User:EnigmaMcmxc/archive9

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Source request
At long last, I have a PDF of the source you requested! Please email me so that I can send it along as an attachment. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 47th (London) Infantry Division
The article 47th (London) Infantry Division you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:47th (London) Infantry Division for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Your edits in the german speking wikipedia
After some bad mannered users reset your improvements of 2nd Armoured Division it seems we have now made it clear that not only are you perfectly correct with your edits but also that their behaviour towards you was completely inacceptable. The admin who helped to intervene here said he would prefer for you to revert the article back to your correct version instead of me doing this, so I would like to invite you over once more. Cheers, --Nico b. (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 46th Infantry Division (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Desert ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/46th_Infantry_Division_%28United_Kingdom%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/46th_Infantry_Division_%28United_Kingdom%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom)
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

F.Y.I. the map in the "General Withdrawal" section is captioned "Cyrenaica location map" but its location is not shown on the map.

Best of luck with the article moving forward.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work on the article, and the heads-up. If there is anything else, ill get back in touch. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 * , thank you :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

23rd (Northumbrian) Division scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the 23rd (Northumbrian) Division article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 29, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/January 29, 2020, but note that I've tweaked the suggested blurb to get it to around 1000 characters and fix a couple of typos anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the article about the Division, "which was raised during the Second World War. This was a second-line formation that was sent to France, during 1940, to provide unskilled labour for rear-area duties and it was promised that they would not to see combat. Once the Germans broke through the Ardennes and crossed the Meuse, the unprepared division was thrown onto the frontline and subsequently mauled. Evacuated at Dunkirk, it returned to the UK where it was broken up as part of a restructuring of the British Army."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Treaty of Versailles
Made the proposed changes to the signatory section of the infobox; please take a look. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom)
The article 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Happy New Year! Hello EnigmaMcmxc: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, --A.S. Brown (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
 * Dear EnigmaMcmxc, I'm sorry for being so late in getting back to you, so please accept my sincere apologies. I was little overwhelmed at the time with various troubles. Sadly the library removed Galbraith's memoirs from the shelves, so I was not able to get the precise quote. But Galbraith in his 1975 book Money whence it came where it went does indicate, albeit in a rather guarded sort of way indicated the principle problem with reparations was political, not economic, which might bring in for the article. You are the only editor other myself who is aware of the distinction between the A, B, and C bonds, which is a matter that other hands seemed to have trouble accepting. One of the problems around here-the most popular explanation, if even it is wrong, is the one that makes in while the unpopular explanation, even if it is true does not. Best wishes for the New Year!--A.S. Brown (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom)
The article 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!
—— SN  54129  17:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I have updated the article accordingly. Cheers :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Greetings Enigma, a belated happy new year!
nmKeith-264 (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Likewise :)

March Madness 2020
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Your GA nomination of World War I reparations
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article World War I reparations you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrClog -- MrClog (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of World War I reparations
The article World War I reparations you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:World War I reparations for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrClog -- MrClog (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Please check ..
.. this edit, especially the year in the second cite. I very nearly hit the revert button .. Philip Trueman (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of World War I reparations
The article World War I reparations you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:World War I reparations for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrClog -- MrClog (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

apropos WP:BOLD and WP:MOS (Stab-in-the-back myth)
Have you read This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not. (MOS:BOLD) and Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term. (WP:R)? Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, you are quite right. My fault.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 15th (Scottish) Infantry Division, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Orford and Newcastle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division
The article 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division
The article 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Division.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

55th (West Lancashire) Division
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article 55th (West Lancashire) Division has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I would have capitalised "Division", as Coop does in the quote in the Cambrai Counterattack section, throughout the article on the basis that it is a shortened version of 55th Division and refers to a specific entity. I did not do this as I suspect it requires consensus. This can easily be done if that is the outcome.

Best of luck with the article moving forward.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work on the article, it is much appreciated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 55th (West Lancashire) Division
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 55th (West Lancashire) Division you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of senior officers of British 2nd Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Leith.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 55th (West Lancashire) Division
The article 55th (West Lancashire) Division you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:55th (West Lancashire) Division for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alma River.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:User A Article
Template:User A Article has been nominated for merging with Template:User A-Class Article. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:User A-class
Template:User A-class has been nominated for merging with Template:User A-Class Article. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you are completely wrong - No consensus
I think you are completely wrong that when you write. "See talk page where this has been discussed in detail and a consensus has been reached that it was an "Allied operational failure" - "Operation Market Garden". You are given sources that say about the failure of the operation. And you want to make it look like it was a "operational failure". If it's supposedly the same thing, then I'll try to replace it. Would you mind?" If that's what I call the result of the operation? "Failure of the operation". 178.155.64.26 (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That particular line was added to the article several years ago. It has been discussed numerous times over the years, if you look back through the archives; no consensus for any other outcome has ever been reached.
 * I don't have every single source ever written about the operation, but I have provided what I have access to to help try and form a consensus per wiki guidelines. If you have other sources, please present them so a new consensus can be reached.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it makes sense to limit yourself to stating the fact that you were wrong when you wrote about "having a consensus". This is absolutely not the case. 93.81.208.111 (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel you need to read through the archives, consensus for what the infobox states now was achieved. Alterations have never found consensus.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's your right to say so, but I don't agree with you. This conclusion I made, among other things, from the experience of communicating with you. 93.81.208.111 (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We do not have to agree. We do have to agree to wiki policy. Wiki policy states we have to use reliable sources and base what we write off of them, and not our feelings, reasoning, or original research.
 * This subject has been brought up several times. At no point, other than what the article currently reflects, as there been a new consensus. You can agree on that point or not, its immaterial.
 * What do the sources say? So far, no one is brining new material to the table. There are numerous sources on the page right now, none of which provide a consensus of historians for some form of German victory (they all beat around the point of its complicated). Even the German official history states that point. Do you have additional sources to add? If so, provide them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to impose my opinion on you and I don't want to use the Wiki as a political forum (which you wanted to accuse me of). I can only repeat that there is no consensus, it is in vain that you try to imagine that there is one. My opinion is that you are looking for "euphonious" formulations from your understanding of patriotism. For example, you came up with a definition of "operational failure" (for MG), something like "almost a victory". This is clearly not a search for truth. 93.81.208.111 (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not accused you of anything, and insults achieve nothing. I will repeat myself once again: what do the sources say? You have yet to provide any. Provide some.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Xmas Enigma and 93.81.208.111, this discussion should be on the article talk page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing
G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Disambiguation link notification for December 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British Expeditionary Force.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Malaya, Eighth Army and Western Desert.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I did not see any information in the article that I felt was unnecessary. I'll try to go through the "See also" articles over the next few days.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

GOCE copy edit of 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom)

 * Thank you for your copyedit of the article. I will take a look over the changes in the next couple of days. I do note, on just a quick look, that the article size has not really changed. When working your way through the article, did you happen to see sections that you feel could have been cut back further as they were too detailed etc.?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was aware that the FAC reviewers found too much detail. I also noted that you had done considerable trimming yourself. I did remove things I thought excessive within the context of what was being discussed, such as a wordy mention of a historian when all that was being pointed out was that German records showed their losses weren't as large as the Allies claimed. I also took out a mention of the Axis objective being Tobruk from a section that was about tactical byplay. If there was too much detail, it might be the many inventories of equipment. I didn't judge that to be excessive within the context of what was being discussed (e.g. the state of the unit's fitness for battle) and thought such inventories could well be valuable indicators of the unit's strength. But perhaps there was too much info on number of tanks as opposed to inventories of other equipment or more time spent descibing troop fitness and morale. As copy editor, I'm here to make what I find clear, coherent, and concise, and to leave trimming to the subject-matter experts. I'll note that in my Encyclopedia Britannica the division is given scant mention ("a divisional headquarters overrun during the second Axis offensive", or something like that). Wavell was a contributor to the EB. He, being an expert on the subject, once described in a few paragraphs what a Wikipedia article devoted >15,000 words to (see Stalemate in Southern Palestine). So, it's hard for me to tell what is too much.
 * One reason for the lack of decrease in size is possibly due to the fact that I did find mentions that were too cryptic and had to be fleshed out, as well as links being placed, although that was relatively minor.
 * Offhand, I didn't find many flaws (after all the article has passed 'A' review). I found that there were paragraphs that were run together and were amenable to splitting. For example, IIRC, there was a paragraph that gave considerable detail on the first division commander and his previous experience, after which the unit's strength was discussed. I split that up, and there were several others. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that feedback, I really do appreciate it!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 12th (Eastern) Infantry Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albert.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 15th (Scottish) Infantry Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Worthington.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

12th (Eastern) Infantry Division
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article 12th (Eastern) Infantry Division has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the article moving forward

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, thank you for your work. It is much appreciated!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Collapsed tables
Dear EnigmaMcmxc. I have seen with interest the A-Class review of the article "List of orders of battle for the British 2nd Division" nominated by you and find that the article was more readable when the tables were collapsed on loading. I understand that MOS:DONTHIDE (also known as MOS:COLLAPSE, i.e. the MOS section "Scrolling lists and collapsible content") is needed because Wikipedia's Mobile Version displays collapsed content as always-shown, which makes that collapsed tables in the main text will disrupt the main text on cell phones, perhaps somewhat less when the collapsed content is at the end. I suspect this is a consequence of avoiding JavaScript in the Mobile Version. I wonder whether this decision is not a bit dated and should not be revised. Most modern cellphones can process JavaScript quite well. Under Android JavaScript is enabled by default. Short of asking for an update to the Mobile Version, I wonder whether the way how on-load collapsible templates (inclusive tables) should not be changed from shown to hidden. Then MOS:DONTHIDE could be dropped. With thanks and greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This hasnt been much of an issue previously for articles that I have worked on, but in those cases the OOB table just supplemented what was in the article so I could get away with them starting collapsed. I just accessed one of those articles on my phone. It did not display the table, and just showed me the information that was inside it instead. The list that I put up for review, well its horrible on my phone! I am going to go make a couple of changes with that in mind. But, I think you are right, it may be time for the guidance to be updated; unless the part about accessibility in the likes of Asia still stands.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 12th (Eastern) Infantry Division
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 12th (Eastern) Infantry Division you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 12th (Eastern) Infantry Division
The article 12th (Eastern) Infantry Division you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:12th (Eastern) Infantry Division for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
The article 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

46th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article 46th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I assume you'll submit it for a GAR before trying for FA. If so, best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good day, and thank you for yet another copyedit! Yes, GAR will be the first step.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive and create a worklist at WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 46th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 46th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 46th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
The article 46th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:46th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

British Egypt
I'm not going to fight any more over this, except to say that it is of course a ridiculous statement to claim that Egypt was an independent country after the 1936 treaty and that British troops were invited to hang out there as if they weren't continuing their colonial policies. Bothersome also is this yelling about "blatant POV pushing"; that text was in there when User:Dapi89 got it relisted as a GA, and, who reviewed the article, said it was neutral--also involved extensively was User:MisterBee1966. I don't think any of them are known as "blatant" POV pushers; if they are, that's news to me. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Its was a GA review, not a more extensive A-Class or FA review (and even then, that doesnt mean things in an article cannot be challenged). Historians generally refer to British-Egypt or British-occupied Egypt when they are talking about the period prior to their independence. Historians discussing the Second World War, generally (although in my experience, without reservation) call Egypt just Egypt, without stating it was some sort of an occupied country akin to German occupied France or some sort of colonial-era occupation. I casually flicked through Weinberg's work on the war, labelled as the best single volume reference work on the war, and he doesn't delve into that kind of discussion; he just calls it Egypt. It was forcing a political point onto the article, when it was not needed (especially in light of the context: a guy fighting for a country that had just occupied half of Europe, and in support of another country that had literally invaded Egypt). I mean, if we want to be picky about accuracy, why was his place of death not listed as Axis-occupied Egypt to begin with (after all, he did die on the Axis side of the line)?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * British troops were stationed in Egypt from 1882, and Britain controlled its administration through advisors, but it remained legally a province of Ottoman Empire until 1914, when Turkey declared war on Britain. That's why it does not appear as part of the Empire on the pre-1914 maps. Consideration was given to outright annexation, but it was decided to declare Egypt a "protectorate". After the war Egypt was granted independence, with Britain retaining control of defence and foreign affairs. These restrictions were lifted by the Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936, which committed Egypt to providing facilities and support to the British in time of war. The concept of "independence" is a complicated one; for most countries of the old British Empire, it was a gradual transition that took place over many years. The stationing of foreign troops in a country, even on a permanent basis, does not make a country "occupied"; it has to be under military rule by a hostile power per the 1907 Hague convention. Under this definition, Egypt was only occupied from 1914 to 1922. So I'm coming down on the side of . My apologies for any trouble I might have caused. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project
Thanks! :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

List of British mobile brigades during the Second World War
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article List of British mobile brigades during the Second World War has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the FLC when you get to it.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have just reviewed the changes, and once again thank you very much for your assistance! It is always greatly appreciated :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So much time has past! :O EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

List of British infantry brigades of the Second World War (1–100)
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article List of British infantry brigades of the Second World War (1–100) has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the FLC when you get to it.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

List of British infantry brigades of the Second World War (101–309 and named)
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article List of List of British infantry brigades of the Second World War (101–309 and named) has also been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the FLC when you get to it.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of British infantry brigades of the Second World War (101–309 and named), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1st Armoured Division.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

TFL notification
Hi, EnigmaMcmxc. I'm just posting to let you know that List of orders of battle for the British 2nd Division – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for December 3. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Tilson-Chowne
Hi, I was perusing your list of commanders of the British 2nd Division and thought I might have a go at making the article for Tilson-Chowne. I think there's definitely enough, if not masses of, information available to warrant the article, but I'm struggling over his name. Oman has him adding Chowne to his existing surname, but Burnham & McGuigan (2010) have him changing from Tilson to Chowne while he was on leave in January 1812, and the Royal Military Calendar agrees with them. I don't have access to the Reid you've cited in the article and so don't know what he has to say, but would be interested to know what your opinion is on what the man's name actually was! Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out, . Reid doesn't have a whole lot, but what he does have is the following:
 * p.42: "Christopher Tilson (dates unknown) Served in Peninsula 1809 and commanded a brigade in 2nd Division at Talavera; went home in December but then returned to Peninsula in 1812 (having change his name to Chowne) and temporarily commanded 2nd Division as Hill's deputy. Commissions: lieutenant-colonel 99th Foot 15th November 1974, half-pay; lieutenant-colonel 44th Foot 24 January 1799; colonel (brevet) 1 January 1800; brigadier-general (Mediterranean) 25 March 1805; major-general 25 April 1808; lieutenant-general 4 June 1813."
 * p.45: "On 14 April Christopher Chowne (formerly known as Christopher Tilson until changing his name as a condition for a fortunate legacy) returned to the army and was officially appointed to command the division 'under Hill'. He was certainly present at Almaraz in May, but otherwise appears to have been elsewhere."
 * Good luck with your article, it will be interesting to see what you are able to put together about the name change (I found the different sources on him to be rather confusing).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Will probably get the main part of the article written first before I worry too much about the name, but as of now I'm leaning towards using Christopher Chowne with other options as redirects. Thanks again, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again, am still working on this. Have most of his service sorted and then it's just family etc. I believe that he left his acting command of 2nd Division and the peninsula as a whole because his removal was requested by Wellington, but that information seems to be in Reid's 2019 Wellington's History of the Peninsular War: Battling Napoleon in Iberia 1808–1814, which again I don't have access to. I'll buy it if necessary, but thought I'd mention it here in case you have access? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I do not have that particular work in my own collection to consult. I did, however, find a library copy here if you are so inclined.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Have found some new sources that need adding too. These describe him as "incompetent" and a "dud", and another discusses how his command of 2nd Division under Hill was actually a way of employing an officer Wellington thought was useless in a safe position. Certainly more to go than I had thought! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That would certainly explain the odd phrasing of commanding the division "under" Hill, for an acting appointment!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Finally finished Christopher Chowne up with the appropriate redirects. Thanks for all the assistance! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive 1 to 8 February 1944
Hi, I'm a graphic worker and I have been working on this request Map of the 4th Ukrainian Front advance during the Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive 1 to 8 February 1944 which was requested by. Unfortunately I lost contact with him so the request is not complete. At the time when I lost contact we were working on day 6 out of 8 so it's pretty close. When requested it was intended for this article here Nikopol%E2%80%93Krivoi_Rog_offensive. I would really like to complete it as there is a lot of time and effort invested in it both from the requester and me.
 * It's one file for each day in SVG. This is a draft of Day-1 so you can see how extensive the maps are.
 * I have left this type of message in quit a few places but so far I haven't found anyone who can help me.
 * So I'm asking if you or anyone you know has the knowledge and possibility to work with me and help completing and finish those maps. It would really mean a lot for me and hopefully also for that article or elsewhere it might be used. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

2nd Division in 1814
Hi, me again I'm afraid. I've just started expanding Sir William Anson, 1st Baronet and was using McGuigan and Burnham's Wellington's Brigade Commanders: Peninsular & Waterloo (2017, Pen & Sword) to find most of his biographical details. On p. 21 the following is written: "'With the army breaking up in May [1814], General Anson was placed in command of the 2nd Division. He commanded until the army was completely disbanded in June and he returned to England.'"

I thought I'd have a check of your list of commanders of the British 2nd Division and noticed that he wasn't mentioned? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that catch! Oman's last order of battle for the division is dated April with Stewart still in command, and Reid does not appear to mention Anson. So, I was completely unaware of having missed one. I have updated the article based off the above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While I'm on a roll, per Burnham and McGuigan The British Army against Napoleon (2010, Frontline) p. 34, Tilson/Chowne was a local lieutenant-general from 11 November 1811. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Another good update to make. I was using Reid, who only noted that he was a major-general and was later prompted. He didn't mention his local rank. So, another update made to ensure accuracy.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Copy edit of List of British deception formations in World War II
Really interesting subject to work on. Following are a few notes on my copy edits. Feel free to revert me. Also, let me know if you'd prefer a second copy editor to take a look at it.

The mix of real and fictional entities require a certain amount of wordiness to avoid confusion. I feel that's probably inescapable but I tried to trim things down a little bit.


 * In total, 36 notional divisions were created although they did not all exist at the same time This is perfectly understandable to me, though I wonder if exist is the best word when referring to fictional entities (particularly in the lead paragraph when the reader is still absorbing the idea).  Perhaps:  employed, used, or put into use?

In the prose sections, I felt that most of the paragraphs were about twice as long as I generally like to see. I just feel that it might discourage the general reader to keep that much in their head at once as a singular line of thought. I tried to break them up in my second edit so the diffs are intelligible, and I rearranged a little of the material with the Commonwealth parts together and most of the Asia parts at the end.

In the tables, I focused on conciseness and making the best use of the columns to conserve horizontal space (and minimize empty whitespace).


 * In the headers, I changed "Source(s)" to "Ref". Another option might be to remove that column and move the reference citation to the end of the Note for each row. When a row had two references, I put a line break between them to conserve horizontal space.
 * To save a bit of column space I tried abbreviating the months in starting and ending dates by adding on to . It's easy enough to do a search-replace if you don't like it. I left the months written in full in the Notes column.
 * When there was a text description of the insignia, I moved that to the Insignia column. (Where images were used, I added alt text, which I believe is required at FLC.)
 * As an example of tightening the prose, note for the Sixth Army: Eastern Command formed the fictitious Sixth Army in 1943, as part of Operation Cockade. The army was intended to pose a threat to any coast of northeastern Europe, but was not used in any deception effort after 1943. German intelligence maintained the army on their order of battle of British forces until the end of the war, and believed it to be based around Luton.  The name of the formation, year it was formed and deception operation can all be taken from the other columns.  So:  "Formed by Eastern Command to pose a threat to any coast of northeastern Europe, it was not actively employed after 1943. German intelligence maintained it on the British order of battle until the end of the war, and believed it to be based around Luton."  I wouldn't object to putting the parenthetic (Cockade) after "Europe".

Other notes:
 * The article Twelfth Army (United Kingdom) mentions Operation Husky. Should this be included in the table?
 * 5th Airborne Division has Jan 1944 in the start column but the Notes say it was created at the end of 1943. This entry also had a long list of its constituent units; I used some brackets for the nested parentheses.
 * 7th Division (Cyprus) – In cases like this I might give an approximate date or date range for when the deception was dropped, with a footnote (typically using and ) explaining the difference of opinion amongst sources. It's just a bit wordy to have all of that in the table.  Similarly with 12th Division (SDF).
 * 9th Armoured Division – The article Operation Fortitude doesn't mention Appendix Y, which makes the piped link a bit confusing. Maybe another place for an explanatory footnote?
 * 10th African Airborne Division – Just want to check if the Buffalo head is an African buffalo (likely), North American bison or Asian water buffalo. (Readers on different continents will likely think of "their" buffalo first.) Similarly with 13th (East African) Division.
 * 12th Division (SDF) On 11 July 1942, the 1st Sudan Defence Force Brigade was redesignated as the 12th Division (SDF). The division was assigned the insignia of the 12th (Eastern) Infantry Division, which had been disbanded in July 1940. The notional division served as a security for Which of these divisions is the notional division referred to in the third sentence?
 * 24th Armoured Brigade The brigade was during the Second Battle of El Alamein. Missing something there. Later, the brigade was redesignated as the 24th Armoured brigade (Dummy Tanks)  Is "(Dummy Tanks)" really included in their name? It would seem to risk spoiling the deception effort.

I appreciate the opportunity to work on this article. Please here and let me know if you have any questions about my edits. If you're reasonably satisfied, I'll close the request at WP:GOCER but will try to be available for any questions through the FLC process. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Thank you so much for the work that you have done and the above feedback. My aim is to review the changes you have made and then address the above points in the coming days. I think I should be ready for the A-Class review process at that point. I believe that means you can close out the request as completed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of commanders of the British 4th Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jean Allard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)