User talk:Mumby

Typhoon page(s)

Hi. Have a look at Eurofighter Typhoon variants. I've rewritten the page as a general, non-RAF specific page. I plan to expand the German/Italian/Spanish/Austrian sections in the near future. Saudi Arabia can wait! I've also moved the DA/IPA aircraft info from the main page.

Thanks for the excellent info at Panavia Tornado variants, plenty for me to have a look at! You seem to be suggesting the MOD has a bizarre way of announcing and implementing new purchases/capabilities. I couldn't agree more!! Best regards, Mark83 20:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Typhoon T1/T1A

Hi. I saw in an edit summary that you were questioning the difference in T1/T1A breakdown. It took me a while to dig out the reference, but I found it and explained at Eurofighter Typhoon variants.

Good point. My understanding is that an OEU figures out how to use an aircraft while an OCU teaches the pilots how to use it. It could be that an OEU only needs how to figure out how the F2 will work and hence only has those. However perhaps they also require two seaters to develop tactics for those. As you can see I'm not sure, I'll try and find out. Mark83 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT! (I am joking) - It's just you've got my intrigued about this now, have a quick look at my user page. There are many production lists on the internet for the Tornado, however I can find none for the Typhoon. This seems to be the only way to get the information. And where am I getting it from? Well I know the serial ranges the RAF has reserved for its Typhoons, so with them and Google... Mark83 21:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above, just searches for individual serials. For example type in ZJ800 and you get results from which you can find what you need. Mark83 21:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded it a bit more (including F2s). You're very welcome to edit my userpage if you have additions to make, it would avoid duplication of work. However you're equally welcome to keep your own version. Mark83 22:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

MBDA Meteor edit

Of course you're right, I can't believe I edited that paragraph and missed that! Thanks. Mark83 14:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hope that helps. If you scan down the Blackbird article discussion page, you'll find my inputs there, as I've tried to add some realism to some of the claims and stories. Or, check my user page and "my contributions" as listed. I think I've run out of significant new inputs and just check the article from time to time looking for new additions and/or errors. It's addictive though, isn't it? David Dempster 01:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Galland

This is an encyclopaedia and not a goddam Biggles novel. The fact that someone called Adolf was called "Dolfo" by his friends is not news, and not encyclopaedic, and I will delete it on sight. Adam 14:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewel TRL incident

Thanks for your message. I discovered shortly after making the edit that there was a factual basis to the story, but didn't reinsert for notability reasons, like you. As I understand it, it wasn't a Janet Jackson style incident on live TV as the edit implied, but rather a camera left running unnoticed, with the juicy footage found later by MTV staff who decided to exploit it. If you do end up fixing this factoid in future, could you help make sure this is clear in article? (if I'm right of course!) -CarelessHair 11:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fancy rats....

Hi! I see no one has officially welcomed you to Wikipedia and I wanted to say I've been appreciating your help with the ratty-related articles. My wiki time often ends up getting spent elsewhere, i have too many pages on my watchlist. Again, thanks for the help with vandalism and your other contributions to these articles. I came across the article back when it looked like this and have been staying vigilant to prevent it from getting like that again. I also happened to have saved the pet care section because i think it may have some encyclopedic value but haven't had the time or motivation to work on it. I'd love to hear what you think. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 04:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Jan Zumbach

Thank you. Love the infobox. He was born in Poland to Swiss parents and he carried a Swiss passport for most of his life. Britlawyer 14:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation of kills.

Agree:

Tally of kills needs to be removed - it's too much.

Disagree:

Its an Historical article and a tribute to achievement. On defending his claims...why not? Others put in sources questioing them why can't, perhaps more reliable sources, be put in defending them?

Referencing is good, and its a legitimate counter argument to his claims being exaggerated. F.K's book being an established and respected source.

I would say that with both it creats a neutral stance, not a tribute to him personally or any other kind of hero-worship.

Dapi89 19:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

REPLY.

Just before I start, this is the last time I'll talk on this issue. The reason being I see so many articles discussions drag on forever! The sole reason, as I explained before, of putting in info that defended or at least offered a source protecting his record was because a source was put in questioning his record, it was not so much a 'defense' as a counter balance. Like you say you cannot have an article purely defending or questions someone's record. after your edit there was just the 'questioning' point rather than both. Wikipedia is a tribute to people's achievement. Encyclopaedia's document significant people's contributions/achievements in a particular field because they are deemed important enough for people to know about. Without this achievement, or whatever word you choose to use to describe it, there wouldn't be an article. Which ever way you cut it recognition, and these articles are a form of tribute. I have tried to use as many different varieties of sources as possible. But as you know it is extremely hard to come across information on him (even in German), so forgive the large amount of references to F.K's book.But in my opinion, bearing in mind the scarcity of sources, eight different titles is not bad. Dapi89 18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Corpo Aereo Italiano

Remember when we talked about Corpo Aereo Italiano's role in the Battle of Britain? Well, there is Corpo Aereo Italiano article now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpo_Aereo_Italiano but in my opinion it needs some serious editing. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 02:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ref Tags -Neumann.....Duly noted

Hi Mumby,

Sorry for the mess i made!!! My Wiki skills leave alot to be desired. Although I'm not offering this as an excuse I'm more of a 'putterinera' than editor.

Will do it asap.

Dapi89 21:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

just one more thing...................

I have a DVD about HJM Star of Africa but it has long interviews with JG27 survivors like kroner, Els, and above all Neumann.....could I use this as a reference for Neumann's article? Dapi89 21:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation style

The reorganisation of Battle of Britain certainly seems to me to fully comply with Wikipedia:Citing sources, though some of the repeated citations could probably be combined using "ref name=" footnoting instead of just "ref". However, just thought it was worth mentioning that using Template:Harvard citation no brackets in the inline text, together with Template:Citation in a references section, works really well whenever Harvard referencing is appropriate. It's not so compelling that I've gone around changing articles already referenced adequately, but it has advantages, not least that it's much easier than the "ref name=" system if you want to refer to book page numbers, or to add another inline cite to a reference earlier in the article. Contact me if you'd like examples, and I appreciate that they keep moving the goalposts on these systems! . . dave souza, talk 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations and Referencing

Mumby, thank you for your note. I did read the Battle of Britain "talk page" first but did not add comments because I took a look at all the multiple errors in citations and referencing and wanted to quickly re-establish a "standard" MLA/Harvard style for an important research article.

A few notes for background. My background is as a Librarian for over 33 years, and, recently, as an author and editor, so I have an interest in the mundane and arcane world of cataloguing and referencing. As you may already determine, there are a number of suggested styles that are in place on Wikipedia. Many of these are based on the use of templates for editing and here is where the issue may actually be of discussion. The template guides have a number of variances that do not match the actual APA (American Psychologcal Association) style, which is one of the style guides used for referencing research. The APA guide was developed at a University level as a shorter, simpler guideline and intended for psychology, education, and other social sciences. University professors invariably assigned this guide to newcomers because it was considered easier to master and had the basic information required for a citation. However, the Wikipedia templates that were created by editors such as yourself or other editors used the APA style, or some slight variations of it.

The APA guide is not the standard, however, for academic or scholarly research. The MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibilographic style is one that is also accepted by Wikipedia. Another style guide that is in wide use is the "Chicago Style" used in many popular books. A footnoting and endnote citation style that is also employed is the so-called "Harvard Citation" which has been employed to effect in the the Wikipedia aircraft articles.

Your revert of the Battle of Britain references does not do justice to the changes enacted earlier. If you notice that you have a mix of style formats that is inconsistent with the usual citation and referencing style. Some examples include: "Bungay, Stephen (2000). The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. Aurum Press Ltd, 86. ISBN 1-854-10801-8." whereas the Harvard Style prescribes: "Bungay 2000, p. 86." It would not take more than a cursory examination to see that what you have incorporated is not an elegant solution, regardless of the mistakes made in the citation guides, of which there were a number. Here is your listing of citations:

• Bungay, Stephen (2000). The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. Aurum Press Ltd, 86. ISBN 1-854-10801-8.
• Bungay, Stephen (2000). The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. Aurum Press Ltd, 260. ISBN 1-854-10801-8.
• Bungay, Stephen (2000). The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. Aurum Press Ltd, 259. ISBN 1-854-10801-8.
• Bungay, Stephen (2000). The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. Aurum Press Ltd, 249. ISBN 1-854-10801-8.

This what you reverted:

• Bungay 2000, p. 86.
• Bungay 2000, p. 260.
• Bungay 2000, p. 259.
• Bungay 2000, p. 249.

From the standpoint of clarity and ease of use which is the hallmark of librarianship, the usual footnote/endnote refers to a bibliographical reference. In Wikipedia, there is a consistent missuse of the term, "references" when actually referring to "bibliography" but nonetheless, this is not a true academic work and the inclusion of a "further reading" section also makes for confusion since this is also a "bibliography." Irregardless of the departure from styles, usually an author/editor cites a source and then completely identifies that source of information in the reference section. Repeating it ad nauseum is considered poor style; that's what you have done and inaccurately on top of it. There are some exception that some Wikipedia authors have incorporated, for example, if a refernce source is only quoted once, these editors tend to leave it in the "notes" section of the "references" and that is fine, however, in the case of the numerous reference to Bungay's work (a preponderance of one author's research is often questioanable in terms of giving a "balance" to the article, but that is besides the point.) After citing the many quotes from Bungay, there is no mention of him in the "Bibliography (again a term not used? in Wikipedia). This is the actual bibliographical record that was excised:

• Bungay, Stephen. The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain. London: Aurum Press Ltd., 2000. ISBN 1-854-10801-8. (Note the differences- you dropped the place of publication, shortcutted the abbreviation "Ltd." and placed the author name with the date of publication and then correctly used period stops for the "tracings" wherein you incorrectly used commas in your other bibliographic records. You have, in addition, used at least two dating conventions which is also inconsistent, e.g. "RAF website. Ministry of Defence (2006-03-20)" [why the brackets?] and "Access date: 3 March 2007.")

Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibilographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloguing that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloguing is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record form an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication. (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. The Harvard citation guide as explained above, is a clear connection to the MLA reference found in the bibliographic record.

The errors that I referred to above include an inconsistency in dating, e.g. "Deighton, Len (1996-02-01)" rather than "Deighton, Len (1996)" although in the MLA guide, this would appear as "Deighton, Len." with the date of publication not attached to the author but to the publication, as in "Deighton, Len. Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain. London: Pimlico, 1996. ISBN 0-712-67423-3." However, including the full bibliographical record in the notes and then repeating it in the bibliography, which is again incorporating errors, is considered poor editing. Here is your bibliographical entry: "Deighton, Len (1996), Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain, London: Pimlico, ISBN 0712674233." It should have read: "Deighton, Len. Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain. London: Pimlico, 1996. ISBN 0-71267-423-3." Note that periods, not commas, are now used in cataloguing and that the optional ISBN (International Standard Book Number), if provided (it merely is a reference to a directory to order the material), is written in full.

If you are an academic librarian, I would have issues with your choice of style, however, I assume that you are not a librarian and utilize the template guide (note it is a guide) provided to ease the use of referencing sources of information in Wikepedia. I prefer not to use the templates and instead rely on the "scratch" cataloguing that I have referred to earlier.

Mumby, do a quick check back through your revert and take a look at what has been changed. Instead of one notes and reference section where one interconnects with the other, you have created a "notes and references" section that stands alone and does not connect to the "bibliography (a term as I explained that Wikipedia does not use)" section. Besides, the editing that is now in place looks awkward and does not give the reader a semblance of "easy-at-hand" information. I would take this discussion into the "talk" page but it is a very complex set of concerns that I have and thought it best to express them to you first. IMHO Bzuk 13:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Reply

Again, thanks for your response. Partial copyedit follows: "As I said, I use a reference system that I am comfortable with, I don't mind if there is consensus to switch to another style, but I think it deserves to be discussed first. Again, my reverting has unfortunately given as nothing but a mess so hopefully we can clean it up quickly without losing the useful edits made in the meantime!"

Looking at the talk page again, I did not see what could be called a consensus for you to edit the article's references, rather an offer to do the "deed." I will post my alternative offer to take on a more standardized bibliographical referencing. Please note that I really have no "dog in the hunt" but I do believe that the present edit is basically convoluted and creates more problems than solutions. As for editing, I also have a background in editing but you may note that Wikipedia does not insist on an editing protocol nor on the use of templates, instead, Wikipedia makes no real clear distinction other than these very general guidelines:

• Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view," advocating no single point of view, presenting each point of view accurately and providing context, citing verifiable, authoritative sources.
• Wikipedia is free content anyone may edit and no individual controls any specific article.

I will undertake to make a case for proper MLA/Harvard citations on the Battle of Britain talk page. Bzuk 23:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Mumby, the recent changes you have incorporated in the Battle of Britain article are a great improvement and I can live with a notes section and a reference section. Corrections to the references to have them adhere to a consistent bibliographical format and to correct any typos, or other errors, still need to occur. I am willing to make these changes. Bzuk 23:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

<unindent> As a trial to show how it works, I've used Template:Citation for Bungay, and Template:Harvard citation no brackets for cite no. 10. You'll notice that in the Notes, Bungay 2000 becomes a link to the book reference itself. .. dave souza, talk 11:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply again

Copyedit from my "talk page":

Reply

Bzuk, That would be great, thanks. When it comes to formatting for full citations, can you tell me if and how your style deviates from the style described at Wikipedia:Citing sources:Full citations and Wikipedia:Harvard referencing? Thanks,Mumby 11:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Mumby, there is a standard MLA (Modern Language Association) protocol that is simply: Author (last name, first name[s] separated by commas and ended with a period), full title of work (written in title format with capitalization or in the actual words of the title chosen by the author which in some cases leads to different spellings [e.g. "since 1932" rather than "Since 1932"] and if it is a major work, shown as italics, if it is a minor work, such as an article within an encyclopedia or other, shown in quotation marks and the major work shown in italics, all ended with a period), place of publication (usually the city and sometimes the country of origin separated by a colon [there are a number of practical changes here in order to fully identify a location or one which is not well known, e.g. "Washington, DC:" or "Shrewsburville, Ramsgate, UK:" [as well, countries can or cannot be written in abbreviations or in full]), Publisher (separated by a period) and date of publication (if editions are important, they are identified here or with the title) and finally ending with a period.

The addition of an ISBN seems to be standard practice in Wikipedia but that is an optional note that identifies the work for location in a bookseller's directory. ISBN-10 or ISBN-13 protocols are an issue here as well as actual full citing but that's another story, another time. There is sometimes the need to identify a page number from the reference source and that is given as "p. ___ ." and listed as the last entry or "tracing" of the record. If the source is also identified as being "electronic" or other media, that entry is also recorded at the end of the bibliographical statement.

Here are some examples, albeit, made-up:

• Carson, Deliah R. and Jones, Ichabod. The Master Works of the Plumbing Industry: A Treatise. Stovehat, United Kingdom: Barnum and Bailey Publishers Ltd., 1933. ISBN 1-435678-234.
• Cashum, J.G.L. "Burping: A New Art." Psychological Review, Issue 12, no. 413, May 2006.
• Caxton, Joyce, Girding, Louis and Restuck, Al Jr. Sturdy Souls: A New Perspective on Plumbers and their Trade. Plumber's Union website, 23 June, 2003. Plumber's Union Access date: 3 July 2005.

As to Harvard citations, I cite them as prescribed with one slight variation in that I end the page numbers with a fullstop or period (which is optional). Again, all of this is in the domain of making things consistent and using a logical or formalized system. I find that Wikipedia editing of references demands a steady hand and dogmatic insistence on format. IMHO Bzuk 12:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

To show the outcome of using the Template:Citation, I've tried it out on the Battle of Britain page with this result:

• Bungay, Stephen (2000), The Most Dangerous Enemy: A History of the Battle of Britain (hardcover ed.), London: Aurum Press, ISBN 1-85410-721-6

Since there was a reference to (paperback 2002, ISBN 1-85410-801-8) I added that after the template. Compare and contrast. ... dave souza, talk 12:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

SR-71

Mumby, Originally the article stated 12 were lost or destroyed. There have been numerous changes though. Now the artical states 13 in one section and 12 in another. There is also alot of changes with respect to lost aircraft and destroyed aircraft. Possibly 12 of them were destroyed and the 13th was lost. This should be clarified 68.244.13.195 23:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)