It wasn't me

Welcome!

Hello, It wasn't me, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Ekki01 (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Celle Air Base

Hello Ekki01,
I just observed you're fixing my translation of Celle Air Base.
At the moment I'm translating the article bit by bit from my German one. As it's more or less a word by word, at least a sentence by sentence translation it might sound very rough in English language (as an air traffic controller I'm used to English - but mainly the well knows phrases and less the grammar and wording in anzyclopadic use. SO I thank you very much for your "service" and want to encourage you to continue with the work once i've finished a new part - not that I want to abuse you, but my English really isn't that fluent as it should be (or I wish it to be). Thanks very much! --It wasn't me (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to put newly translated parts first here or alternatively on the discussion page of Celle Air Base so it's possible for people to have a look at it before putting it directly into main space, otherwise you might get funny reactions and very sarcastic comments from native speakers. Another possibility is, of course, to create a sub-page to your accont where you put the translated parts for a check. Then they are more or less off-limits for uninvited eyes. Cheers, --Ekki01 (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely a good idea. I'll create a page User:It wasn't me/Celle Air Base and write the parts in there first. Thanks for the hint. --It wasn't me (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No prob. But I won't have much time left to have a look at it tonight. Sorry. However, morgen ist auch noch ein Tag. BTW, have you thought of joining the Wikiproject Germany on the English Wikiepedia? Ciao, --Ekki01 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

NP regarding the time. I will first translate the article, than have a look over myself. During translation I surely will sound "Germanish". Later after a break and a coffee I can eliminate this partly - of course a second or even third pair of eyes is welcome anytime. And regarding the project - possibly I'll join in that some day. First I want to increase the quality of some German articles in the German Wikipedia I'm concerned with. Thereafter I surely have the time for changing over to the English (International) version of the encyclopedia. We keep in contact. --It wasn't me (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Assolutamente, as we say in Italy. I'll keep an eye on your sub-page and we'll take it from there. Guads Nächtle. --Ekki01 (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Arriverderci (oder so ähnlich) & and many thanks! --It wasn't me (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've copy-edited the "prehistory" and the "Wehrmacht" bit. Have a read through, please. I will carry on with the rest tomorrow. Perhaps you could start putting in the references. Don't worry that they are in German. If they are not available in English, always use the original. Grüße, --Ekki01 (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Ekki01! Today I spent my time in improving the "original" (meaning the German) version and there especially the history part of the Bundeswehr. As during last nights I didn't sleep as much as I would have liked to there won't be a progress today. Hopefully I'll be able to carry on my work tomorrow. --It wasn't me (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Under User:It wasn't me/Former Units and Aircraft of Celle Air Base you find the translated lift of former units and a/c. If time allows please have a look over that as well. Thanks! --It wasn't me (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Take your time. Always rememeber Gut' Ding will Weile haben! I have finished editing the bits you've added. Have a look at it. One more thing: the link to the list of former units you placed at the top, I'd rather add to the "See also" section at the end of the article once we've finished. I shall also glance over the list first. Tot ziens, --Ekki01 (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hard day today. I did the translation of the entire article including all references by now. I even had a first view over it to eliminate the worst errors. Now I'm gonna have a break. Maybe you'll have the time to give the text a look-through? I intend to bring it "online" very soon.

I did a bit more proofreading, not as much as I intended, but still, better than nothing. I'll do some more later. I do have a few remarks however. I noticed that you separated the reference (inline quotations) into different sub-headings. Is that necessary? I cannot recall an article on the English wikipedia where that is done and I personally think that it is better for the reader to have just one section named references or something similar as it makes it easier to find a particular reference if one wishes to do so. Secondly, I think it might be a good idea to use a template for the references itself. There are several available atWikipedia:Citation templates. In my opinion and experience to use such a template makes referencing a lot easier with the additional advantage of standardising the way of referencing. One last thing, I still think that the list with the former units should be in a "See also" section and not in the running text as it is interrupts the flow of reading without actually enhancing the content with respect to information. And finally, I do hope that you mean with "very soon" when it's good and ready. In Dutch there is a good proverb: "Hardlopers zijn doodlopers!" Grüße, --Ekki01 (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I can't read (and understand) Dutch I won't "release" this article until you think it's worth it. On the other hand the article – even should it contain some errors in spelling – is way more informative than the present one. So don't want to wait too long. Additionally some personal reasons might lead me into a constant lack of time any hour lasting for days and weeks. So I used to make pressure on myself to get the translation done.

Regarding the references, well, I personally like the style I've choosen. But I understand that it isn't compatible to a wide mass. Well. At least it's giving a better overview (especially in regard to the articles of the Cellesche Zeitung) than just have them in the order they appear in the text. That applet you named I don't know as I didn't use such things (beside HotCat) in Wikipedia. But I'll have a look at it. Thanks for all the help and the hints! --It wasn't me (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh the Dutch: it means something like "those who run fast, die first" (a very free translation). Yet, I can understand and fully comprehend that one wants to see the fruition of one's work as quickly as possible. I do agree that the article, once everything is done will be a lot more informative than the one I wrote (and originally copied from the German one originating in the days of yore). I am only saying that it will take some time. And regarding your personal reasons for haste, I know what you mean, we are all volunteers and do everything in our spare time. And, after all, there is a real life.

I wasn't critisising your way of referencing. I was merely implying that "usually", at least what I have come across in the English wikipedia, the references are put in order of appearance, regardless as to whether they may be repetetive, and not sorted by source material. The sources have to be mentioned in the appropriate section anyway.

And now to the citation templates. If you like, I can have a go at it and standardise the inline citations once they have all been inserted. Gruß,

I appreciate any work on the article you're offering. Especially as I'm not so used to the English Wikipedia (and it really differs from the German one in many belongings...). Presently I have no idea how the appearance would look like after implementing you citation templates. Maybe you can link me an article which has well standardised references so I can have a look at it? On the other hand, well, a bit arrogant maybe, I'm a bit proud of the referencing system I used as it differs from the usual articles I know (the standard I write an article and I want a "lesenswert" for it as fast as possible - articles of which I met various ones day by day in the German Wikipedia) so I use to stick to it a little bit... (but finally I would give way for standardisation of course). My main focus presently lays on the text itself as to make it worth reading for a native speaker even... And you're a great help with that, really! Even your first translation of one of my early German versions was outstanding (and way better than everything I would have been able to create). --It wasn't me (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw: The linking of the former units article inside the article was a product of German Review! Some people kept complaining that I should write down which aircraft which unit and so on I ment when writing the flying school teached on bigger and bigger planes, the Bundeswehr stationned several units and so on. I kept on telling that there exists an article dealing with exact these information which is linked one below the headline "Geschichte"... The kept on complaining.... So I integrated the link into the article itself... Maybe it's a good idea to let it inside. But maybe the English speaking readers are more, hm, well, not "intelligent" but, ehm, more, hm, on the watch (?) for such hints... You get what I mean I think... :) --It wasn't me (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The English wikipedia is quite different from the German wikipedia. Usually, people here are a lot more forgiving and work according the principle of "assume good faith," something which is every so often lacking on the German wikipedia. Generally, the tone is a lot friendlier. Also, here you don't have the very stringent relevance criteria as in the German one, so you don't have endless discussions about relevance (or not) as on the German one. However, unlike the German one, once you get onto controversial topics (i.e. is it Gdansk or Danzig) you get into all sort of problems and quite a lot of POV pushing by nationalists or other people personally involved in any kind. In that respect it's a bit like the German one, the only difference being, is that you are arguing worldwide. But still, it's a lot nicer place (in my opinion) than the German one: more tolerant. I remember when I did the original version (German) of Heersflugplatz Laupheim which I translated from my English version I received a SLA within 5 minutes. That's something which is nigh impossible on the English wikipedia and I have written, or contributed to, quite a few articles on obscure topics in the English wikipedia.

Anyway, there is no problem if you want to keep to your style of referencing. We shall see how it will be received once it's been put into the mainspace. And, of course, you're right, the main focus should be on the text. And there will be loads of people to correct, improve and critisise the version we will eventually put up for review. I would go for the Wikiproject Germany first for initial assessment and then for the other projects. But that's "Zukunftsmusik" anyway.

What I would propose with regards to the citation templates is, that I insert a couple of them and then you let me know what you think of them.

Oh, I am not too bothered about the link in the text concerning the former units. It's just that I think that this kind of additional information should be added at the end, especially since the history section covers a large area of time and is only of interest to the specialist but not to the general reader. But, I agree, it is a point of view and therefore a poijt of contention. Gruß, --Ekki01 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

To come back to the citations: I suggest you change the two book-references in the text into such a citation (reference number 6 and 11). So I exactly know where I've to look to and so I'll see what you ment. --It wasn't me (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. I have done reference number 6 but it still needs the exact page reference. Have a look. I am off-line from now on. The RL beckons. But will check tomorrow. Gruß, --Ekki01 (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, honestly, it's ok. Although I can't see a remarkable benefit from it but additional work. With the next book I'd have a bigger problem (the book about the fire). The first mentioned book I bought in advance before I wrote the (German) article and I've got it in my shelf. The other book I personally haven't got available. I just read it in the cities archiv. So I can't tell a page number for the time being. And reagarding its content, I don't think it will be possible to picture out a certain page. More or less the entire book is a reference.
Because of the work you've had we should leave the reference number 6 now as it is, but I don't think it's worth the time to change all the references now. Maybe some time later after the article was published and got first feedbacks and so on. What's your opinion? I don't want to let you down or even embarras you with my remark - I hope you understand. --It wasn't me (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have done a bit more proofreading. I noticed under the location map some text that shouldn't be there, I suppose. Any idea how to remove it?

Regarding the referencing. I am not that bothered. I know it's tedious work and as far as I know the use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. So it comes down to personal preference and we'd better leave it as it is now. Ekki01 (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Got that text issue under the map fixed. I was wondering myself for days but didn't work on it so far. I just forgot a certain (obviously important) line. Thank you again for your time and work! --It wasn't me (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am thinking ahead but the section titled "additional information" has to be sorted according to the style guidelines (have a look here: Wikipedia:Layout). This means that the text of the article is followed by a section called "See also", then "Notes" (citations, i.e. footnotes), then a section called "Further reading" containing the literature and finally "External links", often called weblinks. No hurry as yet but something to keep in mind. And now back to the football. --Ekki01 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. Another difference compared with the Geman version... :) I restructured the relevant parts accordingly. --It wasn't me (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

R.A.F. <=> RAF. In English the are no dots or full stops in abbreviations like RAF. When I lived in the UK the closest Royal Air Force base nearby was always written as RAF Finningley. See also here. Gruß, --Ekki01 (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at this website [1]. In around the middle of the article you'll find some photogrpahs of the base during the RAF times including a huge sign saying "R.A.F. Station Celle". As the sign for sure was set up by the British forces I took the dots in the R.A.F. from that. So I'm a bit of "between the chairs" regarding this. I personally believe the historical correct name was R.A.F. Station Celle (including the dots) but nowadays it is written RAF Celle. So the British forces changed the spelling some time inbetween I guess. --It wasn't me (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed. But that was written in Germany and in German you use dots more often than in English (see D.L.V.). So you are correct with regards to the Germanised usage of the abbreviation. However, I do not want to argue over such a minor, no to say minute, topic. Once the article has been put into mainspace we shall see. Gruß, Ekki01 (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the point. Ok. I think I'll change that again and back to RAF. Regarding the D.L.V. I intend to let the points remain there. It had been the official abbreviation and therefore should be used in the article. --It wasn't me (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem with D.L.V. as it is the "official" German abbreviation. --Ekki01 (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Today I worked on the German version again. I implemented templates for any weblink, reference and literature there. I'm satisfied so when time permitts I will change that here as well.
Additionally I reduced referencing at several points where multiple references for one single sentence existed. So I'll soon go through the entire English article as well and lay hand on this thing. --It wasn't me (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about the templates as yet. That's something that can be done at the end just before the whole article is ready to be put into mainspace. On the other hand if you want to start on such a tedious task, be my guest. :-)

I'll carry on proofreading tomorrow evening. Good night. --Ekki01 (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for that again. Tomorrow I might have a look into the archiv of the town of Celle for some more references and details I seek. There are some more units being stationed at Celle during the 1960s of which I don't have the names and dates yet. So "cu" tomorrow. Guter Nacht! --It wasn't me (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit more proofreading up to caption Use. I was wondering why the bit of the aristocrats and British royal family is under the heading Equipment. Shouldn't that be more generally under Use?

Also, we are getting close to a very contentious area, the names of the various units. Are they to remain in German or translated into English? Gruß, --Ekki01 (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Today I've been in the archive again. My additional infos are added to the Geman article but not yet into the English one. So there's work for me waiting soon...

Regarding the British aristocrats: you're right. Changed that recently in the German version but forgott in the English. The units names, well I'd like to leave the German as that's the official name they are called by and even in international letters that's the name they would use. In addition I translated every unit into English (set in brakes) within the text part. At least that's the way I intended it... Would you strongly recommend a translation in the headline already? --It wasn't me (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In the German version I changed the system of references completely. First I used templates for any possible occasion, second I withdrew that groups at the references. Would you have a look at it and tell me whether I should change it in English accordingly, please? Thanks! --It wasn't me (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Re translation of unit names: I am in two minds about this. On the one hand you're absolutely right in that the German naming is the official one. On the other hand, this is the English wipipedia and we're not writing for experts in both German and army aviation. I have heard this sort of argument very often. And, to be fair, it is a valid point. But as I said, I haven't made up my mind up as yet. Perhaps a compromise like in the articles mentioned here army aviation#National army aviation components.

Re the referencing: I must honestly admit that I prefer the way it looks now in the German article. If you have the time and the energy you might want to change them in the English article. But as I said somewhere above, don't worry that is someting that can be done towards the very end and then I have no problem with doing it (soemtimes I do like these kind of tedious jobs :-) ). Priority now is to get the article in a stable state and there is still a lot of proofreading to be done. Gruß, --Ekki01 (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Referencing: No problem. I'll do that some time. It's really a pitty that the German and English Wikipedia aren't compatible. Otherwise I'd simply had to copy the template-lines... But that won't work as the structure of the templates is kind of different.

Proofreading: As you might have noticed I left that completely to you until now. I'm a bit sorry for that. But I noticed my English really isn't that well (especially in grammar terms) so I'm really really happy to have someone way more "experienced", or "trained" or "used" (whatever suits best) doing that for me. A nasty job and it's a bit of unfair to leave that all alone to you. But I strongly believe for the article itself it really is the best.

Additions: I'll have some editions for the article, mainly in the "Allied occupation" and "Criticism". Hopefully I won't mess up your work with that...

Ich stehe tief in Deiner Schuld für die ganze Arbeit an "meinem" Artikel! Wenn ich mal etwas für Dich tun kann, lass es mich wissen!

--It wasn't me (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unit's names: Well, I'd leave them for the time being and after final release wait for responses. Although I can imagine many would cry around about using German names... Maybe I change my mind over night... ;-) But that's something I can easily change within minutes --It wasn't me (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There cannot be a any question of "in der Schuld stehen." It's wikipedia.

If you mark your insertions then it shouldn't be a problem.

I'll think about the German names too. Gruß, --Ekki01 (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have thought about the names of the units, played a bit with them whilst proofreading and come to the conclusion that visually as well as textually it would be better to use the English translation and then the German translation in brackets and italicised for the headings. In the respective sections I would only use the English translation. The reason for this is mainly that this is the English wikipedia and readers do expect the text to be comprehensible immediately. Think about it the other way around: nobody would like it much on the German wikipedia if units for example from Russian or Israeli units were to be referred to in the text section under their original names and in their original writing system. It disturbs and distracts enormously from reading. This is also the reason why I put the translated names of the units first, followed by the German equivalent. And to be honest, I quite liked the result. Gruß, --Ekki01 (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger. Than it should be as you said. I perfectly understand and as well think it might be better. --It wasn't me (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you are removing the references? If one wants to format them using templates, it is quite helpful when the originals are still there in order to utilise them. --Ekki01 (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed them as I wanted to renew them in time with the templates. Additionally I added some more and replaced some in the German versions. So I had to go through them anyway. Easier to remove them all and replace them all together. --It wasn't me (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. No problem. I just got slightly worried that in a fit of frustration or something similar you'd be throwing out a lot of useful material. You wouldn't be the first one. Until tomorrow, --Ekki01 (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So. Added some text. I marked it within the article so as to enable you a recheck. Wish you a good night. Expect me to work on the templates as next project whenever time and mod permits... Wikipedia sometimes is a welcome distraction to me (you know what I mean) --It wasn't me (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As now the headlines become English I wonder whether the units' names in t´he history part of the article should as well be named in English first and German in brackets? Or shall we leave it as now? What do you think? --It wasn't me (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a nice distraction at times and I hope everything is all right on your side.

I have done your recent interpolations. Have a look. And with regards to the names of the units. if you agree that they ought to be in English in the headlines, I reckon it would make sense to use the same pattern for the text for consistency's sake. I have no problem to change it. What's your opinion? Gruß, --Ekki01 (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say: once they are changed in the headline they have to be changed in text. It wouldn't make sense elswhere. Regarding my personal situation: everything went fine this very morning. I'm tired and simply go to bed now. cu --It wasn't me (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

One last comment: I'd rather move the German units names from the headlines into the text. The headlines became way too large now... But I dunno whether this is standard and common use? --It wasn't me (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

God to hear that everything went fine. ;-)

No problem about the moving to German names to the text. I don't know as to whether there is a rule regarding the headings but it certainly would make everything more concise. I've tried to adjust the German versus the English names as you proposed. Check if I missed any. Good night. --Ekki01 (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll stop editing for the time being as I see you're working on it as well. --Ekki01 (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I am a bit confused at the moment... I intentionally changed the headline form German Armed Forces 1957 until the present into Bundeswehr 1957 until the present. Aspreviously "Wehrmacht" is written I think it should be this way. Especially as the name Bundeswehr is well known.
Further I moved the part with the visits of British noblemen frm equipment to usage. You changed both things back. Intentionally? --It wasn't me (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm ready in a minute and will see my daughter off to bed than. --It wasn't me (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Done so far and off I am for the time being. --It wasn't me (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning for renaming the heading using Bundeswehr. No prob there.

We got mixed up with the moving of the royality bit. I had been editing tweaks etc. for 45 minutes and when I tried to save it I couldn't. So I saved everything in a word-document and then copied it back. Somehow I must have missed the royalty bit. Thus, the moving of it was not intentional but, quite the contrary, meets my full approval. Perhaps we should agree on certain hours where each is allowed to edit. :-) Gruß, --Ekki01 (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Sorry for disturbing you with your work! As the times here are shown in UTC and I tend to forgett that I thought your last edit was hours ago. So I started editing as well. Usually when I realise someone else is working on an article I wait for a good while until I perform my changes. Agreeing on hours won't work too much, but maybe if anyone is working he could set the {{inuse}} so the other one knows --It wasn't me (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ho, ho, ho. You're not disturbing me. It's just an unfortunate incident, inherent in the way wikipedia works. Nothing to worry about, mate. Good idea, using the template though.

However, I am off ironing and cooking now and then it's football. So edit the night away. :-) Gruß --Ekki01 (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever read the article RAF Celle? I personally think it can be deleted once our User:It wasn't me/Celle Air Base is released. All information contained in there is repeated either in the Celle Air Base or the List of former units and aircraft of Celle Air Base. So I start deleting the wikilinks in our working version and than be off to bed myself. cu! --It wasn't me (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know of RAF Station Celle. Having an article deleted on the English wikipedia is not as easy as on the German one. The English wikipedia is more inclusionist than the German one. If you want it to be deleted it is considered to be good manners to approach the originator of the article and discuss it with him/her. Personally, I see no harm in having RAF Station Celle as well as Celle Air Base as the RAF one could be extended into a lengthy article, the content of which would not fit, either because of the details or because of the length, into Celle Air Base which covers the whole history of the airfield. This, I suppose, is one of the arguments you would encounter when trying to have it deleted. On your reply that you would incorpate everything into Celle Air Base, you probably would hear that you aren't that doing now (see List of units) so why would you in the future. As I said, I have no problem with RAF Station Celle but then again if you eventually want to ask for a deletion we shall see. Gruß, --Ekki01 (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well. I see. Thanks for that bacjground information! So I'll change my policy and will complete RAF Celle with the missing data instead. --It wasn't me (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me know whenever you think the article is ready for release. And: how should that be done? Copy&paste into the existing one? Or delete the old and move the new one in? I'd appreciate the copy&paste method... --It wasn't me (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the copy&paste method too. In that case none of page history of the original page will be lost. You can also merge them but merging the talk pages as well is a bit over the top as this one only contains our little discussions and are not really relevant to a wider public.

As for the point in time when to do it, I would suggest to wait a bit more as I still come across some quirky tweaks and phrases I do not like and therefore want to correct them. I only finished the proofreading today so I need some time to read it all again.

After moving it, I would then propose to put a note on Wikiproject Germany's recently expanded articles page, so some native speakers can have a look through it as well. Afterwards we can also leave a note at the Military history WikiProject and Aviation WikiProject for the real buffs to have their say. Gruß, --Ekki01 (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: I still think the List of former units and aircraft of Celle Air Base should not be in the text but should be put in a see also section.  :-)

Ok. As you insist so hardly on it ;-) Judt make it as you prefer :) You're well better informed how to write a good article in the English Wikipedia than I am. ;-) --It wasn't me (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no.  :-) I did not want to impose my opinion regarding the list on you at all. However, since you do not disagree, I might have found a compromise. Have a look.

BTW, what do you think about my proposal putting the article up for comments in the two projects?

Meanwhile, I'll carry on re-reading. --Ekki01 (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Gruß,

Anything leading to some more opinions, more readers and therewith maybe some further information someone else has is welcome. It's not that I want to have an article which must be sealed and hidden. So I welcome this suggestion. The See Also thing is ok. But I wouldn't mind a See Also section at the bottom of the article. But I sugegst to leave it at its current version. --It wasn't me (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I will have finish the proofreading by Saturday. I would propose to merge the new article with the old one. It's a bit of a pain but I have done it before. Originally, I thought it easier to just copy&paste but I am now of the opinion that it is better for others to follow the whole path of development. So I don't mind doing the copy and pasting.

As to the "See also" section, what would you want to put into it that hasn't already been mentioned in the text? Gruß, --Ekki01 (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There's not much not yet mentioned in the article. Maybe Royal Air Force Germany and that List of former units and aircraft of Celle Air Base. Presently I don't know more. But maybe until Saturday there will be one or two more until than. --It wasn't me (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I've moved the list to the "See also" section, also added your suggestion Royal Air Force Germany (nice one) and added Army Aviation. On the other hand, if everything is mentioned in the text itself we do not actually need a "See also". Gruß, --Ekki01 (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Heeresflugplatz Celle.jpg

My pleasure! Regards, Ian Dunster (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, how is it pronounced (Celle) - 'Keller' or 'Seller' or something else? Ian Dunster (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation is ˈtsɛlə with a sharp beginning like in Zorro. An Eglish native speaker would write something like Tselle or Zelle if he only listens to the word without seeing it written. --It wasn't me (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

OK - Vielen danke! - thanks! Ian Dunster (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

User:It wasn't me/Former Units and Aircraft of Celle Air Base

I see that you added this page to redirects for discussion. You can request deletion of one of your userpage using {{db-u1}}, if this is indeed your wish, let me know and I'll delete the page. Cheers, Cenarium ^Talk 02:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. In fact I'd like the pages User:It wasn't me/Celle Air Base and User:It wasn't me/Former Units and Aircraft of Celle Air Base deleted as I don't have use for them any more. Thanks for the hint as well. --It wasn't me (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)