User:EnigmaMcmxc/archive5

Falaise pocket
I realise this is a bit late (but better that than never I suppose!) I started tidying up the Falaise pocket article then gave up and mass-reverted back to the last known good version. Hope this is okay (and all's well with you) EyeSerene talk 09:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

General John Crocker
Like yourself, I had a hard time believing the part in his article which said 'Crocker's secondary role in the later months of the war was not due to any loss of confidence in him by Montgomery, but more to the fact that his only son, Wilfrid Crocker, a tank officer in the 5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards, had been killed'. You put in a citation needed but some other editor came along and put in a reference. I believe Crocker's son was killed but the part about his secondary role I think is pure hogwash. So I boldly edited it down. If there's ever a dispute over the edit, I hope you'll support me....William 00:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi William, I have just reviewed my old comments on this issue. I will comment on the talkpage if needed. It does seem to be a rather bold claim made, and personaly i would feel that if it is reinsrted into the article it should only be done with some quality sources and with some explanation i.e. why was he not removed, if the death of his son was effecting him so much or was I Corps dimished role more to do with what tasks 1 Can Army had been assigned etc

Villers-Bocage
Hi EnigmaMcmxc. What's the difference between "companies of a battalion" and "squadrons of a regiment"? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty much nothing at all. Although i realised after i used that as a edit summary that it is not quite accurate. The bottom line is however, the British Army label there armoured units squadrons, whereas the sources state the Germans labeled theres as companys (of either battalions or regiments). RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The German word for 'squadron' (army) is Schwadron, but that word wasn't (and isn't) used for main battle tanks. In WWII the German army had Reiterschwadronen with cavalrymen on horses, Radfahrschwadronen with motorcycles and Schwere Schwadronen with Sd.Kfz.13 or Sd.Kfz.222 armored cars.
 * But in order to let Wikipedia's readers get a better understanding of the units involved, Panzerkompanie should be translated to 'squadron', instead of 'company'. E.g. a Luftwaffe bomber wing/group was called a Kampfgeschwader, but isn't directly translated to 'combat wing', since 'bomber wing' is better understood.


 * However the English-speaking authors Clarke, Ellis, FitzRoy... have decided to translate the Kompanie unit with 14 Tiger tanks to the misleading 'company' - the game is up, and as you mentioned, Wikipedia is obliged to follow the sources. Or use the German word? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The designation of armoured units as squadrons is largely a British convention, as much of the Royal Armoured Corps was converted from cavalry units. (The Royal Tank Regiment used the terms "battalion" and "company" to describe its units during the War.) The article should not be made UK-centric. HLGallon (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi HLGallon, the Germans were facing UK forces at Villers-Bocage, therefore it makes sense to use the UK 'squadron' designation. Other countries use 'squadron'-derived designations, because they too converted cavalry units to armoured units: France (escadron), South America (escuadrón), Netherlands (eskadron), Denmark & Norway (eskadron)... --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not add a note describing the numbers of tanks in a squadron or company or whatever and that the labels vary according to army?Keith-264 (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. When you recently edited 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Hill and James Spens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Scroll down to the bottom of http://orbat.com/site/history/1946-99/index.html, and you will see BR Army artillery and TA 1947; it's in TA 1947. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. When you recently edited 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flushing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

your GAN Rhino tank
Hi,

I've reviewed your nomination and made some comments at Talk:Rhino tank/GA1 for you to address. It's an interesting article, and with a little copy editing and fixing it will be a good article.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You can respond to my review, and I will change it. Did you know that? Fix the problems and it will pass. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings
How have you been keeping?Keith-264 (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Orbat.com reference at 52nd Lowland Division
Sorry about the long delay - a number of talkpage messages came through at the same time, and I missed yours. I've now added the reference. In your experience, also, do you believe these divisions were ever called '4xth (or 5xth) Infantry Division'? I think we've been guilty of Wiki-invention, because as far as I'm aware, they were always, for example, 2nd New Zealand Division, 44th Home Counties Division, 51st Highland Division etc. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update.
 * Officially, as far as i can make out via sources such as Joslen's OOB, they were called, using the 52nd as an example, the 52nd (Lowland) Infatry Division. But i have seen numerous sources call them all sorts of things. I.e. 52nd Division/52 Division, the Lowland Division, 52nd Lowland etcEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that these articles were victims of the process where unit names were standardised a few (about five?) years ago. From my reading, works which cover the 'named' British Commonwealth divisions often use their full name the first time they're mentioned (eg, 51st Highland Division), and then abbreviate it (eg, to 51st Division or Highland Division) when they're subsequently mentioned. They're typically given their full name in orders of battle and the like. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the website ref for the change you made to 44th Home Counties Division, that particular website is *definitely* not a reliable source for division names. It has all kinds of mistakes. The references I've added to deadtree sources bear this out. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * However, page 71 of the order of battle as published by Lt-Col Joslen states that the division *was* called the 44th (Home Counties) Infantry Division during the Second World War. That was the source i used when i edited that page.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

AFV identification
Hey Enigma, long time no see. I thought I'd just draw your attention to this discussion that you may be able to contribute to. Cheers, Ranger Steve   Talk  13:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of British regional nicknames, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St Helens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Colon frenzy
It's not often I use that phrase ;O) Thanks for that, I spent half an hour trying to work out what to change. In a bizarre twist of fate I was looking at some of your writing on the Falaise Gap page earlier. It's been a while, how have you been keeping?Keith-264 (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I cannot complain to much. Everything seems to be on the up and up, just bogged down attempting to finish university. I have had a quick glance at some of the work you have done to various First World War articles, very impressive!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much; it's all your fault for getting me interested in writing articles, rather than just moaning about misplaced commas.;O) I hope uni goes well, I gather it's not the three-year holiday it used to be....Keith-264 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL! I guess it depends were you go and what happens. For me, the last three years have most certainly not been anything near a holiday lol.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad you're on the mend.Keith-264 (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

File:6th Armoured Division flash.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:6th Armoured Division flash.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 56th London: I do not, simply, trust Joslen on this. I looked at his book numerous times before my university library sold it off (grrr!!) and it appears he standardised all the designations of the infantry divisions. In all the references to period literature I've seen, every regionally-drawn infantry division (everywhere from Lancashire to South Africa, including NZ) is always referred to by it's regional designation - 2nd NZ Div, rather than 2nd NZ Inf Div. I would want to see references to individual divisions in period literature/press to confirm my suspicion that the WP:COMMONNAME of the 56th was 56th London, and so forth for all the other divisions. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You've obviously got the book in front of you. The problem is whether for Wikipedia reasons it can be regarded as a reliable source, which for 99.99% it probably can be!! Look, I'm sitting in NZ, without access to the masses of material that would assist a verifiable answer to this question, and I'm not infallible. I would ask that you do some checks beyond Joslen before making page moves back to '[region] Infantry Division', but in accordance with your professional judgment, please feel free to follow up this matter without further consulting me. I'm knee deep in Somalia, Timor, Tanzania, obscure U.S. aviation regiments, and the Red Army and Soviet Ground Forces. Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thankyou; that's very kind of you. Well, then, and completely aside from division designations, what are your current research projects on Wikipedia, just out of interest? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

File:ShermanLingevres.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ShermanLingevres.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Operation Normandy in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Military History's Operation Normandy for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings
Nice to see you up and about.Keith-264 (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Versailles isn't really my field but I'll help out with what little I've got.Keith-264 (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Manikin or Mannequin?
In regards to the correction to Operation Overlord which you reverted. The distinction is usage, not spelling. Are you certain the model of the paratrooper hanging from the church spire is a medical education device, and not simply a life-size human form? The Manikin link is for a medical education device. The article Mannequin is for a generic human form. Please look at both articles and see which link is more accurate. I agree that Wikipedia seems to make a false distinction in spelling, which I am looking further into, however, regardless of the outcome on spelling, there is still a usage distinction. Think of Manikin as Mannequin (Medical). If you insist on the spelling, perhaps the link Manikin would retain the link to the non-medical article while retaining your preferred spelling. Djdubay (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No offense was intended, I was just sticking with the status quo after a casual look over the manikin and mannequin articles. Googing the town and church for the paratrooper dummy, both words are used online. My impression from the articles was the former was for educational means whereas the second is primary for display. To be honest I am not too sure now, which to use. Just for reference here is a close up of one of the dummys, although not the one hanging on the church, from the town: http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotos-g608795-w11-Sainte_Mere_Eglise_Manche_Basse_Normandie_Normandy.html#last . Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * None taken. I figured you were not clear on the point of the change and were focused on the spelling.  I've started work on where I want to take my changes in my sandbox.  The subpage Manikin or Mannequin (Medical) represents proposed changes to the current Mannequin, while the second subpage Transparent men represents a redeveloped version of Manikin.  I think you can see why I assumed that switching your link to Mannequin would be closer to your intent.  If your source specifically uses the "Manikin" spelling, you can always link to the correct article, but keep the spelling by using Manikin .  My main purpose for the edit was actually to clean up the links to Manikin on Special:WhatLinksHere/Manikin, so that any of my upcoming changes wouldn't break other user's pages.  Sorry for the confusion!  Djdubay (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reverted my revision of your edit, so that the Overall article stands at the way you changed it. You clearly seem to know what you are talking about :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Userbox
I was looking through the userbox ideas archive, and found your British Army request. I hope this is OK. Mat ty. 007 19:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Mat ty. 007 18:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

TFAR
I suggested Operation Charnwood for TFA, please trim the blurb, you know it best, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Operation Charnwood
This is a note to let the main editors of Operation Charnwood know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 8, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/July 8, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Operation Charnwood was a Second World War Anglo-Canadian offensive to capture the German-occupied French city of Caen that took place from 8–9 July 1944, during the Battle of Normandy. It was also hoped to forestall the transfer of German armoured units to the American sector of the front. Preceded by a controversial bombing raid that destroyed much of Caen's historic Old City, Charnwood began with three infantry divisions attacking German positions supported by artillery and tanks. British I Corps made gradual progress against the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend and 16th Luftwaffe Field Division. By the end of the first day, the 3rd Canadian and British 3rd and 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Divisions had reached Caen's outskirts. Entering the city the following morning, the Allies encountered resistance from German units withdrawing across the Orne. Carpiquet airfield was captured, and by evening the Allies had reached the Orne's north bank. The operation was then halted as the bridges south were defended or impassable and German reserves were positioned to oppose their crossing. Despite I Corps' losses, Charnwood was a tactical success. Operationally, it achieved mixed results. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=562017781 your edit] to Weimar Republic may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * to the beleaguered allies. Nevertheless, the German armies were still on French and Belgian territory when the war

Precious
  peace treaty

Thank you for quality articles Operation Normandy task force, such as Operation Charnwood, and for developing peace, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Tankies
'Tankies' was the British and Commonwealth terma applied to tank crew. 'Tankers' in an Americansim and has no place in an article referring to the Royal Amroured Corps/ Canadian Armoured Corps of WW2. To British and Canadians, a 'Tanker' is a ship.

Even the BBC and their accurancy and pronunciation department agree this is the case:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01pvbds — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMMTB (talk • contribs) 16:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I am British, and a tanker to me is a person who crews a tank (as well as it being a ship). I was going to write that I have never seen this term before, however I have just checked out John Buckley's British Armour in the Normandy Campaign. He uses it once - to explain why it was used in a quote from a member of 9RTR - and notes that it is a RTR term for crew members. Other than that, the term tanker is used throughout his work. Other than this, I feel that this is the only time I have seen the term in any academic work on the subject, or the NA or NW Europe campaign. Tankie appears to be slang, compared to the universal title of Tanker (akin to the M3 Stuart being the Honey in British slang, but we avoid using the latter term unless it is in a quote). If Buckley's note is accurate, and with the RTR and RTC being two very different beings, then the term is still not justified on the Wittmann page since the regiments involved were all new RTC armoured regiments and not RTR tank regiments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Your draft
I took opportunity to briefly look at your draft of ToV(very briefly). There is one mistake(one that is quite often repeated, even in books). Upper Silesia Plebiscite was never about which country would take Upper Silesia. ToV from the start defined it as a tool to suggest how to divide the area, you can find it in full text of the treaty: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/partiii.asp "On the conclusion of the voting, the number of votes cast in each commune will be communicated by the Commission to the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, with a full report as to the taking of the vote and a recommendation as to the line which ought to be adopted as the frontier of Germany in Upper Silesia. In this recommendation regard will be paid to the wishes of the inhabitants as shown by the vote, and to the geographical and economic conditions of the locality."

As to German ethnic cleansing plans in WW1, some sources you can use:
 * To the Threshold of Power, 1922/33: Origins and Dynamics of the Fascist and Nationalist Socialist Dictatorships, page 151-152
 * Shatterzone of Empires: Coexistence and Violence in the German, Habsburg, Russian, and Ottoman Borderlands by Omer Bartov and Eric D. Weitz page 55 Indiana University Press 2013
 * Immanuel Geiss "Tzw. polski pas graniczny 1914-1918". Warszawa 1964
 * The Red Prince: The Secret Lives of a Habsburg Archduke By Timothy Snyder "On the annexations and ethnic cleansing, see Geiss, Der Polnische Grenzstreifen"
 * Absolute Destruction: Military Culture And The Practices Of War In Imperial Germany Isabel V. Hull page 233 Cornell University Press, 2005

There are plenty more if you wish to have more. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the highlighting the bit about Upper Silesia. I have amended my draft per Article 88 and its annex (the annex, which I failed to read first time around).
 * I plan to upload the draft later today, once I am finished copyediting it. I am a little unsure on were to add the information about the ethnic cleansing plans for the moment. I will get the draft uploaded and then I shall take a look at the sources and see how we can insert this important piece of information into the article. For the moment, I have left a link in the See Also section referring to the Polish strip article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No personal battles on article talk pages
Well, certainly that is not helpful. Take your personal disagreements with me elsewhere. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC))
 * Neither were your comments, you are the one who started the personal insults on the talkpage and via the edit summaries.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You seemed to be bucking for an edit war after two editors said no to your adding 150 kB and completely rewriting the article. I had already asked you to take it to the talk page when you reverted me, just making sure you heard the second time. Discuss this or the article, your choice, but I am done here. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC))