Talk:John Cunningham (RAF officer)

message: :Image:John Cunningham CBE - Famous Grouse DH Moth Rally 1979.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:John Cunningham CBE - Famous Grouse DH Moth Rally 1979.jpg

message: I removed the content as only tangentially related to the bio of the man; I'm preserving this content by providing this llink. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: All of your edits have been reverted as vandalism. I'll remind you again: you will not delete relevant information from articles at your whim. And following other editors around Wikipedia and attacking the articles they've contributed to is disruptive. You have been warned. Dapi89 (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC where Daily Mail was essentially black listed as the result. I also found the section heading "Sale of medals" to be derogatory, as it read as if the subject sold his own medals. I would appreciate an explanation where the editor sees "vandalism". K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Dishonest. Your edit summary said "trivia", now you're looking for another excuse. In any case, this information can be found anywhere. It isn't trivia, the derogatory claim is bizarre, and it is relevant. Dapi89 (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sale of medals cited to Daily Mail 

message: I noticed this issue on Andy's talk. Please let me understand. We talk about an accident he had with birds, right? I am surprised to find the complete accident without an inline citation. In a GA, really? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It sourced. How many more times? Dapi89 (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source, , only occurs some four sentences later, after the topic has shifted to his retirement. But it nevertheless is sourced (eventually). I've unfortunately felt it necessary to block Dapi89 for the completely unwarranted personal attack that I've redacted above. --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  How would I assume the same source is used for the accident as for the retirement? And the next sentence after retirement refers to a car. Which car? No GA quality, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Not just that, but the . Shocking behaviour, and utterly unaccepteable. You were right to revert. Also notifying User:RexxS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let me understand 

message: Re: . If this is so, how did he transfer ammunition from the jammed cannon to the others? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A Beaufighter in early 1941 would have drum-fed cannon - which would be reloaded by the observer lugging drums about, so it would be possible to fire all the unused drums through the working guns, and even to take a drum from the jammed gun to one of the working guns, assuming it wasn't the drum that jammed - this is of course assuming that this is what was meant (rather than the remaining three guns fired all their ammunition).Nigel Ish (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannon 

message: "Wells, Somerset is quoted, then Burnham Overy is mentioned. This is not possible! It is either "Wells, Somerset" and Burnham-on-Sea, Somerset or Wells-next-the-Sea and Burnham Overy (more accurately Burnham Overy Staithe), Norfolk. I don't know which is meant so haven't altered the text. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Occam's Razor suggests Norfolk; the "the sea north-west of Wells, Somerset" would more likely be referred to as "the Bristol Channel", and any competent writer referring to that stretch of water would be unlikely to mention its relation to the inland city of Wells. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to Wells-next-the-Sea. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Wells

message: "The Luftwaffe began operations at 22:00 that night," - is that UK time, or German? Is it when they took off, arrived over the UK, fired at a British plane, or dropped their first bomb? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No response, so I've removed this wording. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing