17s you and the rest would be equally insistent. And if that were challenged, no doubt there would be a banding together of the like-minded. This illogical rule is being used an excuse for editors to write how and which ever way suits them. There is no defence for this stupidity and bloody mindedness.

To round off, Parky, I'd hope you'd realise that such commentary has no effect. It doesn't change anything, and usually I find away to get my point across whatever happens. It won't work. Dapi89 (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Misterbee said that Bismarck was written in AmEng earlier in this thread. Do please pay attention.

Your smug condescension would really have been more effective if, you know, you had actually bothered to read anything I said. I'll bold it for you. Parsecboy (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Dapi, we just had an exchange over Ju 87 which actually also involved the Manual of Style (MOS). If you get involved in disagreements over prose in the future, I recommend that you consult the MOS first before imposing your own views on language. MOS has recommendations on most things that matter. They're not mandatory, but they are intended to avoid "which every way suits them"-disputes. The matter of English spelling in this case simply allows for more choices than you're aware of.

For example, articles I've written on the thoroughly Swedish topics of Vasa (ship) and battle of Öland are in US English. Mary Rose, however, is British English whether I prefer that or not. The point is that if the main topic is inherently non-English, the style choice automatically defaults to whatever was established first (or that of the primary contributor). Obviously non-English topics can't get "tagged" by merely associating with something related to English (such as killing British people). So battle of Öland will be kept in US English, even if there was minor involvement by England.

Peter 06:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Weak Parky. You didn't make it clear who you were talking to. I had to make the assumption that it was me. Understandable since it is a struggle to make sense of what you say. Careful how you write.

Second, if my replies appear condescending have you considered that the weakness of your argument might be responsible ? Have your ducks in a row next time. Dapi89 (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to anyone in particular - I assumed you had the intelligence to follow a simple thread. I see I was mistaken. :::::::::::You know, I had come here to try to calm the situation down and prevent you from being blocked - but you're too busy being a dick to listen to reason. I'm done here. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You were. Confusing WP:Dick and logical argument is beneath even you. Dapi89 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bob Braham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transport aircraft. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

NPA

If you're going to refer to me, please use my username. You are being deliberately condescending, and if I see it again, we're heading to ANI. Consider that your only warning. Parsecboy (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't warn me. Now disappear. Dapi89 (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't give me anything to warn you for and I won't, simple as that. Cheers, Parsecboy (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Trying to be smart doesn't suit you. You don't dictate to me. Das Ende. Dapi89 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about me dictating to anybody? My role in the issue is largely immaterial; what does dictate your behavior is policy. You can continue to act like an adolescent, but you won't like the result. Parsecboy (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

My behavior is adjusted to the attitudes of those in question. Stop telling me what I should and should not be doing, and don't presume what I like and don't like. For someone who seems incensed by condescension, you dish out a good deal of it. Bin the trash talk an walk. Dapi89 (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Dapi, may I ask why so often a discourse with you, over topics with people taking on different positions then your own ends up in a personal dispute? My observation here is that a very normal discussion with you typically escalates as follows. In the beginning we have a very reasonable and normal issue to debate over. If you fail to convince others by means of reason you start questioning their intelligence. If this fails you take it to the next level by ridiculing them directly in an attempt to alienate them from the discussion and the rest of the community. What starts as a bagatelle issue ends up in a side tracked debate over personal conduct. Due note, I very much value your knowledge and expertise on military history. However it annoys me just as much how you handle this or similar situations. Don't alienate yourself from the community please MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Walther von Brauchitsch

I've opened a discussion on the articles talk page. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Warning and unsolicited advice

G'day Dapi89. No-one is ever going to award me the civility barnstar, so take this from someone who can come across to others as a bit abrupt and brusque. Your wikibehaviour regularly goes outside the bounds of civility required on WP. If you continue to insult people and make personal attacks when other editors don't agree with you, you will shortly be reported at ANI, and likely censured. When an experienced and civil editor like MisterBee66 or Parsecboy suggests you "wind your neck in" or a similar message, they are saying that for your own good. If you can't see that your interaction with others is problematic, you need to develop some insight, because it is. I suggest you take a deep breath and consider your responses to other editors carefully before you hit enter. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Walther von Brauchtisch content dispute

The result of the discussion was in favor of your addition so I have re-added it, but the book sources referenced are missing. Could you please add them? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

John Cunningham (RAF officer)

added links pointing to British, West Midlands, Hatfield, Wing Commander and Flat spin

John Braham (RAF officer)

added a link pointing to Benson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to a page, specifically James MacLachlan, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. See WP:NFCC#10c. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Cunningham (RAF officer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Marlborough, Cm and Arthur Harris. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Braham (RAF officer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jagdgeschwader 1 and Sagan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

British WW II aces

Hi, could you please check if I got this at least partially right {{Top UK World War II Aces}}. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Braham (RAF officer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bath. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

PATTLE

Dapi do not undo my contributs in Pattle page or I shall charge You with vandalism. I had corrected many mistakes and You have put them back in the article --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

PATTLE 2

That you brought the article to Good status does not mean that you have the property of the article itself and the right to delete the contributions that you do not like. The website that I quoted is a reliable source, I am in contact with historian Hakan Gustavsson in Facebook and the website has been written thanks to the contributs of another aviation historian (Italian), Slongo. The article that you have written had/has a lot of mistaken Italian words and ranks, not correct ways of writing Gruppo and Squadriglia, for instance, and it is not fair that you write as confirmed many Pattle's victories that are NOT confirmed by Regia Aeronautica sources, When you write in the main corp of the article that RAF destroyed 27 Italian aircraft while the truth is far from that, you give a distorted version of history. Anybody that offer only one side of the history should not be allowed to write historical article. And if he does so, he casts a bad light on the whole wikipedia. So please stop doing that and start to learn to be impartial. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

PATTLE 3

Dapi, when you write in the main corp this: On 4 March 1941, Pattle claimed three enemy Fiat G.50bis fighters (nos 22–24) belonging to 24oGruppo. He claimed the first while Nigel Cullen—another leading fighter ace—flew as his wingman. Escorting Blenheims to attack Italian warships, the pair were engaged by a lone G.50. Pattle engaged the Fiat and shot it down—its landing gear dropped down and it rolled over and dived into a mountainside just north of Himare. Pattle searched for Cullen, expecting him to be behind him but saw no sign of the Australian. He assumed Cullen had gone off to scout for more enemy aircraft after missing out on Pattle's victory. Now alone, he was attacked by another lone G.50bis while flying towards Vlorë. After a brief combat he shot down the Fiat. It crashed into the sea southwest of Vlorë harbour. He then became involved with a third such fighter over Valona harbour and claimed to have shot this down into the sea in flames on the west side of the promontory. After his returned to base he was informed Cullen had been posted missing in action. Pattle and the squadron considered he had likely been shot down and killed., that is FALSE. As Gustavsson and Slongo reported in their website that day Regia Aeronautica did NOT lose any Fiat G.50! While Pattle lost his wingman shot down by a G.50!! The plane that Pattle reported to have seen with the landing gear down and crashed on a mountain could only be his wingman, NOT an Italian fighter! If you write that he shot down a Fiat G.50 you state it as certain, while you should write something like: "He reported to have shot down... he reported to have seen a Fiat G.50 et." You should write as dubious not as certain! The whole Pattle's article seems a propaganda issue that cast a very bad and not deserved light on Italian Royal Air Force. WHen people try to write history they should let aside their personal feelings and become ferociously objective, impartial! Doing what you and your mentors and friends do in wikipedia, awarding each other for their contributs in wikipedia does not hide that wikipedia has a very bad reputation in historians' community. ANd now many enthusiasts as well start to regard wikepedia as a very unrielable source! I have been banned by one of the main facebook WWII groups as I "dared" to quote wikipedia as a reliable source! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

PATTLE 4

Dapi 89 you make me smile when you say that as Pattle saw (he said that) two aircraft crashing, he actually shot them down! Aces' biographies are packed with statements of aircraft shot down that were never lost by the opponenents! Have You heard of George Beurling? I did a long research on this pilot, I went to Malta where he was based, visited the houses where he lived, saw his uniform and equipment... I collected a lot of English written sources... Please read his article that I contributed to write... there are many cases of Beurling's unconfirmed claims. One day, for instance, he claimed two victories against Bf 109s: one pancaked (crashed) in a field in Malta and one was so hardly hit that he lost a wing and (obviously) crashed! Actually that day Luftwaffe did not lose any fighter on Malta but Beurling was credited officially with two victories! And so on! Was he a liar? Was he drunk or addicted? No, he was a celebrated RAF ace... Bah... Ok, I shall look for written sources about that Pattle presumed victories and, with your permission, will modify the article. And You will not have anything to... claim, I hope!! Good luck! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

ALLIED SOURCES

...And you still do not grasp the truth that "winners' lies become history", but you are still very young it seems to me... You have time to grow up and learn... best wishes! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Branse Burbridge

added a link pointing to Distinguished Flying Cross

John Cunningham (RAF officer)

added a link pointing to Mph

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on armoured reconnaissance and German scientists, Nick-D on time travelling historians Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the World War I Christmas truce Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Dapi89,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Marseille had a brother?

I just came across the info that Marseille also had a younger brother. According to this book he served in the Kriegsmarine. Have you seen this info before somewhere as well? I don't recall having come across this before. Cheers and HNY. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Franz Hrdlicka

I added what I found. I have to do some more searching MisterBee1966 (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Müncheberg

Good addition, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me honest here. Can please check if I added the correct Mason book to the reference section. You also cite from a Caldwell 1998 book, which is not yet listed, can you please add? The German sources would obviously state all times in CET, while British would probably use GMT. Are you sure that we are using the same time zones consistently? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther on Hitler and Cliftonian on the Rhodesia Regiment Interview: 2014 Military History Newcomer Award nominees Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial Op-ed: TomStar81 on the birth of strategic bombing Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Galland, Peltz and the Me 262

Do you know what made Peltz change his mind? In "Ziegler, Mano (2014). Hitler's Jet Plane: The ME 262 Story. Casemate Publishers. ISBN 978-1-84832-699-6." Peltz, in 1943, had expressed serious doubts about the Me 262 as a bomber, especially the ability to hit anything at high speed was questioned by him. According to your most recent edits on the Galland article you wrote "Peltz saw the aircraft as an ideal fast bomber which could evade the overwhelming numbers of Allied piston-engine fighters and attack the landing grounds." Was he forced into this change of mind? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I fixed a number of inconsistent implemented citations on the article. I found one reference "Murray 1983" not listed among the books. Do you know which one is referenced? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James McCudden

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James McCudden 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Braham (RAF officer)

The article John Braham (RAF officer) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:John Braham (RAF officer) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jackyd101 -- Jackyd101 (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James McCudden

The article James McCudden you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:James McCudden for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on the British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Harald Netzbandt

Thanks, no I had not seen it yet. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fliegerführer Atlantik, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Lütjens

Indeed, very nice picture MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, regarding the image, I am no expert on the safe use of images. I suggest you reach out to user Diannaa who is much more knowledgeable about these types of questions. Regarding the two articles, I will see what I can dish out in the coming days. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

First Battle of Ypres

My First Battle of Ypres revamp is done, (finally) hope you like it. Keith-264 (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Cunningham (RAF officer)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Cunningham (RAF officer) 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Article

The article Article you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 21 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Article for things which need to be addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Cunningham (RAF officer)

The article John Cunningham (RAF officer) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:John Cunningham (RAF officer) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Fritz Fliegel

I added all I have on him, do you have more info? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the addition, can you add the book "Goss 2005, p. 50." to the list of references please? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Cunningham (RAF officer)

The article John Cunningham (RAF officer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Cunningham (RAF officer) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for You!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring John Cunningham (RAF officer) to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work!  — ₳aron 21:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hans Buchholz

Created, please augment if you have more info. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What info do you have on Edmund Daser? His name also pops up in German sources MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

 — ₳aron 08:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Wanklyn, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Blyth, Holy Trinity Church and Mediterranean Theatre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Wanklyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Revs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John Cunningham (RAF officer)

Hello! Your submission of John Cunningham (RAF officer) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Wanklyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trawler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Malcolm Wanklyn (Royal Navy officer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Life boat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Recognition where it is due

We visited the west side Ludendorff bridge buildings with a few like-minded chaps in Oct 2013. Obviously, we checked basic facts from Misplaced Pages. Returning now to recheck some thins - what do I see: a detailed and fleshed out article! A joy to read. I'll recommend my buddies to see the artice themselves. In short, this calls for....tada.....

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For tireless improvment on Battle of Remagen. Cheers, Rayshade (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Good to see the Battle of Britain being well filled in

	The Original Barnstar
	For your hard work on Kanalkampf. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the new technology of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Rubensdörffer

I will look into this when back from vacation MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I created the stub. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg

Do you remember which Taylor you cited an edit to? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Johannes Wiese

I have been working on this article recently. Do you happen to know who (or what RAF unit) shot down Wiese on 25 December 1944? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, if you have a source I will add it to the article. Thanks again for checking MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks again, I added the info MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Malcolm Wanklyn (Royal Navy officer)

Hey, could you please not undo multiple copyedits there? If there are specific things you are unhappy with, please raise them in talk. Some of the changes you made contravene WP:MOSCAP and other guidelines. --John (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It is evident from the talk page this morning I have already explained why they were taken out. In fact, it isn't even what I'm reverting. The edits from Shem1805 cannot be undone unless yours are taken out as well. This has to be done because he as added in faulty information through his own misunderstanding of the article. Can you find away to restore without re-adding his stuff? Dapi89 (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? If you are saying you do not know how to edit Misplaced Pages manually but can only revert, you may need to take a long hard look at what you are doing here. I will have a look nevertheless, but try and get up to speed with editing here; it isn't fair to rely on others in this way. --John (talk) 10:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm serious. Are you????? It was far easier for me to do. As an experienced editor you know full well things are never really deleted and it won't be difficult for a self-professed Misplaced Pages expert such as yourself to put them back in, will it? Some of us don't have the time to read pages and pages of Misplaced Pages directives. Turn that mirror onto yourself. Dapi89 (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. You also appear to be a fairly experienced editor and part of what we sign up to here when we edit is to follow Misplaced Pages's norms. If you truly lack the time or ability to inform yourself of these you may wish to reconsider what you are doing here. If you are seriously saying that all you are able to do is revert, there may need to be further action, which may lead to outcomes that you will not be comfortable with. Think about it. --John (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what I may wish, or may not wish, to consider. You were given an explanation before you asked for one and something could have been worked out to correct everything but you reverted. So your criticism is a bit rich. There is nothing about this project that makes me uncomfortable, whatever happens. I detest Misplaced Pages bureaucrat wasting the time of editors who actually contribute meaningfully. If I hadn't contributed to this article you wouldn't be here. Think about that. Dapi89 (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm staggered.

• You reverted wholesale a bunch of edits which were not only made in good faith by a long established editor (that's me), but you didn't bother to drop me a line at my talk page explaining your reversion. Furthermore you reverted a set of edits by User:John at the same time. Have you read Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary, particularly the part under the heading "unacceptable reversions"?
• You acknowledged that you used the revert function as a convenient alternative to editing the small fragment of my edits you didn't agree with.
• When User:John asked you to discuss, you tried to put the onus on him to fix your mistakes.
• You broke the spirit of WP:3RR by your reverts on 22 August.
• With this diff you removed the template:cite book entries in the bibliography, on the grounds that "original biblio is better. New is messy and doesn't really add much. Hardly any of them can be viewed through google books", despite MOS:WORKS stating that the template can be used in bibliographies - and worse still, you inserted an incorrect ISBN that I had fixed in the first place.
• Finally, you have re-inserted into the article that "Wanklyn attempted to engage a cruiser but hit an Avieri–class destroyer, which he claimed damaged". I don't have access to your sources, but clearly you must. Please tell me where it says he hit a destroyer (which is what the article currently says) - not where it says he claimed he hit a destroyer.

You say "Some of us don't have the time to read pages and pages of Misplaced Pages directives." I suggest if you are so keen to use the revert function, you should first read the guidance (not directive) on when its use is, or is not, acceptable. Don't think I expect an apology. I've already worked out I'm not going to get one. Shem (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Prepared to be staggered some more;

• Correct, you won't get one.
• A post was made to the talk page. I'm not obliged to talk to you directly. Courteous enough I think.
• It wasn't actually a small fragment was it? And anyway, if you'd read the article properly you wouldn't have made the edits that have caused all of this.
• No I didn't. The 'spirit' (ridiculous phrase) is irrelevant. I didn't go over the three revert rule.
• It is not for you to ghost in and decide how a bibliography should look. Hundreds, if not thousands of articles, including mine, make it to decent article status without them. And it does look messy. It is unnecessary. And it it does waste my time putting it back. And as for this ISBN: which one? Because I doubt it.
• And no. I have already put the citation in the article which links to this information. I won't justify it to you. Don't question my integrity again.

Goodbye. Dapi89 (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You do a very eloquent job of abusing yourself. Shem (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me you don't have an argument left that is worthy of the name. You're embarrassing yourself. Dapi89 (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Second Schleswig War Interview: Featured picture participants Op-ed: TomStar81 on Indian nationalism during World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Heinrich Bartels

According to Walter Schuck, Bartels had a serious alcohol problem and frequently got into trouble with his commanding officers. Maybe this has something to do with his "lack of promotions". MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kanalkampf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Townsend (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Malcolm Wanklyn (Royal Navy officer). Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Misplaced Pages. Telling people their "opinions are not important" like you did here merely because they are linking to Google Books is highly uncivil. —Мандичка 😜 18:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say he wasn't editing in good faith. I said he was wrong. And opinions aren't relevant, unless it is uncivil to disagree? Dapi89 (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail talk 18:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Dapi89 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Do Misplaced Pages administrators usually block on behalf of involved admins as a favour? Do they read through the thread? This will not change anything. When I return, the article will be restored to how it should be. It is utterly pointless. Dapi89 (talk) 2:51 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

This in no way addresses the reason behind your block. Furthermore, continuing to edit war after your block expires will result in a much longer block. NeilN 19:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Did you read the thread? He has no support for his reverts. Several editors have expressed support for my edits. Please review the thread, think, and then return. It's stupid how the starter of an edit war can get away without sanction and the justified party gets blocked. The requesting Admin was also involved in the dispute. Dapi89 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes the thread was read, as was your talk page and the various article and other user talk pages. You were blocked for your incivility to other users, threatening to continue edit warring no matter the reasoning. The basics of undoing the edits and your opposition to them are not the issue. You're continued threats to edit war are, but that's only a minor consideration. The main reason is your complete incivility to other users. Once would be a don't do it again, but your block log is replete with numerous incidents as is your talk page and edits. Feel free to request an unblock with a reason that covers the reason for your block and someone will take a look at it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, he's a content creator, which I note that you are not, and someone was screwing up the cites in the article in violation of WP:CITEVAR. Why didn't you address that? It would have stopped the problem. This is what happens when non-content creators are admins, we lose the use of a valuable editor because of civility BS. Your job should be to keep the riff-raff from screwing up the article and the citation style. GregJackP Boomer! 06:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Dapi89, let me echo what Canterbury Tail says--the last sentence anyway. I can't unblock someone who tells me they're going to continue edit warring, and I can't really unblock someone who was also blocked for incivility if they're still acting like a jerk. This stuff about involved admins, it's not helpful and it's not correct. I'm all for unblocking folks, but you need to make it at least a bit easier for me. Your point about the citation format and all, wage that war on the talk page, where you'll find at least a few editors on your side. I'll check in here every now and then. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, thank you for unblocking Dapi89. GregJackP Boomer! 11:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Me too. Dapi89, I don't know you, but I understand your frustration and I advocated for unblock at ANI. While I think that the block was too harsh, I also don't think it was totally unreasonable: you have been acting like jerk. I can only echo Drmies's words. Please let the dust settle, and when the article gets unprotected I volunteer to merge the changes. Shouldn't the article be at nice and undisambiguated Malcolm Wanklyn, by the way? No such user (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Herbert Ihlefeld‎

Hi, I have started working on his article recently. Do you think I should add the Marseille story? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I made a small reference to Marseille. Sufficient detail can be found in Marseille's article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

If time permits, may I ask you to review the Battle of Britain section? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Operation Ariel

I'm working on an expansion here User:Keith-264/sandbox5 but only by scraping bits and bobs together from divers sources. If you have any detail on air operations, I'd be grateful if you would add them when you're at a loose end. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors, coordinator elections have begun Articles: Abbasids to a Yugoslav monitor Book reviews: Economics of warfare, Japan, and light horse Op-ed: We can (not) advance Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed  05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Gordon Gollob

I could use your help and opinion again. If time permits, please check section "Norwegian Campaign and Battle of Britain". I could also use some input on his conflict with Galland. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Calais 1940

Thanks for the air info, it's much improved the article, might it be better under a separate header? I think I've got the references right for your additions but I can't find Franks 2006, can I have a clue? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I must say, I'm impressed by your air war library, it makes my sources look rather ordinary. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Anotherclown and Sturmvogel 66 on war in the air and at sea Review essay: Auntieruth55 on the French Revolutionary Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the entry of Bulgaria in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brendan Finucane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ubben/Phillip/Ostermann

Thanks, indeed very interesting. Following the award ceremony Hitler normally invited the recipients to lunch. Since these award ceremonies were typically held at the Führer headquarters, high ranking officials often attended lunch as well. I guess this time Himmler happened to be there. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you missed my earlier request, if you have time please review the "High command" section of the Gordon Gollob article. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of the Bulge Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the collapse of the Serbian Army in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the German retreat from France in 1944 Op-ed: TomStar81 on empires of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James MacLachlan

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James MacLachlan 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MisterBee1966 -- MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Jefferson Davis; Hawkeye7 on Australia's war in Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses British World War I conscription Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James MacLachlan

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James MacLachlan 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. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James MacLachlan

The article James MacLachlan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:James MacLachlan for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MisterBee1966 -- MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, take all the time you need! Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Germany or Nazi Germany?

Do you have an opinion about this RFC? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James MacLachlan

The article James MacLachlan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:James MacLachlan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MisterBee1966 -- MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

East African Campaign 1940-1941

Greetings Dapi, does your air war library have anything about operations in East Africa? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It does have a little. What do you need? Btw, I haven't forgotten about Ariel. I'm on the move at the moment so there maybe a delay until next weekend re: sources. Dapi89 (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, every now and then I go back to that article, trying to fill in missing cites. Trouble is I have to glean them from divers sources (if at all), mostly from official histories of the 50s and 60s. They tend to give different figures so I was hoping that you might have something recent for comparison. I looked at Shore but it's tremendously expensive. It's a pretty good article but has a lot of duplication, particularly in the background and prelude so I'm trying to tidy it up. Trouble is, there aren't many sub-articles and it's such a sprawling theatre of operations that it gets hard to decide what goes where.Keith-264 (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Keith, apologies for the wait. I was distracted by other things.

Where were you looking for Shores? (You did mean Shores and not Shore?). I might be able to help (I have a copy). I sympathise with the scale of the task and organising. It was difficult enough for me on First Ypres and was only partially successful. I don't know how you conjure the time or patients for these types of articles.

With regard to the air war; It is very difficult to appreciate what impact it had, even at the tactical level, never mind operational. The position of the Italians out the outset made it difficult for them to campaign with longevity, and certainly not success. Air power was not really a dominating factor, though the British certain used it to make up for their shortage of firepower. There was plenty of scuffles. Shores sticks to his routine and gives a daily account. I can fish through it and pick the most important. It all depends on what you want. Just figures for now is it? Dapi89 (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, most of the narrative in the 1st Ypres was fine, it's just that the wiki structure isn't really adapted for battles that go on and on. I did the Transloy Ridges for the Somme 1916 late last year, assuming it would be a quickie because most of it was rained off. WRONGG! That's why I'm procrastinating over Bazentin Ridge. ;O)) I found Shores: Dust Clouds in the Middle East: Air War for East Africa, Iraq, Syria, Iran and Madagascar, 1940-42 by searching Amazon. Yes I'm interested in the bare bones now, Italian and British air OOBs so I can slim the main page. Someone did a lot of good work but didn't cite it and I'm scratching round trying to find sources. The OH volumes are good but a bit variable on the details. It's rather fun spotting euphemistic references to Ultra though.Keith-264 (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I like that. I still wonder why it took them so long to acknowledge it publicly. The Soviets knew about it, so I can't understand why the Ultra 'blackout' remained until 1974. It wasn't as if they didn't have bigger fish to fry.

Like I said, with this one I'm a one-trick pony. I can help with the air, but that's just about it. I can squeeze a fair bit out of this and other sources. You can leave the air with me if you like. Dapi89 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

As long as it's no trouble.

I heard that lots of ex-colonies were donated Enigma machines....Keith-264 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It won't be. As long as you're the patient type!

Well, I wonder why the Brits did that! Dapi89 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

found this under my nose all along....Keith-264 (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

That was lucky. I have not come across that before. I think it encapsulates the East African air war at the strategy and operational ends much better than Dust Clouds and it's war diary style.

I will look for more sources today (I have access to my stuff today) while I have spare time, and I will add bits and pieces to the main article later on this week. Dapi89 (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd rather avoid online sources but East Africa seems to be a bit of a Cinderella. Anyting that you gan fit into the OOB page will be highly welcome. I can do quite a bit from the OH but I've overrun my deadline of resuming the Battle of the Somme this month so It's Bazentin Ridge a-go-go for the nest few days. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Get a load of this p. 146....Keith-264 (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Unfortunate? You think you can use it? A former lecturer of mine wrote something about Italian naval expansion some years ago. He is of Italian extraction, I was going to see if I can find it and if it helps. He speaks Italian and used their archives. Dapi89 (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The statistical bits are quite easy to translate because they're repetitive so I've put it into the main article.Keith-264 (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Reginald Carey, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lindfield, West London and Peter Townsend (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Kanalkampf

I am back. I will have a read of the article shortly. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The article looks very good. The only issue is a significant amout of overlinking. I started to remove some of it. You may want to check as well. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I did a bit of copy editing, feel free to change. I think the article in some places reads as if it was put together in chunks over time. What I mean by this is that already introduced military units are being introduced again as if they are mentioned for the first time. I also think that you should make use of the {{convert}} and {{GRT}} for unit conversions. Otherwise I think it looks well written. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Belgium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jagdgeschwader 1 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Albrecht Brandi

Would you mind reviewing the article? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The summary of career table lists those ships confirmed sunk. Does this answer your question? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, so far, I was unable to find more hard data. When reading up on Brandi, I got the impression that he was, let's call it "well treated" by the system. I asked myself if his dad's legacy had something to with it. After all, his dad did help finance Hitler's rise to power before the war. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Reginald Carey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian Campaign (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brendan Finucane

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brendan Finucane 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brendan Finucane

The article Brendan Finucane you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Brendan Finucane for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Mass removal of content

Have you noticed the mass removal of content from the articles Hartmann, Marseille, Rudel, Gollob, Wick, Wilck and many others? So you think that those changes are legitimate? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brendan Finucane

The article Brendan Finucane you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Brendan Finucane for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Bader

Have you seen this before? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFQ2y5eyvbs Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I had left you an email for my motivation leaving. Cheers and enjoy the community here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I have resent. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on Nazi terror and covert warfare Op-ed: Hawkeye7 looks at Australians on the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mick Mannock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Territorial Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Steinbock

That is a good compromise that we can all live with Dapi. I am sure you understood my concerns, as your subsequent edits addressed them precisely. Btw I have no idea why I called you Cipo in edit summary :/ Happy editing! Irondome (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I did. The article as it stood when you made those edits was pretty poor. I started it, so the onus is on me to complete it. After seven years, its still a skeleton and derelict in parts. A lot of the stuff in the background was rushed just to fill it in. I'm going to try and improve it. Perhaps to GA. Btw, could you assist with the Frankland and Webster source. Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

GAR: Joachim Helbig

Hi, since you participated in the review of the article Joachim Helbig, I'm letting you know about the community reassessment that I initiated.

The discussion is at GAR:Joachim Helbig, with the goal to reach a consensus whether the article satisfies the good article criteria. Any input would be welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Steinbock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westcott (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Steinbock, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hackney and Wimbledon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:StahlschmidtJG27aces051.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:StahlschmidtJG27aces051.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dapi89. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Selasje

The article Selasje has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced stub that duplicates existing article: Pietrykaŭ

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Talkback Hermann Greiner

K.e.coffman (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi, I would appreciate if you did not label my contributions "vandalism". Examples:

• "spurious tag and vandalism"
• "vandalism"
• "rv vandalism" Etc.

The redirects are being done subsequent to the consensus at Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners (permalink). You and I may disagree on the notability of some of the subjects, but this is handled via WP:BRD. Likewise, boldly editing an article is not vandalism. Please see: WP:NOT VANDALISM.

I would appreciate if the edits summaries could be tempered down. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

They are. You're engaged in tendentious editing driven by opinion. And whatever agreement you think you may have, it does not grant you special status to delete any article you choose. if you think that's what they gave you, you're mistaken.

Disruptive editing is vandalism. We are tying to build a Misplaced Pages, you seem intent on destroying it. See Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing and Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing: Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Disruptive editing is not usually considered vandalism, though vandalism is disruptive. Dapi89 (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The above comment indicates lack of familiarity with WP:NOT VANDALISM. Quoting from the linked policy: "What is not vandalism: Disruptive editing. Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Dispute resolution may help. See also: Tendentious editing."

Hope this clarifies. I would also argue that these redirects are not "disruptive" since they followed a widely commented on discussion, where the consensus has emerged that awarding the KC is not a sufficient claim to notability by itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

They are NOT supported. Nowhere does it say K.e.Coffman can delete any article he deems appropriate. For that you don't have any consensus at all. Each article is taken and looked at on it's own merit. You've failed in many cases to show that articles are not notable because you have either zero, or little knowledge of the literature, or you use flawed methods. Who uses a search engine to determine an article's importance?

Where does it say that the Knight's Cross is not a sufficient award for notability? How many editors agreed? How many opposed? The articles you speak of so not include them only on those grounds anyway - but the fact that they made a sizeable contribution to the air war. Dapi89 (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to the above linked discussion for the closer's comments. Leaving aside notability of the subjects of the articles, do you agree that "Disruptive editing is not vandalism"? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Disruptive editing is not usually considered vandalism, though vandalism is disruptive. Deleting information without justification is vandalism. Dapi89 (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I've updated the disruptive editing article to match WP:NOT VANDALISM: diff. It no longer reads " is not usually considered vandalism", simply "is not vandalism". To clarify, do you plan to continue to label my contributions as vandalism? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so you've edited the guideline you violated and re-written it to absolve yourself. Unbelievable. It's like asking the offender to write the law!!

This is exactly the kind behaviour pattern I've come to expect from you.

It amazes me that you still don't consider yourself tendentious. Dapi89 (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The edit that you consider problematic was simply to remove weasel words ("not usually considered") & align a 'guideline to a policy (see WP:VANDALISM). Even the quote that you cited states: "Disruptive editing is not usually considered vandalism". So I don't see how the change "absolves" me.

In any case, are discussing "vandalism", not "tendentiousness". Do you plan to continue to label my contributions as vandalism? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It is obvious that they are all part of your editing pattern. One leads into the other.

Who says it was a weasel word? More opinion. When will you stop trying to make all facets of Misplaced Pages conform to your views? Dapi89 (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

My request is to please stop labeling my contributions as "vandalism". This is against policy and can result in administrative action. If you have problems with my "disruptive" and "tendentious" editing, please see: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't. Someone in your position shouldn't be issuing threats. I find it easier to let the trouble find me. I don't have time to follow you around, only to prevent your destructive attacks on the articles that are on my watchlist. Dapi89 (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Talkback

Please see Talk:Gordon_Gollob#BRD. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi publications

Please see: Talk:Egmont_Prinz_zur_Lippe-Weißenfeld#Neo-Nazi_publication. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr

A response would appreciated at Talk:Erich_Hartmann#.22Luftwaffe.22_of_the_Bundeswehr. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread in question is Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Luftwaffe_of_the_Bundeswehr. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback: Talk:Erich Hartmann#Discussion at NPOV noticeboard

FYI. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback: Talk:Heinrich_Sturm#Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany

Please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kampfgeschwader 76 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Battle of Rostov and StG 77

Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback: Talk:Kampfgeschwader_55#Neutral_POV

Please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback: Talk:Helmut_Woltersdorf#Grave_info

Please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is: Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Luftwaffe_of_Nazi_Germany. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

With regard to this related edit: Please comment on content, not on the contributor. I would recommend to rephrase the comment. It's not helpful towards resolve the conflict. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to rephrase. There is a history of disruption with this editor and I will make the point in which ever way I like. Dapi89 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That is, of course, your prerogative. But please keep in mind that WP:NPA is not just the law (well, a Misplaced Pages policy), it's also a good idea. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz:. I've never had an issue with you Stephan, and I've never had reason to believe that your contributions to Misplaced Pages have been made for any other reason than for the advancement of article quality. Unfortunately, I do not believe the same is true for this other person. These discussions should focus on all aspects of the debate, including the suspect agendas of arch-polemicists. I've encountered under-cover Nazis in my ten years here on German-related articles, now it seems I'm encountering the opposite extreme. Dapi89 (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kampfgeschwader 55 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sevskaya and Cherny

Kampfgeschwader 76 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Italian Campaign and Heer

Bombing of Stalingrad in World War II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tons

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Günther Lütjens‎

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Wanklyn

--Olonia (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

There you go. --Olonia (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kampfgeschwader 1, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Montdidier and Clairmont (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kampfgeschwader 1, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hayes and Dungeness (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The thread is "Fringe source in WWII bio article". K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of External links noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The thread is External links at Günther Lütjens. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kampfgeschwader 100, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gorki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Talkback Talk:Heinrich_Prinz_zu_Sayn-Wittgenstein#Opinion

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Kampfgeschwader 1

I am wondering why you reverted my edits on Kampfgeschwader 1 ? Edit: I fixed the KG error via find and replace - perhaps that's what should have been done. --Jennica✿ / 22:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kampfgeschwader 1 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ziethen

Kampfgeschwader 54 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bissel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kampfgeschwader 54, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages 5th Panzer Division and Neuberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Reflist|4

Hi. Just letting you know that reflist|2/3/4 are all deprecated per Template:Reflist#Columns. If you don't know the best ways to format these are:

• reflist|35em for 2 columns
• reflist|30em for 3 columns
• reflist|40em for 4 columns

Most of the time, 4 columns don't really need to be used unless an article has well over 200 or so refs. thanks --Jennica✿ / 10:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have proposed that you be blocked for 3RR violation unless you agree to take a break from editing the article for thirty days. During that time, you can still participate on the talk page. You can reply to this offer at the noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Dapi89 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There are three editors engagedcin edit warring here and I am the only one being sanctioned. In fact i was blocked on the grounds tbat I dis not comply with a resolution offer and intimated I was going to continue battling the bias of three others. I said no such thing, buf was seeking clarification on why the admin was taking aides in the issue. I have made no attempt to edit the article since Coffman has tried to get me blocked. Dapi89 (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Dapi, as EdJohnston said, you were the one who violated the bright-line 3RR. Therefore I won't unblock unconditionally, but there's a thread on ANI that involves you — indeed, that you started — and I think you should be able to take part there. I'll unblock if you agree to edit nothing other than the ANI thread for as long as the block would have lasted. If you agree to this, please say so below. Bishonen | talk 09:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Then no, on principle. I'll agree to leave the Rudel page alone for 72 hours, if the same rule is also applied to the tag team operating there . Dapi89 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Dapi89 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Seriously? That's not going to happen. I merely wanted to give you an opportunity to post in the ANI you'd opened, as seemed fair. Since you've declined my offer, you'll remain blocked. Bishonen | talk 14:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC).

Obviously. Yes, I am serious, but not expectant, since the administrators cant seem to distinguish the wood from the trees. Dapi89 (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)