User talk:Assisting Wiki

Minor campaigns of 1815
Any help with the Minor campaigns of 1815 is much appreciated, but I have a couple of questions to ask about your edits.

You added "VII Corps" to the line 13,000–20,000 men,[6] Armée des Alpes (Suchet) Where [6] is William Siborne, p. 775, and [7] is David Chandler p.181. AFAICT neither of these says that Suchet Army was also the VII Corps nor does Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition which was the base source for this for this list. Are you just extrapolating this or do you have a source?

The second question is about the addition to the Hundred Days article. "with two Swiss brigades from General Niklaus Franz von Bachmann's Swiss Army" do you have a source for this information? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Seventh Coalition Declaration
"The powers who have signed the Treaty of Paris," What is the source you used for this quote on your user page. I would like to copy the information to Wikisource and include a link to it in the Hundred Days article and the Battle of Waterloo article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of French Army of 1815
A tag has been placed on French Army of 1815 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Fraud talk to me  23:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese Contingent of 1815
A tag has been placed on Portuguese Contingent of 1815, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Maybe this information should be included within an existing article. Farside6 (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations with page numbers
Please read WP:CITE it is a useful guideline.

I am going to do some work on Hundred Days to wikify some of the work you have added, but I need you to make sure that you add page numbers to your citations, and in cases where you add information to a sentence/paragraph that already carries a citation that you add a citation for any additional information that you add. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ideally for clarity sake and in consideration of my eyesight it would be really great if the References section contained only the page numbers the citation refers to and not the entire work's citation, which needs to be moved to the Sources section, as Philip had done, in alphabetical order. Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 10:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and another thing. When citing non-English sources, it would be great to translate them into English so at least the reader has some idea of relevance. I can do the Fench and German most of the time if no tricky words are in the, but the last one you added is in which language?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 11:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not had time to note them all but please fix those citations that you can that I have marked as missing page numbers etc in the article Hundred Days. Also please set a watch on the page, because I want to make some general points about the new information that you have added and I think other editors might like to join in the conversation on the articles talk page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorensen
"Sorensen says NOTHING about the Portuguese Contingent." My mistake please fix it as you see fit, but please use a similar tone, we do not judge who is right or wrong we merely report what the sources say. See WP:OR and WP:NPOV. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"we do not judge who is right or wrong we merely report what the sources say"

This is very true. However I do have this to say...

I make particular reference to the Portuguese Contingent and the Army of Naples:

To report that the Portuguese mobilised a contingent for the coalition is simply untrue.

To report that the Army of Naples was commanded by Onasco and was composed of Neapolitans is also untrue.

I consider it irresponsible to state such things as fact when one knows better simply because one or more sources state them as being so and incase one appears as judgemental to other Wikipedians by addressing this. This is afterall an encyclopedia and correct information is paramount!

I have not challenged the opinions of any authors or given my own opinion, what I have done is corrected the 'facts' that some authors have given as they are incorrect and are proven to be so.

In no way do I judge the sources or the authors of the sources (infact I love Chandler, Barbero and Adkins' work) but I do state the common misunderstandings that are commonly believed through such popular works, and offer citations mentioning the works which offer the correct facts backing up my claims (as citations are always needed), in this case collected and published Primary Sources.

Simply stating the facts without addressing the myths and why the myths are what they are, would result in facts being edited in favour of popular myths. Let's face it, more people will have read Chandler's and Barbero's work than those who will have browsed through Wellington's Despatches.

By addressing both (stating the belief then stating the fact) people can see the truth for themselves thus preventing the oh so familiar "That's wrong" EDIT, "Actually it's right" COUNTER-EDIT, "No, I tell you it's wrong" EDIT, "And I tell you its right" COUNTER-EDIT 'battle'.

--Assisting Wiki (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Military mobilisation during the Hundred Days
Please can you supply the detail (book name, publisher) for "Lasseres, Bertrand p. 114" in the article Military mobilisation during the Hundred Days. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also something that got mixed up in the wash. There are references to Wellesley and Wellington. Are references to they the same book or two different ones? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hofschroer
I am trying to tie in some Hofschroer references that you initally added to the Hundred Days. The specific edit was made at 21:23, 11 June 2008, and the page numbers were:
 * A Danish contingent known as the 'Royal Danish Auxiliary Corps' commanded by Prince Frederick of Hessen-Kassel and a hanseatic contingent (from the free cities of Bremen, Lubeck and Hamburg) commanded by the British Colonel Sir Neil Campbell were also on their way to join this army (Plotho, Carl appendix p34 and p35) both however, joined the army in July having missed the conflict (Hofschroer, Peter p82 and 83).

and
 * Fearing that Napoleon was going to strike him first, Blucher ordered [the North German Federal Army] to march north to join the rest of his own army (Hofschroer, Peter p182). The Prussian General Kleist initially commanded this army before he fell ill on June 18th and was replaced by the Hessen-Kassel General Von Engelhardt (Hofschroer, Peter p182).

With an edit at 08:26, 13 June 2008 You added to the sources section:
 * Hofschroer, Peter. 1815 The Waterloo Campaign: His German Allies and the Battles of Ligny and Quatre Bras. Greenhill Books
 * Hofschroer, Peter. The German Victory. Greenhill Books

Please could you tell me which book (or books) you used for the two Hofschroer citations above as I would like to add them to the citations in the various articles that now rely on them. Both volumes are now listed in the references of the Hundred days as: So you can simply state if the references are from "Vol. 1" or "Vol. 2". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hofschroer, Peter, 1815 The Waterloo Campaign (Vol.1): Wellington, his German Allies and the Battles of Ligny and Quatre Bras, Greenhill Books, 2006
 * Hofschroer, Peter, 1815: The Waterloo Campaign (Vol.2): The German victory, from Waterloo to the fall of Napoleon, Greenhill Books, 1999 ISBN 1853673684


 * Both references are from Vol 1. Tirronan (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me recheck again serves me right for working from memory but I am certain the 1st is correct let me dig out PH2 and I will check. Tirronan (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit from user talk:Tirronan:  A Danish contingent known as the 'Royal Danish Auxiliary Corps' commanded by Prince Frederick of Hessen-Kassel and a hanseatic contingent (from the free cities of Bremen, Lubeck and Hamburg) commanded by the British Colonel Sir Neil Campbell were also on their way to join this army (Plotho, Carl appendix p34 and p35) both however, joined the army in July having missed the conflict (Hofschroer, Peter p82 and 83). The Hofschroer reference here is Volume One.

Fearing that Napoleon was going to strike him first, Blucher ordered [the North German Federal Army] to march north to join the rest of his own army (Hofschroer, Peter p182). The Prussian General Kleist initially commanded this army before he fell ill on June 18th and was replaced by the Hessen-Kassel General Von Engelhardt (Hofschroer, Peter p182). The Hofschroer reference here is Volume Two.

Thanks

--Assisting Wiki (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Assisting Wiki --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Penis Size Graphs - Source(s)
I'm sorry, but you'll have to ask User:Biggishben and User:Wolfkeeper, who uploaded the original plots. I didn't create the plots, I merely redrew them so they could be in SVG format. (Inappropriate JPEG compression is one of my pet peeves.) —Keenan Pepper 00:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian Army 1815
In military mobilisation during the Hundred Days and the copy at minor campaigns of 1815 I have been working on links to Wikipedia biography articles. What sparked me to do this was Siborne, pp. 50,51 where he mentions the three column commanders. I find the source you used "Plotho, Appendix (Chapter XII) pp. 56-62" difficult to read! but AFAICT the Plotho uses the same spelling as Siborne for one of the column leaders "Dochterow" yet you spelt the "Doctorov" how did you know that spelling? Can you please look over the other links I have made and see if you agree with my informed guesses and see if you agree with them?

Two Wikipdia pages which helped me cross check these names are in the sections in hidden comments Russian Army order of battle (1812) List of Russian commanders in the Patriotic War of 1812 --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And you taught me a little Russian. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)