User talk:From Hill To Shore

Waters' book
What do you think of Waters' book? I got McCart not long ago, but haven't had a chance to incorporate its material into any of the articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to McCart, so I can't make a comparison. However, Waters appears to be quite comprehensive and well sourced. He references various primary sources (dozens of Admiralty and Cabinet Office records, construction schematics and notebooks, construction contract and tender documents, documents about disposals and various documents in private collections) and secondary sources (including McCart). He covers from very early design stage (apparently it was originally designated the "M" or "Minotaur" class but renamed "Town" class after the ships started acquiring the names of various towns) through pre-contract design changes (with schemeatics), commentary on the state of the UK ship building industry and the tendering process, post-contract design changes, variations in specification over time, launch details, trials, description of design components and analysis against equivalent designs in other navies (US / Japan), wartime modifications, post-war modifications, brief war service record (as a comparison, the Gloucester service record is only slightly longer than our own article), various tables comparing the statistics of the different ships (speed, cost, angle of fire), damage and repair reports, post-war comparison (comparing advantages/disadvantages of different cruiser classes; Town, County, Fiji, Dido) and consolidation (which parts of the fleet to scrap), post-war service records and disposal.
 * The book is swamped with photographs and design schematics. A lot of the photographs are of the post-war survivors but there are a lot of pre and mid war photos I haven't seen before.
 * Another good sign is that most pages have footnotes citing the original source or explaining a conflict between sources and which one the author has relied on. For example, he states that Otter is in conflict with the official MoD figures for Gloucester casualties but he has chosen to accept Otter because every crewman is accounted for; the implication being that the MoD figures are in summary detail and may include errors).
 * I bought the hardback version as a gift, but I'll probably be buying the planned ebook when it is released (the publishing details say they have registered ISBNs for ePub and Kindle versions). From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thorough review. I'll add it to my post-Christmas list as its technical focus greatly complements McCart's operational history which average over 20 pages for each ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

John Cantiloe Joy and William Joy
Thanks for the detailed review, From Hill To Shore. I'll start work on addressing the issues today. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the issued you raised. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Terror (I03)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Terror (I03) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou
Thankyou for giving me one more source for my field of work. However, I was wondering, do you happen to have access to this one as well? It would be tremendous help. Transylvania1916 (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, it gave me a chance to read up on part of the war I hadn't heard about before. Here is the other source you are interested in at Archive.org; Chronology of the war; issued under the auspices of the Ministry of Information (1919). As a little tip, if you find an old book on Google, try a quick search of the title and publication year in archive.org's book search. If it is old enough to be public domain, there is a good chance that they will have the same books as Google (or alternative editions). From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much, again. And yes, it is a rather obscure theater of the war. Undeservedly, in my opinion. It truly changed matters for everyone involved in the Great War, and the Romanian drive into Transylvania - overall a defeat as it was - was nonetheless the greatest offensive by a minor power into the territory of a Great Power - core territory even, not a colony - in modern times. Fact-check me on this, but I've honestly found no other instance in modern history when a minor power invaded a great power so deeply (dozens of miles) and won full-scale battles in that foreign territory. And said battles, is what I'm digging after. I count around 10 total, major ones at least, so I need all the sources I can get. Transylvania1916 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Also these two, if you please
I tried looking them up (this and this) on archive.org, but no success. Either they don't exist there, or I'm not inserting the right things into the search bar. So if you could please check as well, and give them to me if you are more successful. Transylvania1916 (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've found The American Year Book (1916) but I haven't found Vol 226 of The Quarterly Review yet (I managed to find up to Vol 223 from 1915). From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much. Transylvania1916 (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is Vol 227 which mentions the campaign but I can't find Vol 226. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much for your effort. Transylvania1916 (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

And, finally, these two, if possible
These would just give me the full picture: this and this Transylvania1916 (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't find either of those. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Eliza Ashton
Gatoclass (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

AFD
Since you commented about Alan Cozzalio, you may be interested in the the AFD. MB 03:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Terror (I03)
The article HMS Terror (I03) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Terror (I03) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome template

 * Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates.--- Moxy 🍁 12:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of HMS Terror (I03)
Hello! Your submission of HMS Terror (I03) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Z 13:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Terror (I03)
-- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello there
Hi there - did you know i responded to your commented at Talk:Rodney? About a week ago. regards, --Merbabu (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

refbegin
I removed it because I see no reason to hinder vision-impaired readers with a smaller font. We're not constrained by space considerations, so why try to cram more text on a single screen? And specifying page widths or proportions doesn't work well for mobile readers and is being dropped although I don't think that there's actually policy about that yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I wasn't sure if it was an error as you added a duplicate reflist in the same edit. If your concern is about font size, you should probably be adjusting the reflist in the section above. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was my mistake. You can't adjust the size of the cites, sadly, they're set by reflist. But since refbegin/end does nothing but shrink the text...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Needing help. From an experienced user.
Hello, i am here because i need some help. probably you would remember me, because you pinned my user to a "anonymus user", complaining about the Battle of Friedland. I made the answer, and i correct what i acknowledge as wrong, and then proceded to improve the page. However, since a dispute in the past with an user, who actually talked in the military project wiki article. Those edits are being reverted by the user in question, thus i must said is not the first time who this user, is doing it. Now after changing the things back to his own views, He ask for consensus, so far i am resisting my temptation of revert his edits. But since i went against one of his decitions, despite talking etc, he (even when in my good faith asked him, like i am doing with you right now, to share his opinion on other article) did not contributed, but just say who i "Vandalize", articles, and time after another said who if "i continue" he will made a complain. I tried during a month to reach a sort of "understanding", but so far it is evident who the user is more intrested in reverting the edits, and made the articles less acurate, than actually acept who he is not the "god" of the page. I am relatively new, but i have some experience. (my english is not so good, so i apologize, but i acknowledge this limitation, and thus my edits are normally of less <20 bitts,). The latest article in question is the battle of Friedland, The user in question have declined many information because those are not "published books", yet when he find something who fits in he put any kind of page. At this stage i don't know if i could help, not because i could not expend time on helping people to learn from the page, but because the persistence, of bad faith from a particular user. If you have some experience or authority over this, i humble ask who you take a look, over the articles, especially this one. I would apreciate everything who you may do in good faith, and i will answer any question related to the last month if nesesary. I will be very grateful if you answer me, and try to help me, or at least the articles.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC) I apologize for having to came to your talk page with those problems, but it seems who you have some experience and knowledge of the situation. Cordially regardsNuevousuario1011 (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Reply to the coment in my talk page,
Hello, i recived your message last week. I am glad who you talked to me. I want on the personal level, thankyou for your intrest, and please is not necesary who you explain your reasons or apology for having a job, and do other things, everyone does. And i am not going to blame you for this. I maybe indicated who i asked to some users, (when contesting the block) but not in an especific way, (including other user, who is the one who gave me the welcome when i logged), so please my apologies, i do not intended to force you to give me any explanation. And i thank you for your sugestions, a week ago. I have been editing at wikipedia since late 2019, but at a very slow rate. Some of my early edits, where unsourced, (not inacurate), however that is not the point right now. I am also not good at writing in English language. So again my apologies. My edits thus are normally focused in what i saw as wrong or inacurate, (not who i was always right), but there are some issues last times being pointed against me for some early edits, who nobody corrected until resent times, however by this time i have some sources to defend it. This is the page and problem who i put fowards, because the page is incomplete, simple as this, but if I would ever try to change it, my fear in any case is who even if we agree, the "user in question" will revert it just because it was me. So probably some with "his or superior level", could help to introduce some facts. (i will put an example afther i finnish writing, of what "this user", does, who also would need a kind of correction) but is not my intrest the warring, or what the other does, but just improve the article with people who hear and want to cooperate. Thankyou very much, my most cordial regards (my apologies for my English and my "hughe text"). Want to know your opinion, eager to work togheter for something better, and to reach agreements, or if not, in a cordial manner. My best wishes Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The main page in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Friedland. Over this article there are some contesting sources, at first there is the Chandler source establishing a number of 80,000 French, and 60,000 Russians, that is widly acepted by an user who is literally reverting everything who i do. That is why i could not avoid the edit warring, and on the talk page, it become also an edit warring. But here is the thing, acording to the "other user", a source who indicate who only 46,000 troops where aviable on the Russian side is accepted, but not some sources who indicate, the following. A) The Russian presence on the battle where stronger. B) The French probably where outnumbered. (I am not asking neither attempting a source replacement, just who as the 46,000-60,000 range troops, we could have the range of French troops and Russian troops acording to diferent sources).
 * The first source who was uterly rejected by that "particular user" is Pigeard, Alain - „Dictionnaire de la Grande Armée”, Tallandier, Bibliothèque Napoléonienne, 2004, pag. 671-672. This source from a prestigious academic sugest who the Russian number was as high as 84,000 and the French have 56,000 troops (including Lannes) and at the latest stage of the battle 10,000 troops, thus 66,000 French were present at the battlefield. (no reason exept me being the one who put the source) The following "rejected" (by this particular user) one is from a historian, museum director, and military specialist Kennedy Hickman, (Hickman, Kennedy. "Napoleonic Wars: Battle of Friedland." ThoughtCo, Aug. 28, 2020,) Here the sources given, are of 71,000 French and 77,000 Russians. (in this particular case the other user made a point in wich the author put at the end of his free article, a "sources and further reading".) those of course are to provide the reader with more pages, and other claims, but it was taken out of context by a the "particular user", those are internet pages and a book, of course the only one who "contradict" those claims are the internet pages, not the book. Still, there is another source, "rejected" by (this particular user), this came in the form of a donated copy, from the war museum of the United States From Historian and retired Navy captain George Nafzigger, (https://www.napoleon-series.org/nafzigger/807FAE.pdf) Who is a renowed figure at the hour of presenting battle plans. (here the other user came with the following reason to reject it. One of the totals is typified without counting some forces) still, even if we acount the forces, one by one, we came from his 60,000+ French forces, to a more close figure of 70,000+ French forces. On the Russian side however there is the most important issue, it suggest almost 80,000 Russian troops. And it have no issues at all. (however the "user in question", said who "detached units should not be included" While in fact the detached units are included as "Detached units", "who took part", of the battle. Those aditional detachments, nevertheless took part on the battle, detached from their main unit but took part on the battle. (When some forces are not present or dubious figures, here the author "Mandatory put the phrase", "Units who did not took part on the battle". And in this particular case not only he does not indicate it with the Russians, but he add the "detached units#, as having taking part on the battle.
 * So my question here is. Why we could not put the number of troops as following, Frenchs 56,000reference-80,000reference and Russians 46,000-84,000reference? Just like the other user did with the 46,000-60,000 instead of the 60,000 who the "majority of the sources said" (majority of sources nevertheless based almost entire on the other source, so at the end is Chandler and maybe some other who actually say 60,000 only). And then, maybe we could begun to improve the article and put foward a section who discuses the strengths in detail.
 * Last week another user, made a claim of Saxony involved on the battle, (that is of course true, as they are included on the order of battle, but i want to know if this other user have a source enough to justify the Saxon flag. This user kindly respond and even left a source. A very intresting one, over the actions of Marshall Lannes. I look for it, (not because i didn't trust the other user, but just to know a bit more). I must confess it does not came as a surprise when the numbers where put fowards for the Russian strenght, but here is another source who confirm what i was claiming. (Marshal Jean Lannes In The Battles Of Saalfeld, Pultusk, And Friedland, 1806 To 1807: The Application Of Combined Arms In The Opening Battle by Major Rovert Everson). Put it fowards, "The estimates of the Russian soldiers at the battle of Friedland range from 61-76,000 men". Then put fowards the number "50,000" as those who fought against Lannes "17,000" troops during the early battle at the west bank of the river Alle. But again here we have a range who is up to 76,000. (of course i didn't cite this source, yet, because i couldn't and because if i cite it, the user in question will probably revert the edit and search any posible explanation to dismiss it.) But again there is another source who was put fowards.
 * Last i want to put the example of the problems who i have to edit, and correct (wrong) things, thanks to the "other user" interference. And i would put foward, another article, who is not debated, but he of course reverted everything. And i also would be thankful, if you take a look. The article is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Valdepe%C3%B1as). Here is the thing, and i will not going to be with the clasical "i was there", "i know the history", but beyond this, i put the Oficial source of the Ayuntamiento (of the city). Who explain the uprising, and the people who take part on the organization. To put fowards, the comander(s) of the uprising. And there we have the names of the comanders, however, this "other user", reverted it and insist, on (not only ignore it) but put foward, a name of a heroine who "Took part", (by helping the population), as the comander of the uprising, (sources, Galan took part on the uprising and become a "national" heroine). That is intresting, because it put someone who even if participate and was active, was not the comander, it is just another "hero", like many other individual examples. This is certainly wrong, and if the claims are not enough, why the city oficial page over the issue. Know less than the "other user"? Of course i am not disputing the user now because i don't want to lose time in warring but to put fowards correct, and more broad information.


 * I will ignore the majority of this wall of text, and simply highlight the fact that this editor either cannot understand a simple objection or deliberately mispresents the objection, despite it being made at Talk:Battle of Friedland and repeated here. I will repeat the objection to Kennedy Hickman here, for a third time.


 * Kennedy Hickman's article says the French strength was 71,000 and the Russian strength was 76,000. At the bottom of his article he cites three references for the entire article.
 * French Order of Battle for Friedland: 14 June 1807 gives a French strength of 75,000-80,000, and a Russian strength of 46,000
 * Napoleon Guide: Battle of Friedland gives a French strength of 80,000 and a Russian strength of 60,000 (although apparently saying 40,000 men were actually involved)
 * The War of Wars: The Epic Struggle Between Britain and France: 1789-1815 by Robert Harvey gives a French strength of 80,000 and a Russian strength of 60,000
 * He does not cite any other references, those are the only three he mentions. So as his figures differ from the references he cites, that makes his figures problematic. It might have been acceptable if he'd actually explained where his figures came from, and why they differ, but to casually toss out different figures without any explanation as to why they are completely different from his own references is a big red flag, especially when they differ substantially from virtually all other published figures. Nuevousuario1011 refuses to discuss this very specific objection directly (they have never posted to Talk:Battle of Friedland) and instead hopes to find someone sympathetic to their cause. The talk page discussion will still be there waiting when they wish to discuss properly. FDW777 (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Opinion about the strength dispute over Friedland
Hello, i am just curious to know your opinion about the Friedland battle number, as some user, more than a month ago, labeled dubious the sources to the numbers who i requested to take into consideration, i know who you are part time here, but if you had (and please, my apologies for the "kind of warring" maded a month ago in your talk page) i am intrested in knowing if you could check the sources who i am giving to make the changes on the range. (not just the already disputed online page sources, but the following books. Everson, Robert E. (2014). Marshal Jean Lannes In The Battles Of Saalfeld, Pultusk, And Friedland, 1806 To 1807: The Application Of Combined Arms In The Opening Battle Pigeard, Alain (2004) „Dictionnaire de la Grande Armée”, Tallandier, Bibliothèque Napoléonienne, pag. 671-672. If you could corroborate who those are valid sources, and claim who almost 80,000 Russian forces were deployed at Friedland overall, (Everson) and more than 80,000 forces were deployed by the Russians (Pigeard), Could you help me to made the proper modifications, and avoid a warring edit, by going to the talking page, or answer me here or in my talk page? Please, and cordially regardsNuevousuario1011 (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to explain the point before i go Pigeard, claim 84,000 Russians faced 56,000 French engaged with 66,000 present. Everson claim who thr Russian forces estimations ranged from 61,000 to 76,000 "overall" (with 50,000 fighting against 17,000 of Lannes at the west of the Alle river) Please my apologies and regardsNuevousuario1011 (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * the discussion at Talk:Battle of Friedland is still waiting for you to reply, almost two months later. Per my comment in the section immediately above on this very user talk page, why don't you stop trying to find someone sympathetic to your crusade and address the issues raised at Talk:Battle of Friedland? FDW777 (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Literacy, education, society and you.
I.....

That extraordinary word. That indispensable word for self-expression. I. What a towering one word letter it is for you, and I. Yet few seem to be able to use it properly. I don't like 'I' when "I" am misused. That is where the gentle consideration of each other comes in. I am not trying to purchase you, here. You are free to remain the same 'I' you were before you read this.

I just ask you to write about people as if they had an 'I' themselves. Think before you write about 'I'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domramos (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have interacted with you before and I see this is your first edit in 2 years. I have no idea what you are talking about. Taking a look at your edit history I see that you have made some unsourced changes to a biographical article where you claim to be the cousin of the subject. I have reverted you on the basis that the claims seem odd, are unsourced and that you shouldn't be editing articles where you have a personal relationship with the subject. Please add your suggested edits on the talk page of the article along with your source; an uninvolved editor will review your request and consider if it should be added. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I am the cousin of a person, not a subject. People with relatives exist quite outside the petty rules of your wiki. Dom (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You have still to explain why you have come to my page and posted nonsensical messages. I can't see anywhere where we have interacted before this and I have no idea what you are accusing me of. If you want a sensible conversation, you can start by explaining your first comment here about "I." Until you explain what you think I have done, I am unable to respond. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies
hello Hill, a thousand apologies....I am still learning and will do better. (I cant remember my log in. Will fix when I find my notebook) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.158.217 (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

noted
re your comments - something worth avoiding... JarrahTree 01:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

the banner things and what any particular project might claim, as far as I can tell have not been adequately discussed anywhere that I have seen, or explained adequately across the board, so the request might be moot, you might well get 'bot' ed without anything or anybody giving you notice, I might indeed be your least problem... JarrahTree 01:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn't a particular concern of mine but it has been discussed at both Template talk:WikiProject banner shell and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. See also Category:WikiProjects using a non-standard quality scale for a list of projects that have opted out of the banner shell assessment. There is a warning given at the guidance for the tool you are using at User:Evad37/rater that "individual WikiProjects may use non-standard grades, or offer further advice on determining class ratings." Finally, the opt-out system is explained at Template:WikiProject banner shell/doc - I would expect any bots to check the opt-out flag and avoid related edits (in that regard bot edits are more likely to behave appropriately as we avoid human error in forgetting to check the flag). From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, the point I would have made that the high level edit of talk page editors, as far as I can see were not communicated about the out of nowhere banner shell project, apart from encountering bots going very wrong (for example Oceania last year thousands of incorrect tags) - the problem with editors not taking notice of anything is always a pervasive issue over any editing rules or conventions.   I would have taken the issues(s) more seriously, but until very recently milhist was not even interested in their own project pages as to correct tagging.  Thanks for the well explained items in your message, it is appreciated that you have taken the time to explain.  To think as recently as four years ago or so, there never would be any discussion about the abysmal mess of talk pages throughout the whole project, now everyone seems to be involved. Obviously we live in interesting times.  Thanks again for taking the trouble to explain from what you know.  JarrahTree 04:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)