User:Keith-264/archive1

Editing pattern
Hi! Your editing pattern is somewhat unusual for a new editor; you appear to make extensive modifications to articles, marked as minor edits without a summary. If you have previously contributed to Wikipedia (or continue to do so) under a different name or anonymously, would you mind describing the nature of that contribution? Thanks! EdC 21:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, not that new. Would you perhaps take the time to read Edit summary, Minor edit and Etiquette, to get your editing more into line with how we editors tend to prefer to work together? EdC 21:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper Article
Very impressed with your 'minor' edit! Addhoc 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't! Far from minor, too. Guy Hatton 22:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Have to agree with Guy here, those edits made the article much harder to read and in places didn't make sense. 172.145.151.79 20:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please stop making extensive edits and marking them as minor. It disrupts the editing process and makes it difficult to respond to changes to the article. EdC 03:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Jacob Neusner
Given your ability in copy editing, would you consider having a look at the Jacob Neusner article? Addhoc 16:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Unhelpful edits
You need to stop editing or you need to consult a style manual before doing so. You take out commas for no reason and you don't understand how to use a semicolon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.10.240.6 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 28 August 2006

Stop
No more editing until you gain some experience in editing, please! FWIW Bzuk 19:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Take a look at your edits on the last few submissions you have made. When you make what you describe as "minor" edits and they alter or change meanings or context then these edits have to be considered major revisions. Read more about editing and make small changes until you gain confidence in making what are unchallenged and inconsequential edits. I do not see any major information or referencing that you employ and consequently, your edits fall into stylistic commentary which unless it furthers the main thrust of the article, is often left in place but when the edits do not do more than "nit-picking" then the potential for constant reversions will arise. There are already a number of editors and admins that are observing your "MOA" so this comment is meant to be a gentle but well-meaning admonision to observe first, follow the carpenter's motto of "measuring twice before cutting once" and you will find the Wikipedia experience much more gratifying and fun. Cheers Bzuk 20:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC).

Your edit summaries
It is usual to put some "useful" text in the edit summary box, rather than just the name of the article or ~ (which is your signature for use on talk pages themselves, not edit summaries). If you use the edit summary box correctly, it will be of great assistance to your fellow editors. Thanks. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Manual of Style (spelling)
You shouldn't change Canadian spelling of words to American spelling nor should someone change American spelling to Canadian spelling. Please stop that, thank you. Green Squares (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Er what is Canadian spelling? Examples please.Keith-264 (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Canadian English Green Squares (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

edit Green Squares (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Industrial war
Thanks for the note. You're right, it's another interesting subject, though I have to admit I know little about Falkenhayn (other than as the architect Verdun of course!). I'm kind of bogged down with Clausewitz at the moment, which is an interesting coincidence as he's often regarded as the father of industrial war (and by extension, WWI)... though I'm not sure how fair that is. I didn't quite understand your other comment though - are you agreeing or disagreeing that Epsom was the turning point in Normandy, and the Valentine was the best British tank of WWII? (personally I'd go for the Matilda or the Comet, though I suppose it depends what 'best means; the Firefly might qualify too) EyeSerene talk 16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that interesting analysis. I have to admit I'm mostly pro-Monty as well ;) It's perfectly justifiable to argue that, broadly, Overlord went to plan. I don't think anyone would dispute that he always intended a battle of attrition, and that there was little chance of manoeuvre warfare given the strength of the German forces in the Brit/Can sector and their decision to defend so far forwards. Of course, without Monty it may never have happened at all, as he was the one who turned the invasion into a feasible operation, and in my book he deserves great credit for giving no credence to the 'bomber baron' line that Germany could be defeated without taking on its land forces. Some of the politicking that went on at SHAEF was shocking, and although it was perhaps naive of him, I don't blame him in the least for keeping people like Tedder at arm's length. Trouble was, it only worked as long as he was seen to be winning. If attriting the enemy was all he intended from each offensive, he could have spared himself a lot of grief by letting his superiors in on the plan ;) I believe this was his only real fault though; given the gulf in quality between German and Allied armour and the extraordinary ability of German units to maintain a cohesive defence in the face of heavy losses and gaps in the command structure, it's hard to see how else things could have been done. Of course, Hitler played his cards unintelligently, with his insistence on suicidally optimistic counterattacks and 'last man, last bullet' stands - and given the losses the Germans sustained when attacking, maybe a more defensive strategy would have kept Allied losses down... but that's easy to say in hindsight, and at the very least, the British and Canadian offensives kept German attention away from the US sector, and ensured that reinforcements were committed to danger points in the line pretty much as soon as they arrived, so nothing could be built up in reserve. Personally I think that if we'd had a proper 'breakthrough' tank, we might have cracked the nut faster, but as you note with Epsom, given how costly attacking prepared positions defended with AT guns proved to both sides, who knows? EyeSerene talk 14:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Searching
I think what you're after is in your prefs settings. If you click 'my preferences' (at the top of the page), and open the 'Search' tab, there should be a tickbox for 'Disable AJAX suggestions' on the left side of the page. Click to insert a tick, click the 'save' button at the bottom of the page... and job done - search suggestions will no longer show up when typing in the search box.

Hope this helps; if I've misunderstood your question or haven't been clear, feel free to drop me a note ;) All the best, EyeSerene talk 09:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hastings
Yes, he really did write "belatedly thrown into battle" (direct quote), referring to the 9th & 10th SS Pz. I get the impression from his book that he was determined not to give credit to (almost) any commander at divisional level or above, either on the Allied or German side, and he spends most of the book describing how unprepared the Allies were to face the German soldier. IIRC he makes the assertion, at one point, that there was no occasion when Allied troops met German ones on anything like equal terms that the Allies prevailed! He's so strongly of the opinion that Epsom was a breakout attempt that (my personal opinion) he 'forgets' about the ULTRA intercepts, and thus doesn't need to paint the forestalling of II SS Pz Corps' offensive as anything but a happy accident. That said, he's no more partisan than other writers on the Normandy Campaign, and the book is a damn good pop-history read ;) EyeSerene talk 13:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Epsom
Am just re-reading through the conversations regarding the outcome of Epsom, i have noted you stated: Buckley et al point out that if the British were so bad then why were their results better than the Germans? German armoured attacks foundered even more comprehensively than Allied ones for the same reasons Sourced from British Armour in the Normandy Campaign. Do you have a more of a direct quote? On a sidenote, do you know if the paperback version (20 quid) is just as good as the hardback (80 quid)?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just posted this on EyeSerene‎ talk page but wouldnt mind your feedback as well:

Hi there I was bored in work earlier on and have wrote up a conclusion for the Epsom article. It is currently in the talk page awaiting comments. It has included the move of information from the planning section, includes amended information from what was in the last section of the article and has pulled information from all the quotes to assess the operation. Do you have any comments on it? --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Africa WW1
Please see my recent edits--Woogie10w (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

UK casualty figures
UK official casualty figures for 1914-18 lack credibility. An analysis of the 1922 War Office report on casualties and current CWGC figures revealed the following 1-	The total figures for British Empire war dead were given as 908,371. The detailed tables in the report do not support this figure. The authors of the report did not provide any backup for  the often quoted  figure of 908,371 war dead. The figures on supporting schedules are poorly organized and do not tie out to a final total. There is no reconciliation of the figure for missing in action 2-	 The schedule that lists the figure of 908,371 British Empire war dead refers only to ‘soldiers’. The implication is that the RN, the RAF and the Merchant Navy are not included. 3-	The 1931 official Medical History figures on total Army casualties give us statistics on page 12 that add down to 876,084 Army war dead and missing. If you add the RN war dead figure of 32,287 from the 1922 report you arrive at 908,371. 4-	 The RAF casualty figures in the 1922 report are not summarized 5-	The 1931 official Medical History figures on total Army casualties do not include Dominion losses in the Dardanelles campaign. 6-	The CWWC figures for 1914-18 war dead are 1,114,914. This is an increase of 206,543 compared to the 1922 figures. The CWGC does not give us an explanation for the increase. 7-	The names of the dead posted to the CWGC website add down to 1,057,648 not 1,114,914. 8-	The number of civilian deaths on the CWGC website is given as 459, however the 1922 War Office report on casualties lists 1,260 UK civilians killed in air raids. Perhaps the newspapers from that era will give us the identity of the victims. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A chap named Samuel Butler from the CWGC got back to me recently regarding their statistics. I have made updates to the WW1 & WW2 casualties pages to include his information. The figures they have for civilians is for WW 2 only, not including WW 1. The WW 2 data is for those civilians under "Crown Protection" only, that would exclude civilians interned by the Japanese. Have you ever seen figures for these losses in the Far East? I continue to listen to your parliamentary debates on the BBC World Service. I was pleased to hear that your PM is planning to save the world.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Survivors Re-Imagining
I've added a reference to the wording "re-imagining". Please don't remove it again without discussion. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 00:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My edits
If you have issue with them, then be specific on the relevent Talk page. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Psychopathy
As far as I can tell the article is a mess, not least because somebody had a point to make and usedthe article to try and make it, but more because nobody saw fit to remark and prevent it. Regards, WB --90.216.176.11 (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Text of CWGC Reply
This is what they sent me--Woogie10w (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

THE COMMONWEALTH WAR GRAVES COMMISSION

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is charged by Royal Charter to mark and maintain Graves and Memorials to the Missing, and to maintain records of COMMONWEALTH WAR DEAD of the 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 World Wars.

The statistics tabulated in our Annual Report are representative of the number of names commemorated for all servicemen/women of the Armed Forces of the Commonwealth and former U.K. Dependencies, whose death was attributable to their war service. Some auxilliary and civilian organisations are also accorded war grave status if death occurred under certain specified conditions.

COMMONWEALTH WAR DEAD STATISTICS :

The statistics represent :

1.	THOSE WITH A NAMED BURIAL, inclusive of those cremated. 2.	THOSE NAMED ON MEMORIALS, WHO HAVE NO KNOWN OR MAINTAINABLE GRAVE.

1 and 2 are definative of the amount of names recorded on the Casualty Database as Commonwealth War Dead compiled from information provided by the appropriate authorities.

3. 	UNIDENTIFIED WAR GRAVES IN THE CARE OF C.W.G.C. : these have no bearing on the number of persons who died.

4. 	CIVLIAN WAR DEAD 1939-1945 : C.W.G.C. is charged by Royal Charter to compile and maintain a ROLL OF HONOUR of those civilians under Crown Protection who died as a result of enemy actions, in the Second World War only.

THIS IS THE BASIS FOR THE COMPILATION OF C.W.G.C. ANNUAL REPORT STATISTICS : THERE IS NO CLAIM TO COMPARISON WITH ANY OTHER SOURCE OF STATISTICS.

ADDITIONAL STATISTICS LISTED IN THE C.W.G.C. ANNUAL REPORT :

CWGC maintain a level of Non World War burials and Non Commonwealth burials as an agency service on behalf of MoD and other governments or authorities. These are not complete lists of all Non Commonwealth Foreign National / Non World War Dead graves, only those the Commission maintain on behalf of the appropriate Government or Agency, where they lie within or close to a Commission Site. There are many non military civilians within the Non World War records, mainly dependants of Servicemen or Ministry employed civilians etc.

NATIONALITY

The Nationality quoted is that of the Member Government responsible for the maintenance proportion, not the nationality of the individual War Dead. In practice, these are the totals for the military formations claimed by each member as their responsibility.

MEMBER GOVERNMENTS : AUSTRALIA, CANADA, INDIA, NEW ZEALAND, SOUTH AFRICA AND UNITED KINGDOM

COMMONWEALTH WAR DEAD / NON WORLD WAR DEAD

For the purposes of C.W.G.C. the dates of inclusion for Commonwealth War Dead are

WW 1 : 04/08/1914 to 31/08/1921

WW 2	: 03/09/1939 to 31/12/1947

Outside of these dates are classified as NON WORLD WAR DEAD and appear within our records only where the graves are maintained on behalf of M.O.D. A level of burials within the above dates may also be classified as Non World War due to qualification status requirements of some non military or volunteer formations.

Perch
I have exhausted my sources and can find no casualty information for Perch (roughly D-Day/7th June till 14th ish); is there any additional sources you have, which holds this information?


 * I think am pretty much done with the article now. Wanna take a look over the article to see if there are any sections in need of enhancing?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * regarding your question. If my understanding of the German strategy during the Normandy campaign is correct, Perch is well before the Germans abandoned the fluid defence and dug in deep. From my research of the Epsom battles the conclusion of which was the Germans entrenched themselves all along the front line. Prior to Epsom, including the Perch period, they were still hoping to mount massive armoured counterattack i.e. 12th SS, 21st and Pnz Lehr in the opening days of the campaign and then the II SS Panzer Corps thrust towards Bayeux preempted by Epsom.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Copp
Howdy

What book(s) by Copp was you aluring to in the Cobra discussion?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fields of Fire: The Canadians in Normandy by Terry Copp. He has some terse things to say about people who don't look at the terrain before they sound off about 'caution' and 'doctrine'. Careful though because Amazon UK only has a copy @ £20!Keith-264 (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that. I think i may wait until next pay day before i get that then! haha :p --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! – Roger Davies  talk 12:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Charnwood
It will be a help to Cam, he is the chap taking the lead on this one for the momment.

Any info in that book on Perch or Goodwood? (Even Epsom?)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Goodwood and Villers-Bocage
Following Friday am going to recommence work on the Goodwood article and if i can keep motivated with my spare time get it done and dusted pretty sharpish. Following the conclusion of that article ill be working on Villers-Bocage. So any input on either (but for now primarlly the former), as always, is always welcome.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Re your note
Thanks Keith, that review is very interesting. I think there's definitely some stuff we could add to Cam's Totalize article, and I'll be on the lookout for that book (next stop Amazon methinks!) EyeSerene talk 09:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Canadian combat exp
Its been a while since i have read No Holding Back but that review brings allot back. On an interesting note the reviewer mentions how the only Canadian forces with combat experience were the ones in Italy, which iirc from the book, then sent officers (brigade up) etc back to formations stationed in the UK. In comparison the newly formed 11th Armoured Division was given all sorts of trained officers; its somewhere in Dunphies book, but it seems vets on all levels (down to NCOs but ill check on that later) were put into the division to bolster the inexperienced men - wonder why the Canadians didn’t do the same thing on the same level or why they didn’t have OR/NCOs seconded to British formations for combat exp?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Market Garden
Ah, should've been more clear. I took it all into the sandbox and rewrote from the top - nothing after day four is actually mine :) All the stuff I wrote is cited as well, so you can see the difference! Skinny87 (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ghastly uses (pet hates)
Hey Keith

To be honest I don't mind any English if it is clear, concise, and says what it intends to say. So often those kind of ready-made constructions, as I think Orwell called them, just lead you astray into talking gibberish.

Normalcy is in Shakespeare somewhere apparently; certainly it is pre-America. I must admit I am divided, I find it ugly (I'd prefer normality, for no good reason, really), but there is nothing really wrong with it etymologically (decency, for example, forms the same). It can be useful to mark an article out as being US English if there are few other clues.

"Theoretician": One who studies theories. Not just a theorist, one who devises theories. Similar to methodologist/Methodist... no, hang on... methodology, method.

"Close proximity" and "immediate aftermath": yeah just tautology, like "unsolved mysteries". Aftermath maybe has a case, the aftermath can last a lot longer than just being straight afterwards, for example the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (just to pluck one disaster out of the air) still continues, but is no longer immediate. But yes, mostly it is a cliché. Close proximity must pretty much always be a cliché; I worked on proximity weapons systems (those that fire when close to a target) and I can imagine, though have never heard, a very technical sense for it (e.g.. it is within 50cm) but apart from that I can't see it means anything but "close".

Fortunately, that kind of scrubbing up is relatively easy to do, and usually uncontested. Most editors, and certainly the good ones, not only don't mind but are happy that little gnomes clear up things like that after them. Join me doing it!

SimonTrew (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Slightly more seriously, it's also important, I think, to remember that not all readers have a large English vocabulary. To write "close", they will understand (though admittedly I probably chose the wrong word there cos it could be a cathedral close, early closing, achieve closure, whatever) but "proximity"? It is bad enough for them to understand the English in context without having to learn ancient Greek. SimonTrew (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pre-planned, yeah that's a classic. There tend to be repeats of "before before" in various ways, like "prior to being pre-planned for its usage before blah blah blah". I am not sure that your edits kinda slip by unnoticed; I know when someone changes something I've written for some stupidity I've written I do notice and think yeah that's good, that's better put. I am not sure what the Oxford comma is; I tend to be quite sparing with commas but also I don't use them simply as an excuse for overly long sentences. Small issues of style like that I try to leave, if the article is consistent in their use, since it can only start a grammar war otherwise. As I put, my main aims are to write concisely and clearly, I am not going to get het up on where a comma goes. Personally I will put it in one place, and I will move them if they are definitely wrong or some other mark is more appropriate (the good old semicolon perhaps); but that kind of pedantry really can get people's backs up for little gain to anyone. And NO I HAVE NOT READ EATS SHOOTS AND LEAVES SimonTrew (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's the Oxford comma is it. I know what you mean about conversational style; I don't think it's done on purpose, some people just always write like that. I tend to think, hmm, this is a bit too chatty, and make it a little more formal-- and UK written English is probably more formal than US, on the whole, I think (having lived in both countries but please don't ask me to cite references). I have fairly consistent rules on where stops go, the Oxford comma is very much in flux I think, and I just do what seems to make sense: sometimes lack of commas or other punctuation can make nonsense: we had fish and chips and bread and jam after.

Which I guess is another pet hate. Saying "afterwards"when "after" would do, and so on. I also dislike etc and i.e. which actually rarely are seen on Wikipedia; "etc" is probably usually extirpated because if you can't list them then it's not reliable sourcing, but anyway why not just say "and so on" or "that is" (which I always do). Surprisingly many people confuse the two, so, quite simply, just don't use them. I had a phase (not on Wikipedia) of writing &c. and nobody ever understood it, though it means "et cetera". "i.e." is especially problematic as it is singular so when listing several it should strictly be "e.s." (ea sunt) but that is the height of pedantry.

Similarly, and one to add to my hates, is "the former" and "the latter" (when referring to a list). First it should only refer to a list of two items, otherwise it would have to be the more clumsy "the first-most" and "the last-most" or something. But again, with rescanning, one can almost always get rid of this clumsiness; especially "the latter", because it's the thing you just mentioned. Under the same general head comes "respectively", i.e. to give two lists where the items correspond each to each. That may have been good enough for victorians but we have advanced in typography, we can make a table. Most of my tables seem to get removed and put back into plain text, it is an uphill battle to convince people that text doesn't have to be linear any more. Hmm I will brush this up and add it to my hates. SimonTrew (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Charnwood
Can you add a page number to the ref you have added in the Charnwood article sometime soon please. Cheers--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I make mistakes sometimes in my copyediting. Please feel free to change back anything you don't agree with. Cla68 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Goodwood/Greenline/Pomegranate
Just added in info from Copp's book, that you recommended, to the article along with an image i found on the IWM website. What do you think of the prelim section now? Need more work?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that i wont have access to those divisional histories, do you think there is enough information out there, somewhere, that would one day allow these to have their own article?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ive decided, considering there may never be enough informaiton due to inaccess to the sources, for articles on Greenline and Pomegranate, am going to start an article called Second Battle of the Odon.
 * Proposed article structure would be:


 * Background (general info from other articles up to Epsom)
 * Operation Martlet and Epsom (summery + make note that this was the "first battle of the odon")
 * Operation Jupter and what other fighting took place (summery)
 * The Battle (note from Copp about this being the turning point in the campaign)
 * Greenline
 * Pomegranate (vice versa whatever happened first)
 * Aftermath/Conclusion (discussing the outcome of the ops and their role in Goodwood etc)
 * What do you think?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ill throw a quick stub together later then and can proceed from there.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

PIAT
Thanks, I've put that in the PIAT article as it's the only thing I've found about the accuracy of the PIAT - lack of info I'm afraid :( I'm guessing the semi-static refers to pre-Cobra and the breakout, ie during the attempts to take Caen and so forth. It sucks, but there's no other info I can find on PIAT accuracy that's so accurate (ironically!) and specific. do you think the sandbox version is good enough to be pasted into mainspace yet? Skinny87 (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If ity's any help, I found a kinda helpful article to link the armoured skirt to - here; from what I remember, from about June-July onwards, German tanks were fitted with these spaced armour things that detonated charges before they could damage the tank. I know I've read somewhere about them, and they had a special German name, but I can't remember - very frutrating. Skinny87 (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess my idea's are twofold. Firstly, I made sure not to add in French's stuff about 'semi-static warfare' because that's probably POV, but left in the PIAT trials and their results because they are cited to primary documents - so they're definitely not POV. And a discussion just now between myself and Enigma agreed that adding in too many details about PIAT use would overwhelm the article - better they go in actual battle articles and so forth. I'vehad another look and can't find any other details about PIAT accuracy - so maybe that's it? Skinny87 (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, if you want to comment, I'm now proposing on the PIAT talkpage to move my sandbox version of the article into the mainspace article. Skinny87 (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Crikey, sorry Keith, totally forgot, RL's been busy past few days. Thanks for the info, although I think the PIAT article is in good shape now; it just passed as a GA. Skinny87 (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Casualty Stats
Official casualty figures have been subject to critical analysis. For example official Soviet data, for military war dead, tell us that 8.7 million were killed in the war, including 6.9 million confirmed dead in battle and of non battle causes. That leaves 1.8 million missing in action and POW deaths. Independant Russian sources estimate actual MIA are 600,000 plus 2.6 million POW dead for a total of 10.1 million military war dead not counting partisans and militia. In Poland after the war official statistics claimed 6 million war dead, the number was used by historians for years. After the fall of communism scholars in Poland reported that the actual total was 5 million, the offial total included 1 million Poles that remained in the USSR after the country was partitioned in 1945. The German Army historian Rudiger Overmans did an analysis supported by the German government in 2000 that concluded actual German military war dead were 5.3 million not 3.2 million as reported by German statistics collected during the war. In the UK the CWGC researched casualties and has discovered that the official statistics issued after the war missed many war dead. The WW2 casualty page reflects this research. Official statistics have been subjected to critical analysis and have been revised.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Somme Casualties
To answer your question- Check the official figures in the War Office report from 1922. These numbers tell us those killed, wounded and missing during July-Sept 1916. Bear in mind that some of the wounded will die months later and some of the missing are actualy dead and others became POW. Other men died of disease and accidents during the course of the battle. The official stats used by historians need to be viewed with a critical eye--Woogie10w (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Edmonds Official History may have details on casualties by unit that are only summed up in the WO report. I dont have the official history by Edmonds, it has been reprinted. As for German casualties the UK may have been using their own estimates rather than German data. German official data from the 1934 medical history gave figures for the entire western front by month up until July 1918, for 1916 they would have included the battle of Verdun which was going on at the same time. I have these German stats if you need them. Regards.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC) The UK and German data is for the entire western front by month, French data also for western front, is for a span of months in 1916, not just for the Somme battles.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Stay tuned I have some Nrs from other sources you can cite--Woogie10w (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

here are the stats

Battle Somme Casualties From WW1 Databook by Ellis P 272 (See WW1 Cas page for ref details) Uk total 498,000(inc KIA 108,000) France total 195,000 Germany total  420,000

From Chronicle of The First World War Vol 1 by Randal Grey p287 (See WW1 Cas page for ref details) Somme Losses 1 July 1916 -18 nov 1916 British 419,654( 35,939 AUS, 26,574 CAN, 9956NZ,) France 195,000 German 419,989(inc72,901POW

From Clodfelters Warfare & Armed Conflicts p444-446(See WW1 Cas page for ref details) The data in is extensive, very detailed for UK. By UK div involved. I bet he got his stats from the Official history For Germany July 103,000 aug 68,000 sept 140,000 oct 78,500 nov 45,000  Total 434,500Other estimates for Germany range from 236,194 to 600,000 For France July  49,859 aug 18,806  sept 76,147 oct 37,626  nov 20,129  Total 202,567 British July 158,786  aug 58,085  sept 101,313 oct 57,722  nov 39,784  Total 415,690

Is this OK?--Woogie10w (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Go with the Official UK History, the scary thing about Wikipedia is that anybody can plug in a number and leave the original source citation in place. German & UK numbers would not necessarily be in agreement, I can’t say for sure. In future if you need stats don’t hesitate to ask.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

BTY, were your ancestors with the UK forces in WW1?--Woogie10w (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You can check here at the CWGC Debt of Honour Register. --Woogie10w (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I just heard on BBC World Service radio news that the remains of soldiers killed in July 1916 have been discovered.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I depend on BBC World Service for my international news, the US media hopelessly biased.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Klaatu Earthling
I take it from the dates that this was part of the Somme? In which case i would feel the comparison falls flat on its face there :p - coming from a guy who has not seriously read about the Great War and believes Blackadder.

Although my sly comment raises a question i dont believe i have quite got my head around. The weaponary used by both sides was basically the same in both wars; arty, rifles and machine guns. Sure the artillery and infantry tactics used during the Second World War had been updated, refined and well tested in North Africa and Italy before hammering the Odon valley but what is the key difference that made it work in the 40s that failed in 1916? I dont think you could say it is the tank since they dont appear to have the massive effect one pictures of tank warfare during the two months of fighting on the Odon.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * True i was looking at it a win/lose mentaility rather than thinking about attritional warfare. However in the Odon the outpost line was overrun in the main assault, the river was forced and well with a bit of luck the penetration could have occured and the day won; one just doesnt seem to see that happening with the Somme - although one must acknowledge a rather complete lack of knowledge on what actually happened other than the popular notion of 60,000 casualties agaisnt German machine gun posts.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Europe's Last Summer
Yes, Europe’s Last Summer by David Fromkin is the book I was speaking of on the Weinberg page. Not perhaps the most scholarly book written on the subject, but it is only 5 years old(which makes it state of the art by historical standards), and very readable and fast-paced (at least that's one I found). Thank again for the interesting conversation. It is a joy to talk to somebody who is both intelligent and civilized. --A.S. Brown (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Arnhem Typo Corrections
Cheers Keith. When I look through some of my errors I cringe! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

VB
Some contemporary historians conclude that the change in German tactics to holding ground rather than attempting to destroy the landings had more to do with foiling the British manoeuvre than command failings.

I dont recall mentioing this in the article, do you have more info so we can expand and cite in the main text?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Any pages refs for Copp?
 * Cheers for the Copp ref, ill read through that stuff tonight or something. However what particular comment from Badsey was referring to? Do you have a page ref and quote?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Perch
I think Mungo was politley saying that Dempsey was butting his nose in too much, ill re-read it tonight and make sure i have wrote his intentions down correctly. I think you have the book you may wanna have a check to; to me it does seem a harsh critaism since it looks like Dempsey was the one actually getting things moving.

PS apparently barnstars are common to Dutch-German origin families in the US and they decorate their barns with them - hence the name. No ideas why it was taken up as the symbol and name of awards to give out though lol--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Irish war of Independence
Keith, I wasn't taking any of your British imperialist nonsense over there. 86.44.18.40 (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ORS2
Hey Keith,

The book on the above mentioned unit that you have by Terry Copp, does he mention "report no. 17" at all?

It is the report that concludes you were more likely to get yourself killed or burnt alive in a Panzer IV than a Sherman and presented the following information: "80% of Tigers burnt, 63% of Panthers burnt, and 80% of PzIV burnt." That may not be a direct quote from the book or the report though. I believe the report also has information such as the number of hits and number of penetrations required to knock out tanks and the numbers of hits and penetrations required to set them on fire.

The information may be useful here and later on in the article itself to reinforce the Sherman wasnt that shite! lol

Cheers for any help.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * New request. I have just seem the myth of air power but pushed forth in the Operation Overlord article. You will note my voice of concer here: Talk:Operation Overlord but i dont have the evidence. However am sure OSR2 conducted a survey, post campaign, and established most tanks were lost due to infantry, tank on tank engagements or anti tank guns. Would you have a nosey through your book and see if this position is supported so we can address, what i believe to be, a glaring error in that article?

Cheers

PS I should really really buy this book and i think i will lol


 * Sorry about the late reply, cheers for that information! :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Villers-Bocage
However, this perception has recently been challenged with claims that the German switch from offensive to defensive tactics had more influence on the battle's outcome than any British command failings.

I believe it was yourself that may have added this to the lead of the article, applogies if it was not; do you have any additional information or source in regards to above so it can be added to the Analysis section? Cheers --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ill take a good look through the edit history and see what i wrote etc and get back to you.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok i just it was added in after a back and forth between yourself and Morphy boy as a compromise; i cant see anything else in the article about do you remember what the comment was based off?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the previous comments and quotes by yourself in the section indicated as well as the book; i have added quite a bit of material to the Operation Perch article believing this to be the more approbirate area. The Germans did move onto the defensive but that had more influence, from what i have read by Badsey, on the entire campaign rather than the battle? Your thoughts, also do you think that the above quote can be supported in the Villers-Bocage article?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * With the additional comments I have just added to the Perch article, in conjunction with Wilmot's comments that were already in place, do you think we are in a confident position to claim that the operation was a strategic victory for the Allied forces? Most of the negative comments are basically looking at the command mistakes made and the missed opportunity but not the “bigger picture”. Any additional thoughts or information that we can add to either this article or the Villers-Bocage one?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Ashley Hart’s comments in regards to waves of historians work is only too true and I think it will be in the next ten years that new work will come to light re-evaluating the campaign and what took place. For all the progress Forty and Taylor have made – revaluating the battle as an inconclusive tactical engagement and not some uber tank duel that ended up with an armoured division destroyed – we are still missing a proper analysis, in my opinion, of how the whole show effected both sides in the operational and strategic sense; it does seem Badsey has created the right inroad, it just needs to be exploited so we can fully move away from a story about a hook and a tactical battle.

But with that said, working off what we currently have; do any of Badsey comments really effect this battle? Sure the order for no retreats and to roll up the beachhead explains the determined defence and the halting of I Corps attack but I don’t think they factor into V-B as much, he doesn’t really mention it. Your thoughts on this?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Any further thoughts on this issue on how the Badsley comment's translate to the battle? If not i will remove the hidden sentance and put the article forward for FA review.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ill wait till then so we can consult before progressing forward.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ammianus Marcellinus...
Just in reply to your comments on the talk page of Cataphract.

Ammianus was born ib and died in the 4th Century AD. Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Passchendaele
Hmm, it's possible that in my zeal I momentarily slipped into a pattern of thought as dogmatic and categorical as those I've tried to correct. In other words, no, I'm not sure; the question is problematic.

The original editor did not specify whether the losses were qualitatively or quantitatively irreplaceable; the ambiguity implied both, which is certainly incorrect. (Ferguson demonstrated that demographically, Germany had no problem making good its losses right up to the armistice. I do, however, share your caution in citing Ferguson as any kind of unassailable authority on the subject, which of course was not my intent.) Whether the German losses in qualitative terms were quite as catastrophic as implied is another question, but I would be extremely surprised to find any sort of academic/popular consensus. (Also, it strikes me as suspect that the same argument has been used in a very similar manner at Battle of the Somme – and of course for the Spring Offensive of 1918, where the claims ring truer. An army which sustains catastrophic and irreplaceable losses three seasons in a row without collapsing must run on some very special oil. At any rate, the assertion/speculation that "German casualties somehow counted more than (the considerably higher) Allied casualties, ergo Allied victory" was a bizarre and unacceptable infiltration of OR. The preponderance of means and resources enjoyed by the Allies meant that even extremely unwise expenditures and dramatically unfavourable casualty ratios ultimately worked in their favour, but it's a cynical distortion to crown their every move as a "victory" for this reason alone.) Albrecht (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

GREETINGS EVERYONE, I WILL REPLY HERE TO COMMENTS ON THIS PAGE AS I KEEP GETTING LOST CROSSING TO THE WRITER'S PAGE TO REPLY.

EYTHENKEW!Keith-264 (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the impression that German losses are harder to be sure about, partly because they began to conceal them from the Entente (see Edmonds, 'Military Operations 1916' vol 2) and partly because they used different criteria. I wouldn't put it past Ferguson to be facile even before he was employed as finance capitalism's fluffer. Terraine gives average daily losses at 3rd Ypres as less than the Somme so I question the 500,000+ British-Entente figure. It seems to me that the average quality of the German army declined, particularly due to the battering it got in 1916 and that the Anglo-French armies got better equipped, better able to use it and were able to defeat all the methods the Germans used in defence. Why else did they resort to wheezes like bombing London and indiscriminate submarine warfare? I also wonder if it's a good idea to ignore Arras, Messines and the Chemin des Dames gigs. The Germans at Ypres were the survivors of these. Even in 1916 the Germans were filling gaps with over age and under-fit men.

It's also the case that attrition has had a bad name since it worked its peculiar magic on British troops. I haven't noticed much sackcloth and ashes over the dead Zulu of 1879 or the Sudanese of 1898. The relatively short advance at 3rd Ypres had much to do with the effort the Germans made to stop it. The relative cost of this to German war making ability could have been (and I think was) greater than the cost to the Entente of the offensive. I'm reading the British Official History for 1916 vol 2 and like recent work on Normandy '44 it seems clear that German attacks on the Somme had the same problems as the French and British and that they got smashed even more comprehensively than the Entente attacks. Consider also that the Germans had fewer men on the Western Front to lose and attacked less often because they couldn't.

Sadly I don't have my library here so I will have to do a bit of digging. I don't blame you for editing frenzy though, it do get a bit annoying at times ;o). Keith-264 (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a lot here to answer, and just to make sure this doesn't degenerate into a dialogue de sourds (but is it really degeneration when that's the norm on Wikipedia?) I'll enumerate short replies to (what seem to be) the distinct themes:

Caution, that's a word you don't often hear on Wiki ;o). It makes a refereshing change to explore anything to do with WWI outside the English Literature school (Oh the mud, the blood, the poetry!). I do get a bit shirty with people one-sidedly bemoaning the cost of industrial warfare. I'm not trying to be clever though (it comes natural). What I've read by Ferguson leaves me doubting his good faith but I agree it would be wrong to throw the baby out with the bathwater. When I've got a moment I'll look up what Prior and Wilson, Terraine et al have to say. Thanks for replying.Keith-264 (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I would hesitate to dismiss Ferguson so hastily on this particular point (the monograph was explicitly and almost boastfully revisionist, but I'm not aware of these specific figures being called into question); at the same time, further examination would pull us into the orbit of that old-fashioned historiographical red giant about The Cause of Germany's Defeat. To be clear: I would not oppose a more nuanced (and cited would be a start) mutation of the phrase I removed about "irreparable losses."
 * 2) If reliable, published sources revise the German casualties upwards then a more convincing conceptual relationship may be drawn between the relative losses and a "victory" for the attacking side. I would be startled to find such a new interpretation in print, however, owing to the massive paradigmatic inertia and normative dead weight of "Passchendaele."
 * 3) It's clever but a bit unfair to pin criticisms of "attrition victories" to some hypocritical Kiplingesque Eurocentrism or Anglocentrism (I imagine the Official Oral Histories of "Operations on the Tugela, 1879" by Zulu wives and daughters were just as critical and horrified at attrition warfare as our own bespectacled, tophatted historians). I've tried to expose the inherent fallacy in which any operation, however bungled, can always be claimed an Entente victory by virtue of their dramatic material, economic, etc. advantages over the Central Powers. Surely this is a reasonable caution. Albrecht (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

exam
It went very well although i dont find out my results until Mid-December; went in sat down and cracked on with it - never thought three hours would fly over so quickly.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Be wary, the anon you have been speaking to appears to be the same troll; he is using the same silly little terms and everything!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Re your comment
Were you serious? Your comment to the anon struck me as arrogant and dismissive, and this prick has access to the block button. Maybe you need to re-read WP:NPA. EyeSerene talk 00:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of blocking you. I was pointing out that you are subject, as are we all, to Wikipedia's requirements for civil discourse. Given that I'd warned the anon that any further incivility would see them blocked and we actually seemed to be making some progress, your comment wasn't helpful. I gave you what I thought was a friendly reminder not to chuck petrol on a fire that was going out, and your response was frankly something of a surprise - especially from an editor that I've enjoyed working with and whose contributions I respect. As an admin I'm expected to be impartial; I'd be not only remiss but cowardly if I didn't apply the same standards to editors I know and like as to others. If you have such an issue with this, or with Wikipedia's conduct policies, that you can't react in a mature manner to a little gentle correction from a colleague, perhaps you should consider if you have the temperament required to contribute here at all. EyeSerene talk 08:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I can understand that you may have been affronted by my reminder, but I believe any admin (and hopefully most editors) would have done the same. However, if you genuinely think I was out of order and have concerns about my admin actions, please take them to WP:ANI. Personally I think this is getting increasingly silly though. As far as I'm concerned, you've been reminded of our conduct policies and the consequences of breaking them, and no more need be said. EyeSerene talk 10:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Hey, its going alright; cant complain :p--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

VIII Corps
Its an excellent resource, you should love it! Am surprised you have been able to get it so cheapely good for yah! :) Might wanna double check though if its both volumes.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 302 pages.Keith-264 (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems about right for the reprint =] --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It really is a great book, i love it; just a pity i never managed to get going in it - uni and other topics pulling me away from possibly the best corps history i have read ... bearing in mind i have scanned through the two xxx corps ones and a short I corps one (bought the wrong book, it covers I corps history and is not the second world war one! good thing it was dirty cheap lol).
 * I just scanned Buckley's other work and found as you put the less than armegeddon like reference to VB, although i couldnt spot any others in Badsey's essay. If you have something please do chime in though =]--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Well it seems tactical battles were won. Most objectives bar the Plataeu were taken (albeit Passchendaele was a 'second try'). But operational art dictates that for an operational success one must achieve a breakthrough at least. That breakthrough did not occur. So the operation failed. Strategically, it is not clear what the objects were. Haig claimed it was to take the UB bases; but intelligence already knew the UBs were comming mainly from the Baltic and German ports. Haig used this as an excuse to try another decisive breakthrough. The only strategic goal was to get the Germans further away from the ports (from capture or shelling) and the capture of Roulers and cutting the rail networks. But this failed. The question; did this damage the German army enough to call it a strategic success? I would have to say no. The Russian withdrawal led to a redistribution of 42 German divisions to the west. If anything, the Germans had the initiative. the balance of power only altered after the Germans committed strategic suicide in March and April 1918. In the words of Andy Simpson Directing Operations "Only the most ardent British opologist could call it an unqualified [strategic would imply this] victory". Dapi89 (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I think we agree for a tactical victory. But for the British to have succeeded operationally they had to achieve a breakthrough. They broke into the Hindenburg Line, not through it. And they didn not achieve their strategic goals; the claimed Channel ports target, Ghent, roulers, or rolling up the flank - the actual purpose. Strategically the battle wore out the British more than the Germans (but only through the collapse of the Russians). I guess we have different ideas about what operational means. Perhaps we should let the sources decide. Dapi89 (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No probs. For your own (amusement?) info, I hold operational success to have two fuctions, 1. the achievement of the strategic goal, 2. failing that, at the very least the tactical zones (in this case the Hindenburg Line) needed to be fully broken through leaving British forces free to move into the operational depth and establish a new front line there, causing future difficult in future. Dapi89 (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to piggyback onto this discssion; that is one thing i have never understood about the First World War (mainly because i have not researched it like i have the 2nd round) if the big push did create a hole, what happened next? The cavarly punch on through and swan around in the rear but i just cant see that developing into some sort of decsive moment or leading to the encirclement and destruction of large scale forces - it seems it would force the flanks to fall back to create a new frontline creating a sailent and nothing more... back to square one?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:58, 3 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) 08:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Keith, I like your last point. Perhaps if you had info on this it could be included in an aftermath section and would explain the results much more thoroughly. Perhaps it is wise to point out, while GHQ had operational departments for carrying out operations, the British did not have an operation art form until the 1980s - which outlined among other things success and failure of operations and their intentions beside the obvious. So I guess it is difficult to qualify exactly what they would have thought about it.

To our third party: Keith is pretty much right, although I detest Basil Liddell Hart for his writing on the First World War - biased and unfounded, Hart does make some sense on this point. Andy Simpson's The Evolution od Victory: British Battles on the Western Front, 1914-1918 expalins how the British Army overcame this in the long run and so the offensive finally overcame the defensive. The Somme, Passchendaele, Cambrai were part of what more thorough modern research calls the Learning Curve. In essense this lead to full front attacks in shallow depth using sophisticated artillery techniques and massive firepower. Its a lesson that the Germans failed to learn despite watching the British Army's learning process for three years. Dapi89 (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

John Terraine made a big point that it was the only war where the central management didn't have voice contact with the front line. The bits of battles that went well were the ones before the fighting started. Using increasing experience to plan an attack, exploiting the possibilities of new equipment (see SS143 for the infantry platoon as an all arms unit capable of limited manoeuvre by early 1917, even when artillery support wasn't available), rehearsing the infantry on replicas, silent registration of guns and camouflage all lose their effect quickly once it begins so it's no wonder that even a resounding success at the start like Arras could end depressingly with bright prospects replaced by another attritional slog. I think Dapi's right. By mid 1918 the German army was in terminal decline and the ability of the Entente in France ( with a slow beginning in 1917) to fight a larger number of smaller battles at different places, stopping once the Germans had had time to reinforce the area and beginning again elsewhere, exploited this to stop the front seizing up. The more the Germans moved troops to reinforce one point the more often the reinforcements were travelling when they were needed at the front. You may notice that Monty contrived something similar in Normandy, Bluecoat especially. Of course it wasn't until then that the Entente's superiority in artillery and ammunition was so marked that they could do a bite and hold gig from virtually a standing start. I suspect that the infrastructure of roads and rail that allowed it didn't exist much before 1918 either.
 * I'm not sure I agree with Dapi about 'operational art' because I think in the British army it was implicit rather than explicit as it was in the German and US etc armies. I think there's a thesis waiting to be written about much of it being smoke and mirrors for the consumption of hereditary middle-class dullards who don't realise that doctrine is theory for slow learners. Didn't French show that by the early 20s the British had a theory of war distilled from the Great War which proved serviceable in the second?Keith-264 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * E', yes that's pretty much how it evolved. Most of the doctrinal stuff (tactical mostly) came from the Somme battlefield. Sheffield's The Somme is pretty nifty. Perhaps a 'ganda' at that is in order. The Simpson book and the Sheffield book are really short but v. good. Well people like Gary Sheffield will argue that the British Army had operational art, understood it and practiced it. He would say that they did have an operational system with some elements, but I believe (from Sheffield) that officially the BA didn't have a 'written down' version until the 80s. Dapi89 (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No doubt copied off the detested Yanqui:O). I'm still recovering from the shock of reading (Buckley?) that the British in the Big Two had an implict theory of pragmatism so the latitude allowed to officers about how they trained men wasn't the failing it seemed since they could dump something that wasn't working without time consuming referrals to the suits. I haven't seen Simpson's book but Sheffield's books have some thoughful stuff in them.Keith-264 (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just had a look at an old essay; These technological innovations were compiled into doctrinal manuals in 1916-17 - from direct experience on the somme. From SS 143, Instructions for the Training of Platoons for Offensive Action to SS 135, Instructions for the Training of Divisions for Offensive Action the Army stressed integrated and combined arms tactics and placed particular emphasis on the aforementioned tactical weaponry and tactics. Some even came in force in 1916. Dapi89 (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have copies; apart from a section on carrier pigeons(!) you could still use them for training. Reading them made me put the 'coming of age' of the British army back to late 1916 rather than early 1917, despite the arrival in numbers of many of the weapons to fulfill 143 only coming in time for Arras. I have the impression that the army knew what to do with them long before they arrived.Keith-264 (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's more good stuff in Simpson's Directing Operations: British Corps Command on the Western Front, 1914-1918. Sheffield did the foreward. You've got to read it. Its great. I also recommand a much watered down version in his other book. Dapi89 (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's on my Amazon list but I'm hoping for the price to drop or a paperback. 'Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton' is on the way and I'm reading one on the Brusilov offensive by TC Dowling. I've also been dipping into 8 Corps which I got for about a fiver - steal!Keith-264 (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Military Effort
On pages 260-265 in the Military Effort the 1917 casualties total 778,307. The Medical History on page 158-159 battle casualties for 1917 total 750,249.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that readers obtain a copy of the official 1922 UK report on casualties(it has been reprinted) and do their own audit of the figures. The 1922 UK official casualty figures for 1914-18 lack credibility. My analysis of the 1922 War Office report on casualties revealed the following 1-	The total figures for British Empire war dead were given as 908,371. The detailed tables in the report do not support this figure. The authors of the report did not provide any backup for the often quoted figure of 908,371 war dead. The figures on supporting schedules are poorly organized and do not tie out to a final total. There is no reconciliation of the figure for missing in action 2-	 The schedule that lists the figure of 908,371 British Empire war dead refers only to ‘soldiers’. The implication is that the RN, the RAF and the Merchant Navy are not included. 3-	The 1931 official Medical History figures on total Army casualties give us statistics on page 12 that add down to 876,084 Army war dead and missing. If you add the RN war dead figure of 32,287 from the 1922 report you arrive at 908,371. 4-	 The RAF casualty figures in the 1922 report are not summarized 5-	The 1931 official Medical History figures on total Army casualties do not include Dominion losses in the Dardanelles campaign. 6-The figures for the RN(dead & missing of 32,287) and Merchant Navy (14,661) are given in a separate section on Page 339. The RN figures are for the period ending 10/31/1918 7-The figures for the RFC and RAF do not cover the entire war and are for France only 8-The 1931 report is better organized, the figures are for the Army only, include dead and missing less released POW in combat theaters. However the losses of Dominion forces in the Dardanells campaign are not listed because the records were incomplete. 9-I noticed a very interesting coincidence, the 1931 data for total Army dead & missing less released POW was given as 876,084. The 1922 report lists RN dead & missing as 32,287. Add the two numbers and you have 908,371.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the Military Effort online see page 316 for 1917 battles --Woogie10w (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Bofors 40 mm. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 12:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave, what are you on about?Keith-264 (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically, I was referring to your earlier edit/input on the article page of Bofors 40 mm, what you've added makes no sense at all. I mean, you just take a look at the whole context / syntax of that entire paragraph and ask yourself if it makes any sense at all? Another thing, as mentioned in my opening note here, I would prefer that you go to the article page to discuss this first than to keep adding it back, thank you. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 13:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If you try to avoid strangulated bureaucratic pseudo-English I will find fewer reasons to amend your prose. "In the [whatever role"? Come on, you can do better than that, it's straight out of '1984'. 'Shot', surely you meant 'shoot'?Keith-264 (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Somme
Dear Keith,

Two points:


 * 1) I do not claim fiasco as the current "historical consensus," but merely as a dominant intepretation globally (i.e. 1917-2010). Oftentimes a revisionist school in its zeal will swing the pendulum too far the other way, which is what I sense here&mdash;to claim a tactical and strategic victory when the Imperial German Army withdrew divisions from the Somme sector during the battle (using them to overwhelm Romania) leaves one in disbelief. Especially if you recall that one of the Somme Offensive's aims was to rob the German Staff of operational flexibility & ability to profit from its internal lines of communication.
 * 2) My edit in no way implies a fiasco, but rather scales back "Allied victory." That the battle was indecisive is a matter of historical fact (neither army was destroyed, no breakthrough was achieved, etc.); a "victory" can be argued in the Results section Conclusion&mdash;with appropriate citations for and/or against&mdash;but should not be stated outright in the Infobox.

In other words, if the "Allied victory school" is indeed gaining ground, this should absolutely be reflected in the article text. But the Infobox, in its black-and-white, trenchant nature, should not bow completely to this or that scholarly current. Albrecht (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A present-day consensus would indicate that all other interpretations no longer hold water; what I (perhaps clumsily) called a "dominant interpretation globally" simply means a thesis present in the (global) majority of scholarship, contemporary or not. Put simply: I do not think that a handful of revisionist (and I use the word without any slighting connotation) sources are appropriate given the mechanics of the Infobox. I do, however, warmly endorse their full use in the article text (although the Conclusion is, to my mind, already unbalanced, as it trumpets the revisionist thesis while hardly mentioning the 70+ years of scholarship which took a far more pessimistic view). I'm also a little suspicious that a different impression is being put forth than intended by the historians cited, whose thrust seems more to be, "given the respective means and capabilities of the British and German armies, the Somme in the long-term was advantageous to the Entente." To translate this as "strategic victory" is questionable in the extreme: Again, the Romanian campaign&mdash;and the Somme sector divisions were used specifically for this venture&mdash;seems unequivocally to demonstrate the manifest strategic failure of the Somme battle. (And the question of whether "they had any choice" strikes me as academic. Had the greatest danger been on the Somme, the OKL would have had "no choice" but to leave them there, or even to reinforce them.) But again, the disagreement doesn't lie in the validity of your sources, but rather in their presentation/summarization at the top of the article. Albrecht (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We can't exclude the possibility that I'm plain wrong on this one. I still think "tactical and strategic victory" is too strong and net for the Infobox. Maybe we can come up with something more nuanced that still reflects the recent scholarship? Albrecht (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

perch
i wrote this "Casualties of other allied units are unknown." . that a monster division like the 50th is counted as a single division in the box is the perfect example for nonsense. or for bias... Blablaaa (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A "monster division"? bias that as it is counted as a single division? WTF.
 * Dude seriously go read up on things; the 50th was a three brigade division like how the rest of the British infantry divisions were made up: around 18,000 men and 1,000 vehicles (war establishment).
 * Your obviously going to bring up the Commandos, 8 and 56th Brigades; the armour was an XXX Corps assest, the 56th were an indy brigade who floated around between the 7th and 50th before being placed under direct control of XXX Corps on the 17th; as for the commandos they may have came under the command of the 50th for D-Day however everything else points out they were another indy unit.
 * I suggest before you start posting stupid comments around the place and claiming everyone is bias that you actually get your facts right. Whats that term your fond of? Oh yea ... slapped! :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * stupid ? he wrote this on my talk page. when somebody says slapped but got slapped himself then its SLLLLLAAAAAAAPPPPEEEDDDD. never use slapped before u are sure . as u can see here u look like a idiot... lol.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 18:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * DDDDUUUUUUDDDDEEEE you got slapped, shush!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

here for u keiths words on my talk page: "You added something to a passage giving 7th Armd Div and 50th Inf Div losses for June 1944. The 50th Inf Div was about twice the size of a normal division so its 'loss rate' is about 50% lower than the nominal rate." . painful, isnt it?Blablaaa (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Whats painful is reading these replies of yours; so you started an argument over something you have not checked up on. Painful.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

lol bullshit, somebody claims the division had double size... u are making jokes about this but now u see that your friend keith said this lol. i started an arguement based on his claim. please be a man and admit your slappageBlablaaa (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

now u sit before your pc and think " oh no why iam so bimbo, i should have done better research before i started battleing with the king" Blablaaa (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * hahah, you should sit before your PC and look up the meaning of the word "Irony"; you never did your research otherwise you wouldnt have started this or claimed yet again something was BS and bias .... ooooo sssslllllaaaaapppppppeeedd!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

what are u talking ? u explained how noob it is to think the 50th was bigger than normal division, but then u recognized that your friend keath said this. u look like a idiot regardless what u say now. i dont see irony. u sound like a 15 years old shooter boy who got pwnaged in a forum and now tries to look good after everybody laughed about him ^^ Blablaaa (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow just wow. The irony out of you is so unbelievable! Am shocked how you just wont admit you are wrong.
 * You will note i have stated i dont fully agree with Keith's comments but the main point here is that you are throwing around silly accusations - "BS and bias" once again without doing your homework. Who looks the idiot; someone who has pointed out that your wrong (and Keith to an extent yes) or the person who is moaning about how BS it is that a "monster division" is only counted as a single division - even if it was 6 brigades in size it would still be classed as a division because that would be what it was. Panzer Lehr was, iirc, stronger than other panzer divisions should we call it BS and bais that it is also counted as a single division etc?
 * Your last sentance is just so delious!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

btw u should stop commenting a sentence later and put the text directly behind this sentence. u need 30 minuts for a good reply? and lol i said already that i simply based my claim on his claim so stop shittalking now^^ Blablaaa (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

an advice for u : if u go to nick the admin then iam sure he will block me because i humilated u. i think this would be your style. or maybe u delete this here like u have done before? :-D Blablaaa (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe i should post stupid comments on about 55 different talkpages with stupid unsupported lines of crap like you do instead? I think that is your style ;)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

maybe u should simply admit your failure and the following defeat and shut your mouth ? or u go to every article of british battles and write "decisive victory" regardless if they got slapped on the battlefield. or maybe u count understrenght german divisions because u dont want that all the readers know that british always outnumbered their enemies and didnt achieve their obejctives. or maybe u dont mention the millions aircraft in the infoboxes. or maybe u go by a book only to find more critics about a german tanker. noob.... Blablaaa (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

first of all u should say sorry to your friend keith because u called him an idiot. :-)Blablaaa (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So what did i fail at; pointing out that your comments were wrong and unsupported, that you had not done your homework before engaging? All the strawman arguments you can come up will not hide the fact you have ignored the simple fact that i pointed out your claim was unsupported.
 * In fact lets go back to basics; re-read your initial comment and then read the information provided to you (if you want sources, they are mostly the OH, Lt Joslen's OOB and a few others for double checking) showing that it was wrong for you to call the division monster in size, or "BS and bias" to call it a single division. Your comments are unsupported, you havent done your homework. Would it make you feel better if i comment on your talkpage telling Keith how i dont agree with him in regards to the size of the division?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

i not even claim to have knowledge about this division.^^ keith came to me and explained me withour reason that this division was doublesize then i responded its bias to count them as single division. should i go buy a book to check his claimes i only commented his claim. u simple tried to make me looking stupid but u didnt saw the prelude thats all.... . there is no reason to explain your opinion we shittalked a bit and not more, its ok... and no i dont want u to comment keath. Blablaaa (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

and to finish this here: Blablaaa 1 : Enigma 0 Blablaaa (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey you got with the prelude bit, i can admit that. But at least that you admitted that you were completly wrong, uninformed, and that there was no BS or biasness being thrown about. ;) 5-1 cheers Owen.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

because u are the skilled expert for british division, iam not sure but when i look the order of battle i see that the 50th division had two other brigades attached, making 5!!!!!brigades. iam not sure if u understand the word attached. and when i look the perch article is see no infantry brigades mentioned in the box so this brigade is included in the infantry division or u excluded it and faked sources.now, u are the bimbo of the day. Blablaaa (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

5-1 owen ? more world cups more european masterships ? Blablaaa (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

where is the brigade, part of 50th than keath is correct and u are the idiot. or is it independent than u didnt mentioned it in the box and faked sources again... Blablaaa (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL faking sources, 5 brigades, etc etc ? Ok if you would care to relook at the initial drubbing i gave you; the indy inf brigade was swapped between both the 7th and 50th. It was swapped several times during the first 2 weeks of the campaign and then placed under XXX Corps on the 17th. Consider we have sourced the end of Perch being the 14th and the brigade swapped between 2 divisions during this time the infobox is correct and nothing has been faked.
 * The armoured brigade is listed as an indy brigade in the infobox and as for the Commandos everything seems to indicate that they were attached or under the command of the 50th's CO for D-Day alone. The only other time the Commandos are mentioned is when giving background information per say the Canadians; the sources dont mention them involved in the Perch fighting. So again mindless accusations after doing no homework.
 * Care to mention the first time i faked information.... although we have countless examples of you doing so dont we :)
 * Just to carry on with the silly signing offs: 2 WW's and 1 World Cup ;) cheers hun--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Division went to France with four infanry brigades UNDER COMMAND, five artillery regiments, 8th Armoured Brigade and a Commando. This may not have been permanent but for the duration the division was nearly twice the size of a standard division.Keith-264 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * lets wait if enigma says sorry :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 19:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ill play serious tonight; i understand that the division had additional forces attached to it for the assualt however that was it.
 * However we have the gold beach article, unsourced, saying just under 25,000 men landed and i have a source sitting here at home that places it at around 20 but another that agrees with the article - surprisingly most dont mention the number of men that had been landed. Considering the division was reinforced with additional arty units (inc an American regt), beach support units, 79th arm units, the Commandos (apparently only No.47 Commando and 1st RM Arm support Rgt not the entire brigade) the extra infantry brigade and the 8th Arm (minus its motor brigade that was still in the uk) and most landed on the day it highlights the division was not double the size of a regular division.
 * The 4th brigade stayed with the division for four days before being assigned to the 7th for two days, returning to the 50th for three, the 7th for a further two and placed directly under XXX Corps command on the 17th.
 * 8th Arm Bde, landing without its motor brigade, was under command for the assualt only but was officially under the command of XXX Corps ; as an indy brigade within a Corps its suppose to work close with the formations within hence it close support of the 50th during the drive on Tilly and its planned use in reinforcing the 7th for the drive on Villers etc.
 * I.e. i think your both wrong on this one but all 3 of us are arguing over a really really stupid point. Goodnight new york, youve been great! --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Operation Market Garden
See talk page for comment on 82nd Airborn. And any expansion of your comment that D'Estes is inexact or mainly interested in shifting books? His Eisenhower bio seems fairly thorough Hugo999 (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits
The edits related entirely to restoring cited text, that you had modified, and removing an uncited statement. There is enough uncited text in the article that we don't need to introduce any more.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:25, 12 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) 22:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

V-B
Dude 3rd time lucky!!! Featured article candidates/Battle of Villers-Bocage/archive3
 * That would be Henri Marie (or vice versa?)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jerusalem. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ''Changes to the lead are by editorial consensus only; see talk page & its archives for discussions. The existing wording is extensively sourced.'' Hertz1888 (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The accusatory tone of your edit summary was far from neutral. If you seek changes contrary to the consensus, please feel free to participate in the discussions on the article's talk page. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Again you infer; the description was descriptive not an accusation. I suggest you demonstrate how you objectively measure 'tone'.Keith-264 (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Cheers for that Keith, i have a growing list of books to read to get up to speed with the tactics and training of the British Army. But i deffo wanna have a gander at that. Just need to get a essay on how war broke out - along with about a million books on the subject - and then i get "back to work"!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

German Losses
I will provide info later today.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see my post at Talk:Battle of Passchendaele--Woogie10w (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Any sources on Charnwood?
Hey Keith, do you have any sources on Charnwood that discuss the outcome? Would you like to chip in on the list i have posted on the Charnwood talkpage?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Finally had a chance to start skimming through Cirillo's thesis on Market Garden abielt i havent reached the stuff on Market Garden. Some very intresting observations around page 90 onwards on how the Normandy campaign was run - seems more and more historians are coming round to the way of thinking like Hart etc. Seem the crest of the wave has been surpassed and enlightment has arrived?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * An amazing conclusion! Its surprising to see an American lambast SHAEF as he does (further proof that men are able to climb over the issues of nationality to get to the heart of the matter)! His thoughts on the various commanders (air and land) do paint, in my opinion, a new picture of the handling of battle and the entire 1944-45 campaign. His thoughts on the Normandy campaign, and the 3rd Infantry, are also very enlightening. I wonder if he has expanded on his work and went towards publishing his thoughts?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Pity its not for sale, guess ill just have read the FREE thesis instead muah ha haha XD EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice 1 on the typo fix! :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Totalise
One can have many elements that are not fundamental (just ask the Germans)! Air power was key. I've added quotation marks and expanded it a little. Dapi89 (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

German Stats
I am familiar with this site but cannot vouch for the validity of all it's statistics or its conclusions. I do know the owner of the website cherry picked statistics from various sources and formatted them on schedules that they themselves prepared. Regarding the figures for Air-raid and expulsion civilian deaths the site has copied German government data from the 1950's that has been superseded by more recent research. The site has numerous statistics on German military losses, Rudiger Overmans has found these statistics to be unreliable.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I look at the world from the POV of an accountant and always check the numbers. The German stats on that website http://ww2stats.com/index.html are informative. Look at the schedule prepared by the West German government for the Population Balance for Germany in 1937 Borders Wehrmacht losses are 3.760 million; go to the schedule for Expulsions for area outside German borders Wehrmacht dead are 432,000; Austria was another 280,000 and there were 60,000 Wehrmacht dead from Western Europe. These figures of the 1950's adding up to 4,530,000 do not include 232,000 dead in the Volkssturm and other paramilitary units.

The often quoted OKW figures in military histories give total killed of 2,230,300 up to 4/30/45, the Maschke Commission reported POW dead of 1,214,000. These two figures add up to 3,444,300.

Rudiger Overmans found losses were actually 5,318,000, the Overmans research project had German government support. Overmans found that the 1950's estimate of German military losses among ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe was understated in the amount of 344,000. He also included 190,000 dead in the Volkssturm and other paramilitary units outside of Eastern Europe. When you include the 344,000 undercouned in Eastern Europe and include the Volkssturm ect. of 190,000 with the demographic estimate of 4,530,000 we come up to 5,094,000. This is a good cross check that verifies the validity of the Overmans figures and his conclusion that the OKW figures are not reliable.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Re the Russian POWs, those were lucky ones who survived transit and reached the camps in Germany to be counted.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Which figures re:Russian POW are you referring to?--Woogie10w (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting figures. Is anybody using that webpage as a sourcse to edit on Wikipedia?--Woogie10w (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The tables at the website have cherry picked figures from primary source documents. We need a reliable secondary source to analyze that data. The Russian Academy of Science report from 1995 has an essay by Shevalov that cites Soviet documents that indicate 10.2 Soviet citizens(military and civilian) were in German captivity and that 5.9 million were released, 5.2 million returned to the USSR and 700,000 remained in the west. The remaining 4.4 million were dead or missing in German captivity. The debate seems to center around how many military may have died in transit before reaching German POW camps and how many were military personnel on the rolls or conscripted reservists caught in the German dragnet. Also included in the figure were civilians used for forced labor in Germany. The whole topic is a can of worms, my feeling is to let the sleeping dogs alone, they can bark very loud on Wikipedia when awake.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Continuing Somme References Discussion
Continuing the discussion from here, as thanks to The Land's intervention can't really justify it continuing to clutter up the Somme page.
 * I havn't had the opportunity yet to re-read those forums in the depth required to really get to grips with what Dunlop is saying. Although they are particularly interesting. What struct me is those factors that limited the effectiveness of the British artillery (whatever the planned usage) are universal to British forces. So taking the commonally held view that success in the Somme was governed by attacking over a sufficiently broad front with effective artillery preperation, I was struct by the British success in the south. Philpot states that this was due to 'effective bombardment' of 30 Divisions objectives (2010, p. 178). I'd prefer not to use Philpot for this, as his operational analysis isn't the best, but I can't find my P&W. My recollection is that in the south the fire-plan was more concentrated.
 * Essentially, if what Dunlop says is true in the north. Why didn't it apply to the British in the south? Did the limited amount of French artillery support they received make that much difference?
 * Also, I'm not certain Dunlop's logic entirely holds up. To my mind, with poor artillery you would need to fire more rounds to achieve the same objective. Say (Arbitray numbers to help me explain myself) if only 1 in 10 rounds where effective and 5 effective rounds it what is required to achieve the objective, one would have to fire 50 rounds to achieve the objective. Whereas if 2 in 10 rounds where effective, one would only have to fire 25 rounds.
 * So, to my mind, inadequate British artillery means that it was even more important that they get the artillery priorities right. This, IIRC, is a modification of P&Ws argument (the attacks still would have been costly if less ambitious artillery preperations where made); but not a refutation of it (ambition still meant firepower was expended agaisnt secondary objectives when the primary objective had not been effecitve neutralised).User:Iname Imp59.100.140.28 (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I take Dunlop's point. Thanks for the precis. However, I'm not certain I've been convinced in favour of the primacy of a techno-centric explanation. Even in your precis you've admitted that the limitations of British artillery could be adapted to. I'm ATT tending to a synthesised view: the interaction of inadequate equipment, staffs coming to grips with the realities of operations and Haig's intervention towards a more sweeping attack all (in addition to the myriad of other factors, including the Germans skilled defence - which often is seemingly ignored in English accounts) created the conditions that led to the heavy cost of the Somme. There is also a little cultural bias going on: I've been raised in the 'somebody must be at fault' school, and sometimes that tendency to search for a decision on which the failure can be blamed is hard to shake.59.100.140.28 (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Dear Keith, thank you so much for the message. I could be better, but hopefully things will get better. Merry Christmas and best wishes for the new year!--A.S. Brown (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on FN FAL. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Minima c  (talk ) 18:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion at WP:AN3. You can reply there if you wish. You may be in trouble with the three-revert rule. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

OH
Okay fine. I still don't think it warrants adding the US as a combatant. Dapi89 (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Cambrai 1917
Hi Keith.

Go ahead and make your changes. The OH is really quite good on the subject. I hope you make more than the odd edit and decide to go for a more extensive re-write. There are loads of holes in it at the moment. I was hoping you may make some edits re: the origins of the battle, the use and planned use of artillery and infantry - particularly sound ranging. It is important to note 90 percent of the German artillery was removed from the battle after the first salvo (no need for any range-finding bombardment which ruined surprise) as well as the 106 fuze to avoid trashing the ground one is supposed to advance over. Also - logistics. Cambrai triggered the use of large-scale reorganisation in logistical considerations (pioneer battalion organisation, mechanised logistics in tactical zones to keep up the tempo of advance). Huge railways (Eric Campbell Geddes) were factored into the firepower and manoeuvre method used in 1918 (breakthrough, advance, halt when enemy slows it down, dig in, protect gains with artillery cover, use your rail system to shift a fresh corps to another part of the front, start over again with sound-ranging etc etc). So I guess, planning, use of artillery, and lessons taught are in the agenda; particularly the abandonment of the breakthrough offensive for firepower and manoeuvre operations. Hope that is clear. If not, please ask for clarification. Dapi89 (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

My comment at counterpunch re another editor's blocking
Keith, I found the arbitration Rd232 was involved in completely baffling and did not mean to imply that he was in the wrong. It certainly looked like he was not a guilty party in any way. I did not realise he blocked himself rather than was blocked. Re-reading it, it seems my mentioning it on the CP talk page would likely lead to inferences of wrong behaviour on his part, which was not my intention. I feel therefore I should delete what I said as possibly inappropriate, which I will go and do when I've finished this comment. I feel I need therefore to delete your comment in reply, otherwise my deletion of my comment will be pointless. I will do that too, but please be assured that it is not to silence what you said but simply to make amends if I inaccurately implied bad behaviour on another editor's part. Obviously, if you feel differently, please undelete your words. (I stand by my comment on his protecting the status quo, which doesn't seem to me any more ad hominenem than saying my edits are in bad faith, but would be silly to argue over that, so I will delete that along with the comment on the blocking.) I am not going to be on-line for the rest of today.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hill 262
Hi, you don’t happen to have any sources (or know any) that deal with the composition of Polish forces during Operation Tractable and in particular their effort around Hill 262? If so would you pop by the talk page and chime in, were at a bit of a lost end.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hope you are okay! Best wishes.

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Passchendaele
Thank you for your recent edits, they are improving the prose noticably. Please consider using wp:edit comments more, as they help collaboration go smoothly. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl!  21:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have been putting 'more detail' in the box (when I remember) and am happy to discuss my changes with anyone who's interested. The changes have been piecemeal so I don't expect all of them to remain. Sheldon's German sources help make the article less Anglocentric but I think the article needs a few more branches where some of it will end up. I will be adding a bit more from the RAF OH and German sources in English (not as good but there is worthwhile material on Archives.org). I have been experimenting with ref citing so I wouldn't mind some scrutiny of my usage as it's been a while. Thanks

Polygon Wood
The only issue I have is that the section has now become far far far too long. It's to be a summary or the battle, the the context of the larger campaign. The larger focus should be located in the battle page and no more than a paragraph (maybe two) on the campaign page. I personally rarely find quotes to be useful in providing context, but that's just me.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Your recent editing history at CounterPunch shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Second Battle of Passchendaele, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Battle of Langemarck (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) 10:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Battle of Passchendaele, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BEF (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) 10:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear from you Again
Keith, thanks for the links. If you get a chance please check User:Woogie10w. I have many reference works on military history and may be able to provide data for Wikipedia articles. Don't hesitate to leave me a request on my talk page, regards--Woogie10w (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Langemarck
Keith

Just dropped in to offer another source for your article on the 1917 battle.

Have a look at an article by Dr. Robert Thompson,Mud, Blood and Wood, B.E.F Logistics during Third Ypres. It will help fill in some of the blanks on the subject, plus it is useful for any article on the logistical learning curve.

Regards. Dapi89 (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Keith


 * Have a look here here.
 * There is some of it. Here is what i'll do; I will keep an eye on your/my talk page for the next few weeks, and if there is any specific information in relation to this article you need, I'm happy to supply it (of course if it is one of the missing pages).
 * After that I'll have to depart again! Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

War Horse (film)
Today we saw War Horse (film), which just opened in New York. This film has an interesting plot that keeps one in suspense, the characters are true to life, the acting and direction are superb. This is cinema that you won’t want to miss when it opens next month in the UK. Hoping you had a Merry Christmas and wishing you a Happy New Year. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

re: Sceptical
ha ha ha. I guess we never discussed what form of English to employ. I had just assumed British given the most likely audience. Do you have preference one what or the other? I certainly don't, so long as its consistent.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Battle of Pilckem Ridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page II Corps (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) 11:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Gazala
My apologies, it seems my edit to the result at Battle of Gazala kicked off a ruckus that you caught. It came up when I reverted an addition to the result at Western Desert campaign and decided to check the results of the other articles in the campaign box. The issue of how we use the term "decisive" is full of ambiguity, it seems; I raised it here, after a discussion on another page, but there doesn't seem to be a definitive position on it. If you have any ideas, I'd be interested... Xyl 54 (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * “Major”, hah! You’ve made me think about that; are you saying "major" should refer to the “greater” (of two), rather than “great”? I hadn’t really considered it before…
 * Yes, the Crusader result was a mess; a lot of hedging and caveats. It was an Allied victory, in my book, as Gazala was an Allied defeat.
 * The Clausewitz excerpt was interesting ( I hadn’t come across it); is it worth incorporating it into the article we have on Decisive victory? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Stalingrad as a "big Soviet victory"; well, maybe:) Xyl 54 (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Battle of Passchendaele, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Battle of Artois, Chief of the General Staff and British Expeditionary Force (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) 10:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Passchendaele
Keith, a standard link looks like this: Battle of Passchendaele but you can make the text on screen say anything you like, so this 3rd Ypres also points to Battle of Passchendaele Does this answer your question? Hamish59 (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keith, the vertical bar is this |  It is on a standard keyboard next to 'z' and you get it with SHIFT BACKSLASH - hold the SHIFT key and then press the BACKSLASH '\' key.  Hamish59 (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The bit before the vertical bar is the name of the article you with to link to, say "Battle of Passchendaele" and the bit after the vertical bar is the bit thet will appear in your article, say "3rd Ypres" Hamish59 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the one, Keith. You are welcome.  Hamish59 (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Citing question
Keith, if you look at Army of the Niemen you will see a good example. Hit the edit key, and scroll to be the bottom of the window. You will see a "== Notes ==" section and a "==References==" section. The references section has the book I am citing. This block allows me to cite from Cron multiple times as seen further up in the article e.g. " < / r e f >" (remove the spaces and quote marks). The cite is simply the surname, the year published and the page (or use pp=17-21 for a range of pages)   Hamish59 (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Keith. Mostly what I do is to find something simliar to what I am trying to achieve (e.g. sortable tables), then copy and alter as necessary.    Hamish59 (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Foster mounting
Just in case you are interested...

I have a rewrite of the article on the Foster mounting nearing completion in my sandbox - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Soundofmusicals/sandbox which may or may not be of interest. In common with other articles I have worked on from (more or less) scratch like this I am basically writing the text first and will be adding the verifiability/links etc. later - appreciate if you could add any comments you might have, including any possible outright errors you might notice, either to my talk page or the one to my sandbox. Most welcome help of all would be usable references, anything you think I should read etc.

Thanks (and Hi!) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello it's been a while. I'e had a shufti and it looks pretty good to me. I altered a blue link and left a note, hope you don't mind. Would you like me too have a look for sources? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As you will notice, I've done some more tweaking myself - including that "monster" wikilink (don't know quite what happened there!) Yes please - any sources you can find would be really welcome, although I already have a few of the obvious ones, including Woodman. The lack of references in the draft of the "new" article is actually by design at this stage - I plan to insert them all in one king hit when the shape of the article is clearer, using the system I used for the synchronisation and Fokker scare articles. In the meantime... Thanks for your interest! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good for you; I got quite excited once I got over mixing up the Foster with the Scarff Ring. ;O)) Keith-264 (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Lol! my cat's regards to yours! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

WW1 Casualties
I will review @ Western Front and leave my observations on the talk page. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

RT
@Burnley, pls stop phlegmming on my talk page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
I'm very disappointed by this comment. I'm going to have to ask you to step up the constructive engagement and lay off of the acknowledged retaliation before things end up at WP:ANI or WP:AE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for your disappointment and notice another possible generic management manoeuvre. Have you offered the same complaint to Burnley and Marek? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My disappointment is borne from my assessment that you're the primary cause of the nastiness at Talk:RT (TV network) and that when two editors asked you to change your attitude you basically doubled down and indicated that you saw nothing wrong with it. That doesn't lead to anything good. Admin action aside, you're not exactly building consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You have things back to front; I support your amendments to the article and I deplore your comments on the talk page. The Mote and the Beam. Keith-264 (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing my point completely. From time to time you get into disputes with people over content. So you go to the talk page. The purpose of the talk page is to build a consensus supporting your proposed consensus. It's hard to do that when you use the talk page to make snarky, dismissive comments instead of describing what you want in the article and why. This phenomenon occurs regardless of whether you and I agree or disagree on content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't make things worse, I have told you that I retaliated to insults to a limited extent. Are you making the same points to Burnley and Marek?Keith-264 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Why did you retaliate, and how did it advance Wikipedia's goals? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See my explanation on the RT talk page. I have had a look at your talk page and saw that your response to Burnley's bragging was different to what you've dished out to me. The complaints about your editing littering the rest of the page did not make good reading and led me to conclude that I overestimated you. While you remain free to comment on my talk page I will respond no further. I remain available for dialogue on the RT talk page. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice. Well, you have been warned. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add that I grant you the last word. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I know what is going on and I am defending myself. I hope that you bear this in mind and make the same comments to Beyond.... rather than being one sided, since that would be fair. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Three separate talk page comments with personal attacks in all three. I see nothing of the sort at the article talk page from BMK toward you.  Yours were not any kind of defense, just offense.  I note you were warned about similar behavior just a few days ago, different editor, different case.  Seems to becoming a habit.  Please don't revisit that behavior. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  13:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at his edit comments as well? I have taken it to talk, gained dialogue with him but failed to reach consensus due to his obduracy and willingness to resort to insults; I have retaliated. Your intervention is one-sided and unfair; I suggest you look again rather than reiterate a mistaken impression. Notice also that you are overlooking my warnings about his conduct. I doubt I'm the first and sadly won't be the last. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * PS I suggest that you be more cautious about removing messages from your talk page, your motives may be questioned. Keith-264 (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keith, I'm not sure where you get the idea that non-administrators have any duty to be even-handed when addressing disputes. No offense, but it seems to be a way to deflect the conversation away from the topic at hand. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sophistry: in a bizarre twist of fate, Winkelvi has just been barred for three months for edit warring. Keith-264 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)-->

Capture of Assab
Hi, could you specify an e-mail address for me to send the pages about the fall of Assab? Or if there is any other way to send them - they are photos.--Olonia (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Try squeeth@outlook.com regardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.--Olonia (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keith-264 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Siege of Saïo
Hello there again Keith. I once mentioned to you that I wanted to raise the Siege of Saïo to GA status. Well, I'm happy to report that it is currently undergoing review. If you'd be able to clear up some of the reviewer's comments over the material you've contributed to the article it would be much appreciated. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delighted to, regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Giuseppe Arimondi
G'day, I want to publicly thank you for your work on that page. Since my effort is mainly a selective translation from the corresponding Italian Wikipedia article, your copyedits are more than welcome (my english is not so fluent). I'm trying to push the article at least to B-class, so I really appreciate any suggestions. Best regards, Lord Ics (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't much like reviewing so I try to make up for it with cheeky little copy edits, that add to the article. I thought it was a translation so was able to help with the syntax and a few typos. You're welcome to ask me for a look at your writing. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Northeast
Hello Keith- Regarding your revert of my spelling change: What is your basis for keeping the hyphen in "north-east"? Wikipedia articles (Points_of_the_compass, Cardinal_direction) and at least one dictionary seem to disagree with you. Eric talk 12:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Eric, there's a Wiki on it somewhere, I'll try to find it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By "Wiki", do you mean you've seen guidance on the English Wikipedia promoting hyphenation of the adjectival forms of compass directions? I'd be interested to see that. Eric talk 13:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes.Keith-264 (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, let me know when you find it, okay? Eric talk 14:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You can help if you want.Keith-264 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There's this but it isn't what I'm looking for.Keith-264 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ignore the above, it's a national variation "Notice that compound compass points are usually joined in American English, for example northwest, while in British English they are sometimes written as separate words or hyphenated, as in north-west." Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was just about to send you that same link, plus this one: Manual_of_Style. The hyphen looks quaint and archaic to this Yank, in spite of my familiarity with British English, but it ain't no big deal neither. A note re wikilinks (forgive me if you already know): You can simply put everything in the url beyond "...wiki/" in double brackets to avoid generating what looks like an external link. Eric talk 16:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters Thanks for that, I didn't know, I've only just learned the difference between http and https. I prefer the hyphen because I think that the contraction of these two words looks like an abbreviation too far. If you have a page like User:Keith-264/common.js this, with importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js'); you can click a button on the article page and get hyphens where you'd never expect. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yikes, that looks like copy-editing WMD! Eric talk 21:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264 the edit i did in page Battle of Messines (1917) was adding flagicon image not on no of troops — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijay rath (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies babe, I wasn't looking properly. Keith-264 (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

i can also keep on editing the pages again again Vijay rath (talk 10:20 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply, I have mentioned you Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history here. Keith-264 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Hill 60
Hi Keith,

First of all, let me bow down to your knowledge of the theme, which seems to be much bigger than mine :) With this in mind, I have not reverted your edits on the page Battle of Hill 60 (Western Front). However, I'm curious as to why exactly they were necessary. In (almost?) all other pages, there IS a mention of a German Army and in first view, it seems like there may have been divisions that were mostly recruited from one area (as they were in GB) - but I couldn't find references of a real 'Saxon army'. Also: it seems that the Saxon contingents were at least led by commanders from Baden and Württemberg - which would seem to further disprove the 'Saxon army' bit. Assuming your good faith and superior knowledge, can I ask you to look into these questions and clarify them in the text please? I'm looking forward to learning more about this!

Kind regards, Cuoregr (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your generosity, you aren't so bad yourself ;o).there is a division among editors about the nature of the German army in WWI, which boils down to me wanting the national contingents to be treated like the Canadian and Australian corps, part of an army but having a distinct identity within it. Most of the others want German national contingents to be treated as indistinguishable elements of a German Imperial army. I was rather pleased to see that Sheldon (2017) had added some citable information about the autonomy of the 26th Reserve Division on the Somme in 1916, which tends to support my view. I'm adding more info on the Hill 60 page from Lucas and Schmieschek (2015) which I got in March but haven't finished amending articles with information from it. I'm concentrating on getting the 3rd Ypres pages ready for the centenary so only looked at the 1917 section until today. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * To be honest, if there's division among editors, it might be more advisable to *mention* the Saxon heritage of the divisions rather than claiming that "it was a myth there was such a thing as one Imperial Army"? I'm feeling that might be a bit like inviting quarrels in, but that might be just me :) Also, if you find the time, I would suggest you could write an article about these 'state armies' within the German army? It sounds very interesting (I really hadn't heard of that so far), and it would give you and other contributors the chance to use that into articles like Hill 60 and many others? No offence meant - just a suggestion! Kind regards from not too far from Hill 60, Cuoregr (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No-one has questioned it until now ;o) and you seem satisfied. Lucas and Schmieschek have an exposition of the status of the royal armies but it isn't enough for an article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say I'm not really satisfied, but I'm rather uncomfortable in removing something an expert feels so strongly about. Again, if you say that there is division among editors, at least the part about the 'myth' should be removed IMHO. Regarding the claim of a 'Saxon army' itself, I'm also not convinced (as the commanders are said to be not Saxon etc) - but again, also not convinced enough that it is NOT true to remove it by myself against your will. I'm still eager to learn more about this, but it seems hard to find verifiable information about this online. Still hoping to reach a solution with which we would both be happy though :) Cuoregr (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I can add something from Lucas and Schmieschek about the Saxon Army; by the end of the war, it had 19 divisions. Keith-264 (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be very welcome. I'll try to find information to read about this on my summer holidays so I can add to that in the future :) Cuoregr (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You might have to learn German....Keith-264 (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Harvard citation
Personally, I prefer sfn over harvnb, but it was easier for me to do everything with harvnb, cause sfn won't work when we have in an article. I don't mind if someone would replace harvnb with sfn. -- Bojan   Talk  20:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply; I didn't realise that you were trying to preserve some of the earlier citations. I'm even more crap with the ref /ref multi cite method than harvnb. I added another comment to your page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know for the script. Perssonaly, for my eyes it is unpleasant to see various citation styles in articles. Regards. -- Bojan  <font style="background: white" face="Courier" color="black"> Talk  20:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If you want to revise the citations of an article, I suggest you add a User:BokicaK/common.js and install importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');, so you can see warning messages for errors. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought that my actions would be seen as mere cosmetical. I hoped when someone click on referece that doesn't point anywhere, he or she will add ref=harv in cite book templates and/or missing years of publication in harvnb templates. I will help in fixing articles where Harv error: link from... emerged--<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="white"> Bojan  <font style="background: white" face="Courier" color="black"> Talk  22:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I suggest that you leave a note on the talk page when you edit the references so that your intentions are clear. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Turn into reference?
Hi User:Keith-264, could you tell me how you would turn this link into a reference on an article please? 👍--Theo Mandela (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC) * I'd fit the details into this template. Template:Cite book has more details such as |language=Italian. world cat can give you bibliographical details and will give you hyphenated isbns. Call back if you have any more questions. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Keith-264.--Theo Mandela (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Any time babe. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this right?
"In early 1915, Churchill campaigned for an amphibious assault on the Belgian coast in 1914, which was opposed by Lord Kitchener at the War Office and Sir John French commanding the British Expeditionary Force." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill_in_politics:_1900%E2%80%9339#Dardanelles_Campaign )

This doesn't ring a bell. Does it with you? Is it Antwerp and Operation Hush mistakenly rolled into one, or did this actually happen? And did it involve time travel? Hengistmate (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure; there's an entry in the Third Ypres page but Churchill's involvement is more Paul Turtle's field. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OH 1917 II has him lobbying for a Flanders gig on 7 December 1914. p. 1Keith-264 (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, well.

"Churchill even suggested an amphibious landing at Zeebrugge." Anglo-French Relations and Strategy 0n the Western Front - W.J. Philpott.

"What Churchill had in mind was an amphibious assault on the German coast through Schleswig-Holstein, with a preliminary operation to seize the island of Borkum as a base for theses operations." The British Army and the First World War - Beckett, Bowman, Connelly.

Or an Anglo-Russian amphipious landing in the Baltic, and then on to Berlin - Churchill: An Unruly Life, Norman Rose

So something clearly went on, although the details conflict somewhat. One lives and learns. Ta. MfG Hengistmate (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

rm bogus claim

Third Ypres
Thank you for your comment. I resisted the temptation to mock the bully. The Australian official history treats 9 and 12 October as Passchendaele I and II see https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/RCDIG1069753/ Chapters XXI and XXII. However, the British Official History title page uses Third Ypres (Passchendaele) which I would find acceptable. For another time. Anthony Staunton (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

London Gazette
Please can you provide an example page of an edit that has given a warning, because the few I have reviewed since I saw you posting to my talk page (such as Dave Glaser), do not seem to generate such a warning, so I suspect it is something else in that specific edit. -- PBS (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I have traced it! I presume you are talking about articles like Operation Compass (history)). The edit I made to the page does not affect the ref message if you look at the article before my edit you will see the same messages 13:01, 21 April 2017‎ by Chewings72.

The message appears because you have turned on:  or something similar. It is cause by an alteration to the template that now by default set the ref to "Gazette issue" so that it works with short citations. In the case of Operation Compass it is flagging an error that in the references section there is a source that is not cited. The Gazette sources either need to be cited or move into further reading. If you would just like the message to go away all that you need to do (and this is true for many such templates eg ) or ) is to add . -- PBS (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the heads up. After some weeks of discussion, the new code for was copied from the sandbox into the template today, and neither the author of the changes or myself remembered to update the text at the top of that hidden category (sorry for that). As you can see I have also fixed the parameters to template:London Gazette on the Operation Compass page (thanks for the thanks, but it was the least I could do for forgetting to update the documentation).
 * The changes we have introduced should be the last for some time. What has been done (and I do it for a lot of template), is to make a wrapper around one of the standard templates in this case ,
 * it simplifies the code makes it much easier to maintain
 * it means that new parameters can be added quickly (for example an editor wanted a quote parameter added to the template. Once it was converted that took minutes to add. I initially did the conversion to add in ref= parameter, again once the conversion was done it took less than a minute to add it.
 * testing is easier because once the parameter content is passed through to the standard template, it needs no further testing because it has been tested in the standard template.
 * WP:LUA citation module error messages are thrown in for free (that won't be turned on with the Gazette template until the next release).
 * If an editor knows how to add one of the standard templates like then using one of these wrapper templates is easier, because the parameters are familiar. Ie page= and pages= are well known, while startpage= and endpage= are not, so if an editor only occasionally adds a Gazette entry, they are more likely to remember to use page= than startpage=.
 * It also makes AWB/bot maintenance easier.
 * -- PBS (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I noticed it after doing a bit of spring cleaning; the Gazette references have always been a bit recondite for me so I'm glad that someone knows what he's doing. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack based on editor's ethnicity or nationality
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ethnicity is a euphemism for race, it's clearly wrong here but now you've reverted for a valid reason. Keith-264 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Token of appreciation
Thanks babe but the only tokens I like have Cotes du Rhone labels on them. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Stalingrad
Hi, next time you fix refs please double check you did not break any. A few were broken on Battle of Stalingrad but I fixed them. thanks --<span style="font-weight:bold;font-variant:small-caps;color:#FFFFFF;background-color:#F49259;letter-spacing:1pt;">Jennica ✿ / talk 17:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Apols, the harvnb style is harder than I thought.Keith-264 (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on Battle of France
Hello, Keith-264, I noticed you seem to watch the Battle of France article. I've noticed some problems with the article and I wondered if you'd be willing to discuss them. (Yes I could just make the changes myself, but due to my long experience with other editor's prejudice against IP editors, I am loath to make lots of changes if someone is simply going to revert them). I realize you may be too busy to make time to discuss this, but the article could use some corrections. Looking forward to your reply...

BYW, what do you think about the correct translation of German General ranks? __209.179.48.225 (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about translating ranks so I tend to follow the precedent of the article. I think that the article has a long way to go so if you have any ideas please share. Note though that I'm avoiding but commitments until I get the last of the Third Ypres articles finished. There are 240 page watchers so you won't go short. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll do that on the article's Talk page someday soon. One last question: where would you recommend starting a discussion to find consensus (yeah sure!) on the correct translation of the German General ranks? Much obliged. __209.179.48.225 (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history here is a good place to start, there have probably been discussions that someone will link to. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * When you find it I will join you. A number of ranks are historically translated, in my personal opinion, poorly; also, as you know, there were a number of equivalent full General ranks ; General der Infanterie, Panzertruppen, Artillerie, etc., which are often shortened and ideally should not be.--<b style="color:red;">Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 21:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Greetings I'm back from a little local difficulty; Category:Military ranks of Germany might be helpful. Do articles in English naturally need the full detail of title which are equivalent ranks? Keith-264 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating 1RR in an A-I covered section on RT (TV network), you have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC) <p style="line-height: 90%;"> Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

You've provided no grounds to believe the arbitration enforcement was handled incorrectly, so there's really nothing to copy over. If you'd like to modify your request and specifically point out why you did not violate 1RR, that then could be copied over. --Yamla (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Did this, no reply. Keith-264 (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In response to your email -- yes, the block is now expired, so you're free to edit. Please be wary of the 1RR rule for the Arab-Israeli conflict going forward, whether it's an article solely about the subject or a subsection about it on an unrelated article. Thank you, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks babe, please don't use ideological and inaccurate terms like Arab-Israeli conflict and please take more care not to be co-opted by editor caucuses. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Still blocked. Keith-264 (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Anyone?Keith-264 (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that the least I should be able to expect is that people who block me will make as much effort to act on an unblocking decision as they did to punish me in the first place. Keith-264 (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any grounds for believing that the people you refer to have seen your unblock requests here? Is there evidence that they have looked at this page since you posted them? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I did not block you but did lift your autoblock, above. You should be able to edit now. --Yamla (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I know and I'm grateful that you stepped in on Roem's behalf. I can get back to work now. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Siege of Tobruk


Keith, as far as I'm aware WP:MOS doesn't preclude bulleted/numbered lists, but I appreciate that some people dislike them. The format was less of an issue for me than the text that you reverted to, which I have just had another crack at (minus bullets).

I assume this edit was unintentional in some way? I mean it was an "Allied victory" – even the infobox lists Australia, United Kingdom, India, Poland, Czechoslovakia as combatants. And the term "Allies" was in use as a collective term before the US got involved – as this excellent poster from mid-1941 shows. Cheers.

Grant &#124;  Talk  13:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See Tobruk talk page for replies. Keith-264 (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Friendly advice
Thanks for the suggestions about editing at the other talk page. I would point out, though, that I've been editing Wikipedia for 14 years and an administrator for 10, although of course I make errors (often) and am always willing to take advice.

Likewise, for your own convenience as well as that of other editors, I feel that need to make observations about three major aspects of editing under Wikipedia policy.

I urge you strongly to read (or re-read) WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and Reverting, especially this bit: "If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good faith effort to reword instead of reverting it [emphasis added]." That is, the "Undo" tool exists mainly to address obvious vandalism and not for blanket/wholesale reversions of good faith contributions. And on that note...
 * Fixing a problem & using "Undo"

These are obviously a good thing, although you need to bear in mind that any copy-editing, rewording or newly-added text may be covered by previously-existing citations. They are also not always essential – otherwise every sentence on Wikipedia would have one, or a "citation needed" tag. In future please use maintenance tags such as "citation needed". Also, the absence of a citation is not an excuse to revert – see the paragraph above.
 * Citations

One of my history professors used to say "bias is a good thing", i.e. it's normal and is the basis of a good academic argument, but as you know we have to abide by a different set of rules here.
 * Neutral language & avoiding personal biases

An insistence on a particular wording or term, especially in infoboxes, that is either narrow/exclusive or ambiguous (e.g. "British" can be both), over broader and more inclusive terms (e.g. "Allied" or "Allies") is a possible breach of: NPOV and Systemic bias. An appeal to "common usage" or an appeal to authority are circular arguments and especially fallacious here, because both popular culture and reliable sources are also biased (e.g. by nationality) and countered by reference to a different common usage or a different reliable source.

To be specific: arguments to the effect (as you have said) that one side in a particular campaign was "under British command" or "mostly from the UK" (etc) are not an excuse, because (as reference to reductio ad absurdum tells us) that would mean that many major battles of the First World War involving UK forces were "French victories", or Operation Overlord was a "United States victory" and so on. Many people, because they do not personally have strong ties to the UK, find references to a specific individual or group (such as an entire military unit) that has originated outside the UK as "British" to be offensive and/or provocative. The term "British", to use your words, "excludes the emigres" (by which, in the context of Tobruk, I assume you mean the Czechoslovakian and Polish units). "British" also excludes people from former British colonies, because with the passage of time, "British" has come to = "UK".

The same applies to "British Empire" in contexts after 1926 and even more so after the Statute of Westminster 1931, which removed the last vestiges of British (i.e. UK) control over the Dominions in terms of foreign and defence policy. I believe King George VI tended to use "British Commonwealth" and "British Empire" interchangeably. Even Churchill, as Anglocentric as he was, felt obliged to use the cumbersome formulation "British Commonwealth and Empire"

Grant &#124;  Talk  08:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not making excuses, I think that's a straw man based on inference but will take seriously any RS you can offer that British victory is not accurate, unless you want Commonwealth victory which I will compromise on. As you point out, British sovereignty over dominions changed in 1931 but did not end as Gough Whitlam found out in the 1970s, which invalidates your (perhaps inadvertent) appeal to authority. Dominion forces fought under British command with a right of appeal to the home government; this did not make Australia a British ally. Whether people like this or not is for them to decide but retrospective nationalism in terminology really has to give way to facts, especially if that's what is in the RS. As for my reverts, see WP:BRD, which is what I thought we were doing. I'm happy to start from scratch with you over the article and always look forward to constructive criticism. Verifiability if you feel that I jumped the gun with

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."


 * you only have to say, which you have. If I may ask, what are your intentions with the article? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

We need to read separate policies in conjunction with each other. I need to underline that my points above are general in nature and not about any article in particular.

In regard to disputes over content, WP:BRD does not override the other policies that I've cited. And as the passage you have quoted from Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references", i.e. remove outright vandalism, but remember that unilateral reversion of good faith editing breaches WP:CIVILITY. The passage your cite also says "you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it". As per WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, "consider" is pivotal here and not an empty word.

And as I have said previously, some matters cannot be resolved by any number of reliable sources, because of conflict among them, fundamentally differing usages and perspectives from one country to another, and the problem of systemic bias. Apart from clumsy formulations like "W, X, Y & Z victory", the only possible answer is the use of broad, historically accurate terms. Such as "Allies" or "Allied" and I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would object strongly to such words, or how they could possibly attempt to justify such an objection (especially in contexts in which UK forces represented a numerical minority).

To be specific, the context of many major operations of WW2, I don't see "British Commonwealth victory" or "Commonwealth victory" as acceptable, because they exclude, as I have pointed out, what you call the "emigres". Moreover, units officially made up of "emigres", as you call them, were technically under the control of governments-in-exile.

The UK government's "sovereignty over dominions" was terminated in stages: partly when each became a Dominion; partly, with the a series of changes in 1907, which "implicitly introduced the idea of the Dominion as ... self-governing[,] ... mandated that meetings take place regularly to consult Dominions in ... foreign affairs..." (Colonial Conference of 1907), and New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland joined Canada and Australia as official Dominions.

From 1907, UK commanders of formations that including Dominion forces technically had only temporary and conditional operational control of them. Dominion governments had ultimate responsibility for their recruitment, pay, organisation, equipment, training, deployment, administration, supply, repatriation, demobilisation, discharge, rehabilitation, pensions etc. Dominion governments retained a veto on and could withdraw from any or all operations. For example, Towards the end of the First World War, for instance, the New Zealand government began to withdraw individual units from operations and transfer home and discharge personnel deemed to have given sufficient service – overriding protests from the Imperial General Staff. In 1917, the Australian people rejected, at a referendum, the introduction of conscription. And so, even before 1931, it is a misconception that "Dominion forces" only had "a right of appeal" to Dominion governments.

In 1931, the UK parliament's control of the foreign and military policies of the Dominions was definitively severed (not merely "changed"). (Regarding Westminster's residual powers over the Dominions: in the case with which I am most familiar, namely Australia, only some laws of individual states and territories required a rubber stamp from Westminster. And not those of the federal government in Canberra. Furthermore: "In practice ... this power was almost never exercised. For example, in a referendum on secession in Western Australia in April 1933, 68% of voters favoured seceding from Australia and becoming a separate Dominion. The state government sent a delegation to Westminster to request that this result be enacted into law, but the British government refused to intervene on the grounds that this was a matter for the Australian government. As a result of this decision in London, no action was taken in Canberra or Perth [ Australia Act 1986 ]." In regard to Westminster, the example of Whitlam's government is utterly irrelevant, although you wouldn't be the first to misconstrue it in some way or another. That is, in Dominions/Commonwealth Realms, the respective constitutions have always assigned the power to dismiss cabinet, dissolve parliament etc not to the monarch [and certainly not to Westminster], but to each respective Governor-General. Who by convention is appointed on the advice of the PM. This is shown by the fact that Whitlam was sacked by Sir John Kerr – whom the Queen had appointed Governor-General at Whitlam's request. Any PM who has an inkling that he/she is about to be dismissed by a Governor-General could pre-empt: simply phone the monarch and have the G-G's commission withdrawn. Earlier in 1975 Whitlam actually did this to the commission as Lieutenant-Governor [i.e. deputy to the G-G], of Sir Colin Nicholls.) On the point of Dominion independence Here is a reliable and pertinent source: "'[O]n 24 September [1941] the Australian Government promoted Blamey to full general. A few days later the first brigade of the 9th Division was relieved [at Tobruk]. The final showdown between Blamey and Auchinleck had taken place in a meeting about two weeks earlier. Auchinleck began by stating that Tobruk could not be relieved. ‘Gentlemen’, said Blamey, ‘I think you don’t understand the position. If I were a French or an American commander making this demand what would you say about it?’ ‘But you’re not’, replied Auchinleck. 'That is where you are wrong’, said Blamey, ‘Australia is an independent nation. She came into this war under certain definite agreements. Now, gentlemen, in the name of my Government, I demand the relief of these troops.’ Auchinleck shrugged and said, ‘Well, if that is the way you put it, we have no alternative.’ Blamey added later that he was now ‘the most hated man in the Middle East’. A month later the British War Office suggested that an Australian division be sent to garrison Cyprus. Auchinleck quickly reminded London that it could not be done without the consent of the Australian government.' (—David Horner, 2005, 'Australia and Coalition Warfare in the Second World War', in Peter Dennis & Jeffrey Grey (eds), Entangling Alliances: coalition warfare in the twentieth century; the 2005 Chief of Army military history conference, Canberra, Australian History Military Publications, pp. 107–8.)" From 1931, even a declaration of war by the UK did not automatically apply to the Dominions, which is what made each of country a member of the Allies in its own right – and meant that membership had nothing whatsoever to do with the UK.

The only significant "intention" I have in editing any Wikipedia article is its improvement. Grant &#124;  Talk  08:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We can do this forever but I have had limited interest in the niceties; I went through it over attempts by editors to dictate retrospective nationalism in some of the Great War articles a few years ago. The legal status of dominion was not terminated by the 1931 statute so I think it is an insufficient criterion on which to base conclusions about sovereignty; beyond that I don't care, it's not as if it made any difference to their rightful owners. What do you want in the lead? British or Commonweath? If its neither, I suggest we take it to the Milhist board or rfc to solicit opinion. My question about the article was specific; are you going to "improve" it with some small edits which you've already disclosed or do you intend something ambitious like a re-write? I ask because I want to know if we are debating a few small but significant points of editing or all the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If it still isn't clear, my problem is not so much with a particular article, but with some general aspects of your approach towards editing and other editors, as suggested by this enigmatic comment: "I think it is an insufficient criterion on which to base conclusions about sovereignty; beyond that I don't care, it's not as if it made any difference to their rightful owners." Care to elaborate? Then there is the allusion to having "limited interest in the niceties". And the blatant lack of good faith demonstrated by the sweeping, baseless ad hominem, now made twice, of "retrospective nationalism". Not to mention a deficiency of irony, since it is you (Keith) that is arguing for a country-specific name, while I am arguing for a broader, more inclusive name that clearly was used at the time, by the people concerned. So free to start an RFC on your approaches to editing and other editors. Grant &#124;  Talk  16:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Whether I care or not is beside the point, when it's a matter of describing the RS. "Retrospective nationalism" is a description and your unilateral decision to define it as lacking good faith and ad hominem is I suggest self-serving, straw man and taking offence and trying to use it as a pretext to lay blame on me. Britain isn't a country it's a multi-national entity and I take offence at you implying that I'm an English nationalist, I'm a little more grown up than that. Let is refer to the RS apropos the siege of Tobruk, perhaps between us we can assemble sufficient to be going on with.Keith-264 (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

And once again: what is the problem with saying that any particular battle, won by a multinational Allied force, was an Allied victory? What is your problem with the word "Allied"? Apart from simply not liking the words for some reason? Grant &#124;  Talk  16:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * See above.Keith-264 (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I also have to ask what reliable sources you have for your position on the changes caused by the 1907 Colonial Conference and 1931 Statute of Westminster? And what would actually change your mind about them? Especially since your position flies in the face of mainstream scholarship about such things. Were you to put such views forward in an article they would be regarded as WP:FRINGE. In particular, you clearly haven't taken on board what Dominion (as opposed to colony) status actually meant (either in 1907–1931 or after 1931). Although you're accidentally correct in your assertion that the "legal status of dominion was not terminated by the 1931 statute": indeed, the independence of the Dominions was massively enhanced in 1931. Grant &#124;  Talk  16:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Independence is a vector quantity there is no more or less. You can flog this WP:DEADHORSE as much as you want but I'd really rather you took it and your "Coatrack" elsewhere. Keith-264 (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

With respect to the Tobruk article: I've already said that "British" and "Commonwealth won't cut it. The answer to your last question is: "I don't know". Grant  &#124;  Talk  16:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If you want to resolve a grudge against me, stop hiding behind WP:Weasel like "some general aspects of your approach towards editing and other editors" and own it. I reserve the right to ignore any more of your edits on this page that are not practical suggestions for editing the Siege of Tobruk. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems that you expect me to address your specific concerns, without extending me the same courtesy.


 * I thought that titling this section "Friendly advice" would mean that it was evidently not about an individual article. As I said at the outset, I am more concerned with your awareness of the major policies I have listed above.


 * I hope that the UK Parliament is a "Reliable Source" in this instance? Regarding the changes in 1931:
 * In 1931 Parliament developed a new relationship with the Dominions – a term first used in 1907 to describe the self-governing colonies - through the Statute of Westminster. This Act repealed the Colonial Laws Validity Act and renounced the Westminster Parliament's right to legislate for the Dominions unless at their explicit request. [...]
 * It marked the effective legislative independence of the Dominions from Britain and their equal status as nation states. (— Parliament, 2011 The settler colonies: Legislative independence.)
 * I have contributed to a lot of Wikipedia articles on the Second World War and some editors have occasionally insisted on portraying dependent states like the Empire of India and Commonwealth of the Philippines as making meaningful declarations of war, treaties etc, separate from the relevant colonial power. That kind of misconception is the opposite of your misconception: "independence is a vector quantity there is no more or less". I haven't looked at your editing record, but this kind of misconception suggests that you haven't studied or read about politics, international affairs, world history etc in great depth. Perhaps you are only interested in military history. However, broader historical contexts (especically politics) do frequently intrude upon and become relevant to military history. Even if you cannot conceive of degrees of  independence, you may admit that independence is granted in one matter or area and not another.


 * That you think "Britain isn't a country" speaks volumes. Perhaps someone should tell all the British nationals out there. Britain has officially been a country since the Acts of Union in 1707, created "One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain". It is, in fact, a country that includes several smaller countries.


 * Since you seem to prefer "either/or" scenarios:
 * (i) Is "Allied victory" accurate? Yes or no.
 * (ii) Did Czechoslovakia and Poland have some form of government in exile during 1939–45? Yes or no.
 * (iii) Did the governments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have ultimate control of their military units and personnel during 1939–45? Yes or no.


 * Grant &#124;  Talk  06:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Friendly advice followed by threats and innuendo. "Although the United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country, England, Scotland, Wales and, to a lesser degree, Northern Ireland, are also regarded as countries". WP:DTS Keith-264 (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

And therefore WP:DTS supports my point.

There are no "threats" and "innuendo" is in the eye of the beholder. If you really think that I have made any "threats", I suggest that you take it up with the relevant authorities.

And you, Keith, remind me of this bit from Lewis Carroll: "When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is,” said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."$\langle\rangle$

Grant &#124;  Talk  07:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd be grateful if you would depart in the manner suggested in Arkell vs Pressdram (1971). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Not a case I'm familiar with, sorry. Feel free to explain it to me in your usual stilted and archaic prose.
 * I've wasted enough time on this and you; continue on your merry way and I'm sure you eventually realise the value of the advice above. Grant  &#124;  Talk  07:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Happy centenary from the Tunnellers!
Only a few hours now until it will be exactly a 100 years that the mines in the Battle of Messines were fired. What a night to remember! I hope this finds you well, esteemed Keith-264. Best wishes, ViennaUK (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope the earth moves for you too. ;O)) Keith-264 (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Operation Flipper
Now not to make a big thing of this, but I carefully only undid the part of your edit that I found problematic rather than a knee-jerk undo of the whole thing. You could at least do me the courtesy of the same when reverting me. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See subsequent edits. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Apols for being inefficient. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

SFN References
Hi Keith - you recently performed an edit on the Operation Barbarossa page and stated, "with sfn's biblio is in single column". This is not correct. SFN references work fine with the Bibliography in multiple rows. For articles with enormous Bibliography pages like the one in reference, a single Bibliographic column is absurdly long and visually unpleasing. Please refrain from making this a single column. Thanks.--Obenritter (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, no see here putting an alphabetical list in several columns negates the point of alphabetical listing. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Kieth -- you're wrong. Most Bibliography page listings of any length are in columns, not as you've adjusted it into a single column. When columns are used, the alphabetization starts in the next column. If the page is short and not many sources are used (which is the case for a lot of articles) one column is preferable. However, when there are several dozen sources or more, columns make more sense. There are hundreds of examples out there. I have reverted your edit again. Please do not alter the page again without taking it to the Talk section of the article.--Obenritter (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * do your job.Keith-264 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Obenritter is correct in that general consensus has been that multiple rows make a better presentation for readers and eliminates "white space". Kierzek (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If it isn't general, it isn't consensus. Have you read ? I think that more than one column looks crap, the wiki is clear and I want the surname of the author on each line, which is what alphabetical lists are for. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * PS have you tried counting the number of lines in both forms and comparing them? Keith-264 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry but your subjective reasoning, "I think that more than one column looks crap" does not suffice to change the reality that there is a consensus (as informed you) among numerous Wiki-editors on this issue. Your additional statement, "If it isn't general, it isn't consensus" is patently incorrect as well. What you read on one Wiki-page does not constitute a "law" on the site as it is ever-evolving. We're all here to make Wikipedia a better reference source, not to fight. Look around at numerous pages with a couple dozen or more sources, and you'll notice that most of them use multiple columns.--Obenritter (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My "subjective reasoning" is beside the point, this isn't. As for consensus, look it up in a dictionary, it exists or it doesn't, there aren't degrees of it, "general consensus" is pleonasm. I suggest that you put your straw men back in the stable and hang up your gloves. Oh and have you tried counting the number of lines in both forms for comparison? Keith-264 (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're obviously not here to build an encyclopedia by working constructively with other editors. We're done. --Obenritter (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest (with the greatest respect) that you are being a hypocrite; have you tried counting the number of lines in both forms for comparison? Keith-264 (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For the final time - it is not about the total number of lines, the use of columns has to do with readability and consensus among Wiki-editors.--Obenritter (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You can squirm all you like but the Wiki is unambiguous and you don't have a leg to stand on, admit it. Multi-columns is unreadable and negates the point of an alphabetical list. I suggest that you are confusing editing with ownership and rejecting a fresh pair of eyes. This isn't wiki or consensual. Do you want the last word? Keith-264 (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Guys, enough. The fact is Keith, guidelines are just that; and all the GA ranked articles I have worked on have been vetted and consensus was and is for multiple columns for citations and many have multiple columns for the Bibliography (the latter being the bone of contention here); that may not be the case for ones you work on and certainly for articles that only have a smaller amount of references there is no reason not to have one column, but that is not the case with this particular article. You can seek a change, as can anyone, whether it happens, is another story that cannot be foretold. Kierzek (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact is that there should be only one column in the Bibliography and all the comments against it are spurious. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Villers-Bocage edit question
Hi there,

I noticed that we are editing the article at the same time. May I ask why you removed the below? It seemed quite the appropriate description (with the exception of Beevor writing in the 21st Century):

"Commentators of the late twentieth-century revisionist school found Wittmann's actions impressive"

Thanks - 66.77.160.179 (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It's OR rather than description. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thank you for your time.66.77.160.179 (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Commas before conjunctions
You are quite right to suggest that in the case of a standard "list", as in "A wombat eats roots, shoots and leaves", or "I bought butter, eggs and a pound of cheese", it is usual to have no comma before the "and" that precedes the last item in the list; but many publishing houses and journalistic organisations do in fact insist on the comma here (the so-called "Oxford comma"). Let's go with the flow and accept that the Oxford comma is an affectation. We also don't need a comma between two "alternative" or "conjoined" items - such as "tea or coffee are available" or "Bows and arrows are the essential tools of the archer: traditionally the trades of the bowyer and the fletcher made and maintained these tools".

On the other hand, a comma is actually required, in fact a sentence can be rendered ambiguous or meaningless without it, when a pair of commas fulfills a parenthetical function: replacing a pair of brackets (...). Thus this sentence (with parentheses) might be rendered as "This sentence, without parentheses, etc.." No "and" here, of course, but what about - "When she says (and I fear she DOES say) that men are the bane of womankind"? Take away either "bracket replacement comma" and at best this would read very strangely: sensible punctuation of the clause without the brackets requires "When she says, and I fear she DOES say, that men etc.".

There are so many exceptions to any simplistic "rule" saying: "no comma before a conjunction" that this is really not the sort of thing a BOT should be asked to decide on, it requires a fluent and literate writer of English. A misplaced comma "feels" wrong - a missing comma at best "feels" even worse than wrong, and can, as I have pointed out elsewhere, actually distort, obscure or change the meaning of a sentence.

I am sorry if stating the whole case like this seems "unnecessary" of me, and I am sure we both have more pressing business to get on with rather than argue this at length. In this spirit I have not reverted your recent edit to The Fokker scourge article removing a comma before "or". I remain disturbed, however, about rules of grammar, spelling or punctuation being applied in an inappropriately literal way, ignoring the exceptions that many such "rules" have. It doesn't make for good, understandable prose; and I am more than ready for further discussion, either here, or on my talk page. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oxford be damned, punctuation next to a conjunction is never justified; if it seems necessary that means that the syntax is wrong. Keith-264 (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't like Ozford commas either, as I actually made clear (as I thought) very early in the above screed. I only mentioned it to make it clear that was not what I was talking about. If you really believe that - then you ought to recast the sentence concerned in "correct" syntax - since presumably this remains just as wrong with the comma cut as it already was. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have jumped the gun a bit and requested arbitration - as you know as well as me, we are BOTH opinionated and stubborn and probably unlike to come to a conclusion on this one without a third opinion or two by ourselves. We have done some very good work together in the past on several articles and I would like to avoid souring our working relationship if at all possible. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple, you are wrong; it doesn't matter how much you write about it here or on talk pages or what sophistries you employ. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What does "wrong" mean? If you mean, "I, Keith-264, renounce the Oxford Comma and all its works" then that's fine as an opinion, but it's just one voice in many. If you mean "The Oxford Comma is invalid, is not used, and should never be used" then there is nothing to support that viewpoint: there are a great many sources (although clearly, not a majority) that it is usable. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't pollute my talk page with insulting comments, it isn't nice. Do it again and I will revert your comments. Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Insulting? You're at liberty to revert your talk page all you like, but this was neither insulting nor intended to be. I'm sorry you found it so. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You aren't judge and jury in your own cause, You should apologise.Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

RFAR
A request for arbitration in which you were a named party has been declined as premature. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  18:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank youKeith-264 (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the ongoing debate on how best to develop the Battle for Caen article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk: Battle for Caen".The discussion is about the topic Battle for Caen. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Fokker Scourge
Hello, Keith-264 – I see you've made more copy-edits to Fokker Scourge; good work. I'm just curious as to why you removed the no-break space template between "1" and "July" in . I routinely add that template between the day and month so that the "1" does not end up alone at the end of a line. – Corinne (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen it before, I assumed that it was another of Soundof's eccentric edits. Apols, I'll put them back. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks! – Corinne (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I was just looking at your recent edits to the article. In , you changed:


 * The number of aircraft operating over the Western Front in 1914 and 1915 was small compared to later in the war and air warfare was in its infancy but the German Oberste Heeresleitung (OHL, army high command) had already ordered the development of machine-gun-armed aircraft to counter the armed aircraft of the Allies. (emphasis added to show the word that was removed)


 * to:


 * The number of aircraft operating over the Western Front in 1914 and 1915 was small compared to later in the war; air warfare was in its infancy but the German Oberste Heeresleitung (OHL, army high command) had already ordered the development of machine-gun-armed aircraft to counter the armed aircraft of the Allies.


 * I don't know the reason for the change, but I think the sentence still reads awkwardly. Would you consider something like this? --


 * As air warfare was in its infancy, the number of aircraft operating over the Western Front in 1914 and 1915 was small compared to later in the war, but the German...


 * If you don't like this wording, I wonder whether "air warfare was in its infancy" is even needed here. Or perhaps:


 * In 1914 and 1915 air warfare was still in its infancy, so the number of aircraft operating over the Western Front was small compared to later in the war, but the German...


 * Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that your suggestion won't please Soundof or me ;o)

In 1914 and 1915 the number of aircraft operating over the Western Front was small compared to later in the war and air warfare was still in its infancy. The German...Keith-264 (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Is this what you are suggesting? Because it is exactly the same as the way it was before you edited it except that you removed "but" and started a new sentence. I think this version is somewhat better than the way you left it after your edit because it keeps the two related clauses together ("number of aircraft...was small" and "air warfare was...in its infancy") instead of separating them with a semi-colon. However, in this version, there is nothing to indicate the relationship between the German OHL having already ordered the development of machine-gun-armed aircraft and these earlier statements, which "but" kind of supplied. Perhaps this is a candidate for an "Although" construction:


 * Although in 1914 and 1915 air warfare was still in its infancy, and the number of aircraft operating over the Western Front was small compared to later in the war, the German OHL had already ordered...


 * Otherwise there is no point to using the past perfect tense ("had already ordered"). – Corinne (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In a rare burst of agreement, Soundof removed infancy and I agreed with it. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Great! :) – Corinne (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Seriously
I'm sorry if my comment in Fokker Scourge didn't sit well with you. But I actually don't understand your reply. Am I missing something? --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Mockery is no help to anyone.Keith-264 (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm still confused. I intended no mockery.  What, specifically?  --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=3dz0m2ubQw1KSnb_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_8fiCxxFkalnvPXD&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the ongoing debate on how best to develop the Battle for Caen article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Battle for Caen". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI: I have pulled your previous statement from the archive, and taken the liberty to already post it on the DRN in order to save you some time. If you wish to change or update it, please do so. In addition, per discussion with a DRN moderator, you may want to put the page on your watchlist in order to keep notified when a response is posted.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)