User talk:Keith-264/Archive 1

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)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Battle of Passchendaele, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western (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) 10:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ground conditions during the Third Battle of Ypres were bad because the ground was already fought-over. Shelling had destroyed the course of rivers, canals and ditches in the area and unseasonable heavy rain in August turned some of the battlefield into a sea of mud and water-filled shell-craters. Supply troops walked up to the front on duckboards laid across the mud, often carrying up to one hundred pounds (45 kg) of equipment. It was possible for them to slip off the path into the craters and drown before they could be rescued. Trees were reduced to blasted trunks and the bodies of men buried after previous actions were often uncovered by the rain and shelling.

"II Corps wished to capture the BROWN line before attacking the dotted YELLOW line," while "XIX Corps wished to attack the PURPLE line." 65 However, "XVIII Corps proposed to attack the dotted PURPLE line" and it would then be "prepared to take the YELLOW line in conjunction with the XIX Corps." Corps Command p. 132.

Menin Road Ridge / Hill 70
Sorry, Keith, but grouping of citations is something beyond my ken. I have not tried to do this yet. At present I am content with multiple repeated citations, for example German cavalry in World War I though it is not the best and I will tidy up. If I figure it out, I will get back to you. Hamish59 (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed it, Keith. Hamish59 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Menin Road Ridge, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! :- ) DCS 17:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
 * You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Talkback
:- ) DCS 23:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

:- ) DCS 23:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Keith, I tried it in the sand box, and it appears that when you use the name in the 2nd reference, everything else in the second reference is ignored, and it simply uses the first reference with a,b.

I will keep looking into this. There is always a way, if you have enough time, money, perseverance, etc,  :- ) DCS  23:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Keith, Don't know if you have already seen this: WP:Citing sources. Only thing I have found useful. :- ) DCS 23:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Keith, Check out. :- ) DCS 23:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Passchendaele
You've done some great work on that article. From following your talk page, it also looks like you've cleaned up most of the items that could be cleaned up (multiple references, ibids, etc.). The best places I've found for technical guides are at the Manual of Style and all of it's sub-pages. It's a lot to look at, but it looks like you've already got a handle on quite a bit of it.

I also did a full check with one of the cleaning tools, and did find one link that needed to be disambiguated (Battle of Langemarck). For an article of this size, it's really impressive to have only one link in need of fixing. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 08:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

World War I and Wikimedia UK
Wondering if you'd seen this? EyeSerene talk 09:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC) No I hadn't but I'll have a look. There isn't a definitive synthetic survey that I know of re: 3rd Y but I found this last night Haig and the historians by John Bourne in Haig: A Re-appraisal 80 Years on by Brian Bond and Nigel Cave. It's about 20 years old though.Keith-264 (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It sounds hopeful though. The other alternative is perhaps to list all the available sources (or at least the reputable, significant ones) in a sandbox or talkpage somewhere, note their respective opinions, and then try to write a coherent narrative tying the whole lot together. We did this largely successfully with some of the Normandy articles but I'm not sure how much work it would be for the stuff you're working on now, with an extra 20 or 30 years of scholarship to trawl through! EyeSerene talk 11:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I thought so too. I put a list of some of the sources on the talk pages but it could be a labour of Hercules so I want to get the main section dealt with first. Keith-264 (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, you've gone for rather more than a bite-and-hold with this lot :) It's a hell of a task you've taken on, but a very important one given the approaching anniversary. P'daele averaged over 1000 page views per day last month. EyeSerene talk 11:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That was me taking out all the ibids...;O) Unloading detail from the main page to the subsidiary ones is laborious enough for the moment. The interesting thing about a survey of sources will be tracking the flaws in the originals and the way that they have been copied ad nauseam. The most trenchant critics of the Official Historian usually copy his biggest mistake (about Gough)Keith-264 (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which, I'm just setting up the first World War I Wikipedia Editathon - it would be great if you could come along! (I was looking back through the contribution history of Passchendaele, which I did some work on a while back, and saw you'd been doing a lot of work on it - so I thought I'd ask you!) The Land (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Pilckem Ridge ref grouping
I believe I have cleaned up all of the refs, both in terms of linking notes and the bibliography containing all the sources employed. In reading the article, I believe its getting rather close to reaching a GA quality level. I am going to go on the search for map of the battle. I believe we also need to clarify the distances and relative location of the British lines of progression (Blue, Green, Black) as is done for the German defense strategy and posture. The opposing forces section could also use a summary of the british and french forces involves.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, I'll look after Beneath Hill 60 ends.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you or Labattblueboy (depending on the result of your searches) want assistance with creating map graphics I'm happy to step up for my usual fee (half a pint of warm cider and 6oz of rubbing alcohol). Incidentally I snagged one of those Credo Reference accounts that Wikimedia negotiated a while back, so I'm also happy to see what I can find there if it would be of any help. EyeSerene talk 17:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes please.Keith-264 (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

about templates
Hi Keith. You can find the relevant information on Help:Template but here's a quick summary. In this edit for example, you added to Battle of Broodseinde the bottom table related to World War I which you copied from Template:World War I. Instead of copy-pasting the table, you can just add World War I which basically means "include here whatever content is in the template" (that's transclusion). There are many advantages to doing things this way. In particular, it guarantees that every article has the same version of the World War I table. Hope this helps, Pichpich (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Polygon Wood: 26 September
On 21 September Haig instructed the Fifth and Second Armies to make the next step across the Gheluvelt Plateau on a front of 8,500 yards. I ANZAC Corps would conduct the main advance of about 1,200 yards to complete the occupation of Polygon Wood and the south of Zonnebeke. X Corps to the south was to attack either side of the Menin Road and Fifth Army in the north was to advance to occupy a line from Zonnebeke to Kansas Cross and Hill 40 near Zonnebeke station. Second Army altered its Corps frontages soon after the attack of 20 September so that each attacking division could be concentrated on a 1,000 yard front. Roads and light railways were built behind the new front line to allow artillery and ammunition to be moved forward, beginning on 20 September; in fine weather this was finished in four days. As before Menin Road, bombardment and counter-battery fire began immediately, with practice barrages fired daily as a minimum. Artillery from VIII and IX Corps in the south acted to threaten attacks on Zandvoorde and Warneton.

39th Division took over from 41st Division ready to attack Tower Hamlets (on the Bassevillebeke spur), 33rd Division replaced 23rd Division beyond the Menin Road and 5th and 4th Australian Divisions replaced 1st and 2nd Australian Divisions in Polygon Wood. The German attack on 25 September between Menin Road and Polygon Wood occurred as 33rd Division was taking over from 23rd Division and for a time threatened to delay preparations here for the British operation due next day. Some ground was captured by the Germans and part of it was then recaptured by 33rd Division. Plumer ordered that the flank guard protecting the I ANZAC Corps on 26 September was to be formed by 98th Brigade of 33rd Division while 100th Brigade recaptured the lost ground.

At 5.50 a.m. on 26 September the five layers of barrage fired by the British artillery and machine-guns began. Dust and smoke added to the morning mist so the infantry advanced on compass bearings and rushed the German outposts of 3rd Reserve Division and part of 50th Reserve Division, most falling immediately. Each Australian division attacked with two brigades and one in reserve. A battalion in each advanced 800 yards to the first objective, then two more passed through to the final objective about 400 yards beyond and dug in.


 * Under this screen my 4th and 5th divisions, in conjunction with British formations, swept forward, and after much hard fighting captured the prearranged objectives round Polygon Wood and Zonnebeke. Our loses were again heavy – over 4,000. The German casualties were later found to have been about the same. (Lieut Gen Birdwood, I ANZAC Corps)

The German defences in the wood disintegrated quickly (Major Hethey, Kampftruppenkommandeur in the southern portion of the wood being killed at 6.30 a.m. but mopping up took until midday.

The difficulties of 33rd Division further south meant that the 5th Australian Division had to swing back on its right to cover the area not retaken by the 33rd Division, which at first only managed an advance to Black Watch Corner. The rest of 5th Australian Division consolidated in the German Flandern I defences just east of Polygon Wood. Another battalion from 33rd Division was sent through the Australian area to attack south-east, together with an advance from the Corner and this recaptured the ground lost the previous day by 2.00 p.m. The ground lost near Menin road was regained by the other 33rd Division brigade, also in the afternoon. 4th Australian Division advanced 1,200 yards to Groote Molen (Tokio) spur without serious difficulty.

39th Division captured Tower Hamlets from the German 50th Reserve Division and 'The Quadrilateral' further down the spur from the 25th Division but this was recaptured by the Germans after being occupied by 118th Brigade, 39th Division. It had been caught in the boggy ground of the Bassevillebeek, its two tanks in support got stuck near Dumbarton Lakes and soon after arriving in The Quadrilateral, was counter-attacked by part of the German 25th Division and pushed back 200 yards.

North of the I ANZAC Corps, three divisions of V Corps from Fifth Army provided the other flank guard. 3rd Division advanced to the west end of Zonnebeke, against part of 3rd Reserve Division but further north got caught in mud, lost the barrage and was stopped short of Hill 40.


 * Suddenly I heard shouts of 'Englander' from in front. I called the men out and we took up a position in the mass of shell-holes on either side. Almost at once figures appeared moving towards us through the fog. They were coming on at a steady pace bunched together in groups between the water-logged shell-holes. We opened fire and threw hand-grenades into the midst of them and they at once took cover in the shell-holes, I could see two of them fixing up a light machine-gun which opened on us hitting several of my men before we could silence it. For a moment the attack here was held, but looking round I could see more English advancing past us to right and left, and realized that our only hope was to run for it. (Officer, 3rd Battalion, 34th Fusilier Regiment)

A second attack later in the day on Hill 40 met a German counter-attack, leaving both sides where they started. 59th Division advanced swiftly between Waterend House and Schuler Farm, against parts of 3rd Reserve Division and 23rd Reserve Division. 58th Division's 175th Brigade attacked up the Hanebeek valley but mist and disorganisation left it 400 yards short of its objective. The RFC began operations on the night of 25–26 September when 100 and 101 Sqns attacked German billets and railway stations. The mist (which affected visibility for the infantry later on) rose before dawn, ending night flying early. Low cloud at 5.50 a.m. when the infantry advanced, made observation difficult but contact-patrol and artillery observers managed to observe progress on the ground and reported 193 German artillery batteries to British artillery. Fighters flying at about 300 feet attacked German infantry and artillery; German aircraft tried this against British troops with some success, although ground fire shot five of them down. Six more German aircraft were shot down by RFC and RNAS pilots over the battlefield Operations further afield were reduced due to the low cloud but three German airfields were attacked and an offensive patrol over the front line intercepted German bombers and escorts and drove them off.

At midday the mist cleared, giving a hot clear day. British observation aircraft began to send wireless messages warning of German infantry advancing towards all of the front attacked. Similar reports from the ground began in the early afternoon; German infantry from 17th, 236th and 4th Bavarian Divisions were advancing north of Becelaere, south of Broodseinde and massing on the Broodseinde-Passchendaele Ridge. British artillery immediately bombarded these areas, disrupting the German deployment and leading to the German attacks being uncoordinated.


 * Towards 10.30 a.m. information arrived that the enemy, attacking the inner flanks of Groups Ypres and Wijtschaete had forced their way into Polygon Wood.... the British were bringing down ever heavier fire throughout the area.... In the face of this brutal reality and bowed under the weight of our battle loads, we could only pick our way forward tortuously and painfully. Again and again we had to take cover to avoid the attentions of aircraft. (Hauptmann Caspari)

A counter-attack either side of Molenaarelsthoek was stopped dead at 3.25 p.m. At 4.00 p.m. Germans advancing near Reutel and to its north were bombarded as were German artillery positions in Holle Bosch and the counter-attack was dispersed. Soon after a German attack developed near Polderhoek whose survivors managed to reach the British infantry and were seen off in bayonet fighting. Reports later on revealed German troops massing against Tower Hamlets but artillery and machine-gun barrages stopped the German attack. At 6.50 p.m. the Germans managed to coordinate an attack from Tower Hamlets to north of Polygon Wood. Infantry which got through the barrages was 'annihilated' by the British infantry.


 * At about 4.00 p.m. on 26 September the company advanced as part of the second wave against Polygon Wood. It was not long before it came under tremendous artillery fire. Nevertheless progress continued to be made. A short time later a great concentration of high explosive shells mixed with gas shells, came down, forcing the company to mask up. Soon it was enveloped in a very dense cloud of gas, which meant that contact within the company was lost and orientation became impossible.(Reserve Leutnant Schutt)

Apart from Hill 40 near Zonnebeke, where the German counter-attack met 3rd Division's renewed attack and stopped it short of the hill, the German counter-attacks could only reach the new front line. The German attacks stopped at 8.30 p.m. and after a quiet night, British and ANZAC troops south of Polygon Wood occupied Cameron House and the head of the Reutelbeek valley near Cameron Covert.


 * The Eingreif divisions for the most part again struck against an already well dug in ('eingenistete') enemy, in some places against new enemy attacks.... In the face of the British barrages they took 1 1/2 to 2 hours to advance one kilometre, their formation broken and their attack power lamed. (Der Weltkrieg)

Each of the three German ground-holding divisions attacked on 26 September had an Eingreif division in support, twice the ratio of 20 September. No ground captured by the British had been regained and the counter-attacks had managed only to reach ground that the survivors of the front-line divisions had retired to. Second Army estimated that ten divisional artilleries had supported the German troops defending the Gheluvelt Plateau, doubling the Royal Artillery casualties compared to the previous week. British losses were 15,375; 1,215 being killed. Der Weltkrieg gives 38,500 casualties between 11 September and 30 September (236th (Eingreif), 10th Ersatz, 50th Reserve, 23rd Reserve (Eingreif), 17th (Eingreif), 19th Reserve and 4th Bavarian (Eingreif) divisions) to which the British Official Historian controversially added 30% for lightly wounded.

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 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] 10:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
meow

Jibbsisme (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 

Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Battle of Pilckem Ridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to British Expeditionary Force


 * Battle of the Menin Road Ridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to British Expeditionary Force

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

3rd Ypres, etc.
Hello, Keith. Just noticed your changes to the Cambrai article Bit of confusion. You're quite right - it shouldn't say June. That was, indeed, Messines. The point I was trying to make is that since only 76 tanks were used at Messines it wasn't on the same scale as Ypres. It should read, "more than 200 at Ypres in July [just] and August." Ypres is in Flanders, and the tank actions are considered part of Third Ypres. http://63528.activeboard.com/t47834995/map-of-3rd-ypres/

The reason I specified that the French used their own tanks is that anyone not familiar with the topic might be unaware of French tank development (a lot of people are), and might assume they were British. Not sure why "mass" is preferable to "large scale." I would agree that Cambrai was "mass" but at Ypres the vehicles were parcelled out and not really used "en masse." A fine distinction, I agree, but I think "large scale" summarises it better. Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I move this to here so it's easier to follow? Greetings Hengist; I changed the date to July then had second thoughts and changed Ypres to Flanders instead, since Messines was part of the strategy even if semi-detached from 3rd Ypres. I used 'mass' as I'm a bit prejudiced against terms like 'large-scale'; large is a scalar quantity, which makes the phrase a form of pleonasm. 'Mass' has the sense of 'grouping' although it tends to be used to mean 'much' by less pedantic souls than me.Keith-264 (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, but in this context, where the point is to show that there had been earlier, erm, substantial tank actions, it's the 216 that is illustrative, rather than the 76. To put ot more prosaically, 216 sounds a lot. As a matter of fact, my OED defines "mass" as: a dense aggregation; a large number or amount; relating to, done by, or affecting large numbers of people or things, and "large" as: of considerable or relatively great size or extent, so it seems to be rather difficult to escape the idea of relativeness, whichever term one uses. To be honest, I had never heard of pleonasm before I sampled the delights of Wikipedia, and was surprised to discover that I do it all the time, but it seems that it is not necessarily evil in itself. Believe me; I'm a pedant, but I can live with this one. Hengistmate (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I like aggregation but agglomeration is more what I had in mind. Obviously if you mass things there have to be more than one. I'm a bit picky about pleonasm because it seems that teaching English as a language ended in the USA before it did here, leading to people here copying American usage - pre-preparation, close proximity, immediate aftermath etc. About 20 years ago I started trying to make my writing conform to a literary sentence structure rather than try to render spoken English in prose; on Wiki that usually means that I can't resist removing commas from around "and".;O)

Perhaps it would be better to describe massing tanks as a trend, as their tactical characteristics became better understood. At Ypres the Germans found that pill-boxes (stationary tanks) were vulnerable in isolation but performed better where they were grouped, like at Tower Hamlets and the quadrilateral along Bassevillebeek spur. How are you getting on with Wiki by the way?Keith-264 (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"How are you getting on with Wiki by the way?" It confirms my worst fears about human nature. It says in the instructions that most people get involved because they enjoy writing. I suspect that in many cases narcissism has got more to do with it. Let me stress that I am not a Wikipedian. God forbid. Just fed up of seeing misinformation about the subject disseminated by pillocks and then having to defend authoritative works against the cries of, "It says on Wikipedia . . .". It took me several heated exchanges to establish that the offensive at Cambrai was not, in fact, led by Captain George S. Patton Junior, and that he never went near the place. The amusing/exasperating part is that some of the sources that are misquoted are me.

More specifically, someone advised me that it is not permissible to describe an assertion as "erroneous" (as in the matter we're discussing), since that involves a judgement. Well, I think we are allowed to make that judgement if something is demonstrably bloody wrong.

In my experience, a book token beats a Ph.D. every time. People jump down your throat, finagle the rules, pettifog, and generally do whatever they can contrive in order to protect their ego. One particularly argumentative berk, who churns out articles on mechanical devices so esoteric that I doubt anyone knows enough to disagree with him, actually said, "I'm trying to build an encyclopaedia here." Good grief.

The articles on WWI armour (of all nations) are all over the place. Some need rewriting from top to bottom, but I do this professionally and haven't got the time for interminable arguments with marginally-informed barrack-room lawyers. So I just try to do a bit from time to time. It's interesting to look at the list of Administrators and see how many have got fed up with all the bickering and chucked it.

Ooh. That's better. To return to the original topic: There is so much claptrap about Cambrai, including the oft cut-and-pasted claim that it was the first major tank action, that I thought it worth the effort to point out that it wasn't. It seems that removing a popular misconception is not the solution, since if it's popular people will want to know why it's not in the article, so you have to include it and refute it, just to be on the safe side. But then we are, apparently, not allowed to say that something is wrong. If we play by the rules, instead of using common sense, we'll end up with an endless list of "either . . . or." You get the picture.

I would still maintain that it's necessary to point out the French and British actions of 1917, and specifically mention and link to 3rd Ypres. Over to you, sir. Hengistmate (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to have several lines on the antecedents of Cambrai so tomorrow I'll have a look in Harris: Men, Ideas, Tanks... as I think he has a list. I'm no expert on the rules of Wiki but having taken the plunge on the Passchendaele page, I've looked at them much more (I fear that I let a couple of opinions through, contra the no research rule) and I notice that the rules aren't black and white - follow one rigidly and you break others, so I'm more willing to do a bit more than paraphrase half a dozen writers. Having done so much reading on 3rd Y it's clear that much of the secondary and tertiary literature is the historical equivalent of pot-boiling fiction. I think that there's a tendency for patent good faith to shine through but there are also plenty of nut-cases around - try contradicting the Panglossian articles on COMbbc or call Jerusalem a Palestinian city and see what happens.;O)

I wonder if Wiki is replacing some popular misconceptions or reinforcing them because certain subjects are patrolled by political hacks? I find it helps to be as close as possible to primary sources but it may be that no-one's interested in the Western Front.... I remember the battle of Cambrai (2011) my copy of OH 1917 III came in handy. I haven't finished 3Y; there's still the problem of Anglocentric bias and I want to add more about the German strategic air war (holding the coast for the U-boat bases was only half of it) and I have an essay forming about medical services in the Salient - surprisingly positive about psychiatric casualties as it happens but you're right about the lamentable ignorance that exists about Great War historiography. When I started I footnoted nearly every sentence in anticipation of a storm of criticism - all I got was bugger all; much humiliation!

I'm toying with adding to the Cambrai page in the same vein as the 3Y one as a diversion so I'll see what I've got here on tanks later. The trouble with "the first mass tank operation etc" is it seems based on anachronism - that the only way to use tanks is en masse, since that's what the Germans did in 1940. It's the same with the articles on Normandy like Operation Epsom and judgements about the Great War which measure every operation according to a breakthrough criterion when there weren't any. If it's any help, I'm glad you're still around, your comments are always interesting.Keith-264 (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

By all means. I find Jones, Rarey, & Icks very useful in listing actions. It seems to be pretty spot on. I remember now that you had a look in on the Patton debate, so you'll be aware of the travails there. This bloke is a complete pain in the arse - always carping and raising tangential objections, then going quiet when he gets a second prize. And he's a middle-aged Steampunk. . . What makes it all the more depressing is that I correspond with authorities from all over the world - historians, curators, and so on. Estienne's granddaughter, even Ernst-Metzmaier's son, who is still alive. And I never get the sort of argy-bargy you get on Wikipedia. You might also find it interesting to look up this gent.

Standing by. Hengistmate (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Truth
I think I saw a proposal on one of the rule pages to introduce a concept of truth where facts are concerned....;O);O);O).Keith-264 (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the book reference. I check them with Archives org in case there's one for free, sadly not this time but http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=fighting%20tanks%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts

came up so not all is lost.Keith-264 (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"I think I saw a proposal on one of the rule pages to introduce a concept of truth where facts are concerned" - I blundered across that, and it struck me as something of a crise de conscience on Wikipedia's part. Now I can't find it again. Have you got a link to it? BTW, if you need anything from Jones, Rarey, & Icks, let me know. Hengistmate (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I can't remember the page I'm afraid.Keith-264 (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 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] 02:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
I'm glad you found the von Kuhl article interesting... and yes the German sources are difficult. In fact, according Terence Zuber German War Planning, 1891-1914: Sources And Interpretations the original documents (i.e. even the Schlieffen plan itself) were not available for analysis after WWI except to select individuals, and then not at all 1935-1945 for obvious reasons, and finally the entire Reichsarchiv was destroyed in an air raid in 1945 - so research from the German side is piecemeal even for the experts.

Question: since von Kuhl exercised operational control during many of these battles, should he be listed in the P'dale infobox as a commander? or is he not at the same rank as the allied guys... just curious. Ultracobalt (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 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] 00:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

WWI Editathon
Hi Keith,

Just to let you know we've finalised the list of academics who'll be attending the World War I editathon next month, along with their areas of specialisation. If any of these are topics you'd be particularly interested in collaborating on, or you want to suggest articles in those fields that need work, please do make a note on the page - it'd be great if we could have some suggested topics ready in advance.

Any questions, do let me know... Andrew Gray (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 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] 14:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Poelcappelle
Sorry Keith, it was a copy paste error. How embarrassing. Anotherclown (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Dover Patrol
Policy at the Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org) permits you to upload images that are public domain in the country of publication and in the USA; as long as you're careful to use images from the edition found at http://archive.org/details/doverpatrol01bacogoog, you can upload them to Commons (and should; they're more useful there) because they were published in the USA and thus public domain both in the USA and in the country where they were published. Nyttend (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It works, but it's not the best; see what I did at File:View of landing pontoon from rear..jpg. Publication location is essential, especially when you might expect a book to have been published in a place other than where it was published, so specifying US publication place and date is quite helpful.  As well, when you get an image from an online book, it helps to link the book; you don't have to do that, but it can be helpful, if for no other reason than that it may lead interested readers to find other related images.  Nyttend (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

RE: Greg Dashes
No worries, the documentation is here; User talk:GregU/dashes.js, and tells you the exact text to insert and where to put it too. Miyagawa  (talk)  09:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Stefan2 (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
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] 19:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Second Battle of Passchendaele
I've had to undo the edits done to the Battle section of the article because I am having great difficultly following along. I am going to review the differences and propose something in terms of incorporating the material. The article flows in chronological order, not by formation. So it was not intended to have separate paragraphs for each division or corps. I think I have the preliminary operations section cleaned up, so have a look at that.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 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] 09:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Messines barrage map
I've done you one better. I've requested the name change, which should get completed in a day or so. I've also uploaded a high resoution PNG copy of the file just in case you are using it for a more detailed research. If I have some free time this weekend I will go through some of the Australian diaries and see if I can pull out any additional Messines maps. Created a new sub category for maps in the commons as I suspect I'll be making some additional uploads.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think the map works very well here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keith-264/sandbox2 which has a revision of the Messines page (I hadn't realised it was GA class until I altered my laptop settings so I've tried to consolidate all the piecemeal changes....) which is nearing completion.Keith-264 (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21
Hi. When you recently edited Battle of Messines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 40th Division (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) 12:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 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] 00:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Messines peer review.
Dear Auntie, I'd rather you left the English spellings since this is an English article about a British military operation. Isn't that the convention?Keith-264 (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is, and I didn't change anything of that sort intentionally. My computer might try to, though.  :)  Let me know if I do it again.  I've tried to be careful.  Good reading on the article, and I'll drop you suggestions etc. on the talk page.  auntieruth (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 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, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Tarantino reference in Gloster Gladiator article
Are you sure this was a piece of vandalism? It seems to date from April 2009 when it was added by Gian piero milanetti, along with a lot of other Italian-related material. I agree that the name Tarantino in isolation might look like a piece of valdalism, but do you have reason to believe the Italian pilot's name wasn't Tarantino? Lorcan (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of the BBC
As I have no idea if you keep this page on your watch list, I have responded to your points on the talk page here. Philip Cross (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 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 Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This and that.
Hello, Keith. Thank you for your support in the matter of the Americans at Cambrai. If we let things like that slip back in we'll soon be back to its having been a victory for George S. Patton Jr.

I can't remember now if I promised to do something about Messines. Do I owe you some reading? If so, do let me know.

Fancy a read of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hengistmate#November_2012? Some people. . . I am preparing a riposte. Hengistmate (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

re History of the Great War
See also is usually placed above references as its used for linking to other related wikipedia articles and so comes before the citations - I guess on the grounds that the average reader doesn't read the citations. Further reading and External links is for off-wiki material and hence last. The guideline on section ordering is Manual of Style/Layout. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Battle of Thiepval Ridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to French Empire


 * Battle of the Ancre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to French Empire

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 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 Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Capture of Eaucourt l'Abbaye


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Capture of Eaucourt l'Abbaye requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. 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.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Satellizer talk  contribs 21:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations
I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar in recognition of your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your being nominated for the 2012 "Military historian of the year" award. We're grateful for your efforts, and look forward to seeing more of your excellent work in the coming year! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Morval
Hi, I just assessed this as B-class. Great work, it must have taken a considerable amount of time to achieve. I made a few tweaks to the text in places, hope you don't mind. I'm not an expert in the MOS with regard to hyphens, but you might want to check all the hyphens are appropriately used. I fixed a one set relating to Flers-Courlette, but there might be others. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of the Ancre Heights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French Empire (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) 11:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
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) 13:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture and map captions
Gday again Keith. FYI - I finally responded to you I my talk page. Apologies for the delay. No reply required (unless of course you'd like to continue the discussion in which case pls feel free) but I figured I'd at least let you know that I had written something there. Have a good one. Anotherclown (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hindenburg Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French Empire (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) 11:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
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) 08:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
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) 04:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hindenburg Line
Thanks for looking over the page. I'm wondering about making a proposal to merge it with the Alberich page. Do you have an opinion?Keith-264 (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * IMHO should be separate - Hindenburg Line was a fortification, Alberich was an operation. Related but separate - both warrant major articles in their own right - really huge undertakings for their day excellently carried out, and seeing the parlous state of Germany quite remarkable logistical exercises. Wish somebody would write them ! regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
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) 16:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 5th Division (Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Péronne (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) 11:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Operation Normandy in the Signpost
Long time no talk. I know the Normandy project basically died a death, but you were always a valuable contributor of sources and advise. There is an interview about the project going in Signpost, if you are interested please see below: EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Military History's Operation Normandy for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)"

Categories for Operations on the Ancre, January – March 1917
Hello Keith, article is looking great, but please note it's not filed in any WP:Categories, so it's automatically filing in the error administrative category WP:UNCAT. Please promptly add the appropriate categories (easiest way is to find a similar article and take your cues from its cats) so that the page can file properly and be more accessible to readers (and help folks like me empty out WP:UNCAT). Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You just added the "has German language text" cats? That's not quite what I meant. Look at, for example Vimy Ridge: Category:1917 in France, Category:Battles of the Western Front (World War I), Category:Battles of World War I involving Canada, Category:Battles of World War I involving Germany, Category:Battles of World War I involving the United Kingdom, Battle of Vimy Ridge, Category:Canada in World War I, Category:Conflicts in 1917, Category:First World War in the Pas-de-Calais, Category:Tunnel warfare.


 * I'd suggest figuring out the equivalent cats for your battle (again looking at some related articles for ideas) to make sure you get filed properly. Drop me a line again (post it here, and then just post the code  on my Talk page to let me know you've added a reply. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they were there already, I did the 1917 in France etc.Keith-264 (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, my mistake, I see yours now. Looks great, and that should make it a lot easier for readers of other WWI articles to come across yours. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Greetings Matthew, is there a wiki page detailing the procedure for compiling categories as I realise that I've neglected this part of page construction on most of the pages I've added material to.Keith-264 (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC) I've had a look at the categories link you added but need something succinct. I am copying category links like you suggested but need something in between that and ploughing through the categories page. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I got as far as and then ran aground with the red link (ManFlu isn't helping). ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
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) 13:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Vimy Ridge: A Canadian Reassessment
when you feel better, you can see substantial parts through google books. Thanks to it I found it that Alanbrooke was largely responsible for the artillery plan at Vimy, and Tiny Ironside was GSO1 for the 4th Division; it was the British regular army that contributed the experience in planning and running an army in the field. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Gallipoli subsequent operations
Hi, Thanks for that, Keith–264, I haven't discovered the duplicate links button, so hadn't realised. Yes, agree about the subheading being non specific and, like you, I am not sure whether 'Later' might be better. I have recently realised 'subsequent' is a word I probably use too frequently. I'll leave it up to you. That said I'm going to make a few more tweaks mainly to dates of operations, extending the excellent use of brackets to show the length of conflicts. --Rskp (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a complete klutz with anything but the most basic layer of Wikipedia, so of course I can't get it to work. I'm sorry to be so basic but do you mean to type ; then capital O then half a bracket )? I've tried it singly, and simultaneously, without success. :(

However, I must say how grateful I am that you got involved with the Gallipoli article, as the usual suspects were getting carried away, and your concise style has really brought it together. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings
Thanks :) It seems you have been very busy here! I am looking towards updating the Treaty of Versailles article. Considering your vast interest in the First World War, if you have any sources that are handy or want to lend a hand it would be very much appreciated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Any help is appreciated.
 * No problems that it is outside your scope of interest. If you want to pop by my sandbox page there is all sorts of things I need help with citing. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
I am seeing numerous reverts to your preferred style over the past several days at Battle of Passchendaele. This is edit warring, and is blockable. I certainly will not block you myself, being as I am involved, but I will refer this matter to the appropriate noticeboards if necessary. Resolute 14:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a threat, but a warning. And you really need to learn how things operate.  It is your responsiblity to gain consensus to change something that has existed fine for many years.  It is your change that is disputed, it is your responsiblity to show your preferred POV is supported. Resolute 14:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, we are both now at WP:3RR. I certainly will not revert you again, but bear in mind that you will be blocked if you end up doing the same. Resolute 14:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=561329736 your edit] to Operation Hush may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * and 100 - 200 yd wide. A staff officer involved in the planning, Lieutenant-Colonel Norman MacMullen|C. N. Macmullen, suggested that the operation should not begin until a general

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
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) 09:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Guillemont
It took some finding! The cite had a ref to itself John of Cromer  (talk) mytime= Tue 23:26, wikitime=  22:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Guillemont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oblique (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) 11:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I never.
Hello, young fellow. What, if I might say so, an extraordinary and intriguing heading to your message on my talk page. It smacks of Carry On, and augurs well. The tone of your previous communications leads me to suspect that we might be kindred spirits to some degree. Certainly more so than is the case with some other "editors" of my acquaintance. No names, no pack drill. I should prefer it if our discussions took place away from prying eyes, as it were, if you follow me.

Anyway, I admire your attempts to improve the Landships Committee article. However, I fear that it needs, as we say round these parts, mending with a new one. It is, from, beginning to end, an almost unmitigated pile of pants. I don't think any amount of referencing will improve it if the basic facts aren't there. This is why Wikipedia is such a misbegotten concept. Anyway, the missus hasn't woken up yet, whereas the dog has, so I must prevent the twain from meeting or I'll be in trouble with both of them. I shall devote some thought to this and get back to you. Stand by. Hengistmate (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Somme Casualties
Here is what my sources tell us:

A. Illustrated  Companion to the First WW    Bruce Page 154- casualties - British 419,000; French 194,451, Germans 650,000.

B. World War One  Sourcebook    Haythornthwaite Page 35 Allied casualties 615,000 (420,000 British) Germans 400-650,000.

C. An Encyclopedia of  Battles    Eggenberger Page 407 casualties - British 420,000; French 195,000 Germans 650,000.

D. Dictionary of  Battles    Bruce page 238 casualties - British 418,000; French 195,000 Germans 650,000.

E. Dictionary of  Battles 1816-1976   Young page 338 British 420,000; French 195,000 Germans 650,000.

F. Warfare and Armed  Conflicts     Clodfelter  Page 446 Various statistics with no citations or references given for sources British 415,600; French 202,567, Germans 434,500 and Germans 236,194 to 600,000

G. Chronicle of the  First WW Vol 1    Grey - British Empire 419,654 French 195,000 Germans 419,989

H.  WW1 Databook    Ellis page 272 British 498,000; French 195,000 Germans 420,000.

Hope this helps--Woogie10w (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Also check Statistics of the military effort of the British Empire during the Great War, 1914-1920 at archive.org page 324  --Woogie10w (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, used those which are incuded by Philpott (2009).Keith-264 (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I can send a PDF by E-mail of The Blood Test Revisited: A New Look at German Casualty Counts in World War I James H. McRandle, James Quirk  if you don't have it already --Woogie10w (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes please, I could only find the abstract on the web, Philpott used their calculations for German losses July-December 1916. Do you mean my e-mail or a Wikipedia one?Keith-264 (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am at berndd11222@yahoo.com--Woogie10w (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons image
I left a note in your thread at commons about the 7 day limit. The easiest way to license it may be to have your mate create an account and re-upload the image to the same file page. That way the copyright holder can apply his own license without all the other hoops. Just have him select the 'upload new version of this file' and leave 'uploaded by copyright holder' as an edit summary. We can then add the license he chooses for him.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Canoe, I'll do that.Keith-264 (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * He says he'll do that as he has an account. Thanks again.Keith-264 (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Gallipoli GA co-nom
Hello Keith. I am think of nominating Gallipoli Campaign for GA (and have also asked AustralianRupert to be involved). You have obviously done a lot of excellent work on this article. Would you be interested in a co-nomination? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go, what does it entail? PS I have been filling in citations on pages with incomplete B class checklists to try to pull my weight a bit on the assessment side, so I'll be having a look at the branch pagesKeith-264 (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! I've made the nomination on behalf of the three of us now so when another editors reviews it pls feel free to help make any adjustments that may be req'd as part of the review. AR should be able to help but seems like he will be pretty busy next week and might be offline for a bit so it might just end up being you and I. Anotherclown (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK I'll get stuck in as needed.Keith-264 (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Howdy again Keith. Sorry I was a bit unclear here I think - because the three of us (AR, yourself and I) have nominated the article for review as contributors we are meant to wait for someone else to come along and do the review. By creating the review page like you did here it looks like you are reviewing it, not nominating it. Because of the great deal of work you have put in to it you won't be eligible to review it. We might need to request some help deleting the review page, so someone else can do the review. I'll try and work on my communication skills in the future! Anotherclown (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I clicked "save" in a moment of incompetence. ;)Keith-264 (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bugger! I thought I was being clever adding = to the citations on the Dogger page. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That can work if you use a template like or  . Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Review issue was all easily sorted it seems. Nick was able to delete it. Anyway I'm heading to bed so I don't have to watch the bloody cricket (probably going to be too much for an Aussie to bear - happy to be proven wrong though)! Have a good one. Anotherclown (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=563694266 your edit] to First day on the Somme may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * before zero hour, except for the Hawthorn Ridge mine which was detonated {nowrap|10 minutes} before zero at 7:20 a.m. One of the small mines, at Kasino Point, was mistimed and
 * packs before being rescued. At 7:30 p.m. the Fourth Army believed that there had been nowrap|16,000 casualties by 3 July 40,000 and 60,000 by 6 July. The final

A page you started (Capture of Fricourt) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Capture of Fricourt, Keith-264!

Wikipedia editor Narvekar ameya just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"This page is reviewed"

To reply, leave a comment on Narvekar ameya's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Battle of Albert (1916)
Good to see somebody taking the ball and running on this. Good work ! regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Today Bapaume, tomorrow - ZE VORLD!Keith-264 (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

=NO MORE BARNSTARS PLEASE=

Flers links.
I've made a bit of an effort and found a couple of candidates. Hengistmate (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks mate, what are they?Keith-264 (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

These, on that page you're supposed to be following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hengistmate#Ooh-er Hengistmate (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=569060703 your edit] to Battle of Verdun may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Castelnau General De Langle de Cary the commander of GAC on 25 February who doubted that the east bank could be held but Castelnau, called Herr and ordered
 * (German Empire)|3rd]], 7th and 18th corps attacked at 4:00 p.m.. The Germans used flamethrowers for the first time to

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=569468854 your edit] to Second Battle of Champagne may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * from elsewhere and rush them up. They had lost 145,000 Men, while the Germans lost 72,500 men Foley gives 97,000 casualties. The French had taken 25,000

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
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) 00:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Do 17
Re: Why the revert?Keith-264 (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Basically, your edit made a long run-on sentence out of the statement. I re-edited the entire article, and your edit was just part of the mix. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC).


 * Can't you get rid of "successfully"?Keith-264 (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Verdun
You're talking about the Battle of Verdun article? the number of columns of references changes depending on what size/shape screen is being used, as the syntax used even before i edited it was reflist|xxem rather than reflist|[no of columns]. it doesn't look squashed on my screen in fact there's still white gaps between the columns, surprised it would look squashed with 20em width as the columns are very narrow. i had thought about making them even narrower! Tom B (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * feel free to change, i think it helps adding columns to reduce length of article, likewise the only thing in see also section was VC section so seemed to make sense to reduce no. of section headings? Tom B (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right about the length but I put the Verdun references back into line strictly for aesthetic reasons. I'll grit my teeth over the footnotes as my share in consensus building ;O) . Thanks for being so understanding. I withdraw my moan about the VC header, since if anyone has anything to add to see also they can alsways put the L3 back. I'm not keen on VC listings anyway, since there are no comparable German and French data but if other people put them in I leave them alone. Keith-264 (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=572788102 your edit] to Battle of Hill 60 (Western Front) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * when the hill had become a moonscape of overlapping shell-holes and mine craters. The divisions of II Corps (United Kingdom)|II Corps  and V Corps simulated attack preparations on 21 April but on 22 April

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=572799608 your edit] to Battle of Loos may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * * {{cite book |title=With a Reservist in France {{red|&#40;}} A Personal Account of all the Engagements in Which the 1st Division 1st Corps Took Part, viz; Mons (

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=572872587 your edit] to Battle of Hill 60 (Western Front) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (United Kingdom)|28th Division]], which took over the line in February 1915 and then by the {{red|&#91;&#91;}} 5th Division|5th Division. The planned raid was expanded into an

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hohenzollern Redoubt
Can I thank you for your work on the Hohenzollern Redoubt article in which battle my grandfather, Geoffrey Vickers fought. You will note that I have already uploaded images of maps he carried, and done other work on improving the article. This is WP at it's best! PeterEastern (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
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) 00:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=576711803 your edit] to Second Battle of the Aisne may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The final action of the campaign was the Battle of La Malmaison Bataille de la Malmaison from 24–26 October 1917, which led to the capture of the

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=576884986 your edit] to Nivelle Offensive may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * of the river and the 34th Division took Mont Cornillet and {lang|fr|Mont Blond} . The "Monts" were held against a German counter-attack on 19 April by the 5th, 6th ({{lang|fr|''

Removal of my request for review support
Hi, was the removal of my request intentional or accidental? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't know I'd removed anything. Apologies if I did, I got a edit conflict and pasted my comment in the top box as usual, if I cancelled your comment it was inadvertent.Keith-264 (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013
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) 23:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

First World War map
Keith-264, drop me an email and I'll send what I've worked up to see if it will work for you. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sent you a joined image. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied, thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=579740313 your edit] to Second Battle of the Aisne may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fifth Army, 30,296 casualties in the Sixth Army, 4,849 in the Tenth Army and nowrap|2,1697 in the Fourth Army and 1,486 in the Third Army. In

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=580475077 your edit] to Battle of the Hills may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * of aircraft and eleven balloon companies and 1,600 guns.{sfn|Berthion|2002|p=} The Fourth Army held an 18 km front, just north of the Reims, St. Hilaire le

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=582800586 your edit] to Battle of the Hills may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Lévi, 60th Division Général Patey, 23rd Division Général Bonfait. XVII Corps, Général Dumas 24th Division Général Mordacq, attached to the XVII Corps, Division Marocaine Général Degoutte,

Unblock you cads! Comment
Keith-264 (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The block was rescinded a few minutes later, see note below.Keith-264 (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * May I compliment you on such a swift unblocking.Keith-264 (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
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) 06:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Mons
G'day, Keith, per your offer here, I wonder if you are interested in taking a look at the Battle of Mons article and adding some of your sources to it? Its a reasonably developed article, but could it could no doubt benefit from the addition of some information from the official histories that you have, and possibly doesn't need much work to get it to B class. I have done a bit of work on it in the past, but don't have the subject knowledge or sources probably to take it that extra step further, unfortunately. Regards, 08:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Greetings, I'll have a look and let you know.Keith-264 (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=584335817 your edit] to Second Battle of Ypres may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * * The Second Attack on Bellewaarde 25 September

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=584505117 your edit] to History of the Great War may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Officer (1915–1918) Brigadier-General J. Charteris in his 1929 biography of Haig . Edmonds wrote that the worst of

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=585658237 your edit] to Fifth Battle of Ypres may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Fifth Battle of Ypres also known as the Advance of Flanders and the Battle of the Peaks of Flanders ({{lang-

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=585919405 your edit] to Second Battle of Champagne may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [{{fullurl:Second Battle of Champagne|action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+typo+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3ABracketBot%7CBracketBot%5D%5D}} edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Twenty divisions of the Second and Fourth armies attacked at {nowrap|9:15 a.m.} {{red|&#125;}} with each division on a {{convert|1500|–|2000|yd|m}} front. A second line of seven divisions

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013
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) 00:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

First Ypres
Hi Keith

Many thanks for improving various aspects of this article.

I am, however, confused as to the logic of some of the headings. Under 'strategic developments' we have the order of battle which was previously under 'forces involved'. It doesn't fit where it is at the moment. The same with 'tactical developments'.

I don't understand it. Am I off bases here? Ta. Dapi89 (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Antwerp (1914)
Dear Keith,

First of all I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank you for your excellent work on the Siege of Antwerp and Battle of the Yser! I just wondered if you were planning to take the article to GA, where I might be able to help provide some further references. I don't think it is currently that far away. Anyway, once again great job! Brigade Piron (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, your additions have been most helpful too. I'm mainly concerned to move as many articles on the Western Front to b-class as I can before getting that ambitious. When I'm not in the mood to pull my finger out and finish what I'm working on, I look for pages which need citations and references as I've got a lot of sources. I'll bear it in mind though as you usually notice edits to Belgian articles. I'll be busy incorporating a new book on 2nd Artois before it has to go back to the library and then I must get round to finishing off Delville Wood (six months overdue) before I move further north.Keith-264 (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, that certainly seems sensible - if you could take a look at the Battle of Liège which really needs work too, then that'd be great! If I can help in any way (I have a couple of good French-language sources on battles involving Belgium) please let me know. By the way, if you can find anything on the Charge of Burkel (1918 - rather minor I know!), I'd be really grateful! Brigade Piron (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Non-English sources are as rare as they are important so thanks for that. I've had a look in OH 1918 V but nothing I'm afraid.Keith-264 (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Found this "... at Ruddervoorde, and by the occupation of Ringbeek by the Germans. It took up a waiting position behind tile 1st Infantry Division about Laake-Boschen between Ruddervoorde and Wyngege. During this day, then, the enemy had occupied the positions they held in the general line Zeebrugge-Bruges-Thielt-Oxyghem ; but the resolution to stand fast soon evaporated, and before the next day had dawned the German retreat commenced again. Rearguards, consisting generally of a battalion and battery, covered the retirement of the various columns. They were followed up closely by the Belgian troops, who by the evening had reached the front Maldeghem-Knesselaere-Aeltre-Lootenhulle-Oesselghem and the east bank of the Lys. The Belgian cavalry division was ordered to pursue the enemy, pressing close on his heels ; formed into two columns, it was instructed to attain its first objective, the water channel leading from the Lys. The northern of the two columns which marched in the direction of Eecloo by Maldeghem, found itself engaged in a dismounted fight near Burkel. Towards the end of the afternoon two squadrons charged at a gallop towards Burkel and captured a line of German machine-guns, and then, dismounting ocoupied the ground which had been gained. A detachment of the southern column reached Knessolaero and struck the enemy at Waterloopen. p263 https://archive.org/details/timeshistoryofwa20londuoft Keith-264 (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've added it - excellent resource by the way.Brigade Piron (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That's no problem! I'm amazed there are anglicised names at all for such small and insignificant places anyway, still I guess Dutch names are not so easy for English tongues. Incidentally, if you're interested, I've got an WWI-article for GAR (Comité National de Secours et d'Alimentation) if you've got time! Brigade Piron (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Erm, was it you who changed it to b-class? I don't think it's ready and since we have made a lot of edits we have a conflict of interest.Keith-264 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Antwerp zeppelins
I've found a reference. I'd prefer to have used a more topical sources, but I guess it can do. It's a biography of the obscure poet Jan van Nijlen. The gist is: "On the night of 25/6 August, Antwerp was bombarded by a Zeppelin, in an action in which ten people lost their lives..." (p.296). I'll look for more evidence of the raids during the siege itself.-Brigade Piron (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, it's listed here as the first aerial bombing of a city in history.Brigade Piron (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Minor issues

 * Probably worth mentioning Churchill's personal visit to the city on 3 October
 * This 1 has quite an interesting section on the lack on preparation (no uniforms, even) of the RND.

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
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) 13:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Neuve Chapelle
Just a comment (on by the way, a good and improved article): I looked at this article before Hawkeye. I didn't feel I could give it a B, but because my reason seems to fall between the cracks on the B class rating criteria, I just didn't rate it, rather than giving it a C.
 * The problem is with some of the Wikilinks (and I didn't go to the article history to see who created them). Perhaps they could be seen as violations of WP:OVERLINK, but I'm not sure.  I thought that a number of the piped links were inappropriate.  A marginal example (possibly justified to some) was linking Vimy Ridge, which in the article is used purely as a geographic reference to the battle there.  The one that made me decide not to rate the article, however, was a link to the geographic reference to Givenchy to the perfume manufacturer.  (If that had been the only one, I probably would have edited it out and continued the assessment.  I'd be interested in knowing if you have any thoughts on this.  Cheers.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

RTTS
I think this article is a logical step and will go along way to putting the 1914 campaigns into context. One can see clearly see the progress of operations from south to north whilst providing a succinct overview of the battles and of course the rationale for the northward creep of the warring factions. As ever I think the military strategic context is a must, though I would try to be brief (pot calling the kettle black there). I thought if you added in a brief line about the grand geostrategic realm you could add in a link for Causes of World War I, but perhaps it would be better to keep this solely to military matters.

On a small note, I see you use "Tactical Developments" as a sub-heading. It is an interesting choice in place of "Operational Developments" which I thought would have been better. Then I had a think about it. After some reading, I note that perhaps you were right. Moltke the Eder had spoken of the operativ in the 19th century, but it appears this was not crystallised into doctrine until much later—possibly after the Soviet Soviet deep battle concept which officially was the first to recognise operational warfare. The French had done the same as the Germans and the British had not injected the term into doctrine until the 1980s. I find that the combatants at the time tended to use the term "grand tactics" to describe what we would call "operational manoeuvre".

Sorry for the ramble. Dapi89 (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's tempting to paraphrase Foley: German Strategy and the Path to Verdun - Erich Von Falkenhayn and the Development of Attrition 1870-1916 and have done with it. ;O) Strachan is similar without the detail so the northern extension of the fighting is not too controversial subject. I tend to split pages up the way I do because of the lack of French and German sources in English, which means they're usually a patchwork of authors. I divide the Background section like that to keep in mind the Eastern Front etc which had a symbiotic relationship with the Western (and southern) front, that way I can keep shenanigans at GHQ, GQG and OHL seperate from the fighting. The tactical developments are usually changes in the way existing resources were used and why - since both sides were always trying to use what they had in the context of outsmarting the opposition, which was difficult when any use of the army, tended to destroy it as fast as the the opposing one, reducing well-trained units to novice status in a few days.Keith-264 (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The page is an outline at the moment and modelled on Arras 1917, which I used for the 3rd Ypres and Somme hub pages, which seemed to go down well with the punters. Since we usually write the lead last, it might stay in the sandbox for a while as I do something about the sub-pages. I used your material copied from 1st Ypres for Battle of Armentières Battle of La Bassée so perhaps you might want to consider how much of it needs to stay on the 1st Ypres page? Keith-264 (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think it would be acceptable to leave just a two-line summation and a link to those articles? Dapi89 (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the last time I checked the recommendation was a paragraph (see here Battle of the Somme) so I tend to adapt the lead of the article. In the outline I've just copied and pasted such lead material as exists. I've been doodling with the structure of the First Ypres page here User:Keith-264/sandbox5, same as RttS here User talk:Keith-264/sandbox3 but I don't think there's a straightforward way of organising so many battles in the region, which overlapped at some times and reacted against each other at others. I think that the RTTS can be restricted to mid-September to mid-October when the Belgians took up the Yser line, so have put Yser and Ypres at the bottom of the page as Subsequent Operations. La Bassee, Armentieres and Messines seem to fall into two parts, the meeting engagements during the RttS and then supporting operations to the main event at Yser-Ypres after mid-October, so I've experimented with putting them into the prelude for 1st Ypres. I've limited the headers in the Battle section to those in "Battles and Engagements" for the moment but I wonder if sub-sections for La Bassee, Armentieres, Messines and/or Yser might be necessary as "Supporting" or "Subsidiary" attacks after mid-October.

It seems to be an intractable problem with battles that last for more than a day or two, either you chop it into bits and write half a dozen new articles which are almost identical in the Background and Prelude sections or risk having a "Battle" section a mile long. When I was writing some of the pages for the Somme (Other engagements) I asked Oz Rupert, who pointed out that they may look repetitive to us but to a punter they're necessary on each page, since we can't assume they're as knowledgeble as the writers.

Anyway they're thought experiments rather than decisions, so I'm interested in your views as to structure too. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I stripped out as best I could. I might suggest that the "Strategic developments" part - from the point "Germany Army was the strongest" to the end, could conceivably go into the First Ypres Orbat articles it relates to mobilisation. That would go some way to reducing size. Dapi89 (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In this section we stand to benefit from continuity, because it seems to me that the Marne-Aisne pages end the beginning of the war> battle of the frontiers>great retreat period. RttS takes the story from the end of the Aisne to the North Sea and Yser-1st Ypres cover operations to the end of the year in northern France and Belgium. I'd concentrate on Falkenhayn taking over and shifting the german effort to the nothern flank, Joffre doing the same, the influence of the Eastern Front (demands for reinforcements from France/opportunity to exploit German difficulties) a few sentences re RttS and then the strategic situation in the north once the ground had been occupied and the flank closed, with a para somewhere on the move of the BEF from the Aisne front (although quite a bit of it ended up south of Ypres in the Messines, Armentieres and La Bassee areas. I had another doodle with 1st Y here User:Keith-264/sandbox5 by removing everything but the headers to see if I could find a satisfactory structure but the three battles specific to Ypres would need seperate pages. Are you OK with sources for the bits you're interested in?Keith-264 (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Copied these exchanges here Talk:First Battle of Ypres suggest we use the talk page from now on.Keith-264 (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Keith-264/sandbox5
This is really nice Keith and the presentation/layout looks immaculate. I'd imagine it would be a compact and concise article to read. One problem I have is my tendency to ramble, add too much context and detail. In that regard the article seems very restrained. The concept of syphoning off major battles into their own article is a smart move, one I need to adopt once in a while! That said I have not edited a campaign article for a long while.

I think this article would complement the Battle of Belgium very well. You know I thought about the Battle of Belgium 1914 some time ago but did not have the inclination or time to do it. The WWII article was easy enough to do with only two major battles over 18 days so I could avoid 'out-sourcing' information to sub-articles (like the Battle of Hannut). All I had to do was place it into the context of the German western offensive and that was that. One thing that article was lacking was the fate of the occupied people. I note you have made efforts to add that information. Kudos.

I haven't really got anything to add. I think coverage of the naval issue and Britain's view of the country (which was a UK creation really) as their outlet into Europe should be added to the background parts when you come to do them. Dapi89 (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 '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 (~) '

No wraps
There is no value in adding nowraps where there is nothing to prevent the wrapping of. In future, please make sure they are needed before adding them... Magus732 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean.Keith-264 (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You know what I mean... stop re-adding the unneeded nowraps to the Battle of Cambrai article... Magus732 (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But some of them served no useful purpose where they were, which is why they were removed. Magus732 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Keith-264/sandbox3
No complaints. Its very easy to read. I can't see any problems. The sooner it replaces the other the better. Dapi89 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

hyphens
I reverted some edits of yours on Gallipoli Campaign. The only reason I can think of for you to hyphenate "counterattack" is to implement a UK/Commonwealth spelling. Per MOS:RETAIN, I don't think we should be changing spelling conventions. The article isn't yet listed as a Commonwealth spelling article although it is a heavily UK/Commonwealth topic (MOS:TIES). I can't see any reason you'd hyphenate "northwest." Please explain. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 03:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I found that I could use a Mozilla spell-checker on Seamonkey so I've been going round the pages I've edited checking for typos (Chris the Speller has been putting the l back into Word for World and adding an I to divsion etc). I'm not that sure about counter-attack either but since the spell-checker us supposed to be "UK English" I'm following its strictures for now. I don't mind you reverting the edits but I'd like you to leave north-west hyphenated [] although I will defer to the antipodean preference if desired.Keith-264 (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I had been heretofore unaware of MOS:COMPASS. I don't seek to implement a diametrically opposed preference.  Perhaps we should label this article as being written in Commonwealth English and restore your spellings.  What would suggest? Do we need an RfC to override MOS:RETAIN?  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On the whole, I'd leave it as it is, I made a lot of typo edits elsewhere that haven't been challenged.Keith-264 (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
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) 23:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Belgium
Thanks Keith. No I didn't. Seems Ok now. Dapi89 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

RT (TV network)
Your recent editing history at RT (TV network) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Infiltration Tactics
Hi Keith, Many thanks for your message. I can look into making a PDF of my blog post. I have certainly seen Krause's book. I am new to Wikipedia messaging but I assume you will see this. regards, Simon 11 March 2014 (~) '

Thanks, and ...
Hi again Keith, and thanks for all your recent edits at WT:MIL. I have a delicate question: what's the gist of the word "zionist", in your opinion? I promise I'm not launching an attack here against you or anyone else ... I just think there may be a larger context or two that we might want to discuss at the Milhist talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Zionist = secular fascist antisemite.Keith-264 (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, so it's a subset of "racist". I'm recovering from diverticulitis at the moment, but I've been looking over recent RfCs, some of which I've closed, on subjects like appropriate speech on Wikipedia. It's a devilishly hard problem ... people react badly to nannies telling them what and what not to say, particularly on pages like WP:ANI. OTOH, there are quiet little wikiprojects where everyone is reserved and friendly, and we've seen it happen time and time again that someone starts raising the volume and people feel like it's not so friendly any more and the activity dies off. That's not going to happen at Milhist of course ... I'm just pondering about future RfCs, this is not a slap, and I'd like to hear any thoughts you have. - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fascism and antisemitism are not racist. Fascism is classist and antisemitism is a mixture of religious chauvinism and pseudo- or quasi- racism (i.e. racism is a form of fascism). I thought the question asked on the talk page was riddled with assumptions which I contradicted. I was not unfriendly, I didn't raise any volume, I am not responsible for other people's inferences (except to the extent that they are responsible for mine) and invited debate. Are you making similar comments on the other editor's pages or are you singling me out?Keith-264 (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't see that anyone else had used words like "zionist" at WT:MIL, and this is the only page I've talked about this on, I'm not trying to get you in trouble. I know you've worked with and trust other coords, would you be willing to sound them out privately on this? I don't how how others think about this. I just wanted to give you a heads up and chat with you a bit so we have time to see if we can get to a meeting of the minds before I launched any new discussions at WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 11:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're on about, do you object to my use of the term?Keith-264 (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not precisely it ... to close RfCs, I have to stay neutral, so I try to avoid positions that might interfere with that role when I can. But you define a zionist as an "antisemite" above, and there have been some objections in the past to terms like these (I don't have a diff, I'm sorry), at least in the context of labeling individuals or entire countries. - Dank (push to talk) 12:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't labelled either; since zionism is a secular fascist ideology, it is inherently antisemitic. It seemed to me to be a typical example of the ideological nature of the subject that the original question was put in the terms it was, although I didn't infer that it was deliberate and I wouldn't consider an objection to be any more notable than an agreement. No-one took up my offer to discuss the matter and I assumed the matter was closed.Keith-264 (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm content that you've got enough distance from this that it doesn't make sense to rehash it as an example of the larger problem of inflammatory speech. Thanks for being patient. - Dank (push to talk) 12:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Quis custodiet, ipsos custodes?Keith-264 (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I find your reply to my question of a piece with your other comments on my talk page - disingenuous and stigmatising. I don't want you to make any more comments on this page and will not respond if you do.Keith-264 (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
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) 12:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WW1 casualties
I was glad to see your message, your review of the article is appreciated. I am off to the New York Public Library to track down a 1924 French source on microfilm for Serbian and Romanian losses.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologize unexplained remove
If you are offended by my edit, I apologize. (I do not speak English well, sorry Please understand.)

Campaignbox World War1 in Battle of Agbeluvhoe, Campaignbox Frontiers 1914 and Campaignbox Western Front (World War I) in Siege of Maubeuge I think that it is unnecessary to. Because, for example Battle of Agbeluvhoe ⊂ Togoland Campaig ⊂ World War1

My response is slow because I don't know how reply. I am very sorry.

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
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) 14:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
 Dewritech (talk)  19:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Congrats.
Allow me to express my admiration at the self-restraint you have shown recently in your responses to 108.20.78.154. I am not always able to emulate you. Quite why some people have to announce their presence in such a fashion, I cannot say. It reminds me very much of another "editor" with a similar modus operandi.

Anything I can do to help, btw? Hengistmate (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it's not often that my diplomacy is commended ;O) I'm having a strategic pause at the moment, as real life is getting in the way but I'm still pottering around the margins.Keith-264 (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Verstanden. Hengistmate (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ta; Verdun by Paul Jankowski has arrived so I may revise the casualties section of the page tomorrow.Keith-264 (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's be civil.
Keith-265,

On the Messines article, how about we be civil, eh? Honest, I've made no efforts other than sincere ones to improve the clarity of the wording. Sorry if it came off otherwise ("smileys" generally don't work work as well as they used to I suppose). Thanks for the clarifications in response by the way. Please try not to mistake persistence and requests for clarification as a signal to go in for an attack with dismissive flippant remarks.

These paragraphs do still have a number of wording issues leading to some confusion (particularly with tense and timing of events). I was confused, and that led to my tries at improving it. That's all there is to it, I'm not trying to ride roughshod over the article or anything else.

For one thing, describing post-war bulldozing efforts by Land Drainage Companies is probably off topic with regard to the "Battle of Messine (1917)" let alone "British Plans 1916-1917". It really should be removed from the section (and article) unless it's dressed up somehow to appear more on-topic.

108.20.78.154 (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Update and correction: I just made a fix-up to the soil paragraph making the tense consistent, etc. Now I understand that the Land Drainage Companies activities were not post-war. So, that commentary is actually on-topic. The previous wording (with the flip-flopping tense, "Since 1914", etc.) wasn't so clear. I think it's better now. Again, if I screwed up the intended meaning, please correct it, and take it as evidence that the previous wording really was confusing (so much that I couldn't figure it out even after looking at it as closely as I did). 108.20.78.154 (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't thrown the baby out with the bath water because some of your edits have appeared constructive but Civility is a two-way street. Rather than tedious edits, reverts and re-edits, why don't you collect your questions, opinions and assertions on the talk page so we can go through them en masse. Note also that the markup is – not <> on the page.Keith-264 (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. If you take a look, the edits are generally really simple high school English stuff (tense, splitting long multiple-subject paregraphs, etc.) I don't think there's really that much of it either. With regard to the "Since 1914", I think I clarified it correctly. I pulled in all the context, your previous comments, then ground them up and finally figured out what it was supposed to mean. I think I got it right.

The nature of most of the edits is not really conducive to hashing out on a talk page before making the changes. That is, it would be a waste of everyone's time to thoroughly discuss the splitting of a paragraph, getting consensus, then making the split. My error in the last two edits was making them all at once. Sorry about that. I've had that done to me elsewhere on pages I monitor, it really is often easier to revert than to give them a good looking over. I ask that you overlook my bunching them all together and do take a look at them and resist the urge to revert. The bundled edits aren't really that bad, it's pretty simple stuff.

About the markup technique, thanks on that. My main point was that noting the source of the defs was more suited to a note of some kind. I was originally quite confused by its interjection into the main text. I've added notes using the "<></>" in a number of other places and it's worked well. If there's a more refined way to go about it, have at it.

Yours, 108.20.78.154 (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * See Messines talk page.Keith-264 (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

German language
If you may be familiar with the german language I would like to offer you a look to the german Willy Rohr and, I think this would be even more interesting, to the side of Sturm-Bataillon Nr. 5 (Rohr) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturm-Bataillon_Nr._5_(Rohr)

Regards --1970gemini 13:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, I speak little German but it's very interesting to see (I can put it through an online translator too), regards.Keith-264 (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * God bless the google-translator B-) Regards --1970gemini 17:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.84.20 (talk)


 * I've added the link to the Verdun External links section.Keith-264 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And before I'll forget it: Now you're honored to create the english version of the Sturm-Bataillon Nr. 5 (Rohr) B-)--1970gemini 18:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014
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) 22:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Operation Martlet
Good work on improving Operation Martlet. As I read the article to assess it, I found some things that pretty much fall under B4 that could use improvement. I looked briefly at the history and I see they are all leftovers from previous editors' work. Since you've "adopted" this article's improvement, I thought I'd let you decide what to do with them rather than changing them myself. (Besides, you might not agree with all of them). --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reading it, I only added the citations. I've got about five articles simmering but I'll try to remedy its shortcomings.Keith-264 (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=610952691 your edit] to Second Battle of the Odon may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 197th Infantry Brigade on the right attacking with the 5th East Lancashire Battalion and 177th Infantry Brigade on the left with 1/6th South Staffordshire

Battle of Menin Ridge
In the interests of consensual editing, this is just to let you know I am planning even greater changes to the article, to include greater detail and a wider range of sources, etc., as well as correcting inaccuracies and misleading wording.

In the meantime, why did you choose the blunt instrument of wholesale reversion, including the deletion of at least one new reference? Grant &#124;  Talk  16:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It was either that or a reversion of the nationality changes one-by-one. There has been a long argument about the status of Dominion formations and anachronistic labelling, which I fear will never be resolved. I would have left the other edits in if I could have done it in one go. I thought about contacting you to explain but wasn't sure if it was a drive-by edit by an ignoramus. I'd be grateful to know what you consider to be inaccurate, what sources you want to use and which wordings are misleading. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that the Analysis section is missing.Keith-264 (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You could have done what I did, which was copy and paste to a word processor and then "find and replace"; it still has to be done step by step, though, as a "bulk replace" will wreck some proper names.


 * I don't see how "the status of Dominion formations and anachronistic labelling" applies here. (1) Clearly, by the time of WW1, the Dominions were independent (except in foreign policy). That "independence" included Dominion governments having ultimate control over their own military forces. (2) The entity, including the UK, was officially called the British Empire long before WW1, and while some people (even in the Dominions) during WW1 still referred to all British Empire subjects as "British", to many others that was already unacceptable (as, say, referring to the Australian cricket team as "British").


 * Besides,WP:MOS says in its introduction: "avoid ambiguity" and the "vague". Other alternatives are: "Allied", a term that was already in use by 1916, or; avoiding collective terms (where possible) and using precise national descriptions (if possible). Grant  &#124;  Talk  10:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of opinion it's a matter of fact; Dominions were not sovereign states in 1914, Dominion subjects were British subjects and had British passports. The Canadian Supreme court ruled that Canada became sovereign in the 1920s and Australia did in 1948 (or in the 80s if you go by abolition of appeals to the Privy Council). If we were use "Allied" to refer to the coalition armies on the Western Front in particular rather than in general, we'll end up calling Verdun an Allied rather than French army victory. Notice that the French First Army to the north wasn't in the Menin Road battle either.


 * As I remarked, I thought about trying to revert the nomenclature and not the picture caption but when I've tried to use a word processor to edit like that I've made things worse. If your edit was a drive by, it would be pointless and if not we could sort it out later. As for the caption, if a picture paints a thousand words, why add a couple of dozen more when a few will do? I've had a look at the section on the Second Army and if for example you want an amendment like "British", "Australian" and "British and Australian" for X Corps, 1st Anzac Corps and the Second Army I won't object.


 * I suggest we move the discussion to the talk page Talk:Battle of the Menin Road Ridge if that's all right with you? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Keith, I think we are on the verge of sorting out the main issues, thanks. I will make those changes.

However, I still don't understand your aversion to the time-honoured use of "British Empire" as an adjective (e.g. "British Empire soldiers")? There is an argument that, the UK was part of the Empire, albeit one with a superior political-legal status to Dominions, especially after the final Colonial Conference (1907). What about "British and Imperial" as an alternative?

I don't think the de facto ("matter of fact") independence, in all but a handful of issues, of the Dominion governments before WW1, has any direct bearing on this issue. It is a "fact", though, if you consider that the various Dominion governments could, and did, resist UK government pressure during the war to (citing a few examples): impose conscription, keep war-weary units on the Western Front and impose harsher forms of discipline on Dominion personnel. Having studied British Empire history and contributed to Wikipedia articles on it, I can say that Canadian Supreme Court rulings (etc) that you mention are far less relevant than the establishment of self-government and responsible government in the settler colonies from the 1840s, the British North America Act of 1867, the Federation of Australia (1901), the aforementioned 1907 Colonial/Imperial Conference and the 1910 Imperial Conference (which led to the formation of the Australian and Canadian navies, inter alia).

The issue here is really a subjective one: how the Dominions (except perhaps New Zealand) perceived themselves in 1916: there were already national identities and nationalist sentiments that saw the Dominions as separate from (if related to) Britain and the British, especially among e.g. non-British citizens of the Dominions, e.g. indigenous peoples, French Canadians, Afrikaners, Irish Australians, etc. Consider that Australia had "national" Olympic, cricket, and rugby teams before its six colonies were Federated (1901), which is when it achieved Dominion status.

Grant &#124;  Talk  05:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an analysis of mentalites which isn't NPOV, legalistic criteria are. It also ignores the fact that all of the belligerents were empires - even plucky little Belgium. There were also local variations in the way peripheral groups were treated - Polish and Alsatian troops in the German federal army and non-Metropolitan troops in the French. I had another look at the page and added "and Australian" and "British and Australian" in several places. I'm much more interested in your sources which contradict the narrative of the article. Can we continue this on the Menin Road talk page please?Keith-264 (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for those changes.


 * In fact "mentalities" are NPOV, when they can be demonstrated through reliable sources – which they can. They are also very important to military history, because they are crucial in understanding the motivation, morale and heterogenity of a particular forces.


 * Your examples of Belgium and Germany are of limited relevance here because, first, their empires did not include entities with the political independence of the Dominions of the British Empire. (In fact, I'm not aware of any exact parallels to the Dominions anywhere (except perhaps for the position of Iceland in the Danish Empire before WW2.) Second, the structure of the German Army was radically different to that of the collective British Empire forces: "German" was an accepted and unambiguous generic term, that in 1870–1918 covered as many as four separate national armies – Prussia/North German Confederation, Bavaria, Saxony and Württemberg – almost as though the British Army was made up of separate English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh Armies! In fact, there is a German language term Wehrhoheit ("military sovereignty") to describe the independence of the Bavarian Army in WW1. As our article on the German Army says:
 * The overall commander of the Imperial German Army, less the Bavarian contingent, was the Kaiser. He was assisted by a German Imperial Military Cabinet, and exercised control through the Ministry of War and the Great General Staff. The Chief of the General Staff became the Kaiser's main military advisor and effectively the most powerful military figure in the Empire. Bavaria maintained its own Ministry of War and its own Royal Bavarian Army General Staff, but coordinated planning with the Prussian Great General Staff." [my italics]
 * (Even now, as you probably know, the records of the former Bavarian Army are still held in Munich and not in Berlin, Bonn or some other central archive.) In some senses, Bavaria was a case somewhere in between (say) the Indian Empire and the Dominions.  However: even then, Bavarian soldiers were still unambiguously and uncontroversially "German" in nationality and part of the broader German Army. Whereas many Indians, Australians, Canadians and South Africans did not, by 1914–18 see themselves as "British"; what's more their armies were officially separate, both from each other and the British Army proper.  Grant  &#124;  Talk  08:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Is your term "political independence" synonymous with sovereignty? Apropos, how many Dominion soldiers were born in Britain? How many "Dominion" soldiers were Iroquois or Anangu. Keith-264 (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My response is at Talk:Battle of Passchendaele. Grant  &#124;  Talk  07:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry
It appears we were copyediting German occupation of Belgium during World War II‎‎ at the same time—and I seem to have obliterated your edits ... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's quite all right, they were mostly cosmetic.Keith-264 (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Tom Rees
I have made Tom Rees (British soldier) a new article. Feel free to improve the article further.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm glad you've persevered.Keith-264 (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hearts From The Somme is finished
Hi Keith, Its James here, today we have just finished filming our film. We will began post production soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickproduction1815 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Seen This?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_V_tank#Dates_of_Service.
 * Ooh-erKeith-264 (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

RAF raid on La Caine HQ
Hi, I think there was a misunderstanding - please have a look at my original edit I was the editor who added the word "Some". My "how many - all eighteen of them?" did refer to "German staff officers watching the aircraft through binoculars", and my "remove weasel word" did refer to the word "unwisely". At the moment, the sentence sounds like eighteen of the staff officers got killed, while all of the staff officers were watching the attack through their binoculars? I should have explained my concerns more clearly. Thanks, --IIIraute (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Refs
Hey Keith, is there a reason to abbreviate the first names of authors? Most referencing styles I'm familiar with recommend full names in the full citations. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No it's just a habit since the referencing is alphabetical. Is there a policy?Keith-264 (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Citing sources I had a shufti at this and it showed examples of both. Revert the ed to the F-P War if you prefer, you've put most of the work in.Keith-264 (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not that big of a deal, I just tend to prefer Chicago/Turabian in my work. I suppose we can always re-add them if somebody causes a stink at a review. Parsecboy (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There was nothing like that when I was at college ;O).... Most of the wiki-methods I use are copied from the pages I look at - I favour sfn's because they are convenient for citing lots of pages from one work and now I can't remember how to do parentheticals except for each time.Keith-264 (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The TCMOS was first published in 1906 - how old are you? :P Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Too old....;O)Keith-264 (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014
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) 15:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Aufmarsch I West, etcetc
I'm afraid I can't help with any more page numbers, as I've only got an e-book edition of Zuber. Thanks for all your help with all the referencing and tidying, even if you are making some of the sentences very long and putting commas in some exceedingly odd places, winkwinknudgenudge. MAI 742 (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as commas aren't next to "and" or "but" I can usually cope. (biggrin) I think the scholarship you've brought to the page is first class and that matters the most. Thanks for your hard work.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Update
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_topic_ban_for_Andy_Dingley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Blocked

Hengistmate (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Pity that it had to go this far but then I haven't been on the receiving end. How are you feeling about it?Keith-264 (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Spicheren
Hi, Keith. Thank for your substantial contributions of the articles about 1870-71 and 1914-18 battles. Can you resolve the problems that I cite at the talk page of Battle of Spicheren. Howard and Wawro's books had drawn two consderably different paintings about this battle and I don't know how to get accurate information about it. Thank you again. Best regards.Ti2008 (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Blockquotes
I revised the article on the Battle of Cambrai to show quotations because it's not obvious that it's a quote

You undid this saying block quotes don't require quote marks. Wiki has an article on block quotations which show how a block quote is set apart from the article - they give an example of a quote in a shaded box. They give an accompanying explanation, viz "In typesetting, block quotations can be distinguished from the surrounding text by variation in typeface (often italic vs. roman), type size, or by indentation. Often combinations of these methods are used, but are not necessary. Block quotations are also visually distinguished from preceding and following main text blocks by a white line or half-line space.[3]" (Ibid.)

Would you like to format the quote as such? Montalban (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

so it's indented. OK?
 * I had a look after the revert and redid it as a "text"

Ooh-er
I don't like it, sir. ..

It's too quiet.


 * Architect: (X has suddenly disappeared from his meeting with the architects at the car park building) It's very rude to disappear like that. Where can he possibly be?

Architect: (Sounds of police cars converging on the car park can be heard below) I have an awful feeling we're not going to get our fees on this job.

"Ah. Movie references." Btw, why is my edit all wonky?

Ooh-er Mr
I don't like it, sir. ..

It's too quiet.


 * Architect: (X has suddenly disappeared from his meeting with the architects at the car park building) It's very rude to disappear like that. Where can he possibly be?

Architect: (Sounds of police cars converging on the car park can be heard below) I have an awful feeling we're not going to get our fees on this job.

"Ah. Movie references." Btw, why is my edit all wonky?

new section
test

Ooh-er
I don't like it, sir. ..

It's too quiet.


 * Architect: (X has suddenly disappeared from his meeting with the architects at the car park building) It's very rude to disappear like that. Where can he possibly be?

Architect: (Sounds of police cars converging on the car park can be heard below) I have an awful feeling we're not going to get our fees on this job.

"Ah. Movie references." Btw, why is my edit all wonky?

Ooh-er Mr
I don't like it, sir. ..

It's too quiet.


 * Architect: (X has suddenly disappeared from his meeting with the architects at the car park building) It's very rude to disappear like that. Where can he possibly be?

Architect: (Sounds of police cars converging on the car park can be heard below) I have an awful feeling we're not going to get our fees on this job.

"Ah. Movie references." Btw, why is my edit all wonky?

new section
test

All right.
I heard you the first time. Hengistmate (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes dad, I'd used nowiki but forgot the /nowiki at the end. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014
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) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Treasure Hunt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brumby

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trainspotting_%28film%29

Hengistmate (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

1st Ypres
Hi Keith.

The year 1914 certainly looks better for your efforts. I may have created a bit of imbroglio on 1st Ypres. Attempting a chronologic structure was perhaps not the best idea and I think the detail has 'over-cooked' the article. I would certainly not have written that way now it as I did in 2008/9.

Anyway, to your question. I think that pivotal to the 1914 campaign was the Battle for Lens and Arras. As with Ypres, I think the Germans missed on opportunity here. I think the developing threat to the Lens-Arras-Ypres line could be exploited in separate articles. These battles and fronts decided the fate of the channel ports. It is my belief that the German army failed to sufficiently coordinate their army groups to break this line. I don't think the lack of resources excuse (sometimes given) applies to the Germans here. I think they had significant superiority in numbers and resources in the north. There is plenty of scope for the Battle of Arras 1914 which could go beyond supplying a narrative of the battle. I think these three battles expose the core problem of the German approach to war in the West; demonstrating that they had no clear strategy after the failure to capture Paris and that their operational behavior reflected this post First Marne. This was also true of the Allies, at least in 1914. Although the Allied behavior was governed principally by what they wanted to deny the enemy on the defensive, rather than achieve on the offensive. At least they learned. By 1918, there had been no discernible learning curve at the strategic or operational level in the German army. Dapi89 (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Eythenkew! You've not done bad yourself. Battle of La Bassée I have had a dash at this as the sources are limited so I should be quick for a change. ;O) The narrative taken from Beckett is here User talk:Keith-264/sandbox5 which since it's derivative of the OH, means I can weave in the unit details and anecdotes. I decided that I would move north like that shark in Jaws so that the 1st Ypres page can get the frighteners as I get closer. Unfortunately the inter-library loan I got of GOH 1914 I expired before I sacked it for these actions.

User:Keith-264/sandbox5 has the outline of a 1st Ypres page with the three battles proper on separate pages, which could simplify it while keeping the detail. I'm interested in the Arras gig because I'd like to do the lot from 1914-1918 like this Second Battle of Artois but even English language stuff is limited, some even have a "Second Battle" in 1914. The Record of Battles has Operations in Flanders, 1914 (10 October - 22 November) but that's just the British contribution.Keith-264 (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ball ache isn't it?
 * Basic principle; flog the sh1t out of the sources on sub-pages to give 'em plenty of detail (and justification for existing) and then be sickeningly concise on 1st Ypres.
 * Can't think of anything content-wise that will help. Dapi89 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Btw, I like the new one much better. Dapi89 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear it, some of the early stuff needs a CE to remove overlaps and I may redo the Analysis somewhat but I think that before I add it to the article space I need to put the material about the battles into the other draft pages so that they can go on at the same time (in outline at least).Keith-264 (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Schlieffen Map
Can you fill me in on this obsolete thing this article has going on? (It will help me stay on-message and not add irrelevant info) RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There's quite a lot on the talk page but in short, a false view of German strategy was propagated by many German writers after the war to excuse the failure of 1914. The map you added is a diagram of this false view, which is described in the Obsolete Analyses section. The big French retreat was foreseen as a possibility before the war by German planners, as was the sequel of a French revival from Verdun to Rheims to Paris. It's nice to know that someone reads this stuff. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Marne
Hi casualties seem somewhat askew, aside from awkward comparison found the following: There were 12,733 British casualties, including 1,700 dead. Source: Sumner, Ian. The First Battle of the Marne 1914: The French 'miracle' halts the Germans, Osprey Pub., 2010, ISBN 9781846035029, p. 89, "...according to the British Official History... .Tttom1 (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, I raised a sceptical eyebrow when I wrote it but the BOH volume doesn't tabulate casualties in an obvious way.Keith-264 (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I see you've done a lot of excellent work on WWI articles and in a couple, like 1st Aisne, the section on the battle of the Marne is larger and more developed than in Battle of the Marne article. With the 100th anniversary coming up perhaps you can get Marne up to speed very soon with the others by moving some of that over - it is the Big Dog of 1914 after all (I'm told one has to cite a wp source article, see: Meeting internal copyright on my talk page)Copying within Wikipedia.Tttom1 (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Keith. I recently reordered the chronology of the section on the Battle of the Frontiers, and noticed that you had also made key contributions. I was confused to read your opinion of my edit, however: "Reintegrated disintegrated paragraphs. Using chronology as a criterion instead of geography substitutes one partial criterion for another." I find this historiographical stance confusing when we are describing a series of events that each had direct causal effects upon each other, despite occurring in different geographical areas. Prior to editing the section, the reader was introduced to the Battle of Mulhouse and the defeat at Sarrebourg, the recapture of Mulhouse by the French, and the recapture of Mulhouse by the Germans, all before the fall of Liege and the arrival of the BEF. According to the article, the Germans conduct and are held during an offensive in the Vosges mountains on the 24th August, before they conduct their Lorraine offensive on the 20th, and their Ardennes offensive on the 19th, and so on. The section finally ended with the French Fifth army digging in on the Sambre and the British at Mons, waiting for the German assault, all seemingly none the wiser to events that had happened elsewhere and with no reference to events that were going to happen later in the campaign, and giving the mistaken impression to a casual reader that they constituted the final phase of the battle. I did not think this was a summary that the casual reader could readily comprehend. You can review this version at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Battle_of_the_Marne&oldid=620998407 I hope that you will understand why I made the amendments that I made, that they were merely intended to facilitate comprehension, and that we can form a consensus that recognises the relevance of a clearer chronological narrative that can also, as your note emphasises, highlights events as they impacted front by front.Ethdhelwen (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to narrate events spread over such a wide area coherently, I found that describing events day by day had the narrative leaping all over the French-German, French-German-Luxembourg, German-Belgian and French-Belgian borders - coherent chronologically and geographically incoherent, so I decided to try it in geographical sections, which became coherent as to place and incoherent as to time. Having seen your edits I thought the chronology was clearer and the geography vaguer. I don't think there's a right way to present the information given contradictory criteria but perhaps starting with a short explanation of how events hundreds of miles apart were symbiotically linked but difficult to describe would help? I parachuted those sections in from other articles, so was by no means satisfied that they were good enough for the specific Marne page but am busy elsewhere (Messines Armentieres and Ypres as part of my attempt to finish work off) so I have in mind something which is a better synthesis of time and place - perhaps by explicitly sectioning areas so that the narrative within can be based on chronology? Since I can't devote the time the article needs, I'll lay off drive-by edits and see how things go but If you want me to take a look, leave a message on the talk page. Thanks for taking the trouble to discuss things. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * PS it occurs that the Lorraine and Ardennes divisions in the historiography might do the trick, since they already exist and already have Wiki pages?Keith-264 (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014
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) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

A virtuous circle?
Ah! Thank you for your thanks! Xyl 54 (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's the least I can do for so many typos. I found the land instead of lang error but thought I'd got them all. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits to Fokker Scourge
Cleanups like this are hard to do well - and require intelligent reading of the context rather than just cutting out words and phrases that superficially seem to be "redundant". Your edits to this article work very well - good to have the faults in my sometimes rather prolix style tightened up so neatly. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you approve, people are going through my recent efforts and picking up some real howlers. I added the links to the RAF OH and Neumann as I think both have useful material on the period. I hadn't realised that part of the "Scourge" was a public relations manoeuvre, so thanks for writing such a good article. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Women writers Invitation
Hi Keith, I went through the edit histories of the women writer biography FAs and GAs that are currently listed on the project's talkpage and apparently you made some edits on one of those articles as I don't know of you otherwise... but pleased to meet you now. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014
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) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=626511393 your edit] to Capture of Schwaben Redoubt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ZK-BFR IMG 3379-Edit.jpg

Capture of Le Quesnoy (1918)
Gidday Keith, thanks again for your additions to this article. I nominated it for a GA review and a couple of comments have come up here regarding the strength/casualties/pow/garrison numbers. These seem to have come from your Edmond & Maxwell-Hyslop ref; are you able to take a look at the comments and confirm the numbers for me? Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the assistance! The article has been passed as a GA. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well done yourself ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Operation Michael
Keith, I notice that you have reverted my change to Operation Michael. I removed the geographical coordinates as they are irrelevant to such a wide-ranging battle. The battle was not confined to St. Quentin. Hamish59 (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would prefer it if you replaced them with a wider ranging coordinate than rejecting them out of hand, it seemed to me to be an unconstructive edit.Keith-264 (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I decided to take my advice and found a way to get a coordinate for a wider area than a city. I left a note on the talk page; see what you think.Keith-264 (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

cat
That is a very handsome looking cat. DocumentError (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

harv harvid
AFAIK it does, but it is also case sensitive "RAF staff" and "RAF Staff", and as "RAF staff" is not a name but a description, I think "staff" ought to remain lower case. -- PBS (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair 'nuffKeith-264 (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Antwerp (1914)
Thanks for reverting my edit here Keith - I hadn't noticed that it was the style used throughout the article :o Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux
NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou! 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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorting the Somme
Keith, I've looked at Category:Battle of the Somme and note that Regina Trench is now filed under 'A' so that it can be next to Ancre / Ancre Heights. Please note that this is meaningful to an expert in the Battle of the Somme (not myself), but renders the Regina Trench article unlocatable within the category for the inexpert reader. While going out of order is a good idea in some circumstances, e.g. 'Order of Battle for the Battle of X' should be filed under X so that it goes next to the Battle of X article, in general it needs an overriding reason for moving articles out of order. Also please note my colon prefix in the Category link above to avoid categorising your talk page within the Somme. Thanks, Ian 81.159.157.209 (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I expected it to go under R for Regina, which is why I referred to you for an opinion. Several of the titles have been moved in the last few weeks, as I've filled in the unwritten and part-written articles to conform to the Nomenclature Committee titles and some don't have DEFAULTSORT labels so I thought that some reorganising might be called for. When I tried nothing happened (at first), Regina seems to have migrated from "C" somewhat later than my attempt to move it to "R"; it's rather perplexing, thanks for your patience.Keith-264 (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=634096055 your edit] to David Lodge (author) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * a major theme. The British Museum Is Falling Down (1965) and How Far Can You Go? 1980; published in the US as Souls and Bodies, examine the difficulties faced by orthodox

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014
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) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

UK Casualties and Mixed martial arts
We really need a reliable source to explain the differences in UK casualty figures in WW1. The War Office, the CWGC, the General Annual Report of the British Army 1912–1919 and the 1931 Medical Report all have different figures that readers on Wikipedia can review and make their own judgments. We can only hope that Colonel Blimp will brew up a pot of tea and sort this out for us. I hope that all is well with you. Tonight I will be going to see a Mixed martial arts match here in New York with a crew from Poland. Cheers--Woogie10w (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have not been able to find a source that explains the differences between the sources for UK WW1 casualty figures. The chaps at Naval and Military press that put together that update of Soldiers that died in the Great War 1914-1919 should have provided an reconciliation. My hunch is that the difference is related to losses of forces stationed in the UK and the Royal Naval Division. In any case, the figure for RN losses of 32,287 and the losses of 876,084 in the 1931 Medical report page 12  is equal to the War Office figure of 908,371 for total dead, this indicates to me that the number was forced since they did not provide details of that figure. --Woogie10w (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

--Woogie10w (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

World War I Resources
The Pritzker Military Museum & Library has a strong holdings on WWI. The staff and volunteers want to help improve Wikipedia. Please feel free to use our resources in doing so. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

BBC
Hi Now I am listening to BBC World Service  The War that changed the World--Woogie10w (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators,

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Gold follow up forces
Do you have any info on follow up forces that landed on Gold or if they shut the beach down?

I ask as I noticed a few things during some reading: 1) Sword and Juno are described as being protected via water breaks whereas Gold apparently was not despite the construction of the Mulberry and Gooseberries. 2) Important divisions such as the 11th Arm landed across Sword ... despite Sword being under fire and having to be closed down by the end of June.

Finally, I feel the references used to state the 49th landed across Gold is a bit to circumstantial. Ellis states it was assigned to Gold, but other than that the next mention of the div is when it just "pops up" in Normandy. Chappell states it landed on the 12th, but doesn't specify Gold. I have been trawling Google books and JSTOR without success so far. Who would have thought the most famous invasion of all time would have so little info on when troops landed!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Most of my sources are out of reach except for Ellis who doesn't mention the 49th Div but has a diagram on pp 172-173, 50th Div for the landing then 7th Armd 49th Div then 33 Armd Brig (all XXX Corps). Since the 49th had not finished landing before Villers-Bocage I doubt it began to land on 6 June with the 7th Armd (p. 219) but 24,970 men landed on Gold 6 June (p. 223) The Polar Bears (Delaforce) gives 10 June on p. 31. which may be the commencement. I'll try to get to my books tomorrow.Keith-264 (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Club Route has the 7th AD landings beginning on 7 June p. 23 and the 49th Div ashore by 16 June p. 27. The Polar Bears has the 49th Div coming ashore 11-14 June, slowed by the weather, pp. 32-33. The Rise and Fall of the German Air Force has fewer than 100 sorties (70 fighter) on 6 June p. 329 and overnight 6/7 June 330 sorties, (inc 175 bomber and torpedo bomber sorties). Hope this helpsKeith-264 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry
To you and yours FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014
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) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
<div style="background:orange; padding: 10px; border-top: 3px solid yellow; border-left: 3px solid yellow; border-right: 3px solid yellow; border-bottom: 3px solid yellow 8px; font-size: 110%; font-family:Tahoma; text-align: center;"> Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Thejonesjones
HelloThejonesjones 14:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejonesjones (talk • contribs) 14:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

jonsey Comment
yoohooThejonesjones 14:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejonesjones (talk • contribs) 14:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

jonsey Comment
yoohooThejonesjones 14:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejonesjones (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring
You've made a significant number of reverts at Battle of the Somme recently, and I'd be well within Wikipedia's SOP to block you. I've instead protected the page, and you need to start using the talk page to discuss your edits. If you do not, I will be forced to issue a block. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Been there, done that, asked for dispute resolution.Keith-264 (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia at its farcical best. Hengistmate (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's given me a headache. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

66th Division
Thanks for the recent edits. Do you have anything on the 66th in the last few days of the war? This seems to suggest they had closely attached cavalry and air (!) units at some point, and the 1914-18 page refers to a "Bethell's Force" formed on 9/11/18. I'm a little confused as to what exactly this force was - it seems to have been an advance guard to keep contact during the German retreat. It was commanded by Bethell, and presumably built around a core of units from 66th Division, but was it really the same thing? Hopefully there's something buried in the last volume... Andrew Gray (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Tis done.Keith-264 (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Keith. Hopefully the home stretch now - I'm about to start work on the Spring Offensive. I've a few questions you might be able to trace in the Official History, if you have a chance...
 * a) Did the 66th really arrive in February 1917, and do we know where they spent their time before moving to Flanders? They don't appear in the *March* order of battle, but do appear (under XI Corps, 1st Army) in the mid-April issue.

OH 1917 I p. 64 has the 66th en route to France, late February 1917
 * b) Relatedly, July's issue has them in XV Corps, which matches our article - but it's not given as belonging to any army. Was it independent? It's back under Fourth Army in the August issue.


 * 4th Army given command of the coast 22 May 1917, XV Corps HQ followed in June as 3rd Army extended south.
 * On 20 June, 32nd Division took over from the French XXXVI Corps from St Georges to the coast. The 66th arrived from the 1st Army to join XV Corps "before the end of June" (OH 1917 II, p. 110)
 * c) I believe they were attached to II Anzac Corps for Poelcappele; is this correct?


 * Yes, 66th and 49th divs joined II Anzac from the coast before 9 Oct. OH 1917 II p. 323
 * d) Where did they spend the winter of 1917/18? They seem to have still been with the Anzacs on 22 December, but it was moved a long way south into XIX Corps by late March. It would be good to be able to say which region they spent the winter in, even if not much happened.
 * Thanks!
 * I put several quotes from books below the assessment template which has answers to some of your questions. Bethell's Force was cited to OH 1918 V.
 * Very odd edit conflict there! Thanks for the notes - will get these incorporated. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Followup Q - any idea which book these are from? Page numbers but no obvious title. Edmonds? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's Randal Grey, Campaign series no 11, Kaiserschlacht 1918: The Final German Offensive 1991 (2002 edition), Osprey, Oxford, ISBN 1-85532-157-2 Keith-264 (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Just discovered the 50th Division (who do have a detailed history) were tangled up with 66th Division in late March, so that's helping flesh out a lot of the details. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Will you try to pass it off as a 2002 (edition) book rather than a 1939 publication....? ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the recent edits - just tidying them up now. I've removed the OH casualty numbers as they don't seem to add up - "(From 21 March to 5 April the division lost officers: 32 killed, 130 wounded and 178 missing and other ranks: 341 killed, 1,254 wounded and 5,088 missing, for a total of 7,023 casualties.)". Middlebrook lists 711 dead for 66th Division on 21st March alone, and all things considered I'd be more comfortable with the more recent source. A quick confirmatory check on CWGC seems to bear this out.
 * 7023 casualties + 2500 all ranks remaining would also suggest a starting strength of 9500 men, against a paper divisional strength of ~16,000. Even allowing for it being understrength at the outset, the numbers don't quite seem right. Does he give comparable numbers for other divisions? Andrew Gray (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Middlebrook or Edmonds? I assume that the 2,500 is the remaining front-line infantry not the artillery, engineers etc and that many of the dead were counted as missing. What does the CWGC have to say about the other categories of casualty? Keith-264 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * During the day, 711 men of 66th Division had been killed; while detailed figures are not available this would suggest around 1,000 men were wounded and another 2,000 captured.[25] I think this may fall foul of OR. Keith-264 (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * First six divisions in table: 59th 807 killed, (66th here), 6th 602, 16th 572, 14th 370, 61st 361. p. 315 (no citation) Keith-264 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Splitting the points out -
 * OR - I tend to feel arithmetical inferences are okay as long as it's simple and you explain why in a footnote; this is about as far as I'm comfortable pushing it.
 * 2500 all ranks - this is from Edmonds (I think you added it originally, as I don't have that volume). Guinness quoted in Bond gives an explicit figure of 1200 rifles, which would fit reasonably well with 2500 including support elements. Can you check if Edmond specifies what the number meant?
 * CWGC - For 21/3 only, there are 163 deaths recorded for the East Lancs, 217 Lancs Fusiliers, and 302 Manchester. (This only counts the nine battalions in 66th Div, not any others). Total of 682, not counting any supporting arms - it'd take a bit more work to identify exact numbers for those, but we're well in the Middlebrook range rather than the Edmonds one. It looks like Edmonds was definitely counting a lot of killed as missing, so going with a more up-to-date figure seems reasonable. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By late 30s the OH historians should have established the fate of the missing but it's an older source. Middlebrook didn't cite his table which is why I have reservations, although he seems to be using CWGC figures. Keith-264 (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note I Casualties "Only the gross uncorrected figures, reported soon after events, can be given...." so I was wrong, the CWGC must have delved into the missing category. p. 488 Keith-264 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Snarky Comments
I considered hatting some of your most recent snarky comments at the dispute resolution noticeboard and decided to leave them standing. You said that the Historiography section was added over your objections, and that your "hands are tied". That sort of comment is not constructive. If you don't think that there should be a Historiography section, you can use moderated discussion to propose its removal. (In general, articles about wars usually have a Historiography section, and articles about battles sometimes have a Historiography section, because how later historians discuss the impact of wars and battles is of encyclopedic interest to the importance of those events.) You also said that your "hands were tied" about the deletion of your reference to "Anglophone monoglots", asking how else you could make the same comment in two words or less. That comment again wasn't constructive. My comment (but I have no special authority) is that sometimes using shorter words may be just as concise as using fewer words. However, if you think that a particular phrase should be used, moderated discussion is a vehicle to advocate it. Please don't use cynical or snarky language. It runs the risk of derailing the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There are no snarky comments or cynical language, that is your inference and I suggest you own it. Ed17 threatened to blacklist me, which has tied my hands over a historiography section, because I think it's unnecessary and would remove it, since it was addressed sufficiently in the Aftermath (Analysis section, subsequently truncated). That is the only part of this issue where I consider my hands tied. The phrase anglophone monoglots has already been resolved as you can see from the discussion (see: dead horse) that has already taken place and my proposed form of words in the lead. I asked a question as a side note, hence the brackets. I have exercised considerable patience and expended considerable effort to obtain a minimum of what I believe to be right for the article and have gone along with your wishes about dispute resolution, since I was the one who asked for it. This is the second time I've been singled out and I will abstain from further discussion on the DR page, article talk page and cease to edit the article if it happens again. Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015
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) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Battle of the Somme 2015
There were no hostilities on my watch, although it appears that there were before the neutral American arrived. I was pleasantly surprised by how civil the discussion was, compared to some other dispute resolution threads. There were millions fewer wounded than ninety-nine years ago, and about a million fewer killed than ninety-nine years ago. If I don't hear anything more, I will close the dispute thread as resolved (pending outcome of RFC). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Verdun.
Did you get a reply from your expert editor? Thought not. You might be surprised to learn who his grandfather was. Hengistmate (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't think so, it all went rather over my head.... Keith-264 (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

stop the edit war
If you are unable to support your mistaken edit with a RS, then stop complaining when other editors delete the nonsense. Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Dinant
Hey - Dinant is really not part of Charleroi as you claim. "Main article" templates like that are intended for sections - if you get to Battle of Dinant, the chances are you were not looking for Battle of Charleroi! —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Was too, it took place on the right flank of the 5th Army! Fair do's though it ought to be the Actions of or Affair of....Dinant, which is why I put a link on the Charleroi page. What do you suggest?Keith-264 (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How about putting "Battle of Charleroi" in the "Part of" section of the infobox? —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * May I compliment Sir on such a stylish suggestion? Keith-264 (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015
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) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I Don't Think This Is True.
"The 1st and 2nd Provisional Brigades of the United States Tank Corps would eventually go on to provide the original cadre for what would become the 66th Armored Regiment in World War II. In September 1918 both brigades - which were attached to the 1st Infantry Division in France - participated at the Second Battle of the Somme (the second phase of the final British offensive of the war)"

Do you?

Hengistmate (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Haven't found anything yet....Keith-264 (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Operation Atlantic
I am not sure why you want to add the statement  it was an allied victory here? You are aware that it did not say this before today right? "During the course of the battle, two units, the Essex Scottish Regiment and the South Saskatchewan Regiment were driven back. In the aftermath of the battle the Essex Scottish Regiment and their commanding officer were criticized for their poor performance." Verrières Ridge remained impregnable for days beyond this articles time frame. We should not overstate things in the infobox...even the lead says "limited strategic gain" ....I would not call this a victory! -- Moxy (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, I used


 * result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

as the authority. If you think it needs elaboration why not compromise with See the 'Aftermath' section as above? Keith-264 (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be omitted..this is what I was doing....even the source you pointed to in your edit summary says "The attack on the ridge had gone disastrously for the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division" . As of now it says its a victory with a link to Allies of World War II...not sure how this is right or helps our readers understand. -- Moxy (talk)
 * Perhaps I should say more...the edit to add Allied victory was done today by an IP...we are having problems with ( see here)...victory was not there before today. -- Moxy (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that but I've been altering the unorthodox verdicts I put in infoboxes before I read the criterion as they crop up so, thought it was a good moment to change it. See the 'Aftermath' section it is.Keith-264 (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that satisfactory? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup looks good but we should also mention how 2 unites were criticized for their poor performance as per Maker, John (2009) "The Essex Scottish Regiment in Operation Atlantic: What Went Wrong?," Canadian Military History: Vol. 18: Iss. 1, Article 3.. On a side note all should keep an eye on this IP...some time right some times wrong...an "amateur expert" I would guess-- Moxy (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I felt a bit sheepish when I saw how short the Analysis section was.... Ha! Aren't we all....;O). Is that the Maker who's doing the translation of Der Weltkrieg? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is him (John Maker Ph.D. the University of Ottawa)...his very new but has worked very closely  with Tim Cook (historian) and others in this field over the years. -- Moxy (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Monty's men: casualties?
A few recent edits to the Overlord article has places a lower British/Canadian casualty figure as well as a lower overall figure than given by the OH and some historians. Looking thru Google books I am noticing the same figures. Does Buckley give any stats for the losses in Normandy, or do you have any other sources on the issue?

I am going to make up a table later with everything I find, but early indications are making me ask why the OH is wrong on this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He gives figures by operation rather than month, which are in the articles, courtesy of me. ;O) If there are any missing, let me know and I'll look them up. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you look at the Overlord casualty section, it is a mess right now and conflicts of with the info box. I thought the British figure most ght have been all dead and the American ones lacking the aircrew losses, but that still leaves unaccounted numbers. As I said earlier, I will throw a table on the talk page and populate it with every stat I can find. For a GA article, it's just wrong to have three conflicting stats for overall dead.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Wire
I just stumbled across the article on the wire that you have improved. I have to admit, I had forgot why they called the border the wire. So I was pretty glad to see the article and give it a glance over. The armoured car at the wire really stands out for me since I haven't seen that photo in like 20 years! Brought back some memories of what I was a kid and obsessed with the Desert War.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Always glad to oblige ;O) I don't suppose you've got any sources or ideas on the pre-war history of Fort Capuzzo? Keith-264 (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw your work on that article too! Unfortunately, nope I don't have anything that covers the inter-war years in that respect. I would also be interesting to find out what happened post-war too. I will give Google Books and JSTOR a look over later on though, and see if I can dig anything up.
 * I wonder if anyone has access to the Italian histories, maybe that would mention something about the fort's past?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have done some searches, and i have found zilch on the pre-war Capuzzo. Its almost like it magically pops up in 1940!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've gleaned a little from the online pdfs and for the post war section wrote that the frontier disappeared into obscurity. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha! Well that does cover it. I don't suppose you have any information on the purpose of the 80th Division? JSTOR is a bust. We Shall Shock Them and British Battle Insignia pretty much repeat what Joslen says. Hart states it was a training division, whereas the article (and so far, one book that cannot be cited due to its page numbers not displaying on Google Books) imply it was a phantom division. The dig continues!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: I did find The Deceivers: Allied Military Deception in the Second World War (accessible [here, by Thaddeus Holt, which has got great reviews on Amazon and is pretty the much the only book - with page numbers - that makes any significant reference to the division. However, none of the information in the book tallys with Joslen. It is active after it was disbanded, had brigades it never had. So i am not sure if the author is saying the division was retained as a phantom after it was disbanded with a whole fake OOB.[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Had a look in the OH for Britain and vol I of Ellis - nothing. The 15th Division lost the 45th Brigade somewhere so there might be something in its history of where it went. Perhaps a book on Fortitude will throw some light?Keith-264 (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Keith. I have wrote up a draft on the phantom 80th (not live yet) based off some of the Fortitude books I could find. Most don't have page numbers, so the verification process now starts. It would seem while the 80th (Reserve) was active, there was a phantom 80th Infantry as part of VII Corps/Fourth Army based of Canterbury with the actual 61st doing the wireless comms. Its not a lot, but when its done it might be enough to get the article to GA.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

No barnstars please, unless they come in a bottle marked Cotes du Rhone.... Keith-264 (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Been making sneaky edits on the work's dime, so I didn't notice your copyedits. Thanks :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Gas warfare in WW I
Glad to see that someone qualified shares my interest! I found this article on German-speaking Wikipedia, which offers some interesting facets: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Gastruppen_im_Ersten_Weltkrieg Maybe this can be of use. Best wishes, ViennaUK (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, I've never had my chemistry O level complimented before ;O). Do you know about the scripts here User:Keith-264/common.js? The first on highlights harv errors and the second one shows duplicate wikilinks, so they can be taken out. It makes a pleasant change to see that someone reads my efforts! Keith-264 (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015
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) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Fokker Scourge
Most impressed with the sheer volume of your work on this, and appreciative of the thoughtful and sincere effort involved. Inevitably (in what is effectively a re-writing of an already quite detailed article) - along with the real improvements, there are also a few bloopers, typos, infelicities, and passages wherein a rewording apparently intended mainly to reduce verbosity changes (or even reverses) the meaning of a passage. It is also very desirable, from a maintenance point of view, for the referencing system to be standardised - if templates are to be introduced, then ALL references need to be put into the identical template (NOT, I think, a productive activity, but I hate and despise templates of this kind). Another aspect is the relevance and placing of matter that may really belong, for one reason or the other, either in another article, or at a different point in this one. Some alternate spellings are legitimate variations, but I think it looks very untidy to spell the same word differently at different places in the same article.

All in all, I have already identified quite a few places where a little "counter-editing" will be called for - both to consolidate real improvements you have made as well as to restore the original when it was more accurate, or at least in better accord with the original source, and to relocate matter that might be valuable, but does not really fit at that point.

Rather than get us into a twisted tangle of edit and counter-edit what I think would be the best idea would be for you to finish your program of edits first (including any inadvertent errors you notice yourself in your own work) - and for me to then run a series of specific changes for each section past you - which ideally we'd agree on before it became part of the article.

Best regards --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Greetings Sounds, I have exhausted my sources, (most being OH texts) apart from a bit on British interrupter and synchronisers and I've no doubt that I've added a few infelicities as well as removing a few but I'm quite happy to change the sfn's to the <> form or change the <> to sfn's as desired. If anyone who edited before me wants to make a ruling on US spellings I don't mind either, although I'll need someone to check which ones I need to alter. I have next to nothing to offer about the French, hence me altering some of the headings as my sources are anglophone and I also have very little about the politics. I'm disappointed to hear that I've changed the sense rather than the form of previous edits so if you can point them out I'd be grateful and the same goes for passages you think irrelevant. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've really only had a superficial look though your edits and don't intend to do more until you've more or less finished them. No point in my objecting to something you're going to correct yourself before you've done! What I want us to discuss is any specific issues that may arise with specific passages - I am not even sure at this stage what I am going to "approve" and what I am going to question at this stage, as I plan to do this mainly by checking sources - "yours" as well as the original ones. The very last thing I want to do is re-assert any "ownership" of this article - you must know I largely wrote it - it lived in my sandbox for several months while I poured over it - but I am determined not to throw away any improvements (however minor) all your hard work has added, or, for that matter, to argue too much over places where new and old are pretty much equivalent. What may be required in places is the better merging of additional referenced facts into the original text, to make a better integrated whole.
 * I have always been a bit of two minds about the place of the French in all this. In many sources they rate hardly a mention - they didn't actually have a "Fokker Scourge" in one sense as there was no French equivalent of Grey or Billing (AFAIK!!) and the aviation militaire were (in this instance, anyway) allowed to get on with the job without political interference - on the other hand most of the victories claimed by the Fokker aces were French, and it was the Nieuport 11 above all that ended the scourge technically. If you have access to Sharks among minnows, the Frank Norman effort, it is excellent for actual statistics. For me, this is NOT a "U.S. spelling" article - it is definitely in no way a U.S. subject. The word I noticed on my quick superficial read (without wasting time checking it now) was (I think) actually "interruptor" for "interrupter".
 * Anyway - just let me know when you've finished for the time being and I'll suggest a "final version" for each section, starting with the lead. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fire away, perhaps after this reply we could move to the talk page? I don't mind the main editor of an article having a view of what it should be, since the originator sets the tone and I can see from your comments that the changes I made have increased the Anglocentric bias (inherent in the RFC OH I fear) and it's clear that the Scourge was a political manoeuvre in England only tangential to events in France (which is why I added a RFC sub-heading).Keith-264 (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Mines in the Battle of Messines
Hi! I notice that the in German-speaking Wikipedia article on the mines in the Battle of Messines (see here) also gives coordinates of where the mines were located, but I have no idea how to 'migrate' them to Mines_in_the_Battle_of_Messines_(1917). Is there any chance you might help with the coordinates? ViennaUK (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the continued work today! ViennaUK (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * S'aright, I think I can add something about the German counter-mining effort tomorrow.Keith-264 (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

70th
Thanks for the ongoing copy-edits. I have done all i can do with this article now, except write up an intro. When you have time, there are some comments on the talkpage re the division in Burma if you can help address. In addition, do you have access to Defeat into Victory (i sold off my copy before i moved)?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look about the 23rd? Brigade but I'll look again. I don't have Defeat into Victory I'm afraid. My editing has been slowed down by a new job but I'll try and get it done soon.Keith-264 (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Keith, and good luck with your new.job :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Reduction in activity
Keith desires it to be known that he's bogged down doing a new job, which has drastically reduced his time for editing and will do his best to finish the things he started, as and when. He's also sprained his toe again. Keith-264 (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I can relate to all of that - putting some aspects on hold a bit myself. Hope my heart and your toe both feel a bit better soon! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the empathy, I'll be back on the pogo-stick soon. Hope your heart turns out to be of oak ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Get well soon, both! ViennaUK (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015
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) 06:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hohenzollern Redoubt, Hohenzollern Redoubt and Hohenzollern Redoubt...
Greetings from the virtual world beneath Flanders. I'm currently tunneling with the 170th Company RE and have just reached the Hohenzollern Redoubt, along with its rather confusing double article Battle of the Hohenzollern Redoubt -Hohenzollern Redoubt (1916). I shall try to make the distinction a bit clearer, but please do watch over my shoulder as I do this as you are clearly a greater specialist than me. Best wishes ViennaUK (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you're not so bad yourself. The Battle article was one started by someone else and it's really part of the Battle of Loos but could stand alone once it's finished. I wasn't sure how the pieces fitted because dates were inconsistent but the 1916 gig is certainly separate. Tally ho chaps!Keith-264 (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

photos of Ypres
'...and now for something completely different': A friend (historian but non-Wikipedian) is going to Ypres in May and has volunteered to supply photographs. Are there any urgent requests for images of things in the area? The Messines Mine craters come to my mind, anything else? Best wishes ViennaUK (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It might help to have some views from the German positions on the ridges looking west so we can see what they saw. May I ask if you have a sandbox like this User talk:Keith-264/sandbox3? If you do you can copy an article into it and tinker with it without giving me a heart attack every time you edit something.;O) I'd also suggest that you leave the lead until last, so that you don't inadvertently contradict yourself before you are familiar with the subject. Oh and another thing, treading all over peoples' toes is a bit of an occupational hazard so I wouldn't worry too much.Keith-264 (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No Labour, No Battle:
I have just ordered the book No Labour, No Battle: Military Labour During the First World War By John Starling, Ivor Lee, Professor Richard Holmes. Stay tuned, I may have more to add re Labour Corps.

Description:

From 1917 British soldiers who were unfit or too old for front-line service were to serve unarmed and within the range of German guns for weeks or even months at a time undertaking labouring tasks. Both at the time and since they have arguably not been given the recognition they deserve for this difficult and dangerous work. From non-existence in 1914, by November 1918 Military Labour had developed into an organised and efficient 350,000-strong Labour Corps, supported by Dominion and foreign labour of more than a million men. Following the war, the grim and solemn tasks of clearing battlefields and constructing cemeteries, which continued until 1921, were also the responsibility of the Corps. Here, John Starling and Ivor Lee bring together extensive research from both primary and secondary sources to reveal how the vital, yet largely unreported, role played by these brave soldiers was crucial to achieving victory in 1918. Bookseller Inventory # AAJ9780750956666

--Woogie10w (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks very interesting.Keith-264 (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I added an external link to the International Encyclopedia of the First World War. I was surprised to see the Wikipedia article on WW1 casualties listed here as an External Source. In this world one hand washes the other.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I will be in Manhattan today to do some research at the NY puplic Library and pick up some groceries at Meyers of Keswick. cheers --Woogie10w (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * HISTORY OF THE BLOCKADE OF GERMANY AND OF THE COUNTRIES ASSOCIATED WITH HER IN THE GREAT WAR: AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, BULGARIA AND TURKEY 1914-1918 I wouldn't mind one of these. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

January–March 2015 Milhist reviewing award

 * Thanks very much er, what review?Keith-264 (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Corrected commas on "Second Battle of Artois"
I corrected some punctuation errors on the "Second Battle of Artois" page. All but one were issues with missing or extraneous commas. You reverted these edits and stated: "hyphens are consistent within the article". I'm not sure if you reverted the edit you meant to revert; I only touched a single hyphen.

If in fact you meant that the *commas* are "consistent within the article", please undo your revert; the corrections I made were not subjective or stylistic issues (e.g. Oxford commas), they were changes from incorrect to correct under any interpretation of English punctuation rules.

For example:

Field Marshal John French, the commander of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) co-operated...

Feel free to use "co-operated" instead of "cooperated" (that's a stylistic/American-vs-British-English question), but there is *no* interpretation under which a comma is not required before "co(-)operated". All of the other edits I made were of this form.

Re: "co-operated" vs "cooperated", it seems *inconsistent* to use British spelling here in an article that otherwise uses American spelling, but it's not wrong either way. The commas you removed and/or re-inserted via your revert were simply incorrect.

Please undo your revert, or cite any English style manual or other established standard that supports your revert.

Thanks!

LittleWalrus (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's written in British English and I should know, I wrote it. I'm happy to discuss alterations but I wonder if your usage is superior?Keith-264 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how the British/American English question relates to this edit (other than the possible issue on the word "co-operation", on which I have no strong opinion). The punctuation rules in question do not differ across English dialects.  To be explicit: none of the inserted/removed commas were serial commas; clearly I'm not trying to rile up a serial comma debate.  As another example, the comma in the following sentence in the current revision is incorrect under any stylistic convention:


 * "The French government accepted that the task facing Joffre and the army, was far more difficult than expected."
 * Why?


 * Also not a British/American issue.


 * Incidentally, while I'm here... other than my gripes with punctuation, IMO this article is excellent. Congratulations on the Selected Anniversaries front-page nod. LittleWalrus (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it would have been better if I hadn't had the draft in a sandbox and the article open in tabs and got them mixed up. I was cutting and pasting reciprocally and made a bit of a mess. ;O)


 * I'm curious about the commas you consider wayward and the conventions you use, because mine are English Language O level 1978 and variations copied from the pre-war Official History. That said, as long as commas don't land near conjunctions I'll grin and bear it. Keith-264 (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I started a pass correcting punctuation subject to your suggested constraints: despite my strong inclinations :), I didn't add any commas before conjunctions. Most of the commas I inserted were just missing from one side of a noun phrase, i.e. "LittleWalrus, the person writing this post is adding some commas." vs. "LittleWalrus, the person writing this post, is adding some commas.".  Others were spurious commas that separated neither clauses nor phrases, as per the example above.  Will complete this pass in a couple separate edits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleWalrus (talk • contribs) 03:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being understanding, I'll try to reciprocate. If there are any passages that don't rhyme, scan or make sense please let me know.Keith-264 (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

photos of Ypres II
I hereby present Category:Modern views of WW I battlefields: Ypres Salient. May it be useful, both to historians and geographers. ViennaUK (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Eythenkew!Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The Arakan!
With your comments about work and O-levels, i didn't peg you for an old warhorse! Kind regards :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have you know that I'm a superannuated 1970s egalitarian. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015
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) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

RMS Titanic
Hi thanks for your work on RMS Titanic. Unfortunately a number of your significant edits do not have any explanation including your most recent that deleted a cited source. I also note that almost all of your edits are tagged as minor. Removing a source is not a minor edit. Anyway I don't want to revert anything but please include edit summaries so we know what you are doing and why. Sadly this article has been a target for a lot unhelpful editing in the past. Thanks again for your work on it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll add a note on the talk page.Keith-264 (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Greece
Your recent edits to Battle of Greece appear to have broken the reference that refers to Australia in the War of 1939–1945. Specifically, the external link seems wrong now, and it states that it's both volume 2 and volume 18. Can you take a look at this and see if you can figure out what it's supposed to be? Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies I missed that. Do you know where the last two notes (H and I) are in the the text.Keith-264 (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nowhere. The only place note H was used was removed in Special:Diff/603363188, and the only place note I was used was removed in Special:Diff/610777782. Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks, do you know how to get rid? Keith-264 (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How to get rid of what? The notes? Just delete them like anything else. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't find them in the text.Keith-264 (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Gone now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks babe. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Operation Tractable
Hi, Keith-264:

Looks like an edit you made to the featured article Operation Tractable at 11:48, 25 August 2014 trashed this entry in the "References / Books" section:

Keegan, John (1989). The Second World War. Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-3035aple leaf Against the Axis. Ottawa: Red Deer Press. ISBN 0-88995-305-8

I was sent to Operation Tractable by a Checkwiki error listing to fix the bad ISBN 0-14-3035; as you can see, it now has only 7 digits whereas a valid ISBN has 10 or 13 digits. When you repair the entry, would you please also insure the validity of the ISBN? Thanks. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Apologies for leaving such as mess behind.Keith-264 (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Greco-Italo War articles - some serious problems with it.
Hi Keith, you did a good job cleaning the article up a little, but I am afraid that it really needs a heavy broom rather than a light brush and pan.

I've identified and tagged several statements and passages that I believe suffer from undue weight, POV statement, lack of citation and a lack of varied citations. There seems to be a great reliance on a narrow range of authors such as Keegan, Hershaw and Mazower.

This articles is unduly biased in favor of the Greeks while at the same time, it does its best to denigrate the Italian effort by making it appear that whatever concessions the Italians received was at the behest and "generosity" of the Germans.

Something needs to be done about this article, but I am unsure how to proceed. Any tips? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.0.27.159 (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Quite agree but I don't have the time yet.Keith-264 (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think i have reverted any of your copy-editing changes, but if I did I do apologize for stepping on your toes!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't make me send Psycho Paul round with his screwdriver....;O)Keith-264 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Mining 1.png
Just a quick note to thank you for File:Mining 1.png on Commons. All I can say is "Wow!".

I've managed to obtain ground and situation plans for nearly all Messines mines from an old book and am currently using them to draw plans that I can upload on Wikimedia too (time permitting, of course).

If we (we = you and I, it seems with regard to mining at the Western Front) go on like this, we might be able to think of having individual articles for each and every one of the Messines mines....

Best wishes, ViennaUK (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it, I can just about rip off copies for upload but beyond pressing auto-enhance, there's not much I can do to clean them.Keith-264 (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Greco-Italian War
Keith, give me a moment to rework the section on Italian plans, I want to integrate the "terrain" section there, it says pretty much the same thing. Constantine  ✍  20:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OKKeith-264 (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015
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) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Desert Mounted Corps
Keith, your recently added to Desert Mounted Corps. I am not sure that this is correct. My understanding is that navigation templates are to aid moving between related articles, and I am not sure that this applies. Granted, the DMC served in WWI, but by extension, so did thousands of other units, formations, people, etc. etc.

Per WP:NAVBOX Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. and I note that Desert Mounted Corps is not in.

Please let me know what you think. Hamish59 (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I made a mistake....Keith-264 (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries, mate. Hamish59 (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

World War I infoboxes
Hey man. We have had this conversation before, and as I recall it was decided to not include domestic territories under empires. Why is it so imperative to include the various kingdoms of the German Empire when in reality German units were often integrated after 1915? Italia2006 (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't waste my time with this Mickey Mouse game playing, the status of Commonwealth and Federal German units was exhaustively debated and it was decided that there was no consensus because Australian and Canadian editors wanted to pretend that they were sovereign states in 1914 when they weren't.Keith-264 (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Something that you disagree with doesn't automatically equate with "Mickey Mouse game playing." What that sounds like is just your frustration with not getting your way. At this point the Operation Michael infobox is the only one remaining with the divisions of the German Empire displayed. Even disregarding that, you still refuse to acknowledge the point that, if we were to include Baden, Saxony, Bavaria, etc., under "German Empire", would we not therefore have to include England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland under "United Kingdom?" In addition, the sovereignty status of Canada, Australia, etc, has nothing to do with their separate inclusion in the infobox. They are not DOMESTIC divisions or territories, they are overseas territories, which is why they are displayed. Also, stop taking this personally. Really, relax. Italia2006 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Britain was and is a unitary state, Germany wasn't, get a life.Keith-264 (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Get a life", oh, the irony of that statement. Italia2006 (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Paradox actually.Keith-264 (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome beneath the Somme
Hi, I was about to invite you to cooperate on my brand-new mining article, but you've discovered it already. Hope it helps to shed some light on this aspect of the Western Front. Regards, ViennaUK (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I stumbled on it when I was scanning for duplicate wikilinks. Keith-264 (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Illiteracy?
Seriously? Seems more like a bad case of WP:OWNERSHIP to me. I'm going to start a discussion on the talk page and notify the military project people. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well you did ask. I have replied to your comments on the talk page and suggest that you inquire about me and ownership with Anotherclown - he's been acquainted with my editing for years so I'd accept him as an honest judge of character, warts and all.Keith-264 (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!
Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.
 * Browse the new WikiProject page
 * Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Pulkowsky method
Hey Keith, I was thinking about starting an article on the Pulkowsky method. What are your thoughts? Italia2006 (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If you've got the sources, why not?Keith-264 (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Proper nouns
Plurality (or not) has no effect on capitalization for proper nouns. You still capitalize England, Scotland and Wales in a list of the constituencies of Great Britain, don't you. Same thing with a list of regiments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. it. does.Keith-264 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Says who? 'Cause I think that you're all alone in your (mis)understanding of proper grammar here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sturmvogel asked me to comment. I agree with him that are proper nouns, and need to be capitalized. You can find the relevant MILHIST style guideline at MOS:MILTERMS -- Diannaa (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks but the proper bits are already in capitals. Keith-264 (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If you refer to something which has a title such as a Chevrolet then it has a capital letter but if you refer to a group of things then one of the words will be a plural. We don't refer to a Chevrolets do we? If there is a list of things which have names which are proper nouns then the listing word, armies, brigades isn't part of the proper noun. Mind you, this comes from my 1978-vintage O Level and such niceties are rarer than they were.Keith-264 (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW I'd use capitals here also, although I admit I cannot point to any authority to back up my position other than that it seems logical to me given they are both proper nouns. That said there has in the past been a few editors that have disagreed with me about this (all in good faith I'll add - I think Keith might recall a discussion myself and Rupert had with one of our Canadian editors about this a few months back that was along similar lines). Anotherclown (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking into a little further - as near as I can tell when you combine proper nouns the rule is to not capitalize "descriptive" words after a proper noun. As such (hypothetically) the question is are we describing the "2nd & 3rd" regiments as infantry regiments or are the words "Infantry Regiment" still part of the proper noun? In this example, assuming that each is officially titled the "2nd Infantry Regiment" and the "3rd Infantry Regiment" respectively (and not the "2nd Regiment" and the "3rd Regiment" which just happen to be of infantry) then I'd say the latter is the case and that it would be more correct to use capitals. That said given my starting assumption was to do this anyway I've really only confirmed (in my mind) what I thought all along so perhaps I missed something in my reasoning. Anotherclown (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Or is it an WP:ENGVAR issue, i.e. is it different b/n British English and other variations? Anotherclown (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because I write on Wiki I question my usage all the time and change my mind sometimes. This is one of the things where it seemed simple, there's no such thing as a Regiments; regiments is an adjective. I think Engvar is interesting but I suspect it's also Agevar and I come from a time when English was still taught as a language (except to English Lit undergrads, obviously). It says here Proper noun that there is a common noun for classes of entities.Keith-264 (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Mind if I butt in?

I'm afraid Trekphiler made a bit of a bugger of his joke there. Spoilt it, rather, Trekkers. Hard luck, old boy.

Anyway, Sturmvogel 66's example is nonsense. I can't imagine why he thinks it has any relevance. Engvar? Well, as we know, in American English anything can happen, but not on this occasion. I'm reluctant to contradict Keith, but it will be a cold day when "regiments" is an adjective. Let's put it this way:- if I were to launch an attack on, say, a small town in Wales with the intention of neutralising one of its particularly irritating residents, I would use four tank battalions: 1st and 2nd Battalion to the north, and the other two battalions (perhaps 5th and 6th Battalion) to the south. Pity we can no longer ask Phil everly for his view. Maybe Ron isley or one of his Brothers can help. Hengistmate (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It must be an adjective when used in that sense, it says so in Wikipedia. The Isley Brothers is a title ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me explain. The King's African Rifles are a splendid body of men. They acquired the title of Rifles because they carried rifles. Unfortunately, some time later a careless quartermaster in Aldershot distributed the king's African rifles, which are very shoddily made and unreliable, so much so that many of the men carry a spare. In fact, all of the 2nd Rifles carry second rifles. It's an absolutely regiments idea, if you ask me. Hengistmate (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fnar!Keith-264 (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Honestly I have no idea what any of you are talking about (I fear you lost me at "butt"). I'm assuming its some kind of series of double entendres and I'm sure it is all quite evolved and intelligent but it went right over my head (which of cse says more about me than it does anyone else I'm willing to concede from the outset - hopefully only that I'm not English but maybe something more serious?). Anyway is there a consensus here? And if so what is it (are you guys agreeing to caps or no caps?) Or is there no agreement? Or are we saying that it should be caps but I should drop the "s" at the end of my example because it shouldn't be plural (i.e. it should be the "2nd and 3rd Infantry Regiment", not the "2nd and 3rd Infantry Regiments")? I'm serious, I really didn't understand a word of this. When framing your response to me pls remember that this is English Wikipedia (not English Wikipedia), also its not just our readers that sometimes only comprehend at the level of a 12-year-old but some of our editors as well... Better yet is there someone out there that's able to interpret into Australian? Anotherclown (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd go for the status quo in the absence of consensus about change. Keith-264 (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

FFS. It's nothing to do with plurals. It's whether something is a proper or common noun. The Marx Brothers were brothers. The Cheshire Regiment is a regiment. The 17th, 18th and 19th divisions (i.e. the 17th Division, 18th Division and 19th Division) are divisions. Hengistmate (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There, copy edited it for accuracy; happy now?Keith-264 (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * A proper noun is modified into a common noun, it's not difficult to grasp surely? It was Sturmvogel's edits which brought us here anyway, not mine.Keith-264 (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's just it. It remains a proper noun. Divisions was never a proper noun to begin with. Attach a name or a number to it and it becomes a proper noun and keeps that status regardless if it's plural or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh no, not again, it's the other way round.Keith-264 (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Unpack that, I don't understand your point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Chevrolet is a generic name, 1st and 2nd somthings aren't since they're different, one's a 1st and the other's a 2nd.Keith-264 (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to explain that Keith has altered one of my posts here so that it misrepresents my intended meaning, to the extent of saying exactly the opposite. This might have caused some confusion. The line in question is: "The 17th, 18th and 19th Divisions (i.e. the 17th Division, 18th Division and 19th Division) are divisions." Keith changed it to: "The 17th, 18th and 19th divisions (i.e. the 17th Division, 18th Division and 19th Division) are divisions," and might well do so again. I am disappointed by this, and my respect for him has diminished considerably. Still, it's the least of Wikipedia's problems. Hengistmate (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed that you have assumed bad faith, when the edit was an obvious satirical riposte. Didn't you notice that the Oxford commas had been blammed too? If something like this is going to diminish your respect, I don't want it, manners will do.Keith-264 (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, did you see [There, copy edited it for accuracy; happy now?] this underneath my Director's Cut?Keith-264 (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a time and a place for humour on Wikipedia. See Andy Dingley for terms and conditions. P.S. You're wrong. Now can I get back to the cricket? Hengistmate (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't advise the cricket man, it'll be bad for your blood pressure.Keith-264 (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Mind your manners or get off my page.Keith-264 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Trekphiler is barredKeith-264 (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Capture of Wurst Farm GAN
I'm not sure what's going on with the nominator, but I'm inquiring if you'd like to help him in responding to the review at Talk:Capture of Wurst Farm/GA1 since you worked extensively on the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have a butcher'sKeith-264 (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the assist.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's OK it was just a quickie, is there anything else?Keith-264 (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015
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) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors
Hi Keith, I noticed some list defined reference errors have crept into the Blitzkrieg article after the major edits. It’s because they are no longer being used, so either need removing or commenting out. A bit difficult for me to work out which are which though - sorry. CV9933 (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I saw one for Corum et al. before I left for work so I'll try to sort it out.Keith-264 (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

BRD
As an editor I see as valued and experienced, I'm sure you're familiar with BRD, but maybe a reminder seems is in order based on this. Reverting a revert is the source of starting an edit war. Per BRD, could you please self-revert and start a discussion on the page instead? --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I put my opinion in the edit title.Keith-264 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I don't agree, so I'm supposed to revert you and comment in the edit summary?  That's the definition of an edit war, and exactly why we have BRD, right?  But okay, I'll start the BRD on talk for you.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg
Hello Keith

Can you provide some context to the question? i.e what sort of info and the year I put for publishing? cheers (and sorry to be immediately unhelpful, I've run out of memory space). Dapi89 (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Greetings it was Taylor 1974 but I think I cut or blanked it as it had been an open question for so long.Keith-264 (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you still want it? Dapi89 (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'll check.Keith-264 (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I scanned the article and it's gone so I'll have cut it. Do you want it put back?Keith-264 (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. I think it was something to do with Taylor (he didn't write the chapter on Poland) describing it as the first instance of the said subject. The article has moved on now anyhow. Dapi89 (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Somme casualties
I have a copy the entire Military Casualties–World War–Estimated," Statistics Branch, General Staff, U.S. War Department, 25 February 1924. They list the following total casualties for the Somme at: UK 430,301 and France 194,452. As for Germany the British estimated 538,000 total casualties, German official statistics list  597,000 for the entire Western front including the Somme. The German source listed in the Battle of Le Transloy article Wendt, H. L. (1931). Verdun 1916: Die Angriffe Falkenhayns is at the NY Public Library, I can verify the stats posted on the page. Have you consulted the History of the Great War?--Woogie10w (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks I used Wendt for monthly totals but wondered if you had anything more detailed than the OH, which I'm using. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015
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) 11:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Le Transloy
As I was scanning your Battle of Le Transloy article I noticed and fixed some typos in the Aftermath-Analysis section. In the 2nd paragraph under Analysis there is a typo in the corps number which I cannot fix. Since you are in the process of writing, I will make no more edits. BTW: The article is a good example of your usual very thorough history writing. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was rushing a bit, listening to the test match and didn't notice the litter of typos. The capitals key is next to the pipe key on my laptop and I've been catching both when using a capital letter. Thanks for the compliment, you're not so bad yourself ;O). I'm leaving it alone for a while as I'm going square-eyed so copy-edit to your heart's content. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Biggles
Must admit to being a little perplexed by the extent of your "word reduction" editing here - some of this borders on obscurity, where it is no longer quite clear whether "he" or "him" refers to Johns or Biggles. (Complaints that this was the case did in fact influence the precise wording of this section.) One or two merged paragraphs are also a little strange. I am too tired to do much tonight, and just recovering from 'flu - but this is to serve notice that I'm going to have a proper look at this one fairly soon, with the intent of restoring any meaning lost/obscured. You might even be kind enough to have another look yourself, and put any words back where (and if) you can see what I am talking about. Save a poor old codger the bother, and all that! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, perhaps there are some style matters to conciliate. I don't like short paragraphs because they make the narrative look like a list. If you think my edits reduced meaning, I'll be quite happy to go through them one at a time until we're satisfied. Hope you feel better soon. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A paragraph can be any length, from one short sentence to several pages. The important thing is that it embodies a single thought. I'll get onto the matter in hand at a suitable juncture - thanks for your sensible reply. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A thought or several if they conform to the theme of the header. Articles aren't lists and paragraphs aren't chapters. I had another look at my edits and am satisfied that they add to the article, particularly the removal of pleonasm. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

mine plans
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mine_plans_(Battle_of_Messines_1917)

I've put the first set of mine plans of the Battle of Messines online. Enjoy! ViennaUK (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice one, your project is shaping up very well.Keith-264 (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Messines Ridge is now completely undermined (= all mine plans online)... ViennaUK (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but if it isn't red and held in by a cork, I'd rather not bother.Keith-264 (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015
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) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

WWI
You should be participating in the Flickr Commons Library of Congress project. They are crowdsourcing context for images from the Bain Collection and are in a tranche from 1917 right now. The link is here for this Friday's batch. We add useful tags and links and try and find the article that matched the image in a published paper. Some of the images are dated, but we know this tranche is 1917 and are in chronological order, with a few misfiled out of date inserted once in a while. You may recognize the ordnance and the obscure people not labeled. Don't restrict yourself to movieng forward in the batch, the are tens of thousands of previous posts. It is one of my best sources for finding people to write about. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks but I prefer to keep my distance from the US government.Keith-264 (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Operation Ariel
Will do. I'm back next week. Dapi89 (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I will be in a position to do that and Calais from the beginning of next week, Dapi89 (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, nice to hear from you. 1940 The Last Act: The Story of the British Forces in France after Dunkirk, Karslake, Basil is on the way so I hope it sheds more light on the French and Germans. Keith-264 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: Calais the Franks is now there. I will also dig out Corum's biography of W. Von Richthofen as well as some others specifically on the Ju 87 for more info. Dapi89 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks babe, hope I got the other ones right. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I only really specialise in the air. Dapi89 (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Richthofen should be added to the command box. Dapi89 (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Soissons, 1918.
You know, it strikes me as odd that so little attention is paid to this battle, which was seen by senior military and political leaders in all the major combatant nations as the true turning point of the War. There is, AFAICT, a global shortage of scholarly accounts of this battle, even French ones. The principal work seems to be an American book which, perhaps not surprisingly, is written in such a way as to give the impression that the French were not present, so much so that until recently the Wikipedia article, apparently based entirely on the book, described it as a battle between the German and American armies. Even by the standards of US works on the War, that is impressive. The misapprehension has been transferred to German Wikipedia, where there isn't even an article, just a mistaken, Americocentric disambiguation. And the French Wikipedia appears to be a straight lift of the English version, with all its imperfections, including the nonsense about the 92nd Infantry's involvement.

I have tickled it up a little, but haven't the time to do a great deal about it, what with work, family, checking that Andy Dingley isn't hiding in the hedgerow, and so on. I just wondered if you had had similar thoughts about the action and, perhaps, have an explanation for its low profile. Hengistmate (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not nearly as expert on 1918 as the other years. I've got the 5 OH volumes and thought that if I started, it would be like reading up on another war, the year being so busy; perhaps it's like that for others. I'll have a peek in the OH and look at the article but there's not much more I can offer. Keith-264 (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of that convention, but that leaves an awful lot of Allied divisions with #s instead of words. Why is that? Primergrey (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Divisions aren't armies; I'm not entirely sure but it's usually numbers for divisions, Roman numerals for corps, numbers/words for rival armies. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Battle of France Result
Just a note, regarding the 'Battle of France' - the battle was decisively won. With that logic, no battles in World War 2 were decisive for the Axis. We most provide relevant and quick information in the access bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinNinja (talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, please refer to the article talk page for my response. Keith-264 (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note that if it doesn't hide behind a cork and say Cotes du Rhone, Burgundy, Chianti or some such, it isn't a reward that interests me.Keith-264 (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinNinja (talk • contribs) 21:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015
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) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Beauman Division
Thanks your note. If you want a good source for Beauman Division, Beauman's autobiography has a lot of detail - and it cross references well with secondary sources, so appears fully reliable. It is also a charmingly readable little book. The actual events of May/June 1940 are slightly difficult to follow - but that is not a function of the telling, more of the chaotic nature of the military situation.

There are some details of the Beauman Division article that need attention - for instance Beauman's role immediately prior to the formation of the division was largely logistics - the extra "military" jobs of base security and guarding airfields were a minor part of the work. I really need to check with some other sources before making any edits, though. (And I have not done much on Wikipedia for a while - got lots of other things I should be doing.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the trouble with retirement, it can be a full-time job. ;O)) I'm cutting and pasting from my rewrite of Operation Cycle so not all of what I've added needs to stay or remain in its current form. I've reached 9 June, which I hope to finish tomorrow and then I've got the fun of describing the retreat towards Cherbourg and Brest. There are so many villages in the area south of the Somme that linking them is a bit of a drag and organising the narrative by area, time or nationality causes as many structural problems as it solves. Keith-264 (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
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) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA
On List of military occupations discussions of Israel, Palestine, and Golan Heights fall under WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. This is just to inform you of them if you already are not aware. If you would like you can either follow the blue link over there and read about it or there's a simplified explanation of them on the talk page of this article that reads in bold "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES".-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I don't know what you're on about and I don't care, I've had my say.Keith-264 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA are active on that article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just seen that, why are you nagging me? Keith-264 (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The intention is to inform not nag. Apologies.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I wondered if you were making an indirect threat.Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No man no threat. There's a template for it somewhere. I can never remember what it is or where it's at. It's specially written to kiss everyone's butt gently. Unlike the template I'm apparently not, lol. Everyone needs to know about them. This isn't any official warning. The template logs it and all. Just telling you. But anyway.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd been quite civil and constructive considering....Keith-264 (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I must
Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The horror! The horror! Keith-264 (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi!
Hello friend from the Battle of France. I have filled in almost all citation needed tags in the article (except for one, which I will try to find tomorrow). Just a little update on progress.

A nomination would be highly respected! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinNinja (talk • contribs) 22:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * edit: added new citation for polish losses. KevinNinja (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Prelude - Battle of France
Sorry for posting here twice in a day, but I require your further assistance (if possible) with the entitled article. It has come to my attention that the Phoney War section is hugely lacking in information, and needs a massive overhaul--you could call it a 'creation', as there really isn't much there at the moment.

Your grammatical syntax is top of the line, and I need someone like you to help me out on completing this much needed addition. It is hugely appreciated. I will get to work on it shortly, though your additions are welcome at all times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinNinja (talk • contribs) 04:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I had a look at the Phony War page a while back but realised that it hardly appears in my sources. There should be a bit in Tooze describing the industrial and diplomatic preparations for Fall Gelb and perhaps something in Grand Strategy about Franco-British war preparations and strategy though.Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Made some new additions to the prelude, check em' out if you have the time. KevinNinja (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Senussi
No worries, re: |this comment. I obviously didn't even bother to log in. Milton (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015
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) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Bavarian war memorial :-)
Happy new year Keith - I thought of you when I saw the memorial and pressed the button on my camera earlier today :-) ViennaUK (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you on your travels?Keith-264 (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Battle of the Somme film screenings 2012 and 2016
I have to stop and think very carefully before I express disagreement with yourself, as you seem to be a prominent, experienced and valuable editor of this page. But I can't understand why you took the trouble to move my contribution about the 2012 screenings and the planned 2016 screenings to the Notes section. These screenings are relevant facts, and not in the category of interesting events or quotations such as appear in other of the notes above it, and it as if they have been unjustifiably relegated. I beg you to realise and reconsider, as I would not like to revert without your wise consideration. P0mbal (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm most flattered by your comments but I wasn't sure if part of the sentence crossed over into advertising and thought that it was a hanging sentence so I noted it. If your heart's set on it being in the main text I won't object to you reverting my edit but please consider the aesthetic implications of stray text. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016
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) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the thanks! Our article on George Bingham, 5th Earl of Lucan lacks anything much on his war service - is that something you could take on? DuncanHill (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not, I'm still blushing about the wrong Lucan; good luck though.Keith-264 (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing to blush about, and at least I now know something about the Senussi Campaign. DuncanHill (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Battle of france GA review underway!
The Battle of France article is now being reviewed for good article status. I require your help, if possible, to get this review to pass. Much help would be HIGHLY appreciated! KevinNinja (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Albert (1914)
Can you please stay off the page as I just lost a lot of work due to edit conflict. regards Mztourist (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I got an edit conflict too, I thought you'd finished.Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm rather confused, you seem to removed numerous valid non-duplicated xrefs and changed numbered "Armies" to "armies", can you please explain why. Mztourist (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Highlight Duplicate Links shows up duplicates if you have the script installed so I remove them. When armies, corps etc are in a list, the words "armies", "corps" and "divisions" aren't part of a title so aren't capitalised. When something is wikilinked it isn't abbreviated, an abbreviation is bracketed afterwards e.g. British Expeditionary Corps (BEF) and then used in the text. Hope this helps Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think your duplicate highlight works then, for example after your edits Aire, Marquion, Chuignolles, Framerville and 7th and 2nd Armies aren't xreffed at all. In relation to the capital A on armies, I changed it to capital A when specific units are being identified such as "7th and 2nd Armies", becuase this would be the same as saying "7th Army and 2nd Army", I don't believe it is correct to say "7th and 2nd armies" Mztourist (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You aren't the only one but I do; have you ever seen an organisation called the the "2nd Armies"? There can't be specific units because units is a plural and more than one can't be specific, only general. Aire was wiki'd twice and because the second link was a couple of sentences below the first, I saw it, as I did the first mention of Marquion, the link I blammed was the second one. I'll check the script but this is the first time its reliability has been questioned. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No I wouldn't suggest 2nd Armies, but when referring to two different numbered units of the same force I believe e.g. "7th and 2nd Armies" is correct. You are right about Aire and Marquion (which I included after being edit-conflicted here on your talk page), but please check Chuignolles, Framerville and 7th and 2nd Armies. Mztourist (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also Reims is the correct spelling (Reims and Rheims are variously used on the page) and Eastern Front isn't defined earlier. Mztourist (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed that I wrote Race to the Sea before I knew about the convention about wording Allied and numbering German armies. Thanks for the edits.Keith-264 (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been undecided about Rheims all along but prefer it with the h. Is it Reims the modern usage? I went through the page with open office and added wikilinks for the armies. In future I'll double check before trusting the script. regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I just asked a French colleague who confirmed the spelling of Reims. I believe the Rheims spelling is an English attempt to spell it somewhat as it is pronounced. I will go though the page again now, appreciate it if you could stay off it for the next hour to prevent edit conflicts. Mztourist (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Rheims as Reims (I bet I thought that Reims was a village outside Rheims) and linked the Eastern Front. Sorry for messing you about, I didn't realise that the HDL script was fallible.Keith-264 (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I put Albert through the dupe checker again and several came up, which I double checked with Open Office and were duplicates not rogue results, a couple of army links and Valenciennes. Just in case you're wondering, I've been ploughing such a lonely furrow that your interest in these articles is a breath of fresh air, thank you. I'm a bit jealous of you visiting Verdun though, the last time I could afford to travel, I got mumps instead. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
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) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

East Africa
Keith, where do you want me to start, on the main article, or do it chronologically and start with Somaliland? Dapi89 (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on what you've got, if it will go in the OOB page what would be good.Keith-264 (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent stuff D, short, sharp and to the point, thank you very much. It makes a refreshing change for the opposition to get equal attention too. I'd either put the OOB material in the OOB page or add narrative to the East Africa page, rather than the sub-pages because there aren't enough of them yet and this piece of work is going to have to stand over soon, while I try to get the Somme pages done by 1 July. On that note, is there anything you're working on where I can return the favour?Keith-264 (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the inaction, I was ill the week before last, and have been trying to catch up with everything this week. Next week, I'm hoping to help out on the air. Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's all right babe, take the time you need to feel better. I'm working on Bazentin Ridge, hope to have it ready by monday. Keith-264 (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I seem to have misplaced Dust Clouds. I'm hunting for it, I think I left it at the office. I will improve the air slightly, but looks like it will be a slow build up. Dapi89 (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've got Bazentin and Ovillers done so when I've finished Contalmaison, I'll take a break back with East Africa and then do Flers-Courcelette. I'm rather jealous that they let you read history at the office ;O)) Keith-264 (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Action of 8 May 1941
Just saw your large update of this article I had created several years ago, awesome work!XavierGreen (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much; your work gave me a very good start, all I had to do was add to it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

East African Campaign casualties
The losses at Culqualber are mentioned here: http://www.ilcornodafrica.it/st-melecaculqualber.pdf

Is this a published source?Keith-264 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

And for Gondar, the related page gives this source for the casualties: Maravigna, P. (1949). Come abbiamo perduto la guerra in Africa (in Italian). Roma: Tosi., p. 191.

--93.65.1.215 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC) p14 The losses among the Italian troops were of 513 dead and 404 wounded among the approximately 1,580 nazionalii and 490 dead and 400 wounded among the Ascari.

To give an idea of the bloodshed paid for the defense of Culqualber, losses among national and colonial military about 2800 who fought between 13 and 21 November were over 1000 fallen and wounded 800.Keith-264 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the point; these casualties are not counted among those on 16 April 1941 (as they happened later), neither are those at Gondar. They should be added to the numbers in the Infobox.--193.206.177.144 (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes they should but as yet the sources aren't enough for Italian losses. The British Official History gives the number of prisoners at Gondar and Qulquaber but not casualties. Pls note that the infobox has a note explaining that they are incomplete. this source may be accurate but it isn't published so is questionable under WP:RS. Have you got any published sources instead? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The casualties at Gondar (4,000 killed, 8,400 sick and wounded) come from a published source: Maravigna, P. (1949). Come abbiamo perduto la guerra in Africa, Roma, Tosi, p. 191.
 * Also, I believe the 230,000 POW figure includes all prisoners taken during the entire campaign, Gondar, Wolchefit and Culqualber included.--93.65.1.215 (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added the Maravigna data to Gondar but I need to read through the OH chapter on post-April operations because the data is spread all over it. Might I suggest that we continue the discussion on the article talk page? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * PLS continue on the East Africa talk page.*Keith-264 (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Keith, I contacted the author of that page, who directed me to this other pdf which confirms the number of killed/wounded at Culqualber: http://www.carabinieri.it/Internet/Imagestore/PDF/La%20Battaglia%20di%20CULQUALBER.pdf. Whereas this is not a published source, it is on the official site of the Carabinieri, so I think it can be considered a official figure.--93.71.144.146 (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello again, another thing about the East Africa page: it is written "On 16 April 1941, the authorities in the AOI signalled to Rome that 426 officers had been killed, 703 wounded and 315 captured, during military operations before the surrender." The surrender of? In East Africa there was not a general mass surrender like in Tunisia, but a series of smaller surrenders when each stronghold fell - Massawa in April 1941, Amba Alagi in May, Gondar in November, as well as smaller garrisons like Assab and Wolchefit in between. Since these datas were issued on 16 April 1941, I guess the surrender of Massawa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.151.198.227 (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably but I'm still busy with the Somme articles (two down, seven to go), East Africa is having to wait.Keith-264 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

CW sovereign status
Hey Keith,

I noted your comments regarding the CW nations. What about the Balfour Declaration of 1926, and the Statute of Westminster 1931? They made the dominions equals to the homeland, and this (in part) resulted in the dominions declaring war separately in 1939 rather than what happened in 1914.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Australia didn't become sovereign until the 80s, Canada in about 1927 but the matter of sovereignty is ambiguous because of Imperial Preference, appeals to the Privy Council etc. The Commonwealth states were clearly different to places like France and the USA. Where there are only British, Commonwealth and Imperial forces operating it seems wrong to call them Allied, compared to British, French (not Free French), USSR, Czechoslovak forces. I've changed my mind several times but the consensus in my sources is that Allied doesn't apply to empire forces.Keith-264 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Decisive
Hello, I saw your edits on Battle of Caporetto. Battle of the Piave River has a similar issue and I suppose the same standards should be used. thanks for your attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irxvini (talk • contribs) 22:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks but to be honest I took it off my watchlist, because the people who like superlatives like decisive aren't interested in the technical, Clausewitzian definition of the term (a battle with political consequences, because it determines the course of the war). For many people it just means big.Keith-264 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Action of 22 September 1914
Hello Keith, you reverted my edit – I understand your comment. But now I have a problem with understanding the sentence. If one omits the commanding officer, the sentence begins: The cruisers were part of the Southern Force in the flagship HMS Euryalus (1901)... – normally I would now assume something like: The cruisers were part of the Southern Force with the flagship HMS Euryalus (1901)... Or is in the flagship an idiom which I'm not aware of? Would you please help me with this. Yours --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I should have paid more attention, how is it now? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem with that.
 * Your text ist much better than my suggestion. Thanks.
 * Yours --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
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) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

61st Infantry Division/61st Light Division
Hey Keith,

If you still have access to the volumes of War Against Japan, I was wondering if you could look something up for me? The 61st Infantry Division was reorganized in August 1945 as a light division (I have seen reference to it being called the 61st Light Division after this), and it was going to be transferred and used in Asia against Japan. Do any of the latter volumes mention the division and the intended role for it?

Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked OH FE but nothing in the index I'm afraid.Keith-264 (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking Keith, regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Pilckem Ridge, 31 July 1917 pic
Per the A-Class review for the 38th Div, it has been pointed out that the PD tags for this image are incorrect. There are a few options, which I was hoping you would be able to help out with.

From what I could find out, Bewsher died in 1950. As far as you are aware, is this accurate? If so, we cannot use the UK-PD tag. Nikkimari stated that the image could be hosted locally, but for the moment I do not know what he means by that. The other option would be, does The history of the 51st (Highland) Division note if Bewsher was still on active service when he wrote the history? My understanding would be that PD-UKGov could then be used?

Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The copy I use is here so I assumed it came under the published USA pre-1923 rule. I haven't been able to find Bewsher's obit details I'm afraid.Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Anglophone monoglots revisited
Hey Keith. Just a note to say that your valiant effort in last year's battle over "anglophone monoglots" in the Somme article didn't leave me completely untutored. I just found my first reason for using the phrase in anger, which I never would have had I not learned it from you. So thanks for that! :-) On an utterly unrelated topic, but while I'm passing, have you encountered LindyBeige on YouTube? (channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/lindybeige - watch out for a video auto-start on that). I find him really entertaining, but he sounds pretty knowledgeable on some nitty gritty aspects of warfare. Mostly ancient and medieval, but he has some stuff on WW1; e.g. this on why introducing metal helmets increased reported head wounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IQE0uZUMys I'd be interested to hear your expert opinion on how accurate his stuff is. cheers Thomask0 (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indubitably ;O)) regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

WW1 Casualties
User 213.65.238.165 is OK, he made the edits in good faith. I have to clean up article later--Woogie10w (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks W nice to know.Keith-264 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016
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) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Caption format
Regarding your reverts and :
 * First of all, MOS:CAPTION does say that no special formatting should be used. Your "no relevance to centring" is a quite strange interpretation of what is written there. It would be nice if you provide at least some support of your point of view before enforcing it.
 * It gave italics as an example, there are a format for the text not its position.


 * Second, the  HTML tag has been deprecated a long time ago and thus should not be used even if centering is desired.
 * You're the first person to mention this, I didn't know and will look into it.


 * Third, it is a good practice to separate the presentation from the contents, and Wikipedia tries to do that. It renders its pages differently on different devices (large screens, small screens, PDF output) depending on the corresponding styles and user preferences. Moreover, users can define their own styles, so if you want to see the captions centered, you can change your custom CSS, but please do not break the default behavior and do not prevent other user from using their styles.
 * This goes beyond my knowledge of computers so you'll have to simplify it.


 * Fourth, when you revert something, please pay more attention to what exactly you do. The edit that you have reverted was not only about removing the centering.
 * I'll look into it.

So, if you do not provide valid objections to my edit, I am going to return it. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Try to be civil, you aren't the judge of validity. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

WW1 Casualties
I have initiated a discussion of the source A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire at Talk:World War I casualties. If you get a chance please add your thoughts on this source. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

At Ripleys Belive it or not with friends son will respond in PM--Woogie10w (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

COIN discussion about Vicente S. Santos, Jr.
Hi Keith-264. I pinged you in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, but am also posting here to let you know as a courtesy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Prelude sections
I see you have used prelude as a main section in other articles as well. Surely it's part of the background? Shire Lord (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The wars that I write about have lots of campaigns and battles so the background covers how things turned out this way and the prelude has the immediate things like preparations and plans. With the Desert War, the background should be about how the campaign got this far and any matters that had developed such as supply and air power and the prelude the local matters like the defences, the preparations and plan. I had intended to expand Akarit using this model but I haven't got round to it, having been slowed down on the Somme articles and various matters of life. The article has quite a few bits missing which would make the division between background and prelude look more sensible. On reflection, if you want to change the headers until I get round to expanding it, I'll withdraw my objection. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Keith, that sounds logical in your assumption; I haven't really come across that style though in wiki. I'll leave it for now, perhaps it might catch on. Shire Lord (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I've ever managed it but I have in mind that the background and prelude sections would be chronological from article to article in a series and each article would be roughly chronological from Lead to Aftermath. The strategic and tactical circumstances would be explicated, the previous battle becoming part of the background of the next one and the subsequent operations section foreshadowing the next article. Having decided to concentrate on moving as many articles as possible to B class instead of fewer articles to A and with limits on the number and quality of sources, it's not really worked as as I'd hoped. Keith-264 (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that
Thanks for catching that.

I've been removing some pointless piping by a different editor and didn't notice I changed the "Kingdom" part, must of been an errant keystroke. Gavbadger (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha! Been there, done that. ;O)) Keith-264 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Bir Hakeim
Hi I see that You check my changes in Bir Hakeim article, please see that the year indicated for the book of Michele Palermo is mistakingly indicated as 2004 in the note while the year of publishing is 2014. Best. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Good edits, all I do is tidy the language. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks go on! But why you change aircraft with aeroplanes? In aviation history publications the first term is more used.--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Aeroplane is a synonym, it helps to avoid repeating words.Keith-264 (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
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) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

HMS Vanguard edits
If you're gonna replace the ordinary dashes that I've been using in conversion templates for ages, for Ghod's sake, proof the page after you're done. I found three very prominent error messages where you'd taken out the dash, but not replaced it with anything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the oversight; I am under the impression that hyphens are deprecated so took them out using Open Office. I thought I'd done it right. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just checked and the mistakes have been remedied, thanks for that. Does this mean that there are lots of templates on ship articles with |-| instead of |–| ? Keith-264 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've never had the issue come up before, to tell the truth. I don't know offhand if hyphens in conversion templates are subject to the MOS's rule on en-dashes in number ranges, although I don't see why not. OTOH, I've had plenty of FACs pass with hyphens in the templates, so I dunno. So, yeah, there are probably thousands of ship articles that need en-dashes. Knock yourself out, if you want to gnome onwards!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's customary to use hyphens, I've only made things worse by changing them in one article, I thought it was a typo to correct not a common feature. I think prudence requires that I sit this one out. ;O)) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
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) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Hush, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zero hour. 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) 10:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The Cambridge History of the First World War
Hi Have you seen these volumes? I wonder if they are worth buying. The Cambridge histories are my Bible--Woogie10w (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I saw them in a wish list and then winced at the prices. I'd have a try at one before deciding, even if money was no option. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Maes–Garreau law
Please check the sources for the law, per the main article. All use the "future technology" formulation. None support your removal of the word future.

And your pedantic change completely misses the point. One can predict the future of a current technology. And one can predict the future of a future technology. Maes was making a point about predictions relating to a future technology, nor a prediction about a current technology. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The law as written is in illiterate American hence the redundant term future in a discussion about prediction. In your pedantic formula predictions relating to a future technology you seem not to have noticed that prediction can only pertain to the future; the future is one and indivisible. I won't revert you again because life is too short but I would suggest that you reflect on the difference between English and American. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
Your recent editing history at Greco-Italian War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Athenean (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't take a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, it's overkill. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * PS stop misrepresenting my conduct, I called no-one an impostor.Keith-264 (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would note (if this should escalate) that Keith has been a very active participant on the talk page discussing this very issue since it cropped up (last year or the year before, I should add; as well as the more recently discussion), and the editor providing this lovely warning has edited against consensus. The original version should stand, which is what Keith has been reverting to, until a new consensus is established (and a single source should not be the overriding factor in changing the infobox).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support, I won't interfere with the infobox during this dispute, since the flurry has attracted the attention of other editors who are keeping an open mind. Keith-264 (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Greco-Italian War. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr.  K.  15:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, come off it, this matter is still under discussion and you jumped the gun. I put your compromise edit on the talk page which is where it belongs and offered some suggestions. You should also refrain from terms like this their preferred version when my conduct is nothing of the sort. I refer you to WP:AGF, suggest that you are giving grounds for WP:GAMING and refer you to Enigma's comments above. Keith-264 (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Dr.  K.  16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * While I will remain civil on the admin board, I have to say this report was s total bullshit and Dr K you know it!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Serre-lès-Puisieux
I was surprised that the place seems to have an article only in Dutch Wiki. Once I'd identified it for certain, a Google search turned up a chilling group of nearby war graves. See also Puisieux, Pas-de-Calais, for some external links to CWGC sites which as yet have no articles. Narky Blert (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Every time I look over a Somme article, I seize on Serre as an unlinked village, then realise that there isn't an article so now I can copy your link, thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

56th Division links
Hello, my name is Justin, i am replying because you left a note on my talk page inbox. i have not bothered to configure because i dont much like talking with geeks who want an argument. Nonetheless you make a remark about finding the long title link to 56th Division of ourse you are right, and i absolutely agree with you. But i have been making the same remarks for over 10 years myself and have innovated many changes to Wikipedia since i was obne of the first to get involved in England.

You will not have heard of me, because no one has. I first met Jimmy of the Wales in USA many years ago. And i have been making contributions ever since. Unfortunately there was a War waged on My Pages: they deleted a lot of my work before the days of protection, and then crashed my computer with a nasty Virus.

Now of course it has gone Corporate Wiki. And i was there in the days of Wikileaks and Mr Assange.

So i hope you will understand why i am little too cynical and world-weary to take too much advice from Folks! I just do what i do! But my interests include the following: 1. Military and Naval History 2. Political History 3. Diplomatic history 4. Politics 5. Business 6. Religion 7. Art and Art History. 8. Royalty 9. genealogy, family and local history 10. European History 11. Poetry.

Jgrantduff|talk) Note: if you have no use for my content script then, i am not offended by voluntary opting-out from responses.  No compulsion.
 * Hello Justin, thanks for the reply, I left a note because I want to avoid wasted effort, which most of your links on the Ginchy page were, since they led to the wrong pages. I thought you were a novice till I read your page then realised you weren't so I hope you don't feel underestimated. I'm too old and world-weary to look for an argument but you're always welcome for a chat. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Mines on the Italian Front
Esteemed Keith-264, tunneling and mining doesn't always have to take place in Flanders mud or Somme chalk - what about mining in ice and snow for a change? I've just comepleted  Mines on the Italian Front (World War I)... Best wishes! ViennaUK (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Klaatu earthling, it's been a while ;O)). Do you have anything on the big mine of mid-1917 on the Arras front? Keith-264 (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello! Sorry, Arras and Vauquois are slightly unknown areas at this time, although there might be some information to help you in the New Zealand Tunnelling Company article. My big ambition remains to write an article on the Tunnelling units of the German engineers in Flanders - whether we'll ever see that materialize remains to be seen... ViennaUK (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I found a bit in this (I Wish They'd Killed You in A Decent Show: The Bloody Fighting for Croisilles, Fontaine-Les-Croisilles and the Hindenburg Line: March 1917 to August 1918 by Colin Taylor) new book and there's something in OH 1917 I. Keith-264 (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

"Occupation of Palestine"
Hi, there's a discussion at Talk:RT (TV network) which may interest you. Arbor Fici (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
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) 07:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverting
I see you have reverted my edit of 150816. Why? In the first bit, we have "The Tripoli...". It looks and sounds ridiculous. Would you travel round THE England, or visit THE Italy? Of course not; it's got to be a typo. In the second entry, I have never seen a book entry with "400 x tanks, or whatever. You say it is 'necessary'. How so?

Regards

RASAM (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted it back when I saw that the numbers weren't followed by numbers, did you see that edit? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

"I'm not sure you're assuming good faith"
Sorry, in reference to what? --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Read your comments....Keith-264 (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I did, of course. I really don't see anything.  At least just assume I want to understand this.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * So don't let sleeping dogs lie? Yes, the war is long over, the good guys won, so why quibble? Yet people do. Nationalism isn't rationalism. Wars a lot older than WWII still stir pointless heated arguments; we can't just wish them away. There was disagreement about the objectives during and after the war by the people involved. That disagreement was never officially resolved (no military need to do so), and now all the participants are dead, so the disagreement is still a fact, and will likely remain so forever. And it's still argued; in the last few months, on several occasions I've had to trim bits added to Aftermath that tried to put an unsourced POV on the objectives.
 * And, yes, there is probably no succinct way to state the objectives even if it wasn't controversial. That's why a lot of battle infoboxes leave it out.
 * Again, don't we all have better things to do than stir this up?

Do I really have to spoon-feed this to you?Keith-264 (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but apparently you do. You've highlighted parts of my comment.  What lack of good faith do these imply?  They are not even directed at anyone in particular; they, at most, talk about the public in general.  What type of faith of who are you getting from this?
 * Keith, I've encountered your work on WP frequently, and I've never seen any reason to ever question your good faith. I have, on occasion, saw reasons to question the GF of other editors, but even then I don't (consciously) express it, not just per WP:AGF, but because it's counter-productive to reaching consensus.  And, well, it's just rude.
 * (Are there any talk page stalkers that can point out whatever it is I'm missing here?)
 * --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You answered my efforts with these comments, if they weren't about me, why write them?Keith-264 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a standard content dispute -- the whole reason for having article talk pages. My comments are about the content, as they are supposed to be.  Replies on content disputes cannot be assumed to be personal, or no one could ever reply to any comment.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

JRR Tolkien at the Somme
Esteemed Keith-264, according to John Garth, Tolkien and the Great War, JRR Tolkien participated in the assaults on the Schwaben Redoubt and the Leipzig Salient. Should we mention this in the "Schwaben Redoubt" and "Leipzig Salient" articles, e.g. in a "notable participants" section? Your view? Best subterranean wishes, ViennaUK (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I met a mole who lived in a hole, who said such sections are elitist and trivial. I agree. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that's a speedy answer. Hats off! And thanks for your opinion. ViennaUK (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Changes to References
Your changes to the References in HMS Laforey (1913) do not appear helpful. You are changing the edition of sources without explanation (for example changing the Bacon from the Hutchinson edition to the George Doran edition, and changing the original editions of the official histories to the Imperial War Museum editions, despite the fact is the original editions that have been cited (and are linked in your references). You have also changed Randal Gray's name to Randall for some reason. In addition, by linking to the full page version of the Internet Archive you make the link much slower to load as the reader has to wait for the whole pdf to download.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought Grey was Randall but I'll change it back. The editions I've substituted are isbn or oclc and the newer editions are reproductions so shouldn't have inconsistent pagination. Is this so bad? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Even in the event of a reproduction, you cannot be certain that they are identical - certainly the reproduction editions of Jane's Fighting Ships aren't, and it goes against WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT because it is a different edition.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the changes, revert them, I don't mind. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Rollback
I

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) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting find, wrong language
Hi, I've just found this: http://users.telenet.be/blindganger/bunkers.htm Alas it's in Dutch. How do we go about to incorporate the content of this page into the WW I series on Wikipedia? GoogleTranslate? Own article or added to Tactical development on the Western Front in 1917? Your view? Best wishes - ViennaUK (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I juggle with http://www.bing.com/translator/ https://translate.google.com/ http://translation2.paralink.com/ Keith-264 (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks - this solves the language problem. How do we use the information though? There is not enough info to write an article on the Flandern Stellung only, but there might well be one on the six lines of defence the Germans built in the Ypres Salient before the Battle of Passchendaele. Your article on Hindenburg Line also has a lot of suitable information. Any ideas for what a new article on the German lines of defence at Ypres could be called? Something like "German defensive fortifications in the Ypres Salient in 1917" maybe? ViennaUK (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't do an article like that, it would only duplicate the material in the Passchendaele and Tactical development articles. I think that would only be justified if there was a very good printed source. Wynne is very good but limited to the British end of the front and tends to personalise collective developments through Lossberg. Is there an article on all of the defensive lines 1916/17-1918 anywhere? Keith-264 (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of an article on the defensive lines in the Ypres Salient yet, not even of an introductory one. I think it would be good to have a "starting point" on what the Germans built. The interested reader could then dive deeper into articles like Hindenburg Line and Tactical development on the Western Front in 1917 which explain the German actions and how the Allies reacted, etc). I'm interested in the forifications shown here:  ViennaUK (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The German defence building in the salient dated from 1915 and reflected the development in German defensive thinking as shown in Falkenhayn's directives that year. It would be better to write an article on German defensive practices 1915-1918. Flanders wasn't exceptional, most of the fortification was done before mid-1917, with a late surge on the Ghelvelt Plateau after the Messines gig. What you mention is already in articles under Background and Prelude. I've been doing this for nearly a decade and think I'm woefully lacking in sources for an article, especially because of the lack of writing in English on the French front. Keith-264 (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see your point. Taking that into account, I guess it's probably a case of abandoning the "whole article" idea and just adding footnotes on the Stellungen to existing articles... ViennaUK (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Without decent sources, such as translations of German ones, I can't see how it would work, except as a duplicate of existing material. It might be worth inquiring on the milhist talk page though. When I started working on Great War articles I decided to move existing ones to B class, before worrying about articles that weren't there and although I've got a lot done there are many still to do, especially as I've found ones that were missed when the outlines were written around 2006. I had a look through my stuff for that big mine in 1917 south of Arras, apparently the last British effort and think there's enough for an article but there are still lots already outstanding for Arras 1917. Keith-264 (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, Warlingham Crater at Givenchy-en-Gohelle by 251st Tunnelling Company! ViennaUK (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

* might have something interesting....Keith-264 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Operation Pedestal, did not appear constructive and have been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kostas20142 (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Unternehmen Hohensturm
Good evening esteemed Keith-264. Language question - Battle of Broodseinde mentions a "Unternehmen Hohensturm". Is that the correct spelling, or could it be "Unternehmen Höhensturm"? Either is possible, hence my question. Hope this finds you well ViennaUK (talk)
 * It might well be, my sources are English (I plodded through Der Weltkrieg and it was as sparse as OH 1917 II). Your amendments to German terms look better because ß is usually rendered as ss and umlauted vowels as oe etc in my books. There's also a lively debate about when to capitalise, opinion varying on whether the word is an import like blitzkrieg or not like Stellungsdivision.Keith-264 (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think your articles are very good when it comes to the latter point as you put words that are in the original language into italics, which makes it easy e.g. for me to spot when a capitalization is needed. I'd therefore go with "blitzkrieg" (English import from German) and "Blitzkrieg" (German). (That "blitzkrieg", in my view, should not be used at all in articles on history is an entirely different matter.) ViennaUK (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a WP about it somewhere....Keith-264 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Mentioned the edit war on ANI. -- Director  ( talk )  16:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no edit warKeith-264 (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Battle of France. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  16:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * There is no edit war but you seem to be trying to impute one, I suggest you take it to the talk page.Keith-264 (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016
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) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

National varieties of English
In a recent edit to the page Martin Baltimore, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually that was a mistake and I'll happily revert it if you haven't, apologies. Keith-264 (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries. Already reverted. - BilCat (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I realise now that I'd taken the Briteng banner and the edit label off but forgot the bit in the middle. need any favours? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on my point in the bullet point proposals
When there is some nuance in what is clearly a victory, for instance whether BoF is decisive or not or whether the Battle of Crete is pyrrhic or not, it seems like you try to accommodate that nuance in the infobox by choosing the "See Aftermath" option. I think that's just as much of a mistake as inserting bullet points. That's the point I was trying to make. I just didn't want to say it explicitly in the Module Talk because the discussion there is about bullet points, not about "See Aftermath". Hope your nerves are keeping free and untrapped. Regards. FactotEm (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough ;o)) I took it that See Aftermath and nothing at all were the ways put there to evade the straitjacket of the three criteria. I also took it that it was there to resolve disputes but if that was so, it's failed miserably. All I seem to have achieved is to attract every little Hitler and NLP freak on Wiki.... My neck is feeling much better thanks but I've decided to alleviate the symptoms a bit more by resigning from the BofF article and that's helping already. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I can only imagine how frustrating it must have been to believe that you were making the effort to compromise only to have everyone dig their heels in, but I think the "See Aftermath" option is there for when there's no consensus in the sources, not when there's no consensus amongst Wikipedia editors. And I think that we're not supposed to evade the straitjacket; it's restrictive on purpose. At least that's how I understand it from my reading of the discussion when the current wording was being proposed. I tend to agree with that, even to the extent that if I had my way I would remove the "decisive" option. Whether it's a fist fight or a campaign measured in decades, there's a winner, or it's inconclusive, and that's all the infobox needs to concern itself with. The details get covered in the article. But what do I know? Enjoy the peace. Regards. FactotEm (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the five choices have equal merit but that nothing and See Aftermath are for disputes about the other three. Little did I know.... To an extent, having scholarly aspirations is inconsistent with wiki policy and the academic development of some of the other editors but that's the risk we take. Keith-264 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Commas
Hi Keith, sorry to revert you but, whilst I do understand the point you're making, I strongly believe that the sentence cannot stand as it is if you remove that second comma. At a pinch it might work if you take out the previous one too, so that it has no commas rather than my suggested two, but in this context that single comma sets it up wrongly and gives us something which reads incorrectly. We could take this to the article talk page if you would like to give it a wider airing. I'm not up for a big fight here anyway but I honestly honestly believe that the single-comma form is the most wrong (er, wrongest??) of all three possibilities. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That last one nailed it, thanks. DBaK (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"Retrograde edits"
You clearly have one hell of a WP:OWN problem, but don't ever call my work here "retrograde edits".

You broke the linkage from cites to refs. You had used the wrong publication years for both refs. You invented new "a" and "b" identifiers for two works which might be described as parts 1 & 2, but are almost always known under distinct titles instead.

And you have the damned cheek to call someone else's work "retrograde"! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edits were those of an ignoramus and your complaint is that of a fool. it is commonplace for publications of the same year, same author to be separated by a signifier. If you want to be constructive FIND THE PAGES!Keith-264 (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've untangled your retrograde edits, which refer to two books, one a first and the other a second edition, both 1993 (you can see by the orig-year criterion). What's so bad about that?Keith-264 (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Ovillers-la-Boisselle in World War I
Hi Keith, the village of La Boisselle seems very full of WW1 history, much more than can be found in the article on Ovillers-la-Boisselle at the moment. To mend that problem and to make things as transparent as possible to non-specialists, I'd like to create a "Ovillers-la-Boisselle in World War I" article by relocating (not deleting) the content that covers the "pre-1914 to 1916" period from the Capture of La Boisselle and Capture of Ovillers articles there, which would shorten your two articles considerably and confine them to the actual capture in 1916. What is your view on such a project? Kind regards and happy late Halloween ;-) - ViennaUK (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd rather you didn't because those sections are the background and the articles are stylistically similar to the other tactical incidents. Why don't you just copy the sections into your new article? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your fast reply. I can definitely see your point (and the fact that they are all stylistically similar to the other tactical incidents is definitely a point of strength!). What I will do is this: I will create the article "Ovillers-la-Boisselle in World War I" and leave yours untouched; maybe we can later see whether Capture of La Boisselle and Capture of Ovillers may/could/should be shortened. Seems the safest way to go. Thanks again and best wishes ViennaUK (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good starting point but you never know, I might nick your material for the Somme articles....;o)) Sometimes a direct copy of part of one article is justified for articles with a similar theme. The German defensive preparations sections are almost identical in the 11 Somme battles and 20-odd tactical incidents I've done. My Wikimojo was quite dim early in the year, what with various potions off the doctor putting me into a purple haze but I'm feeling much more awake these days. I'm trying to clear the backlog in my sandboxes and not start new ones, ahem! Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

L'îlot de La Boisselle
Hi Keith, I'm still working on details in L'îlot de La Boisselle, but you may want to start adding links to existing articles already. Best wishes, a tired ViennaUK (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You've been awfully busy, hope you're enjoying it. ;o))Keith-264 (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016
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) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Ovillers-la-Boisselle package
May I report that I've completed the "Ovillers-la-Boisselle package" around the new Ovillers-la-Boisselle in World War I article. I've also updated the "History" section in Ovillers-la-Boisselle, the introductions to Capture of La Boisselle and Capture of Ovillers and finished the article on L'îlot de La Boisselle. I hope this finds you well and the health is improving, ViennaUK (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I saw you'd been busy, well done. My neck's still sore but my morale is much better thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

History of the Great War
Hi, I hadn't seen the History of the Great War article before today. It's a seriously good piece of work. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, its getting a bit bigger than I thought....Keith-264 (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Mining!
Please meet the brand-new Y Sap mine. I've streamlined Lochnagar mine as well so that it is focused on what went on at each site. Best wishes! ViennaUK (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Nice work, I moved the unused references to Further reading but if you use them it will be easy to swap them back. If you've got more of this in mind, you might consider setting up a page like this User:Keith-264/common.js (if you already haven't) and adding some of the editing tools like the ones which shows up duplicate wikilinks and unused references. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Hello, I'm DuncanHill. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Battle of Passchendaele that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you revert the provocation as well as the retort? If not, why not?Keith-264 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, judge and jury in your own cause. Keith-264 (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The "provocation" was your own. As you always do, once you met resistance, you immediately began pouting.  And as happens when you pout, you start lashing out.  In three replies consisting of five sentences (or fragments thereof), you have called editors ignorant, asked one if he was mad, implied that documents from government historical war museums are "pop history", derided the fact that you know you will fail to achieve consensus as being the result of a "beauty contest", and in a breathtaking display of both irony and a lack of self-awareness, demanded that we have a "grown up discussion"  after you made all of these comments.  You're behaving this way because you fail to understand that in a consensus-based project, your POV does not get to automatically rule.  And certainly in this case, you've largely only brought one argument: "lets rename the article because I want to".  Resolute 21:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken and you jump to self-serving conclusions. Would you like to go through the exchanges word by word to find out why? Keith-264 (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Passchendaele, ANI notice
I have opened a thread at ANI at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents about a discussion in which you have been involved. You are welcome to contribute to the thread at ANI, DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I converted the discussion thread into a Requested Move. Please see my change at Talk:Battle of Passchendaele which added a Requested Move header. You can revert my change if you disagree. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hawthorn Ridge Redoubt
Good morning Keith-264, I'm at (rather "underneath") it again :-) Please find a brand new map of the Hawthorn Ridge Redoubt mine (it actually is a dream come true that we've finally got one). Speaking of the Hawthorn Ridge Redoubt article, I think that the introduction is too long. I shall have a play with it now, could you please have a look at it later in the afternoon? Best wishes ViennaUK (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Is that the one with H3 on it? Good find. Keith-264 (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's H3, courtesy of 252nd Tunnelling Company.


 * A trim of the lead won't hurt either. ;o))Keith-264 (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Because the article has so much detail, we can afford the luxury of having a concise lead aimed at quick glancers and school kids. The specialists and battle buffs may always scroll down and enjoy the full monty in the main body of the article... ViennaUK (talk)

The Bluff & St Eloi
All I can say is "hats off" - truly awesome work on/in those two locations!!! The most amazing aspect is that I can watch both articles grow and grow every day these days. Much, much more than I ever hoped to create when I first started the location articles. Keep up the good work! Best wishes from beneath the surface :-) ViennaUK (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Eythenkew! I had hoped to find a bit more about mining but sadly not. I've got a bit more to add from the 17th Division history then I think we can get a B. I'll get stuck into St Eloi next and then I'm toying with Operation Schleswig-Holstein to complete the set. I assumed you were off this weekend having a life. ;o)) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly - creating that Hawthorn Ridge mine plan wore me out a bit, so this weekend I spent more time outside (looking at hills that reminded me of Ypres) rather than in front of the PC... ViennaUK (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Journalism
Just realized that paragraphs from the WW1 mining articles and some photos made it into a mining journal. Great to see when the stuff we write leaves Wikipedia for a life outside the encyclopedia... I hope this finds you well! ViennaUK (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Wahey! I'm feeling much better thanks. Do you have a link? I hope to get going on St Eloi which is nearly done. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. As for one article, it's here Look especially at chapters "The battle begins" and "Eyewitness accounts". You'll probably recognize some sentences of yours as well. Congrats to you too! ViennaUK (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016
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) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 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) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of paragraph numbers in citations
With regards to my use of Zuber's studies, you asked for page numbers in citations but I can only provide you with the paragraph numbers contained in chapters for the e-books. Good enough? I couldn't find anything relevant in Wiki about the use of such a practice. TiltuM (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I fear that's as good as it gets; there was a recent discussion here. I don't read e-books so I thought that the lack of page numbers was an oversight, apols. Keith-264 (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hannut
As the original anonymous editor complained, it's incredibly aggravating behaviour to revert good-faith edits without even a hint of explanation. The Frieser citation, on verification, is legitimate; if you have a reason for suppressing it, then I'd like to hear it. Albrecht (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Did you read this Template:Infobox military conflict link?

"result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."

Imagine what it's like to go through this every five minutes, when it contains It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. The Aftermath section is the place for cited hair-splitting. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I was heavily involved at WP:MILHIST around 2005–07 when these templates were first standardized and the documentation drafted; needless to say that I haven't tracked every revision over the years. The current formulation of standard vs. non-standard terms is utterly baffling to me; if anything, we seem to have it backwards: it's actually qualifiers like "tactical" and "strategic" which are fairly well-defined and consistently applied in the literature, while "Decisive X victory" is the kind of non-rigorous pseudo-concept that lends itself to endless speculation and contestation (granted this isn't the place revise and/or debate this template, so I'll accept the deprecation of "tactical"). Albrecht (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No wonder you're frustrated, there are discussions here too about the parameter. It seems that there is a school of thought that sees the infobox as an abbreviation of the article, with no room for subtlety or logic-chopping and another that sees it as a legitimate place for a wider range of terms. I take the former line for the sake of uniformity and because the articles I work on most (Great War, Western Front) usually last a bit longer than a day so there's an ebb and flow depending on periodisation. I think the three choices and a non-choice is enough but plenty of people agree with you that it isn't. I find the subject bedevilled by some historians treating decisive as a technical term derived from Clausewitz (war-deciding) or as a synonym for big. I prefer the Clausewitzian sense if it's to be used at all but that is contradicted by much of the tertiary hack-work shovelled out by commercial publishers and the Hitler Channel. Not that I'm bitter mind...;O)) RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Siege of Saïo
Hey Keith-264. I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to the Siege of Saïo article. I was considering nominating it for GA status. The background info you added certainly helps in that end, but I'm worried that there might not be enough source diversity for the body of the article (with most of the info coming form the Belgian Information Center publication). Do you have any thoughts on the matter? -Indy beetle (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you approve but feel free to cut anything that you think is unnecessary. Doing the general article first can help fill in general matters in the sub-articles. It hadn't occurred to me that your ambitions went as far as GA but good luck, do you want to withdraw the B class nomination? You're right that the local detail leans heavily on one source, which might raise eyebrows in a GA review. I'll have a scout round. regardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it open for B-class review, and nominate it for GA if I gather enough info. Thank you for the assistance. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Passchendaele edits
Keith-264, What was the reason for deleting my edit that referenced an Iron Maiden song called Paschendale? JoeBlo (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking, it's a pop-culture reference that gets put in periodically and then gets taken out on grounds of relevance. Of all the books I have it's mentioned once (to demonstrate the ignorance of the lyricist). might help. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Greg.
You're welcome. Major John Ronald Greg, C.B.E. Director: Metropolitan Carriage, Wagon, and Finance Company, Limited. Plenty of sources, inc. New Year Honours, 1918. Hengistmate (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Antwerp, 1914.
You've shown an interest in this sort of thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Winston_Churchill#Antwerp_1914 What do you think? Hengistmate (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Hengist, I don't have much interest in biographical minutiae and politicians' claims. As for Churchill, I wouldn't breed from him. ;o))Keith-264 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't a question about minutiae and claims, or Churchill. More about historical accuracy. Did the Germans have designs on the Channel ports, and what was the effect of the insertion of British troops into Antwerp? Hengistmate (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Aah, I'm not sure, I think the Germans were playing it by ear, juggling tactical and operational possibilities, according to how they developed, in the Prussian/German military tradition. Falkenhayn's orders were to head towards the Channel ports and then turn south, behind the Allied flank, which looks like a means to inflict a defeat on armies rather than capture ports or ground per se. I don't think the RN Division at Antwerp achieved much apart from getting a brigade interned in the Netherlands. Keith-264 (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Admin
G'day Keith. No I'm not an admin, just a pleb. Also apologies that I was not able to be more involved in the discussion but I had a number RL commitments yesterday. Regards Anotherclown (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ooh what I wouldn't give to be a pleb, I've been here nine years, the admins only turned me the right way up yesterday. ;o)) I'm a bit hazy about who is and who isn't and what difference it makes. You, Oz Rupert and a few others are the editors I trust to give people a fair hearing. I'm still at the black box stage for much of the internal workings of Wiki editing. Keith-264 (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Bradbury Building
Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You have failed to AGH and made a facile assumption about my edit. your label "this one was better before" is not constructive. please stop defacing my talk page with histrionic typesetting.Keith-264 (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 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) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Impeccably conducted assault on Polderhoek Spur

 * Thanks very much, I'll try not to trip over it. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Le Transloy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Scott.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022
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) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022
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) 20:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit to Operation Pedestal
Re. your reversion of my edit to the Operation Pedestal article, my source is an article from the most widely-circulated newspaper in Malta, and it cites primary sources from 1942–1943 held at the National Archives (it even illustrates one of the documents in question). Please explain your comment of "good stuff but it needs a better source" since I do not understand what is wrong with the source I used. Thank you. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for asking, I assumed that the source wasn't RS as per Reliable sources but I might be wrong. does it appear in a book? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I just checked the chapter on Operation Pedestal in Dennis A. Castillo's The Maltese Cross: A Strategic History of Malta (2006) and it does not seem to mention this particular detail - although it's possible that such trivia is beyond the book's scope, which is a broad overview of Malta's military history from antiquity to the modern era. At the moment I don't have access to other more detailed sources which deal specifically with Operation Pedestal, so I don't know whether or not this detail is covered elsewhere. In any case, in my opinion I see no problems with the ToM source, but I will leave it up to you to decide on whether or not it's worth including in the article. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you should put it back in and we'll wait to see how other editors react. Thanks for taking the trouble. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I have added it back (changing the citation style to match the other refs) and I added the Castillo (2006) book to the "Further reading" section as well. All the best! Xwejnusgozo (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Keith-264 (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022
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) 08:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Operation Herkules
Conjunction (grammar) says "where the second clause is independent (because it can stand alone as a sentence), the comma is considered by those guides to be necessary". Clarityfiend (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that but note that I write English English. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Careful
This could be seen as a misleading edit summary, as that goes well beyond copy-editing. DS (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was copy-editing pure and simple. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 04:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hill 60 caption
Identifying the Caterpillar crater as the Caterpillar1 crater seems like a clear error. Please explain. 2001:48F8:4002:684:8C25:19C7:4FA9:92B4 (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The explanation is that there are more craters. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction to previous election announcement
Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)