User:EnigmaMcmxc/archive3

Re division name consistency
I'm not convinced it's necessary to change "Panzerlehr" or variants (like "Panzer Lehr") to "Panzerlehrdivision" across all those articles. They also use, for example, "7th Armoured" instead of "the 7th Armoured Division", which is basically the same thing. What do you think? EyeSerene talk 15:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, I could quite often say the same :) You make a good point though - now I think of it I've never seen Panzerlehrdivision in any source either. I wonder if, per WP:NAME ("Article names should be [...] consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources"), the PzLehr article itself should be renamed? EyeSerene talk 17:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You're not the only one, though I'm teaching in about 5 minutes :) Yes, the more I think about it, the more sense a name-change makes. I have no preference for a new article title - I tend to go by a combination of what's most likely to be searched for and the most common English term. I have a feeling it might not be completely uncontroversial; I'm sure the article used to be called something else, so it's probably worth proposing it on the talk page first. I also agree that, if the change goes through, the Normandy articles should be amended to suit. EyeSerene talk 10:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, forgot to mention, that's an impressive piece of work with the V-B casualty section. Nice job :) EyeSerene talk 10:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me; I too had a look through a few books and completely agree that Panzer Lehr is the most-used term.
 * If you don't mind me saying, you need to be careful with things like this - perfectly understandable, but don't let them provoke you ;) I can't do much about our friend as I'm involved, but I've requested an uninvolved admin to look at their edits at ANI, so hopefully we'll see the back of them soon. I think dealing with them long-term will probably mean WP:RBI, including removing their talk-page "contributions", but to ensure we keep the moral high ground it might be best not to jump the gun.
 * Finally, I've just seen Tony's comment on the V-B FAC :( I wonder if I'm too close to the subject to do it justice - I'll have another go, but do you think it might be worth pinging Roger or Maralia to see if they have time to take a look? EyeSerene talk 10:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I went to the ANI page to get the link and found that Cirt has already responded :) The anon (under both their IPs) is blocked for two weeks, but no doubt they'll be back... You've clearly had enough of them, and so have I and I suspect many others too - what do you think about removing their posts as a standard response from now on? EyeSerene talk 10:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's my misgiving about blanking them completely (and I'm reluctant to protect talk-pages for the same reason). I see no problem with removing obviously trollish posts or redacting the personal attacks though, and although I hope it doesn't, eventually it might come to long-term blocks. EyeSerene talk 12:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Roger Davies, though I think he's pretty busy at the moment so Maralia may be the best bet. EyeSerene talk 13:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ranger Steve has commented in our discussion on my talkpage - you might like to take a look :) EyeSerene talk 19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Operation Brevity
I must correct you - the quote is actually from Radio Berlin! There has been now for some time a vandal/fascist (User:Generalmesse) making the rounds on wikipedia with a plethora of socks inserting text about the heroic exploits of the grand Italian Army in WWII... (see alsoCategory:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Generalmesse). His source was all the times the New York Times,... but on closer inspection it turned out that the Times articles in question were actually the communiques of Radio Berlin printed verbatim in the Times! examples:, , , , , ,... I have not seen him doing a lot of his vandalism lately (but as the closely related sock circus around user:Brunodam proves) he is still very active in topics about Italian military history, Italians in Croatia and the Falkland Wars... anyway- in short: the quote is directly taken from Radio Berlin and cited as such in the original New York Times article - but the text of it is not from the New York Times but from the Propaganda Ministerium of Goebbles. a totally unreliable source, which can only be used in the proper context! Therefore I remove the quote now again. If you happen to stumble upon further quotes of this type - delete/revert/report. Don't bother to discuss. (btw. more of this "user" can be found by having a look at user:Giovanni Giove). --noclador (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

== Hello Enigma, very good information you have. Which Uni are you at or were you at? I went to Wloverhampton.. Bruichladdich1(talk) 02:03, 01 April 2010 (UTC)


 * some more proof that it is the same vandal: Generalmesse edits the article, and put the line in question there too . much later an IP puts the quote in the Military History of Italy article and a lot earlier another of his socks began the drummed up story of the bravery of the Italians at Halfaya . --noclador (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Rolf Möbius
Currently I think the person this article pertains to is Rolf Möbius. At least Agte also calls him Rolf Möbius. When I made the change I was under the impression that Mobius is definitely wrong. The internet however is full of a panzer commander of the name Karl Möbius. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: The article mentions a Major Wenck and later the same? person is referred to as Wenke. Are these two different people or one misspelling? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

V-B again
So...second FAC closed :( I'm a bit baffled as to where to go next with this one. I honestly can't see much wrong with the article, and I think the constant demands for copyediting have actually made the overall prose worse. This is no fault of those generous enough to give their time to help out; it's the result of a tweak here, a bit there, etc because due to FAC time pressures copyeditors can't look at the article in its entirety. However, if you want to go again (!) I suppose we could try a milhist PR first?  EyeSerene talk 08:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I left a note on the VB talkpage. I wrote: Agte on page 203 goes into great detail listing the losses on the German side. The heavy Panzer battalion lost 6 Tiger tanks and Panzer-Lehr lost 2 of the 10 it deployed. German personnel losses are named in person for the heavy Panzer battalion (differentiating between KIA and wounded). The human losses for Panzer-Lehr are not quantified. If the English sources indicate 15 tanks lost, can we at least add a footnote stating that German records constitute for 8 losses only? Please let me know how you feel about this? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

V-B
I honestly don't think there's anything glaringly wrong with the article and can't really fathom why it's having such a hard time - it's no different to other articles we've put through FAC - but of course there's always room for improvement so further copyediting is a good idea. Like you, I'm not convinced about presenting the casualties in a table. However, I think the section could possibly be condensed by summarising and footnoting some of the detail. If you don't mind me taking another crack at it, I was planning to wait a week or so and come to it fresh; what I then thought about doing was asking someone like Roger, Karanacs or Awadewit to proofread. If Steve or Maralia are willing to continue though, the more the merrier (as long as we aren't all working at the same time!) EyeSerene talk 08:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to have a go tonight or tomorrow if you think it'll help. I'll make sure to mention anything major on the talk page first though, just so I don't edit conflict or radically alter someone elses revisions!  Merry Christmas, Ranger Steve (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)



MisterBee1966 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Possibly unfree File:6th Armoured Division flash.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:6th Armoured Division flash.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 05:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:XXX Corps 1944-1945 shoulder flash.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:XXX Corps 1944-1945 shoulder flash.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 05:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

== Greetings Enigma, just seen your work on the Charnwood page. Very informative. Hope you're having a proper student new year.... and if not, why not?Keith-264 (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain World War II Armoured Division Structure 1940.png
Regarding the recce regt: it corresponds to the Armoured Car Regt of Organisation III - so if you think it is better to change the symbol and the text to a simple Armoured Car Regt and remove the recce symbol, I will do that. Regarding the makeup of the support group: obviously we should do two graphics one for Organisation II and one for Organisation III - but there are some questions: the text at British Army during World War II says:
 * "2x field artillery regiment, one anti–tank regiment and one anti–aircraft regiment." your source says:
 * 1x RHA Rgt. 1x LAA/Anti Tank Regt. two motor battalions and for the organisation III your source says:
 * 1x RHA RGt and one Anti-tank regt and one LAA regt...the source I used for the graphic (besides the article on wikipedia) is this and it says:
 * 2x Artillery Rgt. and 1x mixed Anti–tank/Light Anti–aircraft Regiment (+ the 2x motorised battalions)

so... could you please help me settle on the exact structure for the support group that I should put into the graphic, before I begin to work on it. thanks, --noclador (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am willing to look into everything that is sourced and perfection in all our articles is my ultimate and only goal :-) so, whenever you need some info (i.e. Italian or German Armies) or find an error, I will always be ready to help and/or correct my graphics accordingly! :-) --noclador (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am on a business trip until Thursday evening and will sit down for wiki-work as soon as I get home; excuse the delay regarding the correction of the graphic, but today and tomorrow my free time is very limited. --noclador (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the graphic now according to the information in the article British Armoured formations of the Second World War - as the info was a lot I created a new graphic named Great Britain World War II Armoured Division Structure 1939. Only one problem remains: for the Machine Gun Company there is no space left in the 1944 graphic... so either we throw something out, lengthen the Div. troop branch of all 3 graphics or do not include the Machine Gun Company... the decision is up to you. --noclador (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Lengthened and slotted in :-) --noclador (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much EnigmaMcmxc for the Graphic Designer's Barnstar :-) and anytime there is more graphics needed- just let me know :-) --noclador (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

British Armoured formations of the Second World War
Wow, I've got this on my watchlist, and it's looking great. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Same from me :) EyeSerene talk 08:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Enigma, would you mind having a look at the Epsom discussion page? I've put a question on and I would be interested in you opinion. Ta.Keith-264 (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

re: Villers-Bocage
You are most welcome; it was about time I was able to (somewhat) repay EyeSerene! :) If you would like further clarification/explaination on any points, or would like me to have another look then to do hesitate to ask. I wish you luck when you decide to have another crack at FAC, and look forward to supporting the article's elevation. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. In the "Planning" section there was an emdash that had spaces around it, and per MoS emdashes should be unspaced. All fixed now, though. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I did make some tweaks the other day, but the PC I was working on decided to update and restart before I'd saved them (bloody Microsoft crap). I'll get on it asap :) EyeSerene talk 12:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

re: Tractable/Hill 262
I'll take a look. If both are using McGilvray, the Hill 262 article is likely to be the more definitive. It was a while ago, but IIRC I noticed the same thing and made some changes to Tractable while I was writing up stuff for Hill 262 from McGilvray; obviously I wasn't thorough enough :P EyeSerene talk 09:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the article and added a note to the talk page. It's something that will need looking into in more detail, but perhaps not while the article is Today's Vandal Magnet :) EyeSerene talk 09:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just seen the book by VIII Corps on offer at £5.20, snapped it up.Keith-264 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

re V-B casualties
No argument with that :) I'm currently going through the stuff you've added to the talk page and incorporating it into the Analysis section. Bearing in mind that I haven't finished, what do you think? (One question btw, the sentence I've added a fact tag to, I wasn't sure if that was your commentary on the talk page or still D'Este) EyeSerene talk 10:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, sounds good. I think it's a point worth making because D'Este et al's claims are so clearly at odds with the actual facts. It would be annoying if we couldn't source that and ran into WP:OR difficulties. EyeSerene talk 11:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! I've just about finished with the analysis section, though I wasn't sure about the ref for that 7th Amd Div history bit at the end so that still needs a cite. It would be good to finish up with a little more to counterbalance D'Este et al - something along the lines of "Viewed in these terms and given Monty's strategic goal of drawing down the German forces to the point where a breakout was feasible, V-B was less of a disaster than many analyses have claimed". Obviously if nothin like that exists, we'll have to live with it :) I'll check Hastings tonight anyway, though I don't imagine he'll have much to say that D'Este hasn't already said. EyeSerene talk 15:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whee! 8 Corps has arrived. Loadsa maps and some good stuff dishing the carpers who had already got the 'the British were rubbish' jibe going. Apropos somewhat less than apocalyptic comments about V-B, Badsey's essay in 'The Normandy Campaign sixty years on' may help.Keith-264 (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Keith :) Dunno how you chaps feel about it, but I think a lot of the problem with writing the Analysis sections in these article is the sources are so limiting in what we can actually say. There are lots of authors that discuss the Normandy campaign in general terms, but if we were to apply their words to individual actions in a way that they don't, the "using two sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in either" clause of WP:SYNTH would give the FAC folks palpitations. DMorpheus (I think) suggested a while back that we try writing an overview of the historical treatment of the campaign, and although he's apparently dropped off the radar I think it may be worth a shot. A proper discussion of the attrition/manoeuvre argument, what Monty did/didn't intend, the forward German defence, the actual usefulness of Caen, the influence of the "Bomber Barons" etc - all related to the phases that historiography has gone through - would be useful, though not an easy article to write. Your thoughts? EyeSerene talk 09:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's the makings of a historiographical article in the Operaton Epsom page. It's difficult when you've done your homework (and can see how derivative and tendentious many of the secondary sources are) to avoid OR and commentary so putting it in a specialist piece may help but won't alter the dilemma. My new 'Operations of 8 Corps', p.79 & 80 reproduces Monty's 'Notes on Second Army Operations 16th July - 18th July'. It's obviously a description of an attrition operation where 8 Corps is a flank guard to the Canadian attack on Caen south of the river. The next paragraph of narrative has, '....Above all it proves that there was never any question of a headlong gallop 'into the blue' by three armoured divisions without, it be noted, any infantry formations supporting them and before the capture of Vaucelles provided, in any event, the firm base permitting such an undertaking to be launched.' Clearly even in 1948 the custard pies were flying. One might speculate that the V-B gig was being run the same way - that armoured operations were supposed to take place in the vicinity of an infantry firm base so that D'Este et al's judgement that it was an attempt to seize Caen is polemic. Can a writer make such a claim and get published? Morphy thought that a clique of pro-Monty crackpots was distorting the narrative in these pages and the 'clique' thought they were putting right myths and legends in a scholarly manner by careful attention to sources. When the sources are inadequate they bring the possibility of a narrative into question.Keith-264 (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well said chaps! I agree with you Keith; when you consult items such as the orders they paint a very very different picture of what Goodwood was and wasnt ... all this talk of the great swan to Paris etc are just clearly not there. What also seems to be at odds are casualties figures - the estimates for German losses; whent he primary sources are consulted the results of Epsom dont look as bad as they do at first glance.
 * Anyhoo, i believe we deffo need this article; i could start putting something together but i think we need a guideline/plan.
 * Section 1: The original plan, Section 2: Monty's grand scheme for things, Section 3: revisionist views. Does that sound like a good start?


 * The more of these articles we do the more I think such an overview article is necessary (incidentally, there's a proposal on the milhist coordinators' talk page to turn Cam's Normandy Team into a milhist special project, so it's quite possible that the articles in this area will attract wider attention in the near future; feel free to comment). I agree with Keith that the section we wrote for Epsom would make a good model to follow: the campaign as it was seen at the time ("Didn't we do well?"); the revisionist phase ("Bit lucky really, weren't we?"); and the post-revisionist phase ("Actually, we did do quite well"). If we could set the various controversies in that context and show how views have changed over time, that might work. However, I like your structure too, so I'm easy :) EyeSerene talk 13:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to sure if you should be annoucing things like that E!
 * I will check out the proposal and chime in too, btw love your overall summary there made me lol :p --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh :) The coords page isn't just for coords, we welcome any input (and besides, who else should be discussing the proposal if not the editors it'll affect?) EyeSerene talk 14:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought your comments made a lot of sense until I misread 'milhist' as 'nihilist' :O)Keith-264 (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant the easy comment E :p--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nihilist... hmmm... that would be why I'm easy, I suppose :) EyeSerene talk 17:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

66th Division and breaking link
Hi EnigmaMcmxc, hope you had a good Christmas holiday. I'm surprised to have to write to you re this, but anyway: when you removed the 'East Lancashire' from the 66th Division link page, you broke the link to the 66th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article. Please try and avoid this in future. Best regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Greetings Earthling; in the Great War the effort to break into enemy defences was usually a slow costly business on a narrow part of the front, which was susceptible to enfilade from the flanks and which cut up the ground captured making a breakout so slow that the defenders could rebuild field defences faster than the attacker could advance. SA Hart's analysis of Monty's Colossal Cracks sums it rather well; narrow front attacks in depth allow the defender to concentrate resources in a small area which gets more and more congested and ploughed up and wide front attacks don't have the weight to overcome C20th weapons which deny areas to the attacker with firepower rather than manpower.Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's more at my page so I don't have to duplicate my answers.Keith-264 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Much appreciated :) EyeSerene talk 13:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Re V-B
A very apposite quote. I've come to the opinion that while our friend is active we're not going to make much progress. I'm involved, so I've requested other eyes on the situation at the milhist coords page; I think we might have to resort to page protection + further blocks to get things back on track. There are still sections of the notes you've added to the talk page that I'd like to include (particularly re whether the attack was ever going to achieve its aims) and I'm working on that Caumont Gap map, so there's a little way to go. We'll get there though :) EyeSerene talk 10:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ack, just seen your latest. Sorry about that - I added the refs and meant to go back over them to consolidate, but forgot. EyeSerene talk 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool - I think once that's done, we'll be about ready for FAC no. 3 :) EyeSerene talk 15:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That should make someone very happy :) EyeSerene talk 13:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

M4 Sherman sources.
Way back at the end of November last year, you added a bunch of references citing Buckley, Reid and Hart in the M4 Sherman article, but didn't seem to add full citations for the books. Could you add them please? Hohum 20:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Epsom
Interesting find. Though I say so myself, I think we all did a damn good job on that article :) EyeSerene talk 08:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

ramming incident
while goodwood, a allied sherman rammed a king tiger and disables him. its not in the article now but funny, isnt it? maybe u can put in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * there are many fotos. iam not wondering about because its was a remarkable picture, but iam not sure about copyright, i searched already the commons section for the 503rd article but there is no german picture. Blablaaa (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

[] Blablaaa (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent talk page comments
I know that User:Blablaaa can be uncivil, but I don't think that the tone of your recent comments on their talk page is helpful. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Re VB looting etc
It's probably worth mentioning, though if you're concerned about the neutrality and speculation of the source you could attribute. Maybe something like "Marie records that after the Germans reoccupied V-B, some soldiers took reprisals against the civilian population in isolated incidents of looting and arson, including the burning a number of houses and shops, and the town hall. Forty notes that such lapses in discipline were severely punished." Your call :) EyeSerene talk 14:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On a related note, how close do you think Operation Goodwood would be to a possible drive for GA/A/FA? Cam (Chat) 05:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Victory Campaign
I saw your note at Operation Normandy - is this the e-book version you're referring to? If not then, well... here's another copy for you! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election
for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Just a quick note to thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. See you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

VB
Happy to. Should have some time this evening, so I'll start nitpicking then! Ranger Steve (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome. Best check my edit summaries for info on the edits - feel free to revert things, they're more suggestions than anything else. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

RE:Vokes
I don't have that one, i can check a few places and contacts of mine to see if they might though... Cam (Chat) 22:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Villers-Bocage
I think we're about ready, with one outstanding issue - do you think the lead needs trimming? EyeSerene talk 18:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think so - we can always make small additions during the FAC if anything else turns up, but I don't believe there's anything missing. EyeSerene talk 11:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tweaked. EyeSerene talk 07:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the book you mentioned Enigma?Keith-264 (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention - I'm happy to have a crack at a tactical map if we can source it, though I'm not sure that we can realistically go into much more detail than the ambush map already there. We can give it a go though if you like. EyeSerene talk 20:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, no probs - same re Sword Beach. EyeSerene talk 20:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Pints all round, finally :) EyeSerene talk 16:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, make mine a dry cider :) EyeSerene talk 15:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Stuff
here maybe some interesting stuff for u: [] Blablaaa (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Stats Available
I would like to be the fly on the wall in #10 today. If you need stats please feel free to inquire @ my talk page.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No. 6 Commando
Hi EnigmaMcmxc, I've responded to your comments at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 6 Commando. Would you mind reviewing my changes and stating whether I've addressed them adequately or not? Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Operation Charnwood
Hi, While I'd normally be happy to look into this kind of dispute, since my indef block of Blablaaa was over-turned, he/she is likely to complain about unfair treatment if I intervene in this matter with an admin hat on. As such, I'd suggest you ask another admin (or admins) to look into this. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Following Blablaaa's invitation to look at the dispute on my talk page, I've gone ahead and reviewed the talk page. I agree that this is another example of their standard behavior of questioning sourced material for no apparent reason. While I'm happy to be quoted as supporting your interpretation, another admin does need to action this. Alternately, you could just ignore Blablaaa when they engage in this kind of discussion. cheers, Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I poked my nose in since I haven't read the Charnwood page for a while. Apart from a few mad commas my only objection to it is that the 'failure' motif which arises from historians having a 'win-lose' view of battles in what are wars of exhaustion (rather than a 'cost-relative to the opponent's cost' view which tries to measure the mutual depletion of military power relative to the combatants' sum of resources in an engagement and the effect this has on the balance of resources between them) doesn't adequately describe what happened. The Allies attacked Caen and occupied it despite German resistance. The attack stopped at the river and was then resumed in Atlantic and Goodwood when the Allies had marshalled their firepower to overwhelm the German defenders as far as possible without allowing the Germans to inflict unsupportable infantry losses on the Allies. This seems an elementary conclusion. German resistance was capable of slowing Allied advances more or less depending what resources they devoted to it but the losses incurred meant that diminishing returns set in within days of the invasion. Looked at like this, Charnwood was another nail in the coffin of the Westheer at a time when the Allied war machine in Normandy was relatively inefficient and hampered by some significant scruples.Keith-264 (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

My two penn'orth: first, apologies that I've only just seen this (I don't edit much over the weekend). Second, it looks like things have blown over now. However, I pretty much agree with Nick/Jim/Keith here and elsewhere, and would echo Nick's advice that if it's not a substantiated objection with reference to sources, I'd ignore it. It's really not worth getting into a slanging match. I'm not really able to act in an admin capacity on those articles, being WP:INVOLVED, but you can always post to ANI or (perhaps better for a more informed intervention) the milhist coords' talk page. Best, EyeSerene talk 11:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, reading the posts on the Milhist page, I just wanted to give Blaablaa a smack. ;p Don't know if that's 'cause his spelling was terrible or because he's a twit, but my money's on "twit".  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 23:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)