User talk:Gunbirddriver/Archive2

Greg LeMond

Hi - would you be willing to contribute to an effort to identify what edits are required to enhance the quality rating of the Greg LeMond article, and then implement those changes? joepa^T 20:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would be happy to help. I will review the sources you mention and see if I can start a list on the LeMond article's talk page.Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For your collaborative help in improving the Greg LeMond article - keep up the great work! joepaT 19:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Dang, we're getting close! Thanks Joe. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. You deserve it for the effort you're putting forward. I think we're definitely on the right track. While there is information missing from the article still, including from the start of his career as an amateur and more recent events re. anti-doping, in just a few days we've improved the overall quality for sure.

I did want to make sure you saw that I edited the caption and note that you yourself edited for the Giro photo I added, and understood why: unfortunately, in that picture Greg is not climbing "at the front of the peloton," which, on a big mountain stage to Sestriere in the Giro, is very different than what he was actually doing - climbing towards the front of the "laughing group" or the "autobus" - the last group on the road, typically containing sprinters and flatlanders (in this case represented by Mario Cipollini and Franco Ballerini). It is surprising to see a former Giro winner with him, however (Fignon had won in 1989), but now we know that EPO was entering the peloton at that time and skewing results and affecting performances on the road. And neither LeMond nor Fignon partook in that bit of special medicine. Thanks again for all the hard work you've been putting in. joepa^T 00:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ohhh.. okay. Wow, I didn't know exactly where they were, and was surprised to see Mario with him. Okay, well you saved us. At least you could see how a notation can be used to more fully explain a photo without having a huge caption under the photo. The notation device can be used in the main text as well, if something would do to have a more full explanation without making the paragraph cumbersome. Good stuff. Thanks again, Joe. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries and thanks for taking it so well. and yes, this is the first time I've seen the notation device used, and I'll need to learn more about it. I wonder if that would be something appropriate for discussing the more detailed aspects of certain factual references in the article, like the shooting, for example (specifically the fact that LeMond's life was saved b/c he was transported by helicopter to a trauma center, but it was only luck that the chopper was up and available, b/c it'd been scrambled for an auto-accident and was airborne but then either diverted b/c of LeMond's injury (gunshot) or they didn't need it at the accident scene (I'd have to go back and look). Anyway, please use it anywhere you think it helps.

Also wanted to let you know that I was able to get one of the two photos I've been waiting on, and I integrated it into the article. Check it out and let me know what you think re. positioning and caption. Cheers! joepa^T 21:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That looks great! Really great! Is that Doug Shapiro of 7-Eleven with him? Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad you like it - and guess what? I went ahead and uploaded the second photo, since the photographer had updated the license on flickr after we spoke and he agreed to make it available to our project! I replaced the main photo w/ the new one, and will integrate the previous "yellow jersey" photo into the main body of the article now. Check it out! I'm not sure if it's Shapiro or Phinney?! We'll have to find a start list from the 1986 Coors Classic and review the 7-Eleven roster... joepa^T 07:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

OH! I found my copy of Greg's first autobiography/cycling manual and it's a goldmine of info for his amateur career and other aspects of personal life that will be an excellent source for the article, rather than just relying on my interactions w/ Greg, for example. I'll try to add from it tomorrow...joepa^T 07:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the Bugle article to my attention - it's an insightful piece and can certainly inform our process. I'm fairly confident that we'll get there eventually, and I think we're a good team, as you seem more aware of certain quantitative issues like article size and what that suggests w/ respect to splitting-out the doping controversy section, and the technique of using notation-device w/ photo captions to shift valuable descriptive text out of the main line of sight but still ensure it's available to the reader. My prose writing is my strongest attribute, but sometimes I can be overly descriptive or wordy (for an encyclopedia) and not even realize that I'm not being economical. That said, if there's a turn of phrase or particular sentence or paragraph that I'm wedded to, I'll defend it (or at least explain my rationale) but in the end I recognize the need for consensus and to appeal to a broad readership. But I don't think we've really had any issues thus far. It's just finding the time to dedicate to the project!

I'm happy to wait a few more days re. splitting out the doping controversy material. I haven't been thinking specifically about how we could summarize what's there, but it's been percolating and I have a feeling that I've got a good lede sentence or even intro paragraph in me for effectively expressing what needs to be said (just have to find the time/moment to start writing it). I don't have a particular time frame for asking for review of the article, but I agree it could come soon. I do have a handle on at least some of the info that still needs to be added, including a bit on his youth and intro to both sport and the outdoors, integration of the sex abuse and both how that fits into the timeline of his cycling and the impact it had on his mental health and well-being WHILE he was competing; also want to help the readers to understand the significance of LeMond's achievements vis-a-vis North American cycling, and the various "firsts" he was responsible for (such as Oakley-type glasses, Giro-type helmets, million-dollar contracts, clipless pedals, carbon fiber, modernization in general, etc. ... you know what i mean?

btw: I'll take a look at the inventory of Barnstars to see what the best to award you would be for your efforts to find the guidelines and protocols we need to follow to raise the status of the article. Not many people (including me!) have the patience to research that kind of info, which isn't exactly glamorous lol... joepa^T 23:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Awarded in recognition of your effort to locate valuable resources informing and guiding our effort to upgrade the Greg LeMond article to better status. joepaT 23:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Man, I'm raking in the awards!  : ) I think it is coming along pretty nicely, Joe.

There are things that would be fun to add, such as what attributes made Greg such a great rider for the GC, or his easy manner with the French press, the way in which he was idolized in France. I still remember seeing school children along the road singing out together "Allez Lemond! Allez LeMond!" His sunny manner, the easy smile, the willingness he had to be gracious and share his success and elevate those around him. Or the way he could turn himself inside out one day on some grueling mountain stage, and show up the next fully recovered and ready for another go. And he was a class act. In 1991 the leader of the tour had to abandon overnight, leaving Greg as the rider with the lowest time in the GC, but he refused to take the yellow jersey. He said it was "open". He won a group sprint and the stage in the 1986 Coors Classic when a guy who rode off the front went the wrong way, but Greg refused to take the win, and convinced the organizers to give it to the guy that rode off the course. Frankly, that strikes me as unusual for most, but typical for Greg. But it is hard to insert such things into the piece without the article seeming to loose its objectivity. How do you objectify those kinds of attributes? Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

just a quick PHOTO related note: I got a commitment from the photographer for us to be able to use a b&w image of Greg in the final TT in the 1989 Tour! Check it out: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bw94/2927911618/. As soon as he modifies the license to one compatible w/ the commons, I'll upload it and categorize it and get it into the article! joepa^T 08:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

My word, that's Greg on the famous time trial ride that won the 1989 Tour! You can't get those!! Gold star to you, Joe!! Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wait a minute, he is riding up to the start. It is taken just before he started his time trial. Still, great photo for the page. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Had a free second this weekend (ugh) and added that photo after getting the license updated for it. Can you take a look at your convenience and decide where it might be better placed (even if that means re-positioning other photos)? Thanks. joepa^T 22:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave it a go. See if you like the lay out. Often times wiki reviewers will insist that images in the body of the article are thumbnails only, but I like the photos a little larger as we have done. So that really is of the start of his time trial? Very good! That is a really great photo for the page, Joe. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey I just checked the edit history of the LeMond page and saw that I made a couple of photo updates in the business interests section AFTER your update to the photos in the main section. I haven't even gone back to check to see if my edits in any way affected yours, b/c I wanted to let you know straight away that I wasn't trying to edit anything YOU were trying to edit re. photos!!

That said, I'm glad you're a fan of the B&W TT photo! I haven't heard back from the photographer as to the exact moment he snapped it, whether it was just after the start, or when they're in the warm-up pen rolling around in the final mins. Check out the photog's flickr photo stream to see what I mean (exs. of riders in the pen - including Fignon, Mottet and Kelly?). We really got lucky w/ that photog., that he was so kindly willing to license the image for use across the 'net like this!! But it just goes to show you - sometimes, all you have to do is ask, which is all I did! In fact, that's the story behind all four of the new pics (1991 Giro, 1991 TdF, 1989 TdF, 1986 Coors): I saw them on Flickr and contacted the respective photographers, explained what we were doing and asked for their support in the form of licensing the images accordingly! There are probably even one or two Wikipedia:Barnstars that cover this kind of effort, lol!!! Regardless, plenty to choose from and we certainly have earned recognition for our on-going efforts! haha ;) OK, back to work! joepa^T 05:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Dude, check out this amazing CycleSport article on LeMond and Calfee_Design that should be a great source for us!! joepa^T 05:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That was a great article. Very interesting on a number of levels, and good supporting citation for the article. I already placed it in as a source on Greg's interest in carbon frames, but I did not know the date the article was written. Anyway, never worry about changing an edit I make. If an inaccuracy is corrected or the article is improved in some way, I'm all for it. I don't own the thing, and am always glad to see an article get better, particularly if I care about the article, and this would be one of those for me. Cheers. Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good! I put a lot of effort into the article today, and the only thing I personally still want to add is a brief opening to his career that provides a clearer picture of his time spent as an amateur and the transition to pro. I have this in my head but will get it out soon. (I can't seem to get away from this article!) I did want to ask you what you thought of how I wrapped up the section on his career and retirement [1], by introducing a block quote pulled from the FASCINATING 1998 Malessa interview [2], where LeMond reflects back on his career. The prose in that final retirement section could probably be glossed-up, and a few bits of duplicate info from previous section pared, or better-integrated, but I REALLY like the idea of basically letting LeMond conclude the discussion of his cycling career in his own words. I think it's very powerful to leave the reader with the understanding that, for as spectacular a career as LeMond had, it was bittersweet and not totally fulfilling... joepa^T 00:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The interviewer had just asked Greg if he thought he should be considered in the same catagory as Bernard Hinault or Miguel Indurian, riders who were able to win the Tour five times, and Greg gave his honest answer, which is that yes, he does think he was on the same level as those guys. I think he's right, but it always sounds off if you are caught speaking of yourself that way. Always better to have someone else say it. Author and former professional racer Bill McGann says as much on page 154 of The Story of the Tour de France, Vol II. That might be a better source for placing LeMond among the greats. As an aside, it strikes me that Greg is generally not guarded in the things he says. He is far more likely to give you his honest opinion than a political answer. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Awarded for your diligence and overall effort leading and bringing about a major edit to the Greg LeMond article: the removal of a lot of info that we agreed had to go to its own new article (thanks to your effort to seek consensus), while leaving behind an effective, appropriate summary at a time when there was seemingly no one else to turn to! joepaT 04:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You deserve this barnstar and it's appropriately awarded! ;) joepa^T 04:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Joe. Yeah, that seemed to work out pretty well. I need to give you one of these Barnstars, if I can just figure out how to do it!  :) Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You did a lot of work on the article so you deserve them! (BTW: I'm happy to note someone else showed up and made some good edits to the article - but more on that in a sec...) For the barnstars, just go here to Wikipedia:Awards and then click on the Wikipedia:Barnstars link and it's like a catalog you can scroll through and find one or a few you think are appropriate and then just copy the code from the "What to type" section of the barnstar and then add it to the Talk page of the user to whom you want to present the award. So if this was the "code" you were going to place on my talk page, {{subst:The Tireless Contributor Barnstar|message ~~~~|alt}} , you enter your own text in place of where it says "message" for example, and leave the 4 tildes to trigger your signature. It's pretty neat.

Anyway, w/ LeMond, we had the dates of his team affiliations wrong. Thankfully someone caught that and corrected it, but now we need to ensure that in the actual article text it's stated correctly (it isn't) b/c they corrected on that which was in the infobox.joepa^T 18:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey dude, I finished adding the basic stuff to Greg LeMond, specifically to the Early Career section. Would you do me a favor and check it out and see if you think it's OK as is? I had to modify the title of the subsection to account for the early date to the information contained therein, but I could see it being broken out into a separate "amateur" sub-section or staying as is. Totally doesn't matter to me one way or another - I just wanted to get the info into the article, which is now done in that sense. I can't believe we got a PDM photo to use, too. How cool! Thanks for your help on this and the epic collaboration in general on it! joepa^T 22:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It's good Joe. I love the short quotes. That one from the team coach, his impression of Greg being "a diamond", that's good stuff. It's a colorful and dynamic description (as opposed to a long list of times or place finishes) and yet it is totally defensible, as it is not the editor making the comment but an expert, and it is that expert's opinion at the time the events were going on. You don't need me to tell you you're writing well. I have been reading the Moore book, "Slaying the Badger: Greg LeMond, Bernard Hinault and the Greatest Tour de France". It's a lot more than a description of the '86 Tour. It goes into detail about how the sport was changing and developing, it uses interview information from all the major participants: Hinault, Kochli, Fignon, Cyrille Guimard, Bernard Tapie, Phil Anderson, Andy Hampsten, Greg LeMond (of course) and Kathy - it gives you a good feel for racing in those days, and the personalities of the champion riders. I am over half way through and we haven't even started the 1986 Tour. Good stuff. Do you think we could split that first section into Amateur career and early pro career? I think we could add a little about Guimard and Hinault coming over to the states to sign Greg to Renault, though I realize we are getting a little on the long side. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

GBD, any idea how to use this tool and how it could be applied to ensuring the references in Greg LeMond aren't broken? Also, I took a look at the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and I don't see how GL could be failed, unless someone thought it went into unnecessary detail, which would be ironic, given what we started with... joepa^T 22:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hehe! Exactly. Yes, I suppose they may want us to trim it down some, but I like it as it is. We'll see. I keep hoping that someone will come by and want to review it. Still waiting though. I'll take a look at that tool device, but I have not used any wiki tools before. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I "had" to add more info today, including an intro to his racing career, to establish that he was so naturally talented his was fuoriclasse, to quote John Wilcockson. I don't know what we could cut out of the article, as it's all important biographical material, and some of the featured articles I looked at briefly are longer than Greg LeMond. I asked one editor if they would formally review it but never heard back from them. Oh well. Enjoy the holidayz! joepa^T 19:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I know, I saw that. And there are a couple of things I could add in as well. Hmmm. I was thinking we might be able to move some of the quotes down into notations, or at least shorten the portion appearing in the text of the article if we did not remove it. We are at 95 kilobytes, but then that includes all info, including long statements that were provided with the reference sources. I don't know. It's good as it is, I think, but then no one has reviewed it yet. I might give it a try. Just reverse it if it doesn't work. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey dude just thought I'd give you a shout. I was looking at Greg LeMond tonight and it's amazing the transformation that article underwent at our hands (w/ the help of a few others)! I haven't been on WP much for quite awhile, but did just want to say "hi." Hope you're well!! joepa^T 04:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Joe! Yeah, that was some pull we put in. Looks good! I saw you adding to the article again. I've been reading Laurent Fignon's book. You know, I never liked him when he was racing, but the guy had a lot of panache. He and Hinault both were gutty guys willing to take the chance and make the bold move, knowing the odds were against them but with this desire to dominate a race. The suffering - amazing what they were willing to put themselves through. They wanted to be champion. I used to be a distance runner in younger days, but I was always worried about blowing up and not having enough. These guys were so far out there - unbelievable. Really ballsy. I love looking back at those days. Anyway, thanks for thinking of me! Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

GBD, wanted to ask you something - do you know how to identify the instances/problems in Greg LeMond that are resulting in the following "hidden categories" being appended to the article?

• Category:Commons category with local link same as on Wikidata
• Category:Good articles
• Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL
• Category:Use mdy dates from August 2011

Any insight you could provide into identifying what the problems are and rectifying them would be appreciated. Thanks! joepa^T 21:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Joe! Being in the "Good Article" catagory is a good thing and we don't want to change that. A catagory identifying the article as having a local link the same as what is on Wikidata is just a statement of fact, and not a problem with the article, as far as I am aware. Now the others do need a bit of work. Apparently some of the citations are referring to articles found on the web, but there is no URL giving the web address, so you could not check out what the original page referred to said. Could be a dead link, or a typo in the URL address, or perhaps someone did not put in the URL. I could scan the page and see what I can find. As to the dates issues, I know there are inconsistencies in how dates are recorded. The manual of style allows different formats but a single format type is to be used all through the article. See this style guideline. I'll try to take a look at it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL re. the "good article" hidden cat. - yeah, definitely don't want to work to get that removed! ha. I saw that you made formatting edits to address the other "issues" - I'm not sure how you spotted/found 'em, but thanks! joepa^T 20:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		for cleaning up Greg LeMond such that the article was removed from two undesirable 'hidden' categories! joepaT 20:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, wow! Thanks Joe!! Hey, I did see that other editor who came by to comment on the Greg LeMond article. He really liked the changes, especially the photos you brought in. Very nice! Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome, but you also deserved this award, and all the others! Hey, I found a really interesting, comprehensive article on LeMond from Sports Illustrated from early 1980s. I don't think we used it yet in the article, and while I haven't cited it yet (or checked to see if it was cited), I am reading the article and wanted to share it. It's fascinating stuff. And the Internet is amazing, that all this old coverage is suddenly available. Check it out sometime: Climbing Clear Up To The Heights - Greg LeMond, a Huck Finn with steel thighs, is the first American to pedal his way to the top ranks of European bike racing royalty (September 03, 1984). Cheers! joepa^T 21:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gunbirddriver. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added 20:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ukexpat (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Bzuk, and to you and yours as well! Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me throw a Happy Holidayz in there, too! :) joepa^T 00:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

uploading military/aviation photos that were created by a USGOVT employee during performance of their official duties

Assembling the North American B-25 Mitchell at Kansas City, Kansas (USA)

Hi GBD. I saw your note about the photos you uploaded that were kicked by a bot, and while I don't know anything for sure and am not an expert on this topic, check out this picture, which is from the Library of Congress, but was created by a USGOVT employee as part of their official duties. The wikimedia commons location of the photo is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:B25-mitchell-assembly.jpg.

The licensing for the image is:

When you upload a picture that you believe is in the public domain in the US b/c it was created by a federal gov't employee in the course of their official duties, then the wikitext for the license you choose would look like this:

== {{int:license}} ==
{{PD-USGov}}
Just go to that image and check it out. I'm not sure at what point you specify this in the upload process, but if you don't already have a wikimedia commons account, create one there and try out the upload wizard, which should be pretty self-explanatory and help you discover the right course of action. Cheers! joepa^T 23:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You're the best, Joe. Thanks so much, and Merry Christmas!! Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

bah, it was nuthin'! so no worries, but you're welcome fer sure, brah! ;) I just hope that example is helpful/useful. I upload everything to the Commons, and then pull it into the wikipedia articles from over there. There's a bot that automatically checks the licenses of flickr-uploaded images, too - useful if you're uploading someone else's (like I did in the case of all those LeMond photos). "They" have made it reasonably simple for a stumblebum like me to wade through the process! lol... joepa^T 00:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question.

Source = [http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/pers-us/uspers-h/w-halsy.htm Naval Historical Center] Date = circa late 1945, soon after promotion to Fleet Admiral Author = Official U.S. Navy photograph #80-G-K-15137, now in the National Archives collection

{{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}

url=http://collections.naval.aviation.museum/emuwebdoncoms/pages/doncoms/Query.php

url=http://mighty90.com/

url=http://www.navsource.org/

For your work on Greg LeMond

		The Running Man Barnstar
		Is presented for your distinguished, 110% effort to create a feature-level article on Greg LeMond that advances Wikipedia's coverage of sport in general, and the cycling in particular. Azx2 21:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Azx2! Yes, it's been fun. Now we just need a reviewer. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome, though the awarding is justified. And I think can be reinforced...(see below) Azx2 20:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

In recognition of your tireless work...

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Is awarded to you for your relentless efforts during the past (month-plus) to improve the Greg LeMond article. Congrats! (I only hope that you will be able to maintain the same level of energy and commitment to improving the article, once the review is completed, which I would imagine must come before the new year...) Azx2 20:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

And...

		The Special Barnstar
		I don't think enough can be said about the efforts of you and your colleague(s) to make a success of the Greg LeMond article, which will no doubt come to be recognized as one of the best wikiproject cycling articles! Azx2 20:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe all of the preceding are justified and appropriate and barely suffice to recognize your outstanding effort. Keep it up! Azx2 20:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow and double wow! I must say, Joe really did the heavy lifting. He tracked down all the photos, got permission and added them in. Then he set about working on the details - and all that stuff about the people that were important in Greg's world in those days, and then LeMond bikes and all the rest. Pretty great stuff. Yes, I was more advise and support. But those are very kind words, and I appreciate them. I learned a lot working on the project, and it came out pretty well I think. Thanks again, Azx2. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Dude, you definitely deserved these and any/all awards and recognition youvé gotten for your work on Greg LeMond! We both have lifted A LOT of heavy weight fixing-up that article! joepa^T 21:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!

joepa^T 23:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC) wishes you a:

"Merry Christmas and a very happy New Year!"

---

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace...

Thanks much, Joe. It's been great fun!! Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to ask the one wikipedia editor I know if he'll review the LeMond article. However, I noticed there were a slew of anonymous changes to the article. I haven't had time to review them and won't in the immediate future. Are they vandalism? Did they improve the article? Or will they all need to be reverted back to the last changes you did, for the article's quality to be ensured? If you think they're vandalism or just obnoxious, then revert them before the review starts (which will hopefully be late on 3 January. I'm not a fan of anonymous changes especially not to an article that has seen such a collaborative investment of time and effort. Thanks... joepa^T 06:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

空母アイデンティティ謎 Aircraft carrier identity mystery

Hi there, Soica2001! I am an English speaker and am trying to generate a translation for you to understand me. I have found a photo that was in the scrap book of an American aviator, Commander William Balden, who was a pilot in an air group assigned to the USS Enterprise in 1944. While he was in the Marianas he came ashore and found a couple of photos that had been in the possesion of the Japanese navy. He placed the photos in his scrap book, which eventually was donated to our national archives. One of the photos is very similar to a photo you uploaded two years ago. The photo Balden had shows a wider frame shot, and it is the reverse image of your photo. Looking at the photo, it shows an A6M Zero fighter taking off of the deck of a carrier, and I believe the carrier is the Soryu. If you could take a look at them I would like to know what you think. I believe the two photos are from the same negative, though the prints we are looking at were found in far different locations. I have included a photo of the Akagi on the same day for comparison. Thanks for your consideration.Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

そこに、Soica2001こんにちは！私は英語スピーカーですとあなたは私を理解するための変換を生成しようとしています。私はアメリカの飛行士、1944年にUSSエンタープライズに割り当てられた空気群ではパイロットだった司令官ウィリアムBaldenのスクラップブックにあった写真を見つけました。彼はマリアナ諸島にいた間、彼は上陸し、日本海軍のpossesionにされていた写真のカップルを発見。彼は最終的に私たちの国立公文書館に寄贈された彼のスクラップブックに写真を置きました。写真の一つは、あなたが2年前にアップロードした写真に非常に似ています。写真Baldenより広いフレームショットを示していた、そしてそれはあなたの写真の逆のイメージです。写真を見てみると、それはキャリアのデッキから離陸A6M零戦を示しており、私はキャリアが加賀であると信じています。あなたがそれらを見てみましょうことができれば、私はあなたが何を考えて知っていただきたいと思います。我々が見ているプリントは全く異なる場所で発見されたが、私は、二枚の写真は同じネガからであると信じています。私は比較のために同じ日に赤城の写真が含まれている。ご検討いただき、ありがとうございます。Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

日本のエースの本からのものであるイメージ。(Image that is from a book on Japanese aces)

マリアナ諸島の島に中尉Baldenによって発見写真。(Photo found by Lt. Balden on an island in the Marianas)

真珠湾攻撃に対する報復を起動赤城。(Akagi launching second strike against Pearl Harbor)

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%88%A9%E7%94%A8%E8%80%85%E2%80%90%E4%BC%9A%E8%A9%B1:%E6%9B%BE%E7%A6%B0%E8%B6%8A%E5%BE%8C%E5%AE%88#A_Foreign_Friend.27s_Message

Any luck with this? Cool mystery... joepa^T 06:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Joe! Well, not as of yet. I have asked a couple of Japanese editors to look into it, but no answer. They did not seem particularly active as editors go, so it may just need more time for them to see the question. That, and the fact that my Japanese translation is pretty rough could explain the delay. I also asked a wiki editor that did a lot of work on Japanese carriers, but he is a very involved editor so I am not sure he will be able to help. My best hope is with the folks at Combined Fleet, a web site run by the authos of Shattered Sword. There are a lot of people that go there that are very knowledgeable about these things. The language barriers, both spoken and written, have made looking at such things from the Japanese perspective very difficult. I am hopeful that we can drill down to an answer eventually. But I agree, I think it is an intriguing story. Still waiting for our review on LeMond. Thanks for stopping by! Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The subtitles on the Balden photo reportedly say:

出撃に向ふ航空母艦上の海鷲

A naval aircraft making a sortie from an Imperial Japanese Navy aircraft carrier

and

海軍省

Ministry of the Navy of Japan

Thanks Kablammo! Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! Greg LeMond = GA

Please let me be the first to wish you congratulations on the success of your efforts, and the receipt of GA-status for Greg LeMond. ¡Felicidades! Azx2 06:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is great and of course I'm pleased and appreciate the reviewer's time. GBD, I wanted to give you a heads up that I'm going to move straight into nominating Greg LeMond for featured article status, since it looks to be a much more organized process (and one that I believe the article qualifies for anyway). Also, consider adding a GA userbox to your user page documenting your contribution to our achievement! I'm going to!

I noticed that the reviewer added Greg LeMond to the wikiproject cycling portal page and also updated the various wikiproject ratings on the article's talk page to reflect GA-status. Can you imagine how exciting it would be to achieve FA status? I know you have other projects you're working on, and we've been at it w/ LeMond for well over a month, but I have to ask you to continue marching forward with me on this and see through to completion the process of getting the article featured. We're becoming de facto experts on LeMond and, while I hope there are some other editors out there who would participate in improving the page if it's denied FA-status, based on the feedback we received to our initial requests for input on certain actions related to editing, I think we must carry on as the leaders of this noble effort. Will you stick with it? joepa^T 19:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, Joe. I'm on your wheel! Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Great! And hey, just so you don't have to go to the trouble I just did, this is what you'd enter on your user page to get the GA-box for GL: {{Template:User Good Article|Greg LeMond}} You can see how it's integrated on my user page if so desired. joepa^T 19:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, got it. That's good stuff! Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheers! And let it be known, Greg LeMond has been nominated for FA-status. Fingers crossed! ;) Actually, I hope we get some detailed feedback if there are objections. I read through the comments provided by the GA reviewer, and they're certainly helpful, but I also think he took more of a pass/fail perspective. That said, I think the article passes the FA criteria, but I still want us to receive as much constructive feedback as possible. joepa^T 21:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Well, we need to go through and try to address the issues he brought up. I will try to get to that today. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What are your feelings on adding info pertaining to LeMond's 1982 and 1983 seasons, per the reviewer's comments? My thought is that is nice, but I think it's more important that we review the prose. Review it to ensure it complies with the FA criteria, before striving to add more content - which is somewhere I think we're very strong... Not saying that there are major deficiencies in the prose, just perhaps areas we could improve, given the criteria, which specifies the article will be "well-written:its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;" - thoughts? Regardless, you know you have my confidence so address any deficiencies or areas of improvement you identify. I'll be away from the computer for the next few hours...Cheers. joepa^T 21:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Greg LeMond featured article review

Hi GBD - have you had a chance to review the comments left in the featured article review for Greg LeMond? Were your recent edits in response to material in the reviews that opposed the FA-status (all of them)? If so, it would be great if you could acknowledge the criticisms and update everyone (myself included) that someone is working to address the concerns, as I haven't had a chance yet to make any edits. I'm not sure what we should do to address the big complaint that the entire article needed to be rewritten, so I think the best is to set it aside and just correct every single specific instance or example of a correction that was needed. But it would be great to hear from you on the FA review page, which is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Greg_LeMond/archive1&redirect=no Also, any edits that you make to the article based on the opposition to the nomination, can I suggest we mark them with some code like (per FA-status review) to indicate they're changes based on feedback from the reviewers)? I didn't think anyone was unfriendly or out-of-line in their comments, and at least one person was very excited about the article and encouraged us to keep at it, so I was in turn very polite and appreciative for all of their feedback. (note: I missed the really negative comments from that one reviewer, who also made them on the talk page of the article and seemed to have an ax to grind or something!) Cheers and hope you're well. joepa^T 00:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I'm all for welcoming people to help, but BaldBoris wasn't into that. I had to put the article back up for a repeat GA nomination, and then a well established editor/administrator came by, took down the second GA nomination and told us to get moving. (You can check it on the history of the talk page). I think you are in the right of it to be appreciative that those guys are taking the trouble to look at the article and offer an opinion. So anyways, I did look at the FA article critic's comments and have been addressing them, but we are a ways off in terms of the degree of supporting citations they expect. As to recording that something's completed, I'm not sure. Some of it is straightforward, done; some is more a process (eg: critique: second paragraph 1990 Tour has no citations. When do we say it is completed?) I thought the comments would show on the LeMond talk page, and we would document what was done to address it there. Perhaps that would only happen if someone did a formal review, and no one has done that yet. If that is the case I believe at least part of the reason is that they can see we are way off yet. I would suggest we buff the article, fix what we see mentioned over there and then wait for someone to do a formal review. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

GBD, just a heads up - sorry I've been away. I'm leaving for nyc right now to appear on katie couric show tomorrow lol. hopefully this weekend can return and catch up on GL article and what's been happening. Cheers! JP joepa^T 15:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Katie Couric?! You're kidding me? Okay, no problem. We'll see ya when you get back. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sooo...did you ever catch the Katie Couric segment? haha I could post the link to the video here but I don't want to be heckled! lol... Here's the proof it happened though. Hey, based on the responses we received to the FA-nomination (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Greg_LeMond/archive1) do you think that we addressed their concerns via the edits that followed, or is more work to be done before resubmiting it? I admit to finding myself feeling a bit reinvigorated for Wikipedia, specifically seeing Greg LeMond through to FA-status, as was our plan all along. But I don't see anyone else stepping forward to participate in the process or actively contribute at our level... joepa^T 21:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gunbirddriver. You have new messages at Cla68's talk page.
Message added 12:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

F-22 Operational issues sub-section rewrite?

Hey GBD, hope you're well. Just wanted to say hi and check in with you now that I'm back from NYC. I did Katie Couric (the show, not the lady!) and it went over well enough, but haven't had the chance to think much about Greg, which is cruel of me I know. Something came up on wikipedia though and I thought you'd be the perfect person to tackle it with: the F-22 Operational issues sub-section rewrite... You knocked it out of the park in summarizing the doping controversies in the LeMond article and extracting the bulk of the info for a separate article, and the same thing (though shorter) awaits us re. the Raptor and its oxygen problems. Looks like there are more editors interested in the F-22 than there were in LeMond, however, and consensus was quickly reached that the sub-section in question needs rewriting. Like I said, I just thought of you as perfect for the project b/c of your previously-displayed skillz, but it's not a desperate plea or pressure-job. I'm sure someone will eventually tackle it but thought you might like first crack at it, since it would be an important and serious reshaping of a component of an interesting article. Cheers, dude! joepa^T 22:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked the section over. It would be improved if summarized and paired down, as you guys have noted. I would have to go through the various sources to get up to speed on the issues in question. I have a couple of things I am working on, but if a week or so goes by and it still needs someone to work on it I'll give it a go. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I wrote an opening paragraph, and then I ended up writing a close as well. It seems wise to move the bulk of the materials there off to their own page. Those were some interesting problems the Air Force was trying to deal with. I saw that they asked the Navy dive team to help, as well as NASA. The Air Force asking for help from the Navy? That's pretty unusual. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

GBD, I just wanted to say that you absolutely knocked it outta the park with those two paragraphs! What a great job! And I really mean that! joepa^T 05:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Anytime, Joe. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Authorship designation

Hi. When I am unsure of the contents of the citation, I turned to a website, http://www.worldcat.org. In addition to the basic information about every book, they also have a little tool that formats the citation for you. I do all of my ACW citations in Chicago style. Here is an example:

• Lee, Robert E., and Devereaux D. Cannon. The Wit and Wisdom of Robert E. Lee. Gretna, LA: Pelican, 1997. ISBN 978-1-56554-275-4.

• Tobagi, Walter, The Fall of Fascism: Badoglio & C Strategists of Defeat - 1943. Milan, Italy: Fabbri Brothers, 1973.
• Wildenberg, Thomas, Gray steel and black oil : fast tankers and replenishment at sea in the U.S. Navy, 1912-1995. Annapolis, Md: Naval Institute Press, 1996.
• Carter, Worrall Reed, Dan A Kimball; Raymond Ames Spruance Beans, bullets, and black oil : the story of fleet logistics afloat in the Pacific during World War II. Annapolis, Dept. of the Navy, 1953.

The ISBN on the end is a Wikipedia thing. I use http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp to get the correct format. You might find my list of references useful: User:Hlj/CWbibliography. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Hal. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

William Halsey, Jr.

You undid my edit in which I clarified that in the context of the article, carrier based planes were not considered as lethal to ships as land based planes. Note the following sentences, which discuss their limited usefulness against ships. No one, surely, considered them "nonlethal" in general. At that spot in the article, we are not discussing whether their bullets and bombs could cause deaths against troops or civilians on land. We are discussing whether they were useful in sinking ships. Edison (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I suppose I was referring to the fact that it was beyond imagination that a carrier group was going to sail into a region controlled and protected by a number of airfields, and the carrier group would decimate the shore based air units as the Fast Carrier Task Force did in 1944 and '45, so by leaving it open I was referring to the general notion of the lethality of carrier based aircraft being in question, but it still works in that paragraph to specify ships, so it could be fine that way as well. It was not what I intended when I wrote that sentence, but I don't own it and it would not be wrong to put it back in as you had it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

B. H. Liddell-Hart

Please do not remove sourced information from this or any other article. If you believe there is a problem with the sourcing, or with bias in the material, start a discussion on the article's talk page and get a consensus to remove the material from the editors there. Continuing to removed sourced material without a consensus to do so can be ground for being blocked from editing. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Please look at the talk page and you will see an effort to engage in a discussion. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

So, a large edit was made on the biographical page of B.H. Liddell Hart, a well known military historian and theorist, and in the new edit the character of Liddell Hart and a number of the people he interacted with were impugned. The source for these allegations was a former Israeli special forces commander and military theorist, who has a well known reputation for calling those that he finds himself in conflict with idiots or liars. This being so it brought into question the tenor of his comments and the validity of the claims themselves. The edit was reverted and the problem was illustrated at the talk page of the article, which would be the usual form of Bold Edit, Revert, Discuss. My edit was reverted. I clarified why I thought it was a problem and requested for a discussion to be engaged. I was reverted again. No effort was made to engage in any discussion as to the merits of the concerns advanced. Such actions taken without attempt at explanation are contrary to the collaborative effort that is wikipedia. If Naveh's recitation of events is correct, and the conclusions he draws from these events are also correct, then there should be other material available that would support him. Even if that were the case, it is poor form to be quoting at length directly from sections of his book. A summation would be more encyclopedic, and would avoid both the editorializing and tendency to deprecation that the record shows Naveh is prone to. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

RE:Fast Carrier Task Force

Hello, Gunbirddriver. You have new messages at TheJJJunk's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edits on Kursk

Thanks for your helpful contributions to the Battle of Kursk. But I will be correcting some of them, only those few for which you unintentionally corrupted the originally intended message. Some of the things I will be reverting or fixing are:

You replaced "1944 Soviet General Staff Study" with "Stavka", which is not exactly accurate. Although the report was authorized by Stavka, its texts are not the declarations of Stavka. To say that Stavka proclaimed "xxxxxx" when in reality it was only stated in a report compiled about a year after the battle is patently wrong.

And also accrediting "with the Russians gaining an opportunity to take the offensive in the winter" to Glantz, is also not exactly right. The cited source never stated such a thing. In fact, if you've read enough of Glantz and Overy, you would know that the Red Army, on several occasions, have been able to launch very ambitious (and surprisingly fruitful) offensives in autumn (yes! autumn) and spring seasons between June 1941 and July 1943. I would be very surprised if Glantz ever makes such a statement. While the Germans preferred to launch their offensive in summer, the Soviets simply launched theirs whenever Stalin felt it was possible.

And regarding the paragraph that briefly narrated the achievement of the Blitzkrieg, it was an absolutely needed introduction for explaining the Soviet operational mentality. Only by recognizing the German trend, can someone begin to fully acknowledge why the Soviet senior officers chose to fight the way they did at Kursk.

And Ferdinands were never subjected to swarming attacks. They fell for a well prepared tactics of the Soviet infantry. The Ferdinands of the 292nd Infantry division were skillfully separated from their supporting infantry and immobilized by Soviet tank-killer teams with simple demolition charges and not by dozens or hundreds of soldiers jumping unto the AFVs.

Anyways, your contributions to the Battle of Kursk is very appreciated. I will update you if I plan on changing any other edit of yours. EyeTruth (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Also fixed your edit in the Prelude section regarding the effect of number of Soviet aircraft. The problem with your edit is that it completely corrupts the message Clark intended to convey. It wasn't just numbers that levelled the difference, it was also sufficient fuel supply, abundance of pilots (albeit poorly trained compared to their Luftwaffe counterparts), abundance of spare parts, a seemingly inexhaustible mobilization pool, abundance of technicians and ground crew and plenitude of ammunition. It was essentially the overall large capacity of the Red Air Force that helped level the difference. After all, in summer of 1941 the Red Air Force outnumbered the Luftwaffe at least 2:1 (going by the most conservative estimates), yet it made no difference. Poor logistical preparations - insufficient fuel, spare parts, technicians, etc - made the large number useless.EyeTruth (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I have seen you have been doing some writing there. The article needs some work, and hopefully we can improve it. I mostly have been attempted to add images that will help bring the story back to life. A major issue we are running up against is size. As mentioned recently on the articles talk page, we are currently at 157 kilobytes of text. The intention is that articles should be readable in a single sitting, which the administrators believe is probably 35 to 50 kilobytes in length, with a strong indication to split if the article surpasses 100 kilobytes of text. We are way over that and are continuing to expand. I believe that was why Sturmvogel 66 was asking about breaking the article up into sections. We are going to have to look closely at what we are putting in and think about making changes if we are to even approach getting back into the parameters of the guidelines.

Now, as to your points above, mostly I was trying to move to a neutral point of view, eliminate inflammatory language and trim down the text. No need to go through them all, as thus far I have usually been rephrasing what was already there, and not bringing in my own sourced materials, but taking one issue you thought was off, we had:

The final decision arrived at by Stavka, in the words of the 1944 Soviet General Staff Study of the battle, was to "meet the enemy attack in a well-prepared defensive bridgehead, bleed the attacking German groupings dry, and then launch a general offensive."

which I cut down to:

The final goal established by Stavka was to "meet the enemy attack in a well-prepared defensive bridgehead, bleed the attacking German groupings dry, and then launch a general offensive."

I was interested in saving in some of the wording. Does the change appear to be a major shift in the meaning of the paragraph? I think not, but deleting the whole thing would be fine by me, as I don't see how it adds much to the narrative.

As to the section on the Germans effort at a "Blitzkrieg" being mentioned at some length in the section on Soviet plans and preparation, if you are thinking about size I think you can see why this should be removed. The Soviet plans and preparations section should be more focused on Soviet plans, and not the plans of the Germans, and that would be true even if I agreed that the operation represented an attempt at a resumption of a "Blitzkrieg" operation, which I believe can be argued convincingly that it was not.

One thing I think could be done right off would be to move off the Order of Battle framework as it is so bulky and pushes the content of the article way down the page. Certainly the articles on the Invasion of Normandy and the Battle of France have similar Order of Battle issues, but they handle it in a less obtrussive way. That would help deal with some of the bulk issues. Sturmvogel 66 seems to have an interest in the article. Perhaps we could engage him to offer some advice on the issue. Thanks for your interest. I hope we can work together to improve the article. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with you on the size of the article, and I have recently suspended adding more to it as I can see the article becoming too large very soon, especially the battle sections. In deed, to that end, it wouldn't be bad to trim out some details. Although splitting up the article would be much better.

And about "Blitzkrieg", you have to keep in mind that the concepts and tactics that constitute the "Blitzkrieg" are as nebulous as anything could possibly be. It seems historians casually use the term to denote any German offensive employing plenty of armour with emphasis on speed. And that was the German intention at Kursk, but it was thwarted. No credible historian now ever try to assert that there was indeed a deliberately created doctrine for conducting warfare known as Blitzkrieg; so don't take the use of the term Blitzkrieg so seriously.

And regarding the Stavka and Red Air Force edits, I apologize if you felt it was too intrusive. I tend to be pedantic with citing and sticking with the source, which I'm sure is not a sin but can certainly be repulsive at times. I believe simply removing the quotation marks around the sentence would solve the problem with your edit for Stavka. I could fix it accordingly or you can do it if you want. And for the Red Air Force edit, I simply used a single word to summarize all the constituents, and I think that is better than listing all those extras.

And I wasn't going through all your edits. I often try to notify any currently active editors of any major changes I make to their contributions (it's quite tedious using the revision history search to identify who added what, so I often stop notifying an active editor after a while).EyeTruth (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that "blitzkrieg" is a term, and was not an operational concept of the Wehrmacht. That was partly why I was surprised that you would object to its removal from the section on "Soviet plans and preparations", but my real point there was that if we are going to reduce the size of the piece we need to be more careful about what is in each section. Thus, "Soviet plans and prepartions" should not include a paragraph about how the "Blitzkrieg" had never been stopped before. I removed that paragraph because it was misleading in content and misplaced in the article. I think you'll find I'm pretty reasonable, generally speaking. We probably need to get other editors involved about dealing with the size issue. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If removing the paragraph is for the sake of the size, then that is very understandable, but then we need a much more effective solution to the issue of size. But the content of the paragraph is not misplaced in the article. The paragraph summarizes one of the factors that instigated the dramatic change in the operational mentality of the Soviet military leadership. There was a dramatic change in the operational thinking of the military leadership between summer 1941 and spring 1943, and Glantz spends the first quarter of that article making that very clear. Instead of incessant offensives to spoil the German plans as in the past, preference was given to defence in depth. But perhaps, the paragraph may be misleading in its current form, although I can't see it, and may need to be rewritten. Your help and contribution is always appreciated EyeTruth (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit I am having trouble following your reasoning. This is what was removed from the section "Soviet plans and preparations":

Operation Citadel was to be another demonstration of the blitzkrieg, a demonstration that had occurred annually every spring or summer since the start of World War II, and had reaped immediate victories against all opponents including the Red Army. Every one of the past annual demonstrations, even if they had not all resulted in strategic success, at least all produced astonishing operational and tactical success in their early and intermediate stages. But in 1943, for the first time the Red Army confidently envisioned stopping the blitzkrieg in its early stages before it had achieved an operational success, and in order to achieve this, immense defensive preparations were made in the salient. The two-month delay of the launch of the offensive gave the Red Army ample time to thoroughly prepare the salient. The Voronezh Front, commanded by Nikolai Vatutin, was tasked with defending the southern face of the salient and the Central Front, commanded by Konstantin Rokossovsky, the northern face of the salient.

I view the section as misleading, as Operation Citadel was the German offensive operation of the summer of 1943, and was not "a demonstration of the blitzkrieg" as "blitzkrieg" was not an operational concept employed by the Wehrmacht, nor was the German command interested in demonstrating anything. They were interested in defeating the Soviet army, and hoped to cut off and destroy a large part of it. As to it being misplaced, the text is largely speaking here of what the German plans intended. These ideas, if expressed in the article, should be under the section on German plans, and not the section on Soviet plans. Mentioning the German plans, alluding to their operational methods and speculating on their motives (or intentions to offer a demonstration if you will) are misplaced if they are in the section on "Soviet plans and preparations". That's all.

We still need to seriously think about reducing the size of the article and consider how portions of it might be broken out into stand alone article pages with small summaries of the sections left in the main article. I still believe an effort to ask other editors to help in this process is important. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

PS: That Sturmvogel 66 is an excellent editor, and a good resource. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to mention Sturmvogel 66. He had a practicable idea for reducing the size.

I think either you're still reading too much meaning into the term "Blitzkrieg" or you're misunderstanding its modern usage. Although there were a set of identical style of mobile warfare used repeatedly by several Wehrmacht commanders, which collectively became labelled "Blitzkrieg" by the Allies, yet it was not a formal operational concept in the Wehrmacht. It was simply German commanders executing their job to the best of their knowledge. Most modern historians casually use the term to denote any German offensive employing plenty of armour with priority on speed over attrition. Based on that, the phrase "a demonstration of the blitzkrieg" would simply mean another armour-spearheaded offensive with maximum priority on speed over attrition. And in which case, Glantz is very correct in what he said. It is just that simple. Nowhere in that paragraph does it say or imply that the Blitzkrieg was an operational concept. And anyone intimate with WWII history already knows that the Blitzkrieg is not a formal operational concept, and therefore should never assume otherwise. And for any reader unsure of what Blitzkrieg means, the link to the Blitzkrieg article should clear any confusion. Now that I understand what you meant by "misleading", I can assure you that paragraph is not misleading, provided the reader understands the context.

Also, the content of the paragraph is not misplaced in the article. The paragraph summarizes one of the factors that instigated the dramatic change in the operational mentality of the Soviet military leadership. Instead of incessant offensives to spoil the German plans as in the past, preference was given to defence in depth. Addressing that subject without highlighting the German intention or pattern of warfare is impossible. And that paragraph is not the only one in that section with such necessary digression. There is one or two paragraphs that make briefly mention of Luftwaffe's activities during the preparatory phase. EyeTruth (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

PS. Unless you mean that we should avoid the use of the "Blitzkrieg" altogether, to give way for more universally acceptable phrases? If that is the case, then I won't object since it seems some readers still get nonplussed at the use of "Blitzkrieg" in such a way, even though I think it is not necessary and could be tedious making all the changes. EyeTruth (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, removing the term "Blitzkrieg" from the article is a good idea, for the reasons I mentioned above. It seems you are not understanding what I am saying and why. Perhaps you should stop wondering about my understanding of the term "Blitzkrieg". Again, my point is that the section on Soviet plans should be focused on Soviet plans. The second part of the removed section where it speaks of Soviet intentions to defend in depth is fine, but the first, where it speaks of how successful the German Blitzkrieg had been, and how the German command intended Operation Citadel to be another demonstration of the blitzkrieg, a demonstration that had occurred annually every spring or summer since the start of World War II, and had reaped immediate victories against all opponents including the Red Army, that part is not only excessively wordy, it simply has no place in the section on Soviet plans. Those words do not tell us anything about Soviet plans. I believe I am being pretty clear. Anyway, yes, I think it would be helpful to check in with Sturmvogel 66 about cutting the article down and moving things off to their own separate articles. He raised the issue on the article's talk page about a month ago, which I linked to above for you. As you have been doing most of the new writing it seems best if you were to ask for his help on the article. Thanks for your patience. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I understood you very well. You initially claimed the paragraph, especially the use of "Blitzkrieg" in it, is misleading. But the only reason why anyone would think so is if they don't understand or are not familiar with the modern usage of Blitzkrieg. You also said the first-half of the paragraph is misplaced because German exploits have nothing to do with Soviet plans. While that is superficially correct, it is not entirely. The exposition flows better if the consistent recurrence of German exploits are first highlighted and then followed by a mention of the change of Soviet operational thinking in order to prevent the recurrence of German success. This is exactly how Glantz did it in his 70-page study which discussed nothing else but the Soviet defence tactics at Kursk. All I did was sufficiently alter Glantz's succinct summary of 12 pages of the study. But I won't object to removing "Blitzkrieg" altogether, except that I wonder how difficult it would be to substitute the term without diverting the meaning of the passages from those of the various sources. If you think you can make it work, go for it. But if you mean wholly eliminating any passage in the article with "Blitzkrieg", then I doubt anyone will consider such a crusade acceptable.

I will talk to Sturmvogel 66 about the reduction EyeTruth (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph, as it was written before I edited it, was misleading. It is now improved. I am familiar with the term "Blitzkrieg" and find your use of the term awkward and misleading. Kursk was a slugfest. No panic was created in the minds of the defenders, the defenders never felt their lines of communications and supply were threatened, and the battle was fought by the Russians with the intention of dissipating the force of the attackers. In what other German offenive operation viewed as a "Blitzkreig" could one make those statements? None. Do people view "Wacht am Rhein" as a "Blitzkreig"? The American response argues against it. Therefore, it is best not to confuse the issue of the Battle of Kursk with the term "Blitzkreig". Check in with Sturmvogel 66. Gunbirddriver (talk)

Sneaking in a last response on 13 June, after the talk-discussion have been archived, is just lol. EyeTruth (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Not nearly as funny as removing Administrative Warnings from off your talk page. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Alkett, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I am curious why you submitted this through AFC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I first just tried to create it, but I couldn't get to the page that asked if you wanted to create a page that did not already exist, so I found an alternative. Though I have edited quite a bit, I actually have not created many articles. Thanks for helping me out! Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Marder I etc

I note that you have made many edits to this. However even though some are quite substatntial, you have marked them all as m (minor). That is not correct. In future, make sure the box is unchecked unless it is truly minor. (For definition of minor change, click on the link). John of Cromer in transit (talk) mytime= Thu 11:11, wikitime= 10:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe I was correct in marking those edits as minor edits, as they were confined to adding an image, adding a caption to an image or correcting a typographical error. The guide on minor edits states:

A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. An edit of this kind is marked in its page's revision history with a lower case, bolded "m" character (m).

By contrast, a major edit is one that should be reviewed for its acceptability to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit concerns a single word; for example, the addition or removal of "not", which can change the meaning of a sentence, is a major edit.

If you look again at the Marder I article, I think you will find that every time I changed the text of the article in a significant way, that is when I made a change to the meaning of the text, I did not mark it as a minor edit. I could be wrong in my understanding of the purpose of the minor edit tag, but I do believe I have been following the guidelines appropriately. Please let me know if on further review you still believe I am amiss on this. My goal is to improve the articles. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

GBD, just an observation, and this isn't in any way intended as criticism or a slight: the first two examples you cite, adding an image and adding a caption to an image, are edits that I think are substantial enough under normal circumstances to make the minor edit tag inappropriate, even though the size in bytes of the edits might be small (wrt what they add to the overall size of the article). But fixing typos would definitely fall under minor editing. ... Not trying to create controversy or ruffle your feathers, just sharing what my experience has been. The specific instances that Johnmperry is talking about might not conform to my perceptions. Cheers joepa^T 21:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you guys could very well be in the right of it. The minor edit tag is a way of saying you have not made a significant change in the article, and so does not really need to be reviewed by someone watching the page. Now for me, adding an image illustrates what the article is speaking of. It may improve the article, but it does not make a substantial change in the article, so I feel compelled to say I have not really done any significant editing here, just adding a picture or clarifying the descriptive caption, but that may be too broad a position. It is just as easy for me not mark these types of edits as minor, I just don't feel I should credit myself if I haven't really done anything, but then I do not wish people to think I am attempting to mislead them. The point is to improve the articles. I will bow to you and Johnmperry until I come across some firm guidence on the question. Thanks to you both for your interest. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for review of citation format for new content added to Greg LeMond: 1981–1983: Early years

Speaking of Greg LeMond, I'm wondering if you can review the edits I've made just today to the section 1981–1983: Early years? Specifically I'm concerned to know if the way I've cited the quotes, all from the same book source (Which I added to the bibliography, which itself had to be reformatted to conform to Wikipedia MOS), but w/ each instance a separate citation as opposed to using that format "<ref name="LeMond">{{cite book..." and repeating it but just the "name ref." like <ref>LeMond p. 27</ref> for each following instance - you know what I mean? Anyway, if you have some time and can look at how I cited the source, which is a book that I'd forgotten I had, packed with good info, I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance. Hope everything's going well for you! joepa^T 21:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

note: the reason why I'm confused is that because the new book is comprised of a bunch of articles, each w/ a different author. so I'm currently citing it w/ reference to an author (Tim Blumenthal, I think) but if I cite material from a different chapter, it will have a different main author. Just want to make sure I'm citing things in the correct format. Cheers. joepa^T 22:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Joepa, you may want to look at the {{rp}} template. It probably doesn't apply in this case (a book with sections, each with their own author). But if you want to use it, use it AFTER the </ref> or <ref name=blah /> along with the page number. For example, if you are referencing pages 5 and 10 of a certain genius-coyote's autobiography, you might do this:

Roadrunners are dumb. There is nothing dumber than a roadrunner.

Note: You would normally not use the group= field. Hope this information is useful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the link to the {{rp}} template. regardless of applicability in this case (or lack thereof), I appreciate being directed to that particular template, which I've often wondered about. Cheers. joepa^T 02:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Joe! I would think if the book is a collection of articles, then find out where each article appeared and cite the articles individually. That would give appropriate attribution and would be very clear. The other option would be to just cite the book as you would, but list the "author" as editor, as that is how he is behaving. I will look into it further and see if I can find a best solution. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

HI GBD! Thanks for looking into this! I saw you made some edits already - great! I liked how you rewrote the citation to list Blumenthal as the name of the ref to allow it to be more easily cited. I'll have to look in greater detail but I think I also cited a separate chapter from the book but it was also by Blumenthal. So as long as I don't cite a third chapter, which would've been written by a different author, we should be OK and your format will hold-up.

When I get a chance, I will add some more detail and info from 1983, as that section now is heavily weighted on 1982! BTW: I don't mind how you sometimes scale-back the size of my edits and reformat quotes or take them out entirely. I usually write w/ very little restraint and so a lot of material gets included. I might not agree with the prose of every re-write or edit, but I definitely see the need to subject my edits to revision and trimming-back when necessary. So thanks and keep up the good work!

I did want to bring to your attention this new entry I put on the article's talk page, and ask that you take a look at it and confirm that you agree w/ my interpretation from Wikipedia Manual of Style on what the bibliography title/sub-heading should be. I didn't rename the bibliography again or change any of your edits b/c I wanted us to discuss it first. I was actually wrong in the way I renamed the bibliography the first time, but according to how I read the MOS, there's a convention other than simply "Bibliography" that we should use. Anyway, just check it out (I link to the MOS in the talk page entry): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greg_LeMond#Bibliography Hope you're well! joepa^T 22:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In recognition of...

	The Yin-Yang Award
	I present this award to Gunbirddriver for being the yin to my yang (or was it the yang to my yin?) and consistently coming back to work with me on Greg LeMond, which no doubt will one-day soon be an FA-class article! joepaT 21:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. Now let me pull up what I had listed as areas that need to be worked on from our last adventure! Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

sure thing dude. my pleasure! lol tho I should've spent the time it took me to find that image and figure out i could just make up my own award like I wanted to and edited the LeMond entry! haha. nah, it's all good.

Greg LeMond Featured Article nomintion

Okay, Joe, here is what we had from the last go round: (I'm going to cut it way back)

Oppose

• This article seems to be more about LeMond the cyclist and has nothing about LeMond the person.
• At two paragraphs, the lede is too short. Increase your lead section to four paragraphs.
• The very first section should be about his early life, family, upbringing, schooling etc. The end section should be either death if that's the case or what they are currently doing or awards earned thus far etc. Everything else in-between should be about his cycling career; how it started, struggles, training, races entered, achievements etc. In conjunction with that, talk about his personal life including marriages, personal tragedies, children etc, all in a chronological order.

Oppose This is a most worthy subject of an FA, and different from the usual sports fare that comes to FAC. Unfortunately, I don't think the article meets the criteria at this time, due to apparently uncited content. I saw the following items lacking citation:

• 1984–1986: "Regardless, LeMond rode as the dutiful lietenant, and his support enabled Hinault to win his fifth Tour."
• "LeMond later stated the 1986 Tour was the most difficult and stressful race of his career." A statement of LeMond's opinion like this clearly needs a cite.
• 1989: Almost all of the section's second paragraph lacks a reference
• 1990: The whole second paragraph has no reference
• 1991–1994: "Something was amiss." In general, this is a short, vague sentence that doesn't do anything for the reader. The quote beforehand makes it obvious that he thought something was wrong.
• "The watt is the measure cyclists most often look to gauge their performance today." Also, this is missing a word by "to", and "today" is a time-sensitive element that should be avoided if possible.
• Business interests: "LeMond also won the 1989 Tour and World's—and his final Tour de France in 1990—on carbon fiber frames, which had begun to feature 'Greg LeMond' branding." Also, should the apostrophe be there in "World's"?
• Much of the second paragraph of Anti-doping stance and controversies, which contains multiple quotes.
• "LeMond was one of the first prominent professional cyclists to openly decry the sport's descent into the corruption of doping." This is quite POV in addition to being unreferenced.
• Where is the quote in note 1 coming from? I don't see a reference attached to it.
• Avoid phrases like "LeMond was one of the first prominent professional cyclists to openly descent into the corruption of doping." Writing something like "LeMond was one of the first prominent professional cyclists to openly decry the drug use of competitors" would be perfectly neutral while getting the important fact across.

Oppose – A clear driveby as was the original GAN. It seems that the nominator is more interested in the status rather than the actual quality of the article. It as been resubmitted for a GA review. I did have a suspicion that the GA review was done by a sock puppet, so could be investigated further. BaldBoris 20:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• How is it a driveby? The nominator has over 100 edits to the article. At most you could say he is rushing the article through the process (I'm not certain what the point of the GA process was, if he intended to take it to FAC that very same day), but I don't see much basis for your other accusations. This is not an actionable oppose. --Laser brain (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Laser Brain. Joepa, if you have the intention of improving this article further, which I believe you do, you should feel free to ignore BaldBoris's comment. We all have to start somewhere! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. There is a style of writing that is appropriate for memoirs, and there is a style that is appropriate for encyclopedia entries. The writing throughout this article is the former. Examples:

• "His enormous talent"
• "LeMond's spectacular comeback"
• "After his storybook 1989-season"
• "They put on a showcase of strength"
• "In a surprising turnaround"
• "he again out-dueled Fignon"
• "Something was amiss."
• "What he did not say was that the help was contingent upon LeMond demonstrating that he was clearly the better rider." If he didn't say this, why do we know it?

Our aim is to provide the reader with a summary of the important facts. The entire article needs to be rewritten with this in mind. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Joep, I will be archiving this nomination based on the reviewers' comments and my own scan of the text, which also indicates that rewriting in neutral language is called for. A number of people here have offered constructive and specific suggestions that I'm sure you'll take on board. After work is completed (including say a Peer Review, as suggested above) and provided at least two weeks passed since archiving, the article may be renominated for FAC. Cheers

Okay, a lot of these we have addressed. I am still conscious that my writing on LeMond is unlikely to be neutral, and I am concerned that we will not have adequately cited the article. Certainly one citation that covers several statements in a paragraph is adequate citation, as all statements are supported. It would be poor form to put a citation at the end of every sentence, when the support is there just as surely at the end of the paragraph.

• One of us should go through and look for things that need citations and leave a {{citation needed}} tag on it. That will mean looking at the citations provided to be sure we have documented things accurately.
• Any evaluative statement you or I have placed in the text (blazing, scintillating, etc) has to go, but if we are quoting an expert source and indicate that, then that's fine. My last edits on the Jock Boyer episode at the 82 Worlds needs an explanatory note. That whole thing is explained in Sam Abt's book, and Greg committed no wrong move there. If Jock wanted the team to ride as a team, he should not have pushed for the team to continue to use the World's as the US national championship race. If the top US finisher decides the US national champion, and everyone knows that going in, then why would any other American rider feel compelled to just give it to Jock?
• Let's make sure we are using a single format for dates.
• We also need someone to go through and create distance conversions. I hate it but they say that is something that is lookied for on a FA nom.

All right then. I will cut the time out and go though it all. In fact, it will be my pleasure. This will be fun!! Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

I'm out the door right this sec but will take a look at what you've posted here. Should we move this or add it to the LeMond talk page or just discuss it here?

We should move it over to the LeMond talk page, and we should archive much of what is already there. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about evaluative statements - just please don't slash and burn all instances w/o making sure that the word in question (like "dramatic" in the intro) isn't backed-up by a citation at the end of the sentence in which I embedded a long quote. I think I did that in several instances...a perfect example of which is from the intro: "completing an improbable comeback by winning in dramatic fashion" -- I really like how we've said that and don't want to lose that particular instance of evaluative statement-making (hence why I cited two sources). You know what I'm saying, right? No doubt there will be instances where we're in the wrong and need to make something more neutral, but I bet for a lot of the obvious pro-LeMond analysis there's sufficient sources available to back it up.

Certainly it was dramatic, and is well spoken of as such, and with two citations both saying it was "dramatic" I think you are safe. Certainly no question though if you are quoting a source. (Eg: LeMond won the final time trial in record fashion, and in doing so won the Tour with what Velonews termed "the most dramatic victory in tour history".) Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Distance conversions ... what does that mean? I think the entire article should be in metric w/ respect to distance, but then in the infobox it should have standard and metric? Here's the link to MOS on units of measurement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement

Oh, you're right! Metric is fine, so we're golden. I was getting confused with some of my military articles.Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Dates we should be using consistent Month/Day/Year, no? gahh, I gotta run or i'm gonna be late lol. We'll make this work! joepa^T 00:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Month/Day/Year, or Day/Month/Year, either way, as long as it is consistent throughout. I can check that out. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Gunbirddriver, sorry I disappeared like that. It's a rough life. That said, I wanted to ask you if you reached a point in your editing of Greg LeMond where you felt there was nothing left that could reasonably still be demanded of the article for it to pass FA-review? That is, have you done all that you could do to get it to FA-status? Or are you still actively editing? I just want to make sure I reintegrate w/ the proper mindset to get to the point of requesting the FA review. joepa^T 09:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's good, Joe. Other than the earlier effort with Greg I have never gone through a Featured Article review process before, so I am not sure exactly what criticisms could be leveled. I don't think there is anything there that would embaress us, but it is a process and if we need to make changes we can do that. Put it up, Joe. Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

WP:TPO: When you interrupt an editor's post in a talkpage, you should at the very least copy and paste the original signature. Or you can follow other tolerable options. EyeTruth (talk)

Thanks so much. It is truly gratifying to receive talk page etiquette tips from an editor who commonly uses phrases like "LOL" and "OMFG". The more you argue the more you seem to bury yourself. You know, when Sturmvogel mentioned that he had had dinner with Glantz and so had first hand information from the author himself, you didn't even bat an eye. It takes an awful lot to get you to question your own viewpoint, doesn't it? Here's a tip right back to you: This isn't a blog, junior. Now grow up. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I just want to let you know that "junior" is insultive. I may not continue tolerating your misconduct XD. EyeTruth (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You can dish it out, but you can't take it, can you? That's fine. You've made the mess. It's up to you to clean it up. I am ready. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever tried insulting you, but whatever! EyeTruth (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever, whatever. You're not telling me anything new. Both Sturmvogel and myself have tried to help you on that score, the problems in your manner of responding to contrary opinions, your manner of addressing other editors. Nothing came of it. You chose to attempt to add further insults in mock apologies, tried to get back by over the top complaints of minor issues, or simply brushed off the attempts as being mistakes in perception by the other party. Whatever indeed. Who cares? At this point, you are unable to insult me further as after drudging through what you pass off as argument I have no regard for your opinion. That was your doing. You were given ample opportunities to tone down your rhetoric, but you blundered them away. No more. I'm not interested. Now go pester someone elses talk page. I've heard enough. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You're overreacting and blowing things out of proportion! As you insist, I'm out of this chat. Cyaa. EyeTruth (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You reverted back to your Biltzkrieg baloney, on June 25th. You declared the discussion over and yourself the winner, and then just did what you wanted? Who the hell do you think you are?! I don't have words for the low regard I have for that kind of mis-directed, self-centered, arrogant action. Do not come back to my talk page again. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hey - not sure what you were trying to do, but you reverted WP:ANI to an older version. If you had a new section to add, perhaps try to add it again? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I have more detail on the same issue, the same editor. Do I start a new section? Thanks for trying to help. Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to WP:ANI

I don't know what you were trying to do here [3], but you managed to restore an old, archived, version of the page. I've reverted it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to get back into the complaint to document further issues with the editor in question. First time into the administrators sections for me, so I am still trying to figure it out. I go back to the Administration page and the topic is so deep into the page I have a hard time getting back to it. I will start a new one. Thanks for trying to help. Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Your best bet is probably to start a new section, with a link to the previous discussion and a brief summary of what it was about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again. The new section is here. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Battle of Kursk#Use of term Blitzkrieg". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 20:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Knock I've taken over the DRN thread, and you may want to visit again and give your thoughts. Hasteur (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A minor change to DRN

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at DRN which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you, Cabe. Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI Case

Calling your attention to this: WP:ANI Case EyeTruth (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just closed the report at WP:AN3 and declined to block you. Please stop reverting though, or you may be blocked in the future. Discussing the matter on the talk page is the best thing to do now. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A Thanks...

Hallo! I simple want to say to you thank-you for your efforts to improve wikipedia and I hope you continue contributing to her. I especially hope to see one-day Greg LeMond where you and joep01 make such progress - achieve the FA-status! Azx2 16:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is ready to be submitted now. I was going to let Joe make the submission, as he had talked over there before, but anyone could do it. If you agree and think it's ready, put it up! Take care. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Kursk and blitzkrieg

'allo Gunbirddriver! I had a moment and saw you were in a dispute over use of term "blitzkrieg" w/r/t Battle of Kursk. I left a suggestion on the talk page there but will repeat it here so you don't miss it. I did some researching before I left comment and it's clear how many authors who aren't necessarily experts (and even some who may be) casually use term blitzkrieg in context of Kursk, which seems to create an unwinnable battle for you - that is, some purported "reliable" published source can always be found in which Kursk is described as blitzkrieg (I think there's even a book titled that: Blitzkrieg No Longer: The German Wehrmacht in Battle, 1943 (Google eBook)!). Anyway, I wrote

...rather than allow your work here to be derailed by what ultimately seems to be a content dispute, albeit one that apparently included elements of "bad" behavior by some editors, why don't you create one of the reference notes that you're so proficient with and include it immediately after the word blitzkrieg in the text, where you explain that there's no definitive consensus that Unternehmen Zitadelle was ever even conceived of as such a campaign, let alone executed accordingly?

{{#tag:ref|Fanning contends that the word was not the invention of western journalists, but existed in different forms in a variety of languages. He asserts it was not used by German military theorists or by the German Army prior to 1939. In the thousands of military journals produced in Germany between 1933 and 1939, the word is mentioned only once in two different papers. In English and other languages apart from German, the phrase had been used since the 1920s.<ref name="Fanning1997pp283-287"/> [[Richard Holmes (military historian)|Richard Holmes]] contends that the word was anglicized and did not enter into popular/widespread usage until used by journalists, when he asserts it was first coined. Holmes asserts there was no "coherent doctrine" or a "unifying concept of blitzkrieg".{{cite quote|date=July 2013}} Harris notes that it was the British who coined the phrase first, to describe the German successes in Poland. The German popular press did not use the word until later. [[Heinz Guderian]] noted that it was a word coined by the Allies; "as a result of the successes of our rapid campaigns our enemies (emphasis added) coined the word 'Blitzkrieg'".<ref name="Harris95pp337-8"/> Harris concludes, "Blitzkrieg seems to have gained popularity as a piece of journalistic sensationalism – a buzz-word with which to label the spectacular early successes of the Germans in the Second World War. In the West it seems first to have been applied to the Polish campaign of September 1939 and was later attached to the Norwegian and Western campaigns of 1940, to the Balkan campaign of 1941, to some of the North African campaigns, and to the early stages of the attack on Russia, but most enduringly to the bombing campaign against Great Britain (especially London), which is still popularly known as the ’Blitz’."<ref>{{Harvnb|Harris|1995|pp=338–339}}</ref> German historian Karl-Heinz Frieser disputes that the word was ''established'' through British journalism. He points to the word and its mention in two articles prior to 1939. However, he does accept the word only gained publicity through journalism. He notes that the British press were first to do this on 25 September 1939, but also points to the extensive use of the word by the German press in 1940 after the fall of France some nine months later.<ref name="Frieser 1995, p. 4-5.">Frieser 1995, p. 4-5.</ref><ref name="FrieserGreenwood2005p4">{{Harvnb|Frieser|Greenwood|2005|p=4}}</ref> |group="Notes"}}

• Suggestion: If note like that above (If a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg#cite_note-6) can be included in the lede sentence for the article blitzkrieg, why not just do the same here (w/ the appropriate information, of course) and you are being done with it? Azx2 19:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

many authors who aren't necessarily experts (and even some who may be) casually use term blitzkrieg in context of Kursk

Yes they do, but that does not mean we have to repeat them here. The term is unhelpful due to its vagueness and lack of being an operational theory which the German military operated by. The use of German forces in "blitzkrieg" type operations was always contentious, and Hitler was always interfering and derailing the plans of the tank men. If any operation had the heavy hand of Hitler upon it, it was Citadel. It seems the argument on the Kursk page has been won for now and we will leave the term out as is preferable, but if events reverse later I will do as you suggest. Thanks again. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Reply - Just wanted to let you know I left a suggestion in response to request from one of the other editors at Kursk. Azx2 21:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Kursk 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:

• Zetterling and Frankson, considered only the southern pincer attack as a blitzkrieg attack ({{harvnb|Zetterling|Frankson|2000|p=137|loc= describes the German attack in the southern side as a "

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Battle of Kursk. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Yes, I suggested that you and EyeTruth take a break from the article, but you've both since edited it in what I presume was an attempt to work towards a consensus judging from the editing. Reverting EyeTruth several days later to remove yet again the material you object to under the cover of this suggestion is not on. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

My edit was to return the text to where it was at the time the discussion had commenced anew. I had not made an edit on the page since I first saw your note on the talk page. I had not been notified on my talk page earlier that an administrator was involved, and if I had been aware I would not have made the edits Friday night. After realizing an editor was involved and a discussion was progressing I participated in the discussion propsed alternatives for how the issue could be resolved, suggested other areas in the article where the phrase in question would be supportable, and I felt the discussion was moving toward a resolution. At that point EyeTruth changed the wording again, stating he had made a balanced edit that represented both sides. The edit made by EyeTruth shortcircuted the discussion and presumed to speak for the other editors, which it clearly did not. In my opinion the process needed to proceed and reach a conclusion, without changing the content in the article before a consensus had been reached. Perhaps I was wrong to change the edit back, and perhaps wisdom would have been to allow the administrator to revert such changes. In my favor, I believe my discourse throughout the discussion on the talk page has been constrained, reasonable and patient, and I have shown a willingness to listen to others, explain my reasoning, and look for compromise. I am offended at the block being placed, but I will submit to the decision without further speaking for my side. Gunbirddriver (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - account is already unblocked. Peridon (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2013 (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.

MiG-23 Cockpit - very interesting hi-res shot

MiG-23 cockpit

I know of your interest in the military aviation and wanted to share this very interesting high-resolution image of inside of the MiG-23's cockpit. Picture was taken at Museum of the Great Patriotic War in Kiev. It's really cool and maybe you have not seen it (the photo) before? Apologies if you have! Azx2 05:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's cool, Azx2. Thanks so much! Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I thought it was quite cool, too! And in case you didn't know, the gritty, hand-painted white line on the instrument panel is there as a "target" for where the pilot should shove the stick to in case of a seemingly uncontrollable/unrecoverable spin! The February 2011 issue of Flight Journal that included a feature on the Mig 21 makes note of the same kind of hand-painted line in a MiG-21 cockpit detail shot, stating, "The MiG's cockpit showing the typical aquamarine color and extremely poor forward visibility. The white vertical stripe on the instrument panel is for recovery from out-of-control flight: "Put the stick HERE."" lol...

Anyway, yes, I'm glad you enjoyed it! Anytime you come across similarly cool or interesting images or even text (or full article!), please feel free to share w/ me via my talk page! I like learning about new-to-me, cool stuff!! (especially aviation topics, especially cockpit detail images) Azx2 21:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, did Joepa every put Greg LeMond up for FA status? I wish he would! Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Issues w/ voting options in Battle of Kursk poll: the presentation of the poll choices

HI GBD. I just wanted to be sure you saw these comments, an expression of concern I posted on my talk page re. the Kursk poll. I'm fine w/ the poll in principle (or is it "pal"?), but think the first option is not presented fairly...

Hi EyeTruth. Thanks for the heads up, which I saw after leaving a very long comment and question on the article's talk page.

I'm going to CC Gunbirddriver on this, and Nick-D too, because I'm very seriously concerned with the neutrality of the presentation of the poll choices. While I recognize your preference for the second option (which I contributed significantly to the development of, for full-disclosure lol), I think you've presented it in such a manner (w/ positive comments that equate to obvious advocacy, whilst the first option is presented with a "blank" comment, that makes it appear as if there's nothing to recommend it as a choice!) as to introduce unintentional but undeniable bias into the poll that could make it impossible to have sufficient confidence in the results until the issue is addressed. At the very least, voting should be suspended until such time as you've modified the first choice to include a comment that summarizes the proposed edit and highlights its attributes, as you've done for the second choice. And if you're not able to provide a comment for #1 that is the equal of #2, then I still think voting should be suspended until another editor like Gunbirddriver could provide the comment for #1 in your place.

I also think those editors who've already expressed a preference for #2 should have the chance to revise their votes once the first option is summarized and its attributes highlighted in a comment appended to the poll.

I think this is a very serious issue in the context of the article in question and it demands our immediate attention (although I repeat that this is not a personal criticism of you or an insinuation that you've intentionally done anything inappropriate). Thanks.

Would you be able to write a comment for option #1 to ensure that it's not presented as a substandard choice? Azx2 21:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have, though I see I am a tad late. I have been away with my youngest daughter on a vacation adventure. Everyone except one is tired to death of this argument, but it really is not ready for a vote. Thanks for the heads up. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

GBD, I think you should contribute here. You know my feelings on this, and have consistently argued against the BK term being casually used in the Kursk article. But I am thinking that Version 2 is actually a good thought-tool for those readers who are interested in following this up. It also leads a reasonable and averagely informed reader to the conclusion that it was not a blitzkrieg operation. Those days had long passed. Its strength is that its sources are detailed on primary sources/witnesses. The reality that "blitzkrieg" was not a term used in operatioonal planning or in discussions is honestly cited. I think it is a compromise that we could live with. A no BK option in mainspace denies the blitzkrieg-no-blitzkrieg debate and disallows our readers to explore it. It will also forstall any future edit warring. At least V2 confronts the issue. I am currently supporting V2 as the best compromise in the round. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I would prefer the thought tool be placed in the thought section, that is in a summary section discussing the battle and it's significance. The description section should be just that. Why the issue has to come to a conclusion now is beyond me. More time would be better, to allow things to be considered. Plus being blocked for a day and then off with my daughter for a week made my presence in the discussion suddenly shrink. I see we are being told again and again what is fair. Very nice. Each must vote as he sees best and live with the consequences. Its Version one for me, as I believe strongly that it is the correct choice, but I don't begrudge anyone voting for Version two. All the best. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Prokhorovka

If you are done with the major changes to the page, I would like to do one or two more copy edit passes. Please let me know, either here on on my own talk page. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks Diannaa. Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If you could check that the names of units, commanders, and types of equipment are linked on first occurrence, that would be awesome. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have it done. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably time to ping Sturmvogel then, to see if he thinks it's ready for promotion. Your call, though; I am just the technical advisor -- Diannaa (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and a very good one! Thanks for your help. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Sturmvogel is wanting a map of the battle :/ See the GA review., -- Diannaa (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do not have the ability to create one. I did bring in a map that was of the southern salient, but we would need someone to draw one if we are to get one of the battle of Prokhorovka itself. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to create maps either. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I suppose Mr. Sturmvogel will just have to make do. :) Thanks much! Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. Been gnoming a bit. Left a message on the GA talk site re that. Thinking of approaching a couple of sites asking for permission to use any P maps? Dont know what the form is though. Is there a pro forma WP approved email wording? Cheers Irondome (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Threats in the west is good. Strategic calculations post-Stalingrad but adds too many words, but might add contextual depth Irondome (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Irondome! A map would be a good help, but I do not know what a P map might be. I think we best keep Stalingrad out, as it added to much to the background. The problem I was unable to fix was to distill the events of the first week of the Battle of Kursk into two paragraphs. It is cut back significantly, but it would be hard for me to go further without making a cartoon of it. Not sure about a fix. Thanks for your help! Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

P map = Prokhorovka lol. Sorry for confusion. Im having a look round. Will keep you informed. Agree we cant go into such heavy detail. Will be gnoming off and on, see you around. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The article is not too long, and in fact the section on the battle itself needs further expanding. Sturm also wanted more detail on the air battle, which I doubt I can help with. It is the section German advance leading up to Prokhorovka that is beyond the two to three paragraphs that Sturmvogel suggested was the goal. That's what I am not sure about trying to fix. It may be best to leave it as it is, and see if Sturmvogel would find that to be an acceptable length. Thanks much for your help. Oh, and on the overall, thanks for your thoughts on the infobox outcome statement. That is not a field to die on for me, just thought it was cleaner as "Tacitical victory" with the followup just below stating "Operational stalemate". If we switched to "Inconclusive" we should do away with the second statement "Operational stalemate" on the outcome, as it would then be redundent. Thanks again. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)