User talk:Minorhistorian/Archive 3

Franco Lucchini

Hello, sorry if I disturb in such a busy time, but I want to write a new article about the Italian top ace Franco Lucchini, but when I digit this name on wikipedia it comes out something about a Japanese comic or something about it... how can I edit a new article with this name, Franco Lucchini? Thanks a lot --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Habemus... Lucchini

Wow You helped me a lot... thanks a lot!! here you can see the new page!! I hope you lilke it (and that you can give your help!) About your relatives coming, it would be a pleasure to meet them if they come in Rome, so maybe I could give to them a copy of my book "Penna Alata" with an autograph of mine!! Yes study first but some pleasure come second closely!! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Lucchini_(Regia_Aeronautica_officer)

Thx

You caught my typo before I could rectify it. Thanks for the help. AshLin (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

LRDG

Congratulations the LRDG has just passed a GA assessment. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Budanova Image

Hello, Minihistorian, how is it going on the other part of the world? I was checking the article about Katya Budanova, while revisioning my book about Soviet Airwomen, and watching the picture of the article I remembered that when I was in Moscow, last May, to meet her two nieces, Irina and Ludmilla, I showed them that exact picture and they told me that the girl in the picture is NOT Katya Budanova, but another woman pilot probably Tamara Pamiathnyk. In fact, usually books do not show that image of her. I think it should be removed. What do You think about it? Kind Regards from Rome --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Da, that image is of Budanova as it is taken from the cover of the magazine Ogonek, that in April 1943 published a cover-picture of Ekaterina Budanova and of Lydia Litvyak, with an article inside about their collettive more than individual air victories, in classical Soviet style... It could be possible to take an image of Budanova from this picture as well:

http://www.google.it/imgres?imgurl=http://mysite.pratt.edu/~rsilva/images/corillo2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-photos-multimedia/42311-falcon-girls-2.html&h=345&w=460&sz=52&tbnid=WhMZ-KnNOw3QKM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3DKatya%2BBudanova&zoom=1&hl=it&usg=__8h9fyn-MB1-KEMdYrmvX322tNa4=&sa=X&ei=0Ot5TPfYEpKROOr4gIwC&ved=0CCgQ9QEwBg Budanova is the one in the middle, on the left is Litvyak and on the right Mariya Kuznetsova, I showed this image to the nieces of Katya and they told me, "Da, that's aur aunt!" Best regards from Italy!!--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• hello, I can only repeat you what I already told You: the relatives of Budanova told me that that picture is believed to be of Ekaterina, but thar it is not, probably of Tamara Pamiathnyk. I do not remember to have seen that picture on the main books about Soviet airwomen. Who can state with book references that this is Budanova Image?

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Good morning! How are You? I am sure that in the Russian books about Soviet airwomen that I get in Mockba there IS NOT this picture of Budanova, and I am sure that in most of the other (I have all of them) books about airwomen there is NOT this picture as well. I will check them carefully when I come back to ROME tomorrow. I know this picture is in more websites but those sites are packed with mistakes about Soviet Airwomen, they are not - except one, I guess, written with the help of Kazimiera Cottam - reliable, they are not written by historians, they even write that Lydia Litvyyak shot down enemy/aircraft flying Lavochkin fighters, that is ABSOLUTELY false.

Regards, from Abruzzo. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Dear Minihistorian, I checked all these books about Soviet airwomen:
• Polunina, Ekaterina K. (2004). Devčonki, podružki, letčicy. Izdat. Dom "Vestnik Vozduš. Flota" Mockba. http://books.google.com/books?id=YzesMQAACAAJ.
• Cottam, Kazimiera J. (1998). Women in Air War – The Eastern front of World War II. Newburyport, Massachusetts: R. Pullins Company. ISBN 978-1-58510-159-7.
• Jackson, Robert. Air Aces of WWII. Ramsbury, MarloboRugh, Vital Guide, Airlife Crowood Press, 2003. ISBN 1-84037-412-8.
• Polak, Tomas with Christofer Shores. Stalin's Falcons – The aces of the red star. London, Grub Street, 1999. ISBN 1-902304-01-2.
• Pennington, Reina (1997). Wings, Women, and War: Soviet Airwomen in World War II Combat. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0700615547. http://books.google.com/books?id=HBpSGQAACAAJ. Retrieved 2009-03-23.
• Seidl, Hans D. Stalin's Eagles – An illustrated Study of the Soviet Aces of World War II and Korea. Atglen, PA, Schiffer Military History, 1998. ISBN 0-7643-0476-3.

NONE OF THESE BOOKS SHOW THE PICTURE OF BUDANOVA THAT WAS IN THE ARTICLE, PROBABLY IT HAS BEEN DOWNLOADED FROM SOME OF THE MANY (UNRELIABLE) WEBSITES IN THE NET... BEST REGARDS AND WISHES FOR UNIVERSITY! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Butcher

Cheers. The Butcher Bird is undergoing some chopping up. I intend to start adding bits and pieces in the near future; this one is going to be a long hard effort. But if the Spitfire one can make it, in spite of the circumstances (if you know what I mean), then we can drag this one over the finish line as well. Anything you can do is great. Thanks again, and enjoy your break. Dapi89 (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

De Havilland Hornet

You beat me to it! I was just about to add the same image to the infobox, and the commons links. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I read you comment on BilCat's page, I found four (small, but copyright free) Sea Hornet photos at the Australian War memorial page [1] that might interest you. Greetings Cobatfor (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Try here for Mosquito Wings reference:

http://canada.virtuel.museum/pm.php?id=story_line&lg=English&fl=0&ex=192&sl=3209&pos=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.197.143 (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a minute

Hello, How are You?? I know that You are really busy, just a minute, please! I changed a little my page, can You have a look? Is not too autocelebrative, is it? I have just some doubts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gian_piero_milanetti --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Lytviak 31 July's kills

Hello, I cant find any references of the supposed kills of 31 july in Pennington, Cottam, Noogle, Sakhaida etc. books. I think that in this case the source is inaccurate. I think it is better to delete them. DO you agreed? Regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Counterclaims

Yes, but... he started the quarrel... I was working on Soviet Airwomen articles when he started with this story of the Dewooitine and of the Fiat G.50.. i CAN STOP NOW... WHAT about the claims of Litvyak kills, by the way? What You think about them? I think those claims are inaccurate... regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Litvyak claims

Yes, there is not evidence in all the books that I quoted... I think is a mistake, the problem is that the quoted article in I think in Hungarian... and I wonder who could have added it... You mean that I can remove it? I am a little scared of the possible reactions of Binkesternet, he seems to have take care of the article in the past --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, ok, but there are some problems here. BTW, it does matter what a fighter archievied or not. You are right, it's a difficult task. But it's easy to solve: it's enough to post what 'bot sides' claimed. If G.50s shot down 10 Gladiator, but i have a source (italian) that claim instead, that none of them was shot down, then the 'pretended' superiority meant by GPM is vanished at 100%: instead of 10:1 we have a 0:1.. and so on, of course. RAF, as example, on 28-2-41 claimed 27 italian kills, but archievied 'only' eight (losing two, a great day anyway!). But there is more: GPM has the attitude to underrate the D.520 (and Hurricanes, and P-40s, all for the sake of MC.200/202), and i don't mean about the 'combat results', but its qualities. He seems to have interest to show how that aicraft was mediocre and even a junk. I noticed this, you know, i have access to italian sources like GPM, but you english-reader are cutted off by these. So, if i see some 'spinning', then i'll correct it. All must be done in a simply way: RA claims 10 victories with one loss; RAF claims 3 kills with 0 loss? Ok, we got it. Everyone could believe what he wants: RA lied, RAF lied, but they cannot be both on the truth side! What i propose i a simply more balanced article, nothing else. And the insistence of GPM to 'find out' negative sides of D.520s, while he is silent about Reggiane Re.2000 faults (calling Nicola Malizia 'autolesionistic' since he speaks bad about italian fighters..) looks to me to 'spinnig' (i.e. i don't talk about defects of my preferred, but i talk about defects of the others). Maybe GPM has a sort of 'good faith', but the results are cleary 'spinned'. My opinion is, simply, that we should write truthful and well balanced stuff. Neverthless, i am a 'traitor' if i talk 'bad' about 'ours fighters' ('ours?' I never had a G.50). I'd suggest to check what GPM writes, because is easy to spin something posting a 'reliable source', that incidentally, it's also a 'one side' source. When someone will proof that i am not neutral, we'll talk about again, but GPM is too 'enthusiast' and should be taken under a bit of control. Have a nice day.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

Fockes and Messers

I heard a funny joke the other day, which some obscure comedian made. It involved a Kiwi pilot and his WW2 experience. He's taking his interviewer through a dogfight scenario, the commentary includes "two Fockes on my tail", "I blew one Focke to bits"; the interviewer interjects to inform his audience he is referring to the Focke Wulf Fw 190 fighter, at which point the old pilot, with no hint of a smile says, "Oh no, these Fockes were Messerschmitts!". Dapi89 (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

See Stan Boardman#Controversy, I saw him do this joke live in the 1980s, a special moment!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Lucky you. I'll have to look this up at some point. Dapi89 (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Website

Yup. I think I used it for the Do 217 article. It may come in handy for the other articles. Dapi89 (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Official status of Article XV squadrons

Good luck with your exams. When you get a chance, please have a look at Talk:Hawker Tempest. Cheers, Grant | Talk 11:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fluid Four or Six

It was used earlier than that Minor. More efficient tactics were introduced in 1942. Unfortunately they were developed in the DAF -which got the bottom of the barrel when it came to weapons, aircraft, quality of fighting men, not least of all tactical leadership. These tactics were good but they were not fused into official doctrine until early 1943 (I think). They were definitely in circulation by the start of the year, as Spitfire squadrons used them over Tunisia. The actual formation was line astern, and the formation number was four or six. Dapi89 (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first instance of its use was in November 1941. No. 112 Squadron RAF used it. They were using it "as standard" then - Shores, Fighters over Tunisia, p. 406. Dapi89 (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Manfred Von?

See here. Bzuk (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Countdown

Drive safe. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours!

Happy new year. Dapi89 (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Buon Anno

Very Sorry I see Onloy now your message... as I am really busy with my next book about Soviet airwomen and moreover I stay in Thailand and not with my computer... I am very glad to read Your wishes and I wish You the same... unfortunately I dont know how to produce such a wonderful image!!

UN FELICE ANNO, A TE E FAMIGLIA!!!

Gian piero milanetti --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyGian Piero milanetti (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Gian Piero milanetti (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Chianti Raiders

Hi, nice to hear You... thanks for your advice... actually I have that book, I bought it about two years ago... very interesting... I quote it in the FIAT CR.42 page... Is is one the of the very few British books that reports Italian "truth" I hope the time they are changing... At the moment I am concentrating about the Soviet Airwomen, yesterday I gave the publishers the final draft of the book that should be printed next month... May I advice You another good book? "Air War in East Africa" by Sutherland and Canwell... regards... Gian --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

SOviet Airwomen

Hello, how are You doing? I hope you are doing well... Just one question: my book about the Sovviet airwomen has been released... I should add some of the datas and informations that I discovered... May I quote myself? I am afraid not... regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Salve... I see that You keep on studying: well done!! No, I did not publish my book on myself, but with IBN Editore, that is the main aviation publisher in Italy ( http://www.ibneditore.it/ ). I contacted Bzuk, but he did not answer so far. Thanks for the advice about the book and for all the informations... I wish You good Easter holidays!--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Adlertag

Minorhistorian. The problem with the images on Adlertag is not only that they failed WP:NFCC#10c (which you solved), even with the rationale, these images fail WP:NFCC#8 - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." - these images do not increase the readers'understanding of the case, they certainly do not increase it significantly. I am sorry, you may want to look for a free alternative, or to just leave them out. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied

Just replied to your complaint on the admin noticeboard , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Goldblooded (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you mind...

... commenting here? Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Barnett

Hi there, if you are interested in possibly writing a biography about a Dunedin personality, then I invite you to have a look at these thoughts. Schwede66 19:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce Merlins

Yes, you are right - most of the engines used in racers are Packard built -7s and -9s. I wasn't aware that the Packard ones had their own page, so the information is now over there. Regarding the modifications, its a continuation of the Merlin's history. History does not just end at a nice, clean cutoff date.

As to references, I try my best, but personally I am more concerned with content than getting every period correct. As an engineer, I have done research using original NAA documents on the Mustang and can tell you that there is a lot of misinformation that gets printed in the popular history books, which seems to just get regurgitated over and over. I've also done similar research on many other historical aircraft and this seems to hold true across the board. One of my goals is to get this stuff straightened out before it becomes too deeply institutionalized. Aeroweanie (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

re: de Havilland Mosquito advert

Send me an email (off my talk page) and I will give you some background on a latest brush with a "groupie." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC).

File:FLuid Six Formation RAF.pdf listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FLuid Six Formation RAF.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Re.Flak

While I agree with the change you have made to the photo of the B-24 and the reason for it, your usual habit of attempting to pick a fight over some erroneous "anglo-saxon" conspiracy theory is completely unnecessary, as is your usual habit of trying to harass other editors into co-operating with you by accusing them of bias, or by making out that your "expertise" is superior to theirs.

Well, nobody is perfect, not even anglo-saxons. And to be honest, i had already enough to be rollbacked every time even for useless reasons. And no, i don't discard 'anglo-saxon theory', but this should be addressed, eventually, to G.P. Milanetti, while i was and am strongly 'anti-chauvinist/nationalist' (the goal is to be 'neutral', isn't?). I am just bored by Bzuk/BillCJ and others, so swift to revert/endless discussing/'ask english sources' for everything i write. Actally i became a blogger and returned back to my preferred forums, and i don't miss the pointless discussions here. Maybe i'll came back, but i see it a bit hard to do. Stefanomencarelli (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Commented on your Peer review

Hi, just thought you might want to know that I commented on your peer review for de Havilland Mosquito. I hope my comments help you improve that article. In return, you should take a look at the article I put up for peer review, Alaska Airlines. That would be much appreciated. Thanks! Compdude123 (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Language?

Yes, & him calling me an idiot & a moron & unqualifed to edit is OK, right? Good to know there's not a double standard. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet? Who is the only one to get slapped with a warning? Who will be the only one to get blocked? Who is the only one whose opinion won't count? As usual. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments on Lincoln Zephyr?

I never made any comments on Lincoln Zephyr. I have no idea what you are talking about. Sadowski (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Intervention? Let's get the ball rolling. What needs to be done next? Sadowski (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And Lincoln Capri is off my watchlist. I've seen rude behavior from this guy before, & I'm ignoring him. He has a problem with a mistake in the source, & started with insulting me, rather than seeing if the source was wrong. I have no more to say on it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)