User talk:Keith-264

I'll reply to your message here.  'If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist. If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here. Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~) '



Disambiguation link notification for April 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Arnhem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Lord.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Clarification of talk page comment
Hi, in this diff you have marked my comment with an asterisk and then added a line below to say the question is not honest. Was this just a typo or do you have an issue with my question? From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course I do the way you formed the question was not honest. Keith-264 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You asked for assistance on the Military History project and, while I don't know about the specific guidance page you asked for, I checked to see if I had the same issues being discussed. To aid the discussion, I reported that I did experience a similar issue. I received a reply asking if my issue is important enough to be considered. I replied to say that while I can accept if the consensus decides not to take any action, I'd at least hope my issue is considered (surely that is a minimum expectation for any reported problem? That someone actually thinks about whether to take action). I then received a reply that making a list of commanders in the infobox readable for mobile users is "trivial," and I am genuinely stumped. Is this a comment that the information in the infobox being trivial or that the experience of mobile users in trying to read the information is trivial? I honestly have no idea, so I asked a question to better understand User:Mztourist's point.
 * I didn't expect an accusation of dishonesty from the person who summoned uninvolved parties to the discussion.
 * At the end of the day, I don't have a strong view here. I simply reported that I had a similar issue to what was already discussed and tried to understand why the editor responding to me was being unusually dismissive. I'll withdraw from the discussion now as I only got involved as a favour to a fellow editor. Good luck in finding a resolution. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Have I confused you with one of the other editors? Are you the one who asked a question posing two negative reasons? Keith-264 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that I confused you with MylowattsIAm but in all fairness your question was disingenuous. Keith-264 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While an accusation of being disingenuous is a slight improvement on an accusation of being dishonest, you are still accusing me of acting in bad faith here. Even if this is a case of mistaken identity, you should really know better than to throw incendiary terms into a discussion. At no point have you assumed that I was confused by Mztourist's replies or accepted my explanation of my confusion (honestly, I still have no idea what the editor meant, but it is rather redundant now). Instead you have questioned my honesty and sincerity.
 * I am content to chalk this up to you making an initial mistake and then digging yourself in deeper. To defuse the situation, I think I will give you a wide berth for a while. Good luck with your editing. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I mistook your identity but don't resile from pointing out the obvious. Good luck. Keith-264 (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Battle Of Gallipoli
Hi Keith, How are you doing? I just wanted you to explain why you undid my edits on the Battle Of Gallipoli. Thanks. 174.61.40.97 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not bad thanks, how you? Were they the ones putting Asquith and the other one into the infobox? Keith-264 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes sir. Can you explain undoing those edits? 174.61.40.97 (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The infobox is for the military commanders most associated with the article, political leaders are excluded unless also military. Britain was (and is) a de facto republic where the monarch is the nominal head of state and head of the armed forces but takes his orders from the prime minister, the real head of state. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

British Empire
Hi there, just floating through while I work on fixing a list of battles, it was my understanding that the consensus was New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and South Africa were self-governing, while India and the colonies were not. Is there something that says otherwise?  Cards   84664   14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good afternoon, the Canadian supreme court ruled that Canada was an independent country in 1927, the Australians not until 1948 (and in some legal matters not until the 1990s) the change from Dominion status to sovereignty was one of osmosis rather than a clean break. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Useful template for the convoy articles?
Perhaps Cite Arnold Hague Convoy Database may be of some use, perhaps not to replace your existing sources, but as a readily accessible one for readers who won't have the relevant books? Example: (Hohum @ ) 16:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I use that site where the book version lacks detail but it won't hurt. With the Goldene Zange attacks, watching columns disappear might be enlightening. Just a thought. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)