User talk:Minorhistorian

This user may have left Wikipedia. Minorhistorian has not edited Wikipedia since October 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

/Archive 1/Archive 2 /Archive 3

Please read this box first! Welcome to my talk page! Questions, information, warnings? Say it here! Please post new topics at the bottom of this page, please sign your topic by placing ~~~~ (four tildes) at the very end, and please remember, assume good faith! You can click here to start a new topic.

just finished this up. and was surprised by the string of "airfields" up the west side of the great sand sea, was this an LRDG supply rout? (ps clicking on the map box at the bottom of the page will diplay all the coords at once) Brian in denver (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important that for every number of kills claimed that is in the article a verifiable source be used. And this is what I did for Goodwood and Mortain. I also added the overall numbers, as best as I could find, for the Normandy Campaign to put all the claimed kills in perspective. Part of the problem with air attacks is that they simply weren't that effective in ww2 using fighter bombers and unguided munitions against armoured or dug in targets! Much propaganda has been made regarding air attacks by all sides during and post war, likely to validate the cost of fighter bombers....but as I tried to show more recent research and even ground based analysis post battle during the war suggests that direct fighter bomber attacks accounted for between 3-7% of tanks; regardless of the nation. This is why I think the section on effectiveness should have something in more detail about:

1) the difficulty of hitting a pin point target with a plane and unguided munitions

2) the fact that many tanks had armoured tops which a 20-37mm cannon at a glancing angle (30-60 deg) strike angle would have difficulty penetrating

3) Aircraft munitions are limited, so as a weapons platform aircraft cannot 'last in the fight' as they quickly run out of bombs, rockets or cannon shells..heck the Ju87G only had what 12 37mm shells in its underwing pods! This means that aircraft cannot really sustain fire on an area like a ground based AT gun can!

4) Attacking a dug-in, fortified or AA defended spearhead is even more difficult as the AA fire restricts the lines of approach and reduces the time aircraft have over the target!

A referenced discussion of the above is warranted for combat effectiveness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempsperdue (talk • contribs) 02:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Sunday (or Monday?)

Yeah, I've been mooching around since I have completed Uni. and have no money! I'm tempted to come back but only infrequently. I dont want to make contributions on the scale that I have done. Hows r things down under?

Yeah, its him. The guy is really unintentionally funny. I re-read the forward to Price' book on the Fw 190 the other day and there is a foreward from Adolf Galland in which he said how pathetic the "my plane is better than yours" debates are. With few exceptions there was no real advantage in combat save for the quality of the pilot. Dapi89 (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great film (1 and 2 I mean, not so keen on the quoted 3rd!).

Its an illness. I thought I'd beaten it. Dapi89 (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ola. You maybe interested in Lance Cole's Secrets of the Spitfire: The Story of Beverley Shenstone The Man Who Perfected the Eliptical Wing. In a shop near you...or on Amazon. Dapi89 (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dito. Merry xmass. Dapi89 (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...to hear from You! How are You doing? I would like that You could see at least part of my book, I shall link You an... internet link where You could see some pages, ok? Gian piero milanetti (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this article for A-class. Would you be intereested in addressing some of the criticisms? - Thanks--Petebutt (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not important but I wonder if that statement on the Mosquito was inspired by Agent Zig-Zag and his mission to blow up the Hatfield factory. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree it could not remain unsourced. Just flicked through a copy of Agent Zigzag from the library. Not a word of Hitler with respect to the operation, seems to have been Abwehr and if anything for Goering's benefit. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history service award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2013, I am delighted to award you the Military history WikiProject award. Anotherclown (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, sorry to trouble you. If you are free, would you mind taking a look at Talk:Hawker Sea Fury/GA1? Given that the nominator has unfortunately retired, I've tried to help out and address some of the concerns raised in the GA review, but unfortunately I can't address them all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over the article, and becoming aware of more and more little issues as I was reading, it is now clear that it would not comfortably meet GA criteria without some work. I recommend closing the GAN as not listed / fail. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you're obviously busy, and as the other major contributors to the article are also not active on Wikipedia at the moment, I have closed the GAN. When there are people active enough to respond to issues arising from a GAN, the article can be renominated. Good luck with the exam marking - I know how tedious that can become! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fiskencat.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Messerschmitt Bf 109 variants page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being inpatient. You are right on wording. My bad. Also, thank you for actually writing to me at least - with copypasting all those prepreared messages it seemed that i'm touch with bot, not a human. Good to know you are a human :-))) Rekrutacja (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take note that you decided to undo my edit on Mk 1 Spitfires saying that it was too detailed for the article.

I originally decided to contribute to the article as I could not find this information anywhere else (in this or in other Wikipedia articles related to Spitfires). I have also found numerous errors and inconsistencies in many of the articles relating to these early production aircraft.

I think you would agree that it is important to provide readers with accurate information especially as the many books on this subject have been written 2nd or 3rd hand and errors have been blindly copied from one author to another. These books have then been quoted as reliable sources - plainly not ideal.

Even the current article on the Mk 1 (Type 300) is factually incorrect ( e.g the first production Spitfire was K9787 not K9788. Quill's book details the testing of both these aircraft before they were sent to AAEE Martlesham (i.e. not for service with the RAF) for further more detailed tests.

I have also noticed that links from the main Supermarine Spitfire article to these other related Spitfire articles are not always obvious as you have to scroll down through masses of paragraphs before you find them and therefore I did not initially know that they existed and had some difficulty finding them - perhaps it is time to show them at the head of the main article as well as in later paragraphs.

With all this in mind perhaps you could advise me as to which article my undone information might best be added.

Kind Regards Hillman16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillman16 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time to head off an edit/revert war. See: [1] FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you take a look at the Battle of Britain talk page? Thanks.Damwiki1 (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chev 6.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. DexDor ^(talk) 06:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Long Range Desert Group.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. DexDor ^(talk) 06:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Heinz Bar FW 190a8 Ijg1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the "Memorials" section of the Supermarine Spitfire article has a "This section needs additional citations for verification" tag on it. I noticed that you were the one who brought it to Ga status and wanted to notify you, as such tags can lead to the removal of the articles GA status. Cheers! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]