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

welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -->

OK let's start- Hello Minorhistorian. Welcome to the aviation side of Wikipedia. As you are a newcomer, there will need to be some help in editing for readability in grammar. As well, please note that you do need to refer to reference sources to "back up" submissions. Please continue to contribute but be aware that other editors will help you in framing the articles in an encyclopedic manner.

One of the first things that I noticed is that your submissions must have citations properly cited. These usually fall into the pattern of either Modern Language Association or American Psychiatric Association style guides, neither of which you have employed. I prefer a Harvard citation myself for citations. Watch as things get edited and see how the changes are made. Thanks for coming on board. 1

First lesson: your citations should have the following:

Author (last name, first name). Title (of book). Place of publication: Publisher, Date. (Page number and ISBN/ISSN is optional.)

See the Hawker Typhoon article, changes have been made.

Referencing Magazines or Journals works much the same way as books or other reference sources. Here is the style guide:

Author (last name, first name). "Title (of article in quotation marks). Title of magazine or journal (Volume, Issue number, date). Place of publication: Publisher, Date. (Page number and ISSN is optional.)

Bibliography format (In Wikipedia, this is called "References.") Here are some other rules:

All entries are arranged in alphabetical order according to the first word in the entry.

Here is an example:

References

Notes

Bibliography

Bentley, Arthur L. "Typhoon (article and drawings)." Scale Models Magazine Vol. 6 No 74, November 1975. http://www.albentley-drawings.com/typhoon.htm Typhoon drawings
Clarke, R.M. Hawker Typhoon Portfolio. Cobham, Surrey, UK: Brooklands Books Ltd., 1987. ISBN 1-86982-617-5.
Darling, Kev. Hawker Typhoon, Tempest and Sea Fury. Ramsgate, Marlborough, Wiltshire, UK: The Crowood Press Ltd., 2003. ISBN 1-86126-620-0.
Halliday, Hugh A. Typhoon and Tempest: the Canadian Story. Charlottesville, VA: Howell Press, 2000. ISBN 0-92102-206-9.
The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft, Vol. 9, Issue 106. Birkenhead, UK: Aerospace Publishing/Orbis Publishing, c. 1981-1985. p. 2120.
Mason, Francis K. The Hawker Typhoon In Aircraft in Profile, Volume 4. Windsor, Berkshire, UK: Profile Publications Ltd., 1966. ISBN 1-85383-013-4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.
Mason, Francis K. The Hawker Typhoon and Tempest. Bourne End, Buckinghamshire, UK: Aston Publications, 1988. ISBN 0-946627-19-3.
Rawlings, John D. R. Fighter Squadrons of the RAF and their Aircraft. Somerton, UK: Crecy Books, 1993. ISBN 0-947554-24-6.
Reed, Arthur and Beamont, Roland. Typhoon and Tempest at War. Shepperton, Surrey, UK: Ian Allan, 1974. ISBN 0-7110-0542-7.
Rimell, Ken. Through the Lens: The Typhoon at War, A Pictorial Tribute. Storrington, West Sussex, UK: Historic Military Press, 2002. ISBN 1-901313-14-X.
Scutts, Jerry. Typhoon/Tempest in Action (Aircraft in Action series, No. 102). Carrollton, TX: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1990. ISBN 0-89744-723-2 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.
Shores, Christopher. Ground Attack Aircraft of World War Two. London: Macdonald and Jane's, 1977. ISBN 0-356-08338-1.
Thomas, Chris. Typhoon and Tempest Aces of World War 2. Botley, Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 1999. ISBN 1-85532-779-1.
Thomas, Chris. Hawker Typhoon, Warpaint Series No.5. Husborne Crawley, Bedfordshire, UK; Hall Park Books Ltd. No year of publication. No ISBN.
Thomas, Chris and Kit, Mister. Hawker Typhoon. Paris, France: Éditions Atlas, 1980. No ISBN. (French)
Thomas, Chris and Shores, Christopher. The Typhoon and Tempest Story. London: Arms and Armour Press, 1988. ISBN 0-85368-878-6 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.
Townshend Bickers, Richard. Hawker Typhoon: The Combat History. Ramsgate, Marlborough, Wiltshire, UK: The Crowood Press Ltd., 1999. ISBN 1-85310-908-8.

And again, welcome. Please feel free to write me. FWIW Bzuk 14:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC).

Uploading images

Hi Minor- a Kiwi, are we? I would be happy to assist you in the process of uploading and placing image files in articles. I have done so many times and have a good feel for the process. Basically, go to the left menu and find the "upload file" toolbox. The first thing that will happen is that you will be directed to find the file for uploading, normally on a hard drive in your computer. Once selected, the file then is assigned a name and is given an extension (.jpg or .gif are the two most common image extensions that are added to your file name). The last and possibly most important step is to identify the image origin. Wikipedia has some specific protocols and very stringent rules as to use of images.

It can get somewhat repetitive to complete the rest of the download process which is identifying source and status of the image regarding copyright. The use of a template may be helpful. I have put an example template here for you to copy:

File information

Description

Hawker Typhoon in RAF Museum (made-up example)

Source

No source specified. Please edit this file description and provide a source.

Date

2007-06-23 (original upload date)

Author

Original uploader was Minorhistorian at en.wikipedia

Permission
(Reusing this file)

This work created by the United Kingdom Government is in the public domain.

This is because it is one of the following:

It is a photograph taken prior to 1 June 1957; or
It was published prior to 1974; or
It is an artistic work other than a photograph or engraving (e.g. a painting) which was created prior to 1974.

HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide (ref: HMSO Email Reply)
More information.

See also Copyright and Crown copyright artistic works.

- for works made in the UK more than 50 years ago

Category:Hawker Typhoon Category:Preserved aircraft

Another useful template is:

This image is in the public domain in the United States because

it was first published before 1978 and
it was first published outside the United States and
US copyright formalities were not complied with and
it was in the public domain in its home country on January 1, 1996.

Minorhistorian/Archive 1

also

This image is a work of a U.S. Air Force Airman or employee of the Department of the Air Force, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain in the United States.

Hope this helps. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

This image is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.

Archive 1:December 2007 - May 2008

Bf 109K "Kurfürst"

There is a rather annoying fact tag in this section. Is it possible to use Prien and Co to clear it up? Dapi89 (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion

We'd like to hear your thoughts on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Supermarine Spitfire variants part one and two. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Case

I have opened your case at the mediation cabal. Mww113 (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

See: [1] FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

Supermarine Spitfire (late Merlin powered variants)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Supermarine Spitfire (late Merlin powered variants), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Supermarine Spitfire variants part two. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you've tagged several Supermarine Spitfire pages as both G3 Vandalism deletions and G6 housekeeping. Could you explain exactly what is being moved where, so I can process everything? Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's taken care of, then - no problem at all. The Vandalism tag threw me; I think the DB-pagemove tag, which one would expect to signal a non-controversial page move, actually indicates page move vandalism, which confused me. Either way, crisis averted. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see someone who realises that copy&paste is wrong. Your {{db-pagemove}} tag rather threw me too! I think I have tidied up properly. Please do a thorough check of whatlinkshere's - there is a bot which fixes unimportant double redirects. I note Spitfire variants and Supermarine Spitfire variants which should probably redirect to Comparison of Supermarine Spitfire variants. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Odd Deletion Notices

Nope, it looks like that was you - per this diff and this diff. It looks like Twinkle triggered the warnings when you tagged those pages for deletion. The text would also indicate that the db-pagemove template is what caused twinkle to send the warning, as it seems to indicate page-move vandalism. Not a major deal, I think - having never used twinkle, I'm not sure how to fix it, except to urge caution in the future. But, really, it's not a big deal - pinging the users or clearing the warnings wouldn't hurt, if it bothers you. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Blenheim

Thanks. There are two pictures not four. The reason for the second link is because it is about the web site. So that if there had been an author it would have been "author. [URL], [URL to about website], 'date of publication' or 'accessed date if no DoP'" -- This is similar to the layout for a newspaper citation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Another Typhoon operator

Just created another Typhoon operator No. 195 Squadron RAF any help appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Luftwaffe Order of Battle August 1940

Hi Minor. It appears the records are incomplete for LG 2. The only known Commander of this unit was Obstlt Eberhard Baier, but this was from 1 November 1938 - 18 November 1939. I do have some COs for its Gruppen though, I can add these to the article if needed. I am going to start an article on it soon. But I have others to flesh out a bit first. Its part of my wikipedia Luftwaffe bomber wing article expansion project. Dapi89 (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have any trouble with detail with regard to bases/COs, types of bombers ect, let me know. Dapi89 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

LG 1 is clearer. Oberst Alfred Bülowius commanded the unit from 17 November 1939 - 21 October 1940. Stab, I.(K), II., III., V.(Zerstorer) were the only Gruppes to take part in the BoB.Dapi89 (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Minor, I have been adding replacements of those COs in the main article. I think it should be there rather than in a footnote. Also, it doesn't take up much room in the table. Dapi89 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of cited information

Hi again Minorhistorian. Thanks for bringing this to my attention - I will be monitoring the situation.

I've tried to make sense of the chain of events, but coming to it cold, it's very difficult for me to piece together what's been going on. It would be very helpful to me if, rather than just linking to an article history, if you could specifically link me to some of the problem edits. You can do this by clicking on the "diff" link in the page history, and then copying-and-pasting the whole URL (like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolls-Royce_Merlin&diff=226315926&oldid=226180275 ).

Wikipedia has mechanisms for dealing with situations where editors refuse to reason and negotiate with others, culminating in an RfC (request for comment), so please don't get discouraged by bad behaviour. However, in order to do anything, you need to be able to point out specific instances. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Minorhistorian. While investigating the situation, I've noted some fundamental problems that both "sides" in this dispute need to take a look at. I'll simply repeat something I just said to Kurfürst:

"As it stands, this group of articles has a couple of major problems with sourcing: both "sides" of this dispute have liberally made use of self-published sources whose reliability has not been established (spitfireperformance.com and aboutwarfare.com) and both "sides" are relying on primary sources to support their claims, which is (perhaps counterintuitively) regarded as unacceptable on Wikipedia.

I strongly urge you to work together with others to resolve the sourcing issues before expanding these articles any further."

For whatever it's worth, I believe that this situation is illustrative of the pitfalls when Wikipedia strays away from description and explanation (encyclopedic) and into evaluation and interpretation (unencyclopedic). --Rlandmann (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly so; if contributors to these articles can find reliable, secondary sources that discuss the effect that availability (or not) of 100 Octane to the British had on how the Battle of Britain was fought, then it might be worthy of inclusion. But piecing together facts from disparate sources in order to support a conclusion (no matter how well sourced those facts may be) is indeed Original Research and has no place here.

The idea of standing back and letting a neutral third party or parties comb over the article is a good one, but obviously would need the support of all parties involved. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If the link to the external site is merely to illustrate the subject, it's probably OK (as with your external link to illustrate the N-3B); if you were using the picture to draw conclusions about the subject, it would be Original Research and not OK - as a quick nonsense example, linking to a photo of a "Foo F-123" to support a claim that "The placement of the F-123's horizontal stabiliser would have made stall recovery practically impossible".

Remember, however, that Wikipedia is a long-term project indeed, and our content is intended to be reusable by others in other media. Given the highly ephemeral nature of self-published websites (and the web in general), the value of an external link merely to illustrate a subject is questionable. We also need to be mindful of the copyrights of others, so if it doesn't look like the site owner is the copyright owner of the material or claim to be using it with permission, we should avoid linking there and contributing to his/her infringement on the rights of others (see the External links policy, and not a problem in the case of the N-3B link - the picture is cited to a P-51 operating manual - owned by the US military and therefore in the public domain). --Rlandmann (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reluctantly had to wade back into this quagmire after alerts from another couple of editors. While I believe that your editing has stayed within the boundaries set by policy, I'd like to ask you please to be mindful of the effects that edits can have on a delicate situation. Furthermore, a significant part of the dispute on the Supermarine Spitfire page seems to be over the inclusion of material from primary sources and its interpretation. Please take a(nother) read of the relevant policy, and perhaps consider that situations like this one might be part of the reason why such a policy exists in the first place! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Very nice article!

I just wandered across Comparison of P-51 variants while being on New page patrol. I have to say i'm impressed with the thoroughness of the table and the looks of the article in general. My compliments on a very nice page! Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dunedin Modellers

Hi, thanks for into the invite, some great stuff in there. Very tempting to get back into it but don't have the time or a good airbrush! Cheers. Nimbus (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Spitfire stuff and nonsense

Something has transpired that may a least put a little respite to the process. Check the latest happenings to our redoubtable friend. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

Sort of related to this

I take your point. I guess this guy knows what buttons to press, and I find it difficult to just let it go without reciprocating in kind. Dapi89 (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to dig out snadden's book and see what he has to say about the Black 6. I don't recall the Bf 109 being used in any serious evaluations after 1943. KF, is a LW fan boy, and he really does not make any secret of that. I don't know what he has against the Spitfire, it seems personal. Perhaps it was responsible for the demise of a relative? Dapi89 (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I see the "contributions" he makes to these pages revolve entirely around the Spitfire's performance. It is obvious that he is trying to say "the Bf 109 and Fw 190 wee much better than the Spitfire, so ner". However, if he wants to play that game, fine. I'll slap a neutality disputed tag on that section as a warning to would-be readers. But I think it would be better that you counter his reliance on one pilot (and the 100 plus aircraft that supposedly struck with impuntiy against Allied targets in broad daylight is bullsh1t) with further text to show that Hawker Typhoon losses were light, and that the RAF were always at a disadvantage, being tied to ground strike missions. It would put the enitre section into a neutral perspective. Dapi89 (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

We can but hope. Dapi89 (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I hope you will fill me in, when he replies. On another note (I am not asking you to get involved in the current goings-on) I would appreciate your opinion. Lest the walls have ears, you can send me a wiki message if you like (or have time). Dapi89 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy the sanity while it lasts. I have a feeling it will only last a month or so. Dapi89 (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

NZ ace

Hi. Thanks for that! I added this based on a very short ref! Please, if you have anything to beef it up be my guest! I am going to add a ton of UK/CW aces soon as short refs, then gradually expand them over time. We have so few at the moment! Dapi89 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. A system glitch maybe? Dapi89 (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Spitfire discussion page

I'm just hoping that you and the others involved in editing these pages realise that some of those nearly 90 year old veterans still have lasting memories of what happened to them flying Spitfires while they were in their twenties, and that some of them do use the computer regularly. The facts and figures that you spend so much time bickering over happened to real people. I'm asking that you put some thought into that when it comes to editing. TIA.Circlingsky (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help by the way. I've edited in Wikipedia before but I'm pretty rusty on some things. Looks like I have some catching up to do.Circlingsky (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I'm very relieved to report that I've now got an offer from an experienced mediator to try and iron out some of the Battle of Britain-related disputes. Would you be open to their participation? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation

It is my understanding that some assistance could be used to resolve an ongoing disagreement centered on the Battle of Britain and improve the quality of affected articles. I've opened a case page for centralized discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-12 Battle of Britain. There are some initial questions to help start us off. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, and sympathise. However, in this case, please direct the complaint to Vassyana. I would like to take action at this point, but believe that doing so would prejudice the mediation, and will therefore defer to the mediator's judgement. Thanks for your patience so far; please have faith that the process will produce a result one way or another. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted

Many thanks. Please always remain aware that we need to hold ourselves to the same standards of conduct that we expect from others; as hard as that may be. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Script not loading

Hi Minorhistorian - I'm also using Firefox 3 and can't reproduce the problem. The page is very long now; I wonder if something is "timing out" on your connection when you try to edit the whole page at once? The guys over at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) may be able to help; otherwise just edit by section ;)

"Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I bend my elbow!"

"Well, don't bend your elbow"

BTW - I don't think you ever said where that great "uses sources like a drunk man uses lampposts" simile came from - please share! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

Apologies for delays in getting back. I appreciate your feedback. That's a good point about Lead. Will try to overhaul the Lead since I have received comments on the lead by other reviewers as well.

Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that fantastic idea of a table. Makes a lot of sense. I will try and make similar table for the rest of the groups of this wing. Perseus71 (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nominating Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)

Hi!

I noticed that you are gradually cleaning up the article. I have incorporated almost all of the feedback I have received till date in formal and informal peer review. (Yours included) I am intending to nominate this article for a GA review. I will wait for you to finish. Could you please let me know after you are done with your intended cleanup ? Once you think its ready, I can initiate that process. Thanks all the same. Perseus71 (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate changes to the lead. Also if you could fill out those cross-references when you get those books back, that'd be truly apprecited. In the mean time though, can I go ahead and nominate for GA Review ? Let me know. Thanks. Perseus71 (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

MedCab check-in

Is assistance still needed regarding the Battle of Britain? It appears as though the dispute/case has grown stale. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Touching base

Hello! I'm just touching base about the Battle of Britain mediation. What's the current state of things? Is there anything that requires my assistance at the moment? Do you think there's a need to keep the case open? Vassyana (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hawker Typhoon

Great main picture! A good find if ever there was one. Its now my wallpaper! Dapi89 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wonder New Year 2009!

Hi Minorhistorian,

Hope you have a very merry New Year and all the great successes in 2009!

Cheers

Perseus71 (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear

Must have been my evil twin. Although I am rather disappointed he allowed himself to be seen in a pewgott. Dapi89 (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda

When user write numbers from official soviet propaganda in infoboxes of wikipedia then its propaganda ... . I can show u, dozen examples of total absurd and !impossible! figures. People tell me its ok to write fantasy-numbers in infoboxes, when u write with small letters somewhere else that this are soviet claims of 43. I created an account when i saw wrong ( not POV wrong , History wrong )numbers , i tried to change and add numbers of current historical work. The kursk infobox includes numbers which are mentioned in the Overclaiming-page as maximum overclaiming. funny, isnt it ? It's impossible to get a neutral point of view for the reader when some dont want this. The best word to describe this, is propaganda . sorry but thats it... with respect (Thomas) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HROThomas (talk • contribs) 01:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

i will concentrate on germans articles. i guess some user dont want "correct" numbers... --BLAA —Preceding unsigned comment added by HROThomas (talk • contribs) 01:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ok please explain to me why !wrong! ( every historian knows ) figures are shown in an infobox. WHY are propaganda claims mentioned in an infobox. there is no logical reason to write such nonsense in an infobox. i guess u agree that 3000 aircraft downed in soviet kursk are nonsense ( to discuss an example ) . NOW we have total nonsense in an infobox. Total impossible numbers in an infobox. The reader comes an wants to get a little overview. and what did he get ? total nonsense numbers... . and dapi tells me that is because its neutral when german claims and soviet claims are mentioned. ok now i have a reason why absurd numbers are ok in an infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HROThomas (talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

i know that u dont work on this articles , but u told me: " dapi explained to you why..." . And i explained to you that its absurd. before u talk about the issue u must understand the problem. when u tell me that dapi explained to me, i think that u know what we are talking about. I understand that u dont give your point of view, becauce its "absurd" what dapi wants for the infobox . —Preceding unsigned comment added by HROThomas (talk • contribs) 12:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

aircraftperformance sites

Hi Minorhistorian.

Unfortunately, even when a self-published site is expansive, authoritative, and meticulously researched, it still doesn't meet the requirements of the reliable sources policy. This was recently demonstrated in the Featured Article Review of the F-4 Phantom article, where references to Joe Baugher's superb site on US military aircraft had to be removed.

From a pragmatic point of view, if we use material from a self-published source that is cited to another source, we are getting it second-hand and have no way of knowing what interpretations or mistakes that the self-published author has incorporated into the material – unintentionally or otherwise. This is not for a moment to cast any aspersions whatsoever at Mike Williams or his site – Wikipedia applies the same strict standards to practically all self-published works. We simply can't position ourselves as fact-checkers of third-party publications.

It's really unfortunate that Mike Williams feels that his site has been "smeared", when really, that only describes the actions of a single editor. As you know, the removal of links to his sites has nothing whatsoever to do with that editor's opinions, although I can see how (given the timeframes involved) Mr Williams might have drawn that conclusion.

FWIW, if Mr Williams has had articles published in aviation journals or magazines, there's precedent to have his self-published works accepted as reliable as well. It may be worth asking him?

Finally, the plethora of primary source documents that he provides on his sites are, of course, usable, as long as no conclusions are drawn from them. For example, there could be no reasonable objection to an edit like this, nor to citing that document to back up a statement like (for example):

"Woods reported that he was near the town of Furstenwalde when he sighted the first four Fw 190s.¹" (relates directly to the author's own experience, no interpretation or evaluation of the claim)

Notes

¹ Woods 1945, p.1

References

Woods, Sidney S. (22 March 1945), Pilot's Combat Report, retrieved 2009-02-19

On the other hand, these are all abuse of a primary source:

"B-17s of the 3rd division were marked with a red tail and red diagonal stripes on the wings.¹" (probably true, but this kind of fact should come from a secondary source where it has been fact-checked)

"Fw 190s operating in the fighter-bomber role would jettison their bombs before engaging in air-to-air combat.¹" (certainly true, but a gross generalisation from a single piece of evidence)

"The P-51 Mustang could turn as tightly as the Fw 190.²" (wild extrapolation with only a circumstantial relationship to the source at all!)

Notes

¹ Woods 1945, p.1

² Woods 1945, p.2

References

Woods, Sidney S. (22 March 1945), Pilot's Combat Report, retrieved 2009-02-19

The above are egregious examples, for the sake of demonstration. I hope they're useful! --Rlandmann (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

LRDG

Hi Minorhistorian, I think there is too much (good) info on the Barce Raid in the LRDG article - if a summary could be left there & a new article on the raid created then that would be ideal. I did something similar when I hived off/created Battle of Kufra and Moore's March. Cyril Dornbush MM was my uncle (photo in the article) so I have always had an interest in the LRDG. Our school, Whangarei Boy's High School, was taken to see Sea of Sand in 1959 due to so many ex-LRDGers living in the area. Good luck and keep up the good work. GrahamBould (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Looking forward to the second part. Only point I'd raise is that most of the categories should be removed, as the LRDG unit is not the focus of the article, the battle is. If you scout around some of the other battle articles I think you will pick up some appropriate categories. Cheers GrahamBould (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Taken the liberty of adding an infobox, but there are lots more facts to be added to it which I don't have. Are you able to supply commanders, etc? GrahamBould (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Britain discussion

Hello
I put some of my arguments in Polish contribution topic in discussion section of the BoB article.
Cheers Mboro-bis (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Flags

You can put the flag back if you want to. Wallie (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I just thought there were too many flags around. Some countries are obsessed with flags and nationalism, particularly one, which we know and won't mention. I thought NZ was not one of those countries. Wallie (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

RAF Fighter Command Order of Battle 1940

Hi - I was wondering what your source material for this article is. As I've said on the articles talk page, a lot of reference is made to Price The Hardest Daybut the OOBs given in that book do not relate to 15th Sept as the article states it is. Wood & Dempster does have an OOB for 15th Sept which has differences from what is quoted. I don't want to inadvertantly start an edit war by changing what is there if you have another authoritative source. NtheP (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

ANR ME 109

Hello from Rome... I understand and I agree... maybe too much detailed... but it was the only big fight of the most important combat with the top italian ace of the time Anr used Me 109 and for italian or italian speaking italian readers it could be the most interesting or one of the most interesting parts....... I you have not yet changed I will do it.... May be I could move it to the ANR section.... About italian cowardice... i thin it is a distortion based on some truth... I mean: the italian army was so much different in his parts that there were pure heroes like the ones that did the last cavalry charge of ww2 (not the Polish, italians, against russian tanks and machine-guns and yougoslavian partisans, and some cowards division that gave up without firing a shot or something... the Regia Aeronautica was quite different... I told you about Costantino Petrosellini... he was scrambled against 24 B 17 in the sky of La Spezia and he did not hesitate to dive on them and then to come back again shooting with the Macchi MC 200, not the 202 or the deadly 205, the MC 200 Who else should have done it, British, American, or German? May be a Japanese... and Gorrini... my fathe took care of his plane in the Regia... in august 1943 he often went alone to attack hundred american planes that were coming to bomb our cities (Roma as well more times killing thousands of civilians) he attacked B-17 or B 24 and shot down one or two and then he fought against the escorts, shooting down P-38 and the most celebrated Spitfire.... dont you have a section for him? I think I write it... and please I ask You to modify, to change, the part about italian me 109, I dont feel to do it, sorry. Regards from Roma. gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

== Salve ==

good evening!!! thanks for your letter... but please dont believe what they allied historian like to write about italians in Nord Africa... Please let me tell you jut one thing, a phrase that Rommel said after seeing how heroical were italians at El Alamein and other places: "German soldier amazed the world. Italian soldier amazed the German soldier!". And Rommel was not tender with italian... as I told you... the italian army was very different in his parts... You should know about the Divisione Ariete in El Alamein... they covered the retreat of Germans and other italian fighting to last tank... italian Folgore parachuters attacked allied tanks with grenades (right?)... I told You . in Russia Italian cavalry charged and defeated the Russians...

In Nord Africa there was a division of youg volunteeer of Fascio that outnumbered by allied nevertheless defeated them... and what about italian pilots? I write you this: " "The fact is, that many of the Italian fighter pilots encountered by the RAF and commonwealth air forces in the Middle East were skilled and highly experienced, having fought in the Spanish Civil War; they would often stay and fight, sometimes against overwhelming odds, in situations where German pilots would break off combat." Robert Jackson, The forgotten Aces Sphere Books.

You see, you are caught in the prejudizial allied point of view... sorry about that! :) Aces like Gorrini, Lucchini, Visconti, Bordoni-Bisleri attacked I told You hundreds of fighters and bombers in the sky of italy flying the Macchi 202 and 205 ans shooting down dozen of thems... if Italy had won the war now hundreds of boooks and dvd would celebrated them as heroes and we should have tie italian versiof of all the stuff that there is around about Spitfire and battle of britain... but you know that the lies of the winner become history... so I ask you: wikipedia is ready to write the history or want to go on to write the lies of the winners? :) Kind regards, gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

salve

Good morning... I dont say that is Allied propaganda but I realize that here on wikipdia english people seems very touchy about Spitfires and Hurricanes... It seems you feel them as monuments... I can understand that, but here we are trying to be historially correct... so... I just quoted a book that has been written by a German historian and that has been translated in english... I did not add any words... so why you think that the Allied historian that you quote was right and this German historian was wrong? I quoted an English author as well that stated that the Macchi 202 could out turn Spitfires V so what could do the Macchi 205 that was a C.202 with much more powerful engine? Anyway if you find a source that states the contrary it is interesting to read... and please let me tell you one thing. I know a pilot, Costantino Petrosellini, italian ace, living, that flown over 80 types of planes.. he flown Macchi 205 and Spitfire IX.. he liked Spitfire very much and told me that at high altitudes it was superior to Macchi 205 that had been designed for medium and low altittudes where 205 were better than Spitfires... a Macchi pilot that tried to fly the Spit like the Macchi killed itself as the Spit lost one wing because he could stand less G than the Macchi and so was less manoeuvrable...... anyway...If you are so democratic and tollerant to leave my quotes, even if unpleasant, I will find other quotes that states how the Macchi proved superior in several combat to Spitfire. Sincerely, Gian Piero --Gian piero milanetti ([[User talk:Gian piero

milanetti|talk]]) 13:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Veltro Vs Spitfire?

thanks for you kind letter interesting really.... I will quote you some of the source of Neulen later... Your author is interesting and probably he did a lot of work but I spoke personally - i tell you again - to italian pilots that flown SPitfire and Macchi 205 and they told me all the same thing: Spitfire was much more confortable at high altitudes but Macchi was better at low and medium altitueds etc.the Spit Ix on taking off coud turn uspide down so much it was powerful! And had a strong propeller torch (right?) that the Macchi did not have simply because had a longer (21 cm) wing! Did you know that?? :) And he had a wider undercarriage of course.... and his injection engine allowed it G begativ manouvres that the Spit could not etc.. we could write for days about that... I am glad that "our" planes are among your favourite but I cant read on wikipedia tha the P 40 was superior to Macchi!!! And when I quoted british authors that states the contrary, someone feel to have the right to correct what I quoted in favour of the P 40!! I cant believe it!! That s why I tell you that here some contributors, lets put it in this way - are not so historically correct!! Anyway... see you later... ciao... sorry what is Kia kah...??? I dont find it on the dicionary--- regards--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

conflicts of claims?

Are you saying that even if one writes something that is one sided, based only to the things that are written and reported by one of the part in conflict that is better because so the reader is not cunfused?? It is the old story that History is written by the winners, if you think about it, is it not? You have the nickname of historian, if I remember well, but you forget that history can not be told only from one side.... SO if you say on the page of Curtiss that P 40 was Better tban Macchi 202 fiat G 55 Reggiane 2005 Messerschmitt 109 Focke Wulf (let's include the Me 262 and the Doras) because you have some ace or "historian" that states that, is good for wikipedia because so the reader is not confused, even if there are so many evidences that this is not true??? And you still have the Nickname of historian??? :) You make me smile!!! You seem to have the authority to delete, modify or correct what other writes quoting books of historian that tell different "thruths", so go on, that is only another confirmation of the anglo-american tradition to tell one sided history... I tell You only one thing: You should know about american indians. Just think if in the history you could just tell what the first wasp historian told and nobody should have tell that history from the indian side... I teach history and when I do so, I tell to the students the different opinions of views about one event or historical character, may be here we have a different tradition or culture... Let's stop... i think that is unuseful to talk about it...--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Last Shore(s)?

Good evening... Sorry If I have been a little rude, but...I have now some experience about aviation history.... and I realize that in this branch of history often you never know the truth... I quoted two books that state that the Macchi shot down Many Spitfires for the loss of only 2 ot 3 Macchi... and what's the problem? Is it so strange? Macchi for many things performed better than Spitfires, you know that! And english authors state that!! Sorry who is this Mister Shores to get such a flat consideration? Is he a god of history? Was he there? He say that he could read the records of the day. Wew you there? And if yes, are those records the Holy Bible? :) I told You: My father was in the Regia Aeronautica and he was in the Corpo Aereo Italiano! When there were the two big air battles of 11 and 23 november the Raf claimed that they had shot donw half of the 18° Gruppo, ten or 15 planes!! That was absolutely false!! You know that only 3 Cr. 42 did not come back, one because the pilot (said that he ) had lost the way... so if SHores go to see the Raf records and he writes that the Cai lost 19 cr 42, is it the truth? I am not a Raf believer, sorry!! I think what we can do, as (amateur) historians is: Raf claimed 15 for no losses, Regia Aeronautica (and German commands) claimed 9 for 3 losses... then, the readers decides if he wants to know more... but we can not put only one claim, because the reader can be confused, ore because we trust more one author than the other....who are us to do so??? Can you bet your right (or left) hand on the job of this Shores?? Yes? This is an individual choice... about Neulen... did you read his book?? He has an impressing bibliograhy: 14 (fourteen) pages!!!!!! With many original reports... I never saw somthing similar in any other book.... Kind regards, gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Good morning from Italy!!

How are You ? It is interesting to talk about the question. Nicola Malizia? :) I know him personally, I have his telephone number, we spoke about some questions of aviations... I know his editors and I knowo some questione he wrote about... Can I make You a confidence? A personal confidence?? He is not so appreciated as an historian in the italian aviation world, even if he wrote more than 30 books... He is an aviation history, yes, but you know that he has no academic title, he is a former gunner... he know how to dismantle a Breda-safat and assemble it again in seven minutes with closed eyes, but he learned to write history by himself... please let stop it here...has he has been available and nice to me, until i started to doubt about what RAF claimed! But, you know, RAF claims were always over...claimed!! I am preparing something to put on the fiat cr 42 page... on the 8 of auguts Marmaduke Pattle, Dunn and other gladiator pilots attacked the top gun italian flight patrolling in North Africa- It was a big victory, 4 italian Flacos shot down and 4 forced to crash land... but the Raf claimed more than double the planes!! I am going to quote hakan gustavsson that is not am italian, you know... I am surprised as most of the italian pilots were in the acrobatic team, one of the best in the world and the Falco was - regarding to some authors - the best biplane ever built... but I am going to write it because what happened is true and it is interesting, historically interesting... Anyway, I think we can not decide which quote is good or not good, speaking of historians, and decide which to quote or not, because this is a dangerouos road... Yo know what I mean!! The Gladiator, hurricanes, spitfires, P 40, mustang etc pages in wiki englihs are all similar in their style: reading them you can only think: what a wonderful plane!! It was the best!!! No important defects, no problems... nothing bad!! It make smile, dont it? I know personally an exceptional pilot, Petrosellini, italian ace, that was Macchi test pilot, flew over than 80 planes and he loves spitfires more thatn any other, BUT: he told me that the Spitfire had its (his?) severe limits!!! You know them: undercarriage, in take off he had a tremendous tendence to steer, it was more fragile than all italian planes, he could stand less G, was dangerous in long and very steep dives... the carburettors did not allowe it to do some manouvres that most Axis planes could do...at low altitudes was out-manouvre by Macchis etc... but nothing of these things are written about this planes... strange is it not? I must go to work, sorry!! gian piero —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs) 04:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good morning.... Beauriful and interesting letter and I agree of course, about everything so I think we all should be the most objective possible. So I hope you agree with me that in some wiki en pages there is what we call here "campanilismo": the subtle tendence to declare that our (yours) planes are better that the other. SO, what can we do? Who decide what historian to quote or not? "Malice"? Or Arena? Shores? Sgarlato? Gustavsson? Honestly I am trying to be the most objective possible. I am going to write and I write that even if the italian pilots were better acrobat and the cr 42 was faster and more modern, often in africa and greece they were defeted by gladiators of Pattle and friends... who writes about gladiator should be honest to write about that beautiful antiquate plane... and who writes of p 40 should not assess that it was superior to me 109 and the equal of macchi 202 that shot down dozens of them and (please read the Macchi 202 page in italian wiki) that could tackle the Spitfire over malta that always haad the advantage of altitute and of the radar-guide....... to be balanced should be a two sided attitude... when I wrote on the most celebrating page of the Mustang that the Macchi 205 could tackle it (not my words) somebody simply moved or cancelled my quote, because that was the mustang page even if in that page there were lot of declarations about the mustang beeing betten than that and this axis fighter... is that balance? We think not, here. I think is not correct for the readers... and about the details.... i think there should be a more general part, in the beginning, and a more detailed part afterwards... just yesterday a students of mine, told me that she was looking for informations in wikipedia about ceramics but that she found too little informaion... the same was true about plane.. who is more interested in knowing more about fiat cr 42 - to tell one - what can do? Going around to buy books? And were? I live in Rome and I use e bay but to find monography about this plane is almost impossible... there is only one military bookshop and they too dont have much about the Falco...so? :) They must rely on forum where everybody says his/her opinion? That is not good, I think you can agree ..

I go to work... Saluti da Roma, gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

everyboy loves his "campanile", mostly if it brings a couple of wings

Buon Giorno from Italia!

New Zealand!! It is so surprising that somebody so far know even know the existence of the Macchi 205 and of the Reggiane 2005!! About this last, may I tell You a story that I learned when I took two my classes to the "Museo storico dell'Aeronautica Militare Italiana di Vigna di Valle", where there are some of the last italian planes of the past? :) When I asked the guide, the brother of the director, why they had not a Reggiane, he told me: "I discovered recently that Allied Command ordered that in 1947 all military airplanes of Italy should be destroyed. The last Reggianes were so burned and used to train fire guards!". And Malizia told me that he - as a gunner - was trained to shot against the Macchi C.202 and C.205 last survivors. Nice stories, aren't they?

And then, If somebody writes that the "best fighter of the world" (Mustang, or Sptifire, Hurrican or P-40) were tackled, out-performed and shot down by unknown italian planes, whose only some bits are left (you know of the Reggiane 2005 there is left just a little piece of tail, of course), diligent admin rush to modify or - better - cancel these words because they are out of place... It so sad.

Yes I know, you are thinking: He comes againg with the same stories... That's why I am spending most of my free time in writing a novel about italian pilots of second world war... I must go to school... sorry for the personal thoughts... gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

BUON GIORNO

Hello.... I am going to bed and you wake up if I am right...unfortunately i dont build models... I did when I was a teenager but I stopped as the models broke easily... sometimes I bought some models in scale 1/72 but they were little accurate... I discovered in e bay that there were franklin mint models and I bought some... then I discovered that there were the even better Forces of Valour... at an incredible 1/32 in metal... you can nearly get inside... You built the model of Faliero Gelli? So strange... I was editing the italian page of Niclot Doglio... think: in 1932 he had already 1500 hours of flying 500 OF THEM OF ACROBATICS!!! And He was an instructor of acrobacy and trained the military pilots, even if he was a cvilian, so skilfull he was and then to be shot down from Beurling that could be a good pilot but could never have the skill of Doglio... strange the life, is it not?

I am going to take pictures of the house that Doglio and his father built in Roma, in via Bolzano, and the house where he lived, in via Ravenna... I discovered tonight that his two sons, both doctors, are still alive!! I have their telephone numbers and I will contact them... I have so many questions about their father and the day of the death... I wanted to ask you a favour... I have some pictures of italian fighters that I shot in the Museo di Vigna di Valle, like fiat cr 32, cr 42, macchi 200, 202 and 205 and a beautiful wreck of a IMAM Ro. If I send you somewhere by e mail these pictures... could you put them in the italian (or english pages) of wikipedia? I am not able to do it, nor my contacts here... I will visit the pages that you adviced me about models tomorrow from my house in the heartquake area, in Abruzzo, hoping that the earthq. is finished... I go to bed, in 5 hours and a half I have to wake up.... thanks for letter, Regards saluti da roma!! gian piero

Re-written articles on Italian World War II combat aircraft

A new editor has been active in systematically changing all articles that pertain to Italian aircraft in World War II, see Fiat CR.42 Falco, Macchi C.200 Saetta,Macchi C.202 Folgore and Fiat G.50 Freccia as examples which I do not see as a problem. However, the same editor has also re-edited the Curtiss P-40, Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane articles inserting contentious claims of superiority of Italian types. Each statement. albeit always referenced, refers to individual actions. There could possibly be a situation where an Italian biplane actually downed a more modern fighter but that does not really does not address the issue that the editor stated to me, i.e. in redressing the current view of Italian World War II combat aircraft as being inferior. He implicitly stated that a forty-year history of historians who saw Italian aviation in that light have to be challenged. I am sensing an intervention here... (LOL) FWiW, can some of the more experienced hands here take a look at the contributions of this editor Bzuk (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

I would add, that almost the stuff in this sector was written by me. If there are problems in these pages, i would be useful and possibily glad to be involved in the discussion. Being in Italy, i have a lot of materials available. Example, i have too the Pantelleria battle, which i wrote: 15-17 Spitfire claimed (but not shot down) vs 2 (plus one force-landed in Tunisia) Macchi lost. This was in the N.150 (Storia Militare), wrote by Massimello G. So, it's clear that, without cross-researched facts it's ridicolous to state something like this. This battle and the Cap Pula (2 august 1943), when italian Veltros claimed 12 and obtained zero, it's already an account of 29 victories declared against nothing archivied, and we talk about small numbers (with an huge, huge difference in victory ratios). As well, what about the 58 P-51 climing made by Macchi 205? Maybe they were 'a bit' less. Visconti was commonly awarded with 26 air victories, but his real flight log talks about only 10 individual victories. So no wild statements should be adopted. Nothing that isn't happened with japs too (Ki-100 and N1K fighter claimings, as example 14:0 Ki-100 vs F6F in a single airbattle, while it was 2:2), but it's a fact.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Numbers..

Hello. I read this interesting figures:

The October (1942) claims of the Malta-based RAF fighters afford a particularly good opportunity to consider this phenomenon. During the week of the main blitz (11th to 17th) claims made against Ju88s...amounted to 53 'confirmed' and 27 'probable' by day and night. Actual losses totalled 34 Ju88s destroyed...thus actual losses represented 64% of confirmed claims...Against the Italian escort fighters claims were made for 11 Macchi MC202s and three Reggiane Re2001s 'confirmed'...Actual losses appear to have totalled five Macchis and one Reggiane...the percentage of actual losses to confirmed claims deteriorates to just under 43%...However, claims against BF 109s amounted to 45 'confirmed' and 16 'probables', whilst recorded losses were 12 destroyed and five damaged. This indicates an accuracy level of confirmed claims of about 26.5% - or less than one in four!

This is not surprising to me. Searching in the Hakas Aviation page once i did the numbering of the actions described. A5M: declared 237 victories, actually 83 vs 24 losses. Chinese Hawks: 41 victories vs 17 losses. Ki-27: 50 declared, 16 obtained, 4 losses. Flying tigers: it appears that they declared 217 victories vs 70 real scored (counting partial, not total). Vs losses of 21 in air, 9 flak, 2 accidents (during the war, not before), 7 to the ground, and 22 self-destroyed. So the losses could vary from 10:1 to almost 2:1, depending of what you counts (claimings, accidents, ecc. ecc.). It's a tricky game indeed.

In Malta stuff: CR.42 declared in 1940-41 something like 5 victories vs bombers, atleast 4 real; but vs Hurricanes, CR.42 claimed 21, vs 4-5 really scored (one, the first, was landing when it was surprised by a CR.42 attack; it had just shot down a SM.79 and was returing to home). I don't know the number of CR.42 shot down, nor the bombers, so i cannot make a ratio (not favorauble to italians, it's sure). But it's clear, in a combat among fighters, the probability of 'overkill' it's higher, and even more if there are a lot of aircrafts in flight. So the Malta's 1942 numbers are not a surprise IMHO (British airmen weren't moron, not more than average, at least==)), expecially if you consider that Cap Pula battle (2-8-43) saw italians claiming 12 P-38s, and about Pantelleria.., well you know it better than me. Regs.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.

Even more: A6M were 10.000, Reggiane.. the half of FW 152s, so no wonder if the stuff isn't so well known. Add to this the falling down of Italy, RSI history is one of the dark and more critized parts of the whole history (for obvious reasons), just think to italian industry: no one knows until now how much stuff they built for German and RSI, obviously no one is happy or proud to remember how collaborated with them. Think only that just in the last years our historian-journalists have started to publish some stuff and much is still lacking (as example, a complete history of Macchis in N.Africa). And G.55s, rated the best by Germans about italian '5's, were almost totally used by ANR. If you need something about, data, ecc, you can call me. I am totally immune from chauvinism/racism ('Italians do it better' and other Madonna's T-Shirt BSs are not so well matched by the last elections, in which we italians have elected one more time Mussolini's clone and just yesterday American Freedom House has declassed Italy from free to semi-free press country, the only one in western Europe, and almost no one mass-media noticed that (;=)), so i am not influenced by any patriotic imprinting. Not a little factor to talk an history. Kaa-kaka-akaaka-ka. --Stefanomencarelli (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Armistice

Let's stop arguing, it is a waste of time, I apologize if i was rude and offensive, let's work how people that love culture and dont want to win on the others...

As I told to Stefano I am here because looking for information on wikipedia I realized that I had some data that were not here...

(Anyway, to be honest, about 11 november and the Battle of Pantelleria I would never be convinced that the things went like the Raf says.... I have doubts and an historian like a scientist should never be sure of nothing, even if I was there I should have doubts because an air combat at 600 km/h between 50 or 60 planes with the poor visibility of those canopies could not allow to have a whole picture of what happened.... And one of my doubt is that outstanding planes like the Macchi 202 and 205 (not the Macchi 200: at that time it was used only like "difesa urbana", defense of cities and naval bases...) that were at least the equal of the Spitfires, that could out-turn the Spitfire and out-dive as well, flown by the most experienced pilots (as the planes were few and so only the best pilots could fly them) with the advantage of altitudes and surprise could shot down nothing but in return, to be shot down! Bah... I dont buy it... sorry! But does not matter... let's work...) Really sorry for the bitter tones and have a good time over there! Greetings from Italia! gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Forza, Italia!

Buon Giorno, grazie for you kind and nice letter... I agree completely... Let's start from the last part... "Malice" do you know him personally? :) Is a nice and available enthusisast and know more things than he wrote in more than 30 books but to me is too much in love with the Raf to the point that he too strongly adviced me how to write my novel and what to write as well and as I did not agree he started to get irritated... I told him: you wrote History, I write Stories, but to him stories MUST be exactly written like History but if it was so we should not have "Hilyades" the story of the siege of Troy and we should not have Odissey and many other literature books but he sticks to his ideas and criticize my choices... in a way I did not like it....I based my novel on real facts, pilots and planes, changing the names of the persons of course.... but to him this is not enough... I did not tell him how to write books of history but he told me how to write novels... ok.. i must hurry up i have to go to do the medical visit (check) to try to get the glider pilot licence... I had it twenty years ago but it expiried!! Forza Nuova Zelanda!! gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ali Reggiane =

Ciao, Gian is ok.. I never liked my full name anyway... the only monography about Reggiane that I have ie Reggiane 200r STEM MUCCHI from Nino Arena... I found many interesting books of aviation in the bookshop IBN Aviolibri they are the publishers (editors?) of Malizia as well... they have these books: Autore : Di Terlizzi Reggiane RE 2000 Falco, Héja, J.20 special 6

Autore : Di Terlizzi Anno pubblicazione : 0 Reggiane 2005

Prezzo : 9.55 € Prezzo : 15.50 € and some others http://www.aviolibri.it/risultati.php?titolo=true&autore=true&argomento=true&descrizione=true&all=true&ricerca=reggiane&page=1&ordina=&dettaglio=720

they have others too, and they are very good persons...

But it is dfficult sometimes to find books out of print... just think that I had to by an ITALIAN book about Furio Niclot Doglio in FRANCE spending 17 euros of postale fare because here was sold out... Unfortunately there is not much interest here about aviation...that's why I am trying to write a novel about italian pilots and planes... most of the italians ignore everything about Macchi, Reggiane, Fiat (not the car) Savoia Marchetti etc. so You can look on e bay but is difficult... I would you like to read some lines of my novel just to hear wt you think but not on wiki, I did it and it was a mess I was loosing property of it... saluti da Roma!! P.S. Could you advice me how to put some photographs on wiki? I dont know how to do it and I discussed (about the same question: italian planes and pilots, some italian are rather cencoring about this subject) with the italian that know how to do it

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Ruspoli di Poggio Susa is the name of a famous family of the Italian aristocracy. The Ruspoli di Poggio Susa were tree brothers. Two of them died in the El Alamein battle in North Africa: Lt.Col. Marescotti Ruspoli di Poggio Susa and Cpt. Costantino Ruspoli di Poggio Susa, both paratroopers in the Folgore division, and both decorated with Gold Medal to the memory. Major Maurizio Ruspoli, Prince of Poggio Susa, fought as pilot in Greece and Russia with 1° Stormo, and in North Africa as C.O. of 91a Squadriglia of 4° Stormo, and ending his carreer flying for the ICAF. He is famous for tree fact in which he was involved . In fact he was the first Italian pilot to make a guncamera of an enemy shot down with his Macchi C.200. This leaded him to become the C.O. of the Aerial Cinematographic Section of the Regia Aeronautica. Speaking perfectly tree languages he was the translator in the meeting between Winston Churchill and Badoglio on board of the HMS Nelson on 29 September 1943. The third fact was leaflet-launching raid over of Rome occupied by the Germans on October 1943. The leaflet were stored into the cavity between the flaps and the upper wings in his Macchi C.205 (see picture above)

(Source: picture scan from Massimello-Apostolo,

Italian Fighter Aces of WW2, Osprey Publishing)

Of course you have this site... I am on the mountains and honestly I dont have nothing abouht him here....but he was not a sergente maggiore..... sergente maggiore wa one of the lowest if not the lowest rank dor pilots in RegiaAeronautica... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.eaf51.org/Photo_11_Men_Others.htm

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)great you should go to bed!! Here ia a warm afternoon and i am doing the same thing.... just finish llunch... sweet dreams gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The Glad Gorrini

Oh my god I think that the old gringo Gorrini should be glad... now the page of wiki en is more beautiful than the one in wiki it.. without picture and less good looking graphica... Grazie Tante! Forza Nuova Zelanda! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs) 13:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I thank you and I ask You if it is possible just to copy the same thing for wikipedia it, where we have not photo of Gorrini.... or the way to put fhoto is completely different?--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, sorry I still need your help... I modified the page of Adriano Visconti but I am not very sure that my english is always correct, could you have a look when you have time?

Thank in advance... Regards, --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

W. G. G. Duncan-Smith

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of W. G. G. Duncan-Smith, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: W. G. G. Duncan Smith. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Declined Speedy Deletion: W. G. G. Duncan-Smith

Hello Minorhistorian, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined your speedy deletion tag on W. G. G. Duncan-Smith because you requested the wrongpage be deleted - I have performed the move for you. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any queries, please let me know. Ale_Jrb ^talk 14:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

ADRIANO VISCONTI

OF course I have his official biography by Generale Pesce and Miassimello were there is a scheme that reports "ten victories" but I have Mick Spick The complete fighter ace All the World's fighter Ace, 1914-2000 where at page 106 you can read: The Italian top-scorer of the war was Adriano Visconti, credited with 26 victories, seven of which were scored after the armistice with the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana . He claimed one over the Western Desrt, four over Malta and another 14 over Tunisia and Sicily." ANd I think you know Mick Spick. I could write several links that say 26, as well... So.. what you think? You just want to write ten or you want to try to discover why there are these different numbers? It is up to you , I mean I am a guest in wiki en and several of you, just deleted, modified or moved what I wrote... It is up to you... I am checking the air victories of Marmaduke Pattle... some days his unit, Squadron 80 if I remember well, claimed up to nine cr 42 lost when they were shot down 2... the succesful day of greek campaign was 27 italian planes destroyed when they were only 7 in reality...if I remember well, but the air victories of Pattle numbered some of these claims.. or he claimed the only two or 3 cr 42 shot down so all the other aces of the squadron should not be aces and so on... :) It is the same old story... do what you want.. of course Adriano Visconti was a noble man, the son of Count Galeazzo Visconti... so I think we should honor him with the truth sincerely, --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read again my letter and tell me where is the lack of balance in it and where I put some bias on you... i just write of facts... it is a fact that here some of what I wrote has been deleted etc. It is a fact that in many links and books Visconti is credited with 26 air victories and so on... I think so :) sorry it is your problem that you think I put some bias on you... but is uncorrect that what I write lacks of balance...

that Visconti was so honest, it is to his honour but if many historians credit him with 26 victories ... you should let it in the front page, not put it in a little note... there must be some reasons, may be the same that there are about "aces" like Pattle that is still historically credited with 50 plane shot down when most of the times the italian planes shot down were 1/4 ore 1/5 of what declared by RAF...but nobody say a word about it... that's life, it seems, not me...( please I dont want to start again this subject, cut what you want without telling me) Please let me tell you about another italian pilot, Franco Lucchini, "a real lord", we should say here (un vero signore): one day on Tobruk he damaged so badly a Baltimore after the useless attack of 3 others pilots... HE DID NOT ANY CLAIM BUT 2 DAYS LATER THE PLANE WAS FOUND DITCHED near Bardia... The plane was credited to the 4 pilots, but it was a victory of Lucchini. But he did not any complain about it... Ok...thanks for listening I feel that I am losing my time and I want to leave for the week end... best wishes --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

May be I am a little touchy about italians but try to understand my point of view...

just try to "wear the clothes" of any italian of my age that all life long had to read about italian pilots as beeing cowards, ridicolous, flying antiquate planes, etc. while american and english has always been painted as heroes flying the most wonderful machines... I never read - for instance - any quote about italian pilots that had to atttack enemy planes that had machine guns that - pilots told me - had a straight path of 800 meters while the Breda-SAFAT had it only for 300 meters? Can you imagine that? You get close for 500 meters beeing shot at, without dooing nothing? Just to wait to be at a closer range, if you had the luck to do it? But italians did it and - how it happened to "ace" Lucchini, attaccking B-17 with the Macchi 202 - had been killed just for that. But it seems we have not to talk about such men that much... Even in italian history books I have to read things like: The Spitfire was the best defensive plane and the Mustang was the best offensive plane of the war... Phrases that can be at least (very) debatable... dont you think? And yes I am sorry I did not appreciate your work, but I experienced the very same here... In wiki en somebody appreciated the (hundreds) of hours spend writing new parts, but only when they had to criticize what I had written and charging me of homerism or similar things.. and in wiki it :) only very few appreciated my contributs... even if in some articles i put up to 15 references that were completely missing... SO thanks... even if I am late... really I could not write here without your help.... I would like to work here in peace and quite but it seems I make it impossible... Regards from Italy --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Good morning... that is very interesting... of some I knew a little, but i would like to read it in some articles here or somewhere else... have you written it? It should be a way to serve historicl truth and very sporting...

saluti da Roma P.S. About me writing in englihs better than you (in italian) if you want to write in wiki it I could help you with italian... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs) 04:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Good morning. I have started to answer to your concerns. Your partecipation in the Macchi 202 page would be welcomed. Maybe you could ask to me about italian a.c. since i wrote the main part of them, it would be more friendly (;=)).--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Production Table for Spitfire variants

I like the look of it and it is succinct and easy to follow. I would go with it as is; you may want to put in a general citation rather than the individual ones that look a bit "cluttered." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Hawker Tempest

What's with the references that lead off the Design and development section? Were you trying to reference the entire section? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Achtng, Indianer!!

That's interesting about the Spitifire and 109 dogfight but I dont think that the Spitfire and Hurricanes could dive like the Messers. and I will find quotes to show you that... I spoke with a pilot that Fought with The Corpo Aereo Italiano (tenente Giulio Cesare Giuntella) and Adolf Galland had told them to dive vertically ( a thing that both Fiat planes - and the 109 - could do but not the Spitfire...) if a British fighter got on their tail, even if the italian pilots preferred to perform out-roll and out turn the british monoplanes to shot at them when out of the maneuvre... Saluti da ROma!!! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Achtung, Banditen!

I just think that the Spitfire for people in Commonwealth is rather a myth than an aircraft... it is by too much celebrated fot political, patriotic, industrial, military, sentimental etc, reasons... It happens what happens usually with legend... there is an historical base, then there is the legend... The Spitfire was a fine airplane, of course, but not better that the Macchi 202 (again, I know!) that on Malta shot down many Spit V even if this had, thanks to radar, always the advantage of radar guide and height, not speaking of the redoutable Macchi 205 that outperfomred totally the Spit five... but how many books can you find about the italian fighters? It is difficult here, I can imagine there... I am interested only in writing the truth... we already discussed about that... About what Galland said... You should know that Galland was one of the most balanced, reliable, professional, intelligent and skilful pilot of the war... so maybe you should consider a little what he stated... What He and Giuntella said, I have herad it from the italian ace COstantino Petrosellini, as well, and het PREFERRED THE SPITFIRE IX more than any other plane... BUT he told me that a friend of his lost the life when diving and pulling out of the dive, usual and quite manoeuvre for the Macchi 205, the Spit IX lost the wing and the pilot died... Because the wing of the Spitfire were weake than those of the Italian Fighters.. About the references and notes, sorry, I have difficulties in understand how it works... Usually I copy what Bzuk or others do, with copy and... Stick (?) I understand what you said... sorry for the ibsn I thouhght i had put it Best regards, --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if my opinion is not requested, i would add that: 1-it's true, Macchi and Bf-109 were tougher than Spitfire as structural strenght. No wonder, because they were smaller and still, heavier than many Spits (MC.202 to me must be compared to Spit Mk II, not V, because the power's engine and evolution of the model, no matter if MC.202 was similar in performance to Spit Mk V; with 1,100 hp engine's fighter, MC.202 was 2,400 kg, Bf-109E/F 2,000 kg and Spit Mk II 2,200 kg, and was also the bigger of them). 2- This is as 'tecnical' factor. BUT: Spitfire dived even at 1.000 kmh if it was pushed enough, see Spit Mk XI, one of the best performance ever scored by a propeller fighter. But Spit in AM service were not as good. They were third hands stuff (ex-RAF, ex-Yugoslavs) and corrupted by weather (lying more than one year in open fields) and corrosion. At the beginning of 50s these airframes simply had enough wear and yes, there were some mortal crashes. But it's not because Spit 'lost the wing in a dive', when they were in their best days, they can dive at will and even surpass Bf-109 in speed, if only the infamous Merlin would not stop itself by g-negative factors. In wartime i have no clue of Spit loosing their wings. Several years later, with elderly airframe, it happened and swiftly and finally Spit were phased-out by AMI. But as dive speed, they were not only not inferior, but rather superior than any other fighter. In Italy, maybe the only one with similar capability was Re.2005, with elliptical wing as well (in fact, it was the 'italian Spitfire'). Even the mach-limit of Bf-109 was inferior compared to Spitfire figures (someting 0,8 mach vs 0,86 or even more). See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199912/ai_n8870616/ http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/ and the great site http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html. Just to check some interesting facts and datas.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Furio Niclot Doglio

Salve,

I am in a rush: Doglio was killed by Beurling, a kind of winged-killer (please see the link even in Italian), that was a very less experienced pilot than Doglio, in an ambush probably organized thanks to radar guide that warned and directed the Spitfire pilots that outnumbered the italians for 3 to 1, if I remember well....and from a very long distance, thanks to the Hispano cannons, Beurling was lucky that Doglio did not see him in time... But that's life... About the structural strenght of Spitfire, if you come in Rome I will introduce you to comandante - and ace - Costantino Petrosellini, Macchi test pilot (and keen Spit IX pilot), that could yuo explain many more things than me. Forza Italia!! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Supermarine Spitfire operational history

For your information, I have raised this comment on Talk:Supermarine Spitfire operational history at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_Legal_threat_on_Talk:Supermarine_Spitfire_operational_history as a possible WP:Legal issue.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Price dont say those things?

HEllo... you say that Price dont say these things... ok and so?? Sims writes this... Please note this time that the author is anglo-saxon and the editors are from Usa... Please let's work in harmony. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ciao, I am sorry for your problems... I have mine as well: because of the italian school reform i have to leave my school and my students and nobody know where we shall go may be in some mountain school far 50 miles from Rome... wikipedia is a kind of oasis to me... My best wishes

gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3