User talk:Keith-264/Archives/ 2

Espero
Hello, I would like to bring to your attention to this recent work by naval historian Francesco Mattesini, regarding the loss of the Espero. It is based on documents found in the archives of the Italian Navy and among other things there are two differences with the version on the battle of the Espero convoy:

1) Espero did not carry 225 men, but 257 men: 202 crew, including 9 officers, and 55 blackshirts, including two officers. The number of survivors rescued by Sydney and Topazio are consisted, but the total number of men killed is 207 rather than 172.

2) Regarding Baroni's death, several statements from survivors (including medical officer Lotti, Sub-Lieutenant Giussani - both rescued by Sydney - and petty officer Lo Mastro - who was one of the six rescued by Topazio) confirm that he was not killed by an explosion, but that he was only wounded, not very seriously, and deliberately went down with the ship: ''Diverso è invece il racconto fatto su Baroni dal capitano medico Lotti, nel descrivere quanto avvenne al momento in cui l’Espero fu immobilizzato per poi affondare: "Verso le 20 l’ESPERO colpito, nel locale macchine rimaneva immobilizzato. Si seguitava a sparare da ambo le parti, finché due imbarcazioni (i ciambellani) venivano calate in mare; in queste trovavano rifugio dai 40 ai 50 uomini, la maggior parte ferita, ma non in modo grave; erano troppi uomini per simili imbarcazioni, molti erano aggrappati con le mani, mentre il loro corpo era in acqua; una di esse fu colpita in pieno dal nemico. Io, che sebbene ferito, sia pure in forma leggera e in due punti dell’arto superiore destro, seguitavo da un capo all’altro del bastimento a prestare la mia opera … Eravamo rimasti a bordo non più di 10, oltre al Comandante, il Segretario di Squadriglia S.T.V. Giussani ed io; il Comandante Baroni e il S.T.V. Giussani feriti al braccio e gravemente, grondanti sangue dalle loro divise lacere. Mentre ancora cercavo di curare e consolare i pochissimi rimasti, nonché i feriti più gravi, mi accorsi che il Comandante stava scendendo dalla plancia in coperta; mi avvicino a lui e mi accingo a dargli ancora del rum e a fasciargli la ferita; il Comandante mi risponde di pensare agli altri; indicandomi con un largo gesto del braccio sano tutta la coperta piena di corpi feriti da cui si alzava qualche lamento. Alla mia preghiera di cercare di gettarsi in mare insieme a me e agli altri rimasti rispondeva che il suo destino era legato a quello della nave, dopodichè mi esortava a buttarmi in mare, raccomandandomi, qualora mi fossi salvato, di andare a Roma a riferire al Ministero che Egli aveva cercato di fare tutto il suo dovere, ma contro un nemico così enormemente superiore non si poteva fare nulla di più." Il sottotenente di vascello Giussani, aggiunse nella sua relazione: "In tutto questo periodo il contegno del personale fu esemplare ed io non sentii una sola parola di sconforto o di abbattimento. Il Comandante Capitano di Vascello Baroni, veniva ferito al braccio dallo stesso colpo che feriva me, ma non gravemente: poi non lo rividi più. Dopo il mio recupero (da parte di una imbarcazione del Sydney) un sottufficiale mi disse di averlo visto in piedi, sulla poppa della nave sprofondare con essa, dopo aver risposto negativamente ai suoi ripetuti inviti a salvarsi". Questa dichiarazione di Giussani fu confermata dal capo cannoniere Franco Lo Mastro, il quale, dopo aver aiutato i feriti a prendere posto su una delle tre zattere (canotti "Carley") messe in mare dal personale dell’Espero, manovra resa più facile dal fatto che ormai l’acqua era a pochi centimetri dal trincarino, si recò "dal comandante per invitarlo prendervi posto" ma il capitano di vascello Baroni, non era intenzionato a salvarsi, per condividere la sorte della sua nave. Dichiarò, infatti, Lo Mastro: "Al mio invito negò recisamente, mi strinse la mano elogiandomi e infine mi ordinò di abbandonare la nave ed allontanarmi prima che fosse troppo tardi. Eseguii il suo ultimo ordine e dopo aver preso posto sulla zattera notai un marinaio offrire al Comandante il proprio salvagente perché si salvasse. Questi rifiutò abbracciando il marinaio, e dopo avergli rimesso il salvagente lo aiutò a scendere in mare perché raggiungesse la nostra zattera. Al contabile meccanico, il Comandante disse queste testuali parole: “Contabile, ha visto come siamo stati sfortunati?”. Ed al nuovo invito del Sottufficiale a salvarsi con lui, rispose: “No, il Comandante muore con la propria nave”. Poco dopo, ritornando nei suoi passi disse al contabile: “Se avrete fortuna di far ritorno in Patria, direte ai nostri superiori che abbiamo compiuto il nostro dovere sino all’ultimo. Viva l’Italia”. Indi si allontanò verso poppa".'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.65.8.125 (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, do you have the book page numbers please? Keith-264 (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the pages, however the entire work is uploaded on Academia and can be read on the link in my previous message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.65.8.125 (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Apols, I hadn't noticed that I can download it without joining something. If you're the author it might be wise to get a regular Wiki.en account to avoid questions of OR, regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not the author, just a guy interested in Naval history - Mattesini is a pretty well-known naval historian here in Italy, he has authored various books for the USMM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.90.37.203 (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I had a look on Wiki.it and World cat. The download seems well sourced but it doesn't have an isbn or OCLC number so I've asked on the milhist noticeboard here. Keith-264 (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Another thing I noticed is that the linked pdf also gives a partially different description about the sinking of Liuzzi. Giorgio Giorgerini in Uomini sul fondo states that Liuzzi's commander, Lt. Cdr. Lorenzo Bezzi, scuttled the submarine, and going down with it, after making sure the rest of the crew had left; the same is stated in Bezzi's page on the website of the Italian Navy. --93.65.8.125 (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Arctic convoys
Hello Keith I've done the Chulmleigh page (finally!), and I've moved the section over from the Operation FB page (there's a summary in the previous section) as discussed (sometime around Easter!). I'll have a go at the FB page when I can find my notes... You were asking about Arctic convoys on the to-do list; one item that concerns me are the ship lists added by User:Geoff3Cae, which I raised with him a while ago, but haven't seen an answer yet. I did PQ 14, 15 and 16 recently, but I'm pretty sure the rest will need changing as well. Anyway, keep smiling... Xyl 54 (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018
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) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Edward S. Herman
I notice you have contributed to the Edward S. Herman page. Would it be possible for you to help build a POV consensus on the page? There is currently an NPOV dispute. Prop9 (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to but I think it's pointless as long as Wiki allows Mickey Mouse editors to keep a right-wing stranglehold on pages like this. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Ping. Ding. Whatever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Battle_of_Villers-Bretonneux#Edits_26th_July,_2018. Hengistmate (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018
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) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

2nd Italo-Ethiopian war
Hi Re:2nd Italo-Ethiopian war- you mentioned that my quotes came from one source ..I think you may missed my point. They came from the same source used for the other quotations, the authors just choose to omit all references that were unfavourable to Italy. I could have used other sources but that would have made it appear a contest of sources i.e. which source do you believe etc. This was simply the previous edits being incredibly selective about their own source! By quoting elsewhere in the same source they cannot attack the source as doubtful as it is the same source they are relying on. thanks Napata102 (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, when I read the article for the first time, I wondered if our Italian nationalist who interpolated pro-Italian bias all over the war in the Mediterranean had been busy, perhaps I was right. My limited sources weren't enough to contradict what was already there. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next 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 coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Footers on Mers-el-Kebir
MOS:FOOTERS says to use header code for things like cites and bibliographies. Not bolding.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Bugger! Keith-264 (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018
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) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Auto ed?
Keith, Keith, Keith? What has happened to the Auto Ed function? Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't know is where i'm at with recent changes (i.e. nowhere). Apols Keith-264 (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok I will keep an eye on that. Thanks Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018
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) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018
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) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image size
Hey Keith, I recall not too long ago you that you adjusted an image's width I had set to 300px back to 250px, stating in your edit summary that 300px stretches the infobox beyond the campaign boxes stacked underneath's width. Like the sneaky bastard that I am, I increased it to 300px again in one of my subsequent edits. Now I noticed that you set it back to 250px again. Of course, the last thing I'd want to do is argue over this with you. I'm exceptionally anal about an article's style and often fret way too long about little stylistic intricacies no one cares about.

I'm curious, how does a military infobox with an image width of 300px (or 285px) look in your browser? I also checked your discussion with Frietjes, whose browser apparently stretches the infobox width at 300px as well. This it how it looks to me.

Also, how do columns make a mockery of alphabetical sorting? The same argument could be made for using a 20em list of citations; it makes a mockery of numerical sorting. Imagine a dictionary or encyclopedia without columns and a whole lot of whitespace (and wasted paper), so as not to make an imagined mockery of alphabetical sorting. Take care. Jay D. Easy (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Jay, when it's at 300px the box is about half an inch wider than the campaignboxes. They went like this after a recent change in the infobox format so I wonder if the change isn't as universal as it should be. I'll inquire on the Milhist talk page and in the meantime stop reverting your px reverts. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * PS citations are numbered consecutively, it's easy for the eye to know which way to look. Keith-264 (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey Keith, thanks for getting back to me and thanks for tagging me in Milhis. I have no problem with refraining from increasing the width to 300px for the time being. However, I always assumed the preferred image width was 300px, considering the fact the infobox's default width is 315px, which leaves 15px for padding. See Template:Infobox military conflict/doc. I'm still curious to know which browser you're using and how it looks to you. Does 250px create as much whitespace around an image in your case as it does my screenshot, or does it come close to what 300px looks like to me? What's your preference?


 * I still have no idea what on earth you are talking about when it comes to citations. Just to make sure we're not arguing about something that turns out to be affected by how our respective browsers choose to display it, here are two more screenshots of Gauntlet: your last edit and my last edit, before yours. Though honestly, I can't imagine it looking any different to you. Moving ahead with that assumption, your argument makes no sense whatsoever. (Or is it me?)


 * We're talking about embedded lists here. As far as I know, not one single style guide advises against the use of columns when it comes to a list of source material. WP:BIB doesn't mention anything about the use of columns in their recommended structure either. Check their featured lists as well. Keep in mind that these are standalone lists which understandably don't use columns. But when viewing these page's list of sources, we find these works cited, or these sources, this list of sources, and also this one – all using columns. Take care! Jay D. Easy (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought it was 300px for years, it's all a bit of a mystery. As for the bibliography, columns seem to be a recent affectation in my experience of Wiki. I think they're horrible as well as unhelpful. Keith-264 (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Material moved to Battle of Medenine talk page Keith-264 (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Keith, any word on this? Are we any wiser as to what the consensus is? I'll reinstall Firefox when I'm home to see how 300px looks then. Jay D. Easy (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, I think it's died a death but I'll ask again. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI
Hi, In believe you may have added your !vote to the wrong section WT:MILHIST. Just above are section for !votes in support of keeping "Historian" in the title, but you added yours to the section for votes supporting the change to "editor". I only mention it because it appears you support "historian" and if that's the case, you might want to move it. Cheers - wolf  12:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I voted against "historian". Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Disregard... - wolf  20:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018
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) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019
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) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Minsk
You added the template to use AmEng to the article, but removed all the AmEng commands from the conversion templates. WTF, dude?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

False accusations of vandalism
Please do not make false accusations of vandalism. WP:Vandalism has a specific meaning on wikipedia and good faith edits intended to improve wikipedia, no matter whether they actually do, are not vandalism. Continuing to make false accusations of vandalism are likely to lead to a block. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The label was not false; please keep your threats to yourself. Keith-264 (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I will reiterate the warning. You have been making false accusations of vandalism. Please read and study Wikipedia: Vandalism. The relevant quote is "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge."


 * Making false accusations of vandalism is disruptive editing. Stop now. If you continue, you will be blocked. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not accused anyone, I have described an edit; this is not disruptive, Trek's slash and burn edit is. Please keep your threats to yourself. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI: ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Keith-264. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

East Africa Campaign
How would you feel about ordering the British/commonwealth forces on East African Campaign (World War II) in the following way for the this reason:

British Empire/Commonwealth
 * United Kingdom (the "leader"/"owner" of the whole force at the top)
 * India (the most numerous/significant force)
 * South Africa (the second most numerous/significant unified force)
 * Kenya
 * Nigeria
 * Gold Coast (these 3 countries were together more people than South Africa, but less concentrated and spread out for the African divisions of KAR, so lower than SA)
 * Somaliland
 * Sudan (Somaliland and Sudan (Kenya already mentioned above) for the Italian invasions in 1940, smaller than the 2 KAR divisions)
 * North Rhodesia (Several Rhodesian units)
 * South Rhodesia
 * Nyasaland (one battalion)
 * Australia (just naval support)

This gives a better view/feel for the "relevance"/involvement of the different countries/colonies, instead of now where it seems UK is the least important and Australia is the most (the total opposite) Seem like a good change? Opinions? --Havsjö (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's OR, alphabetical is neutral. Keith-264 (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But in another page we had a discussion regarding giving "undue weight" etc to different countries in a battle, isnt this given wrong weight when the most significant one can be ordered top to bottom?--Havsjö (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You say undue weight, I say OR so let's call the whole thing off. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, original research, I didn't understand that at first! Well, I was just basing this off Order of Battle, East African Campaign (World War II), where you can simply see the amount of units and their size, which I was based the order on. --Havsjö (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019
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) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Novaya Zemlya
Hi. Think you have an interest in Arctic convoys. Could you have a look at the above article as there's quite a bit about PQ 17 in it and it doesn't ring true to me but I lack the knowledge or references to check Lyndaship (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Had a quick look; the German ships went nowhere near the convoy, that part looks like a different occasion. Keith-264 (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that's what started me doubting too. So much on this article looks wrong - where did the seaplane come from, the ships would be covered in ice; even if one had a cargo of paint its not a practical proposition to transfer the paint to all the ships and paint them in a short time - and on the PQ 17 article its sourced to Jeremy Clarkson(!) as happening elsewhere, Lotus and La Malouine are not Free French ships, it seeks to suggest 17 merchant ships left the strait and 6 of them were sunk - I think that includes the escorts and some of the merchant ships sunk after 7 July had never been anywhere near Novaya Zemlya, do Ju 87s have the range to reach Novaya Zemlya, not many of the ships are listed as carrying food in their cargo so I doubt if their loss had any effect on the food supplied to Gulag prisoners in July 1942 and if it did I doubt if a prisoner would know that as the reason, how do you lose a cargo of Linseed oil, to unload a ship takes some considerable time yet it claims one jettisoned her cargo? Just find the whole thing unlikely Lyndaship (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's more of a mishmash than I first thought but I'll check the RN OH and Woodman for cites. Keith-264 (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keith: I noticed this, before: I would agree with Lyndaship's analysis of the inaccuracies in this piece, but I also think there is a bigger issue, which I have raised on the talk page there if you wish to comment...Xyl 54 (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Operation Hydra (1943)
Hello Keith Thanks for fixing this: I was just following a link from Operation Whitebait, which landed here. Coincidentally, I noticed recently (from Max Hastings book on Bomber Command) that Whitebait was Bomber Command's codename for Berlin, so it raises the question: was this op (the decoy for Hydra) specifically named Operation Whitebait, or has someone just made an assumption somewhere along the line, because the target was Berlin? Anyway, thanks, Xyl 54 (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Twas a pleasure, I have the Middlebrook book which also described Whitebait as Berlin so I amended it. I don't know if there was an operation with the name but I'll look in the BCOH in case it's mentioned. My Middlebrook is an e-book and I'm not sure that the page references are precise, especially as there are pages referred to a print copy which differ. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't find anything I'm afraid. Keith-264 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019
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) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Lancashire Watch Company.
Good afternoon. I read your post about LWC clock company and I have a few question to you. I am from Ukraine and few years ago I have founded pocket clock, with label LWCo. This clock is gold covered 14k, it has serial number, has engraving. I found it on place where was crushed Germany army train in ~1940-1945. May I get information about this clock using its serial number, or find information about its owner. I want to return this clock to owner posterity. If you have any information about this clock company, I’ll be glad to hearing from you. Thank you. SashaHutsalyuk (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that my edit was a casual one; I know nothing of the company. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you know someone who have any information about this factory? Because it is really interesting and maybe important for history. Also if you know someone who is interested in old pocket clocks, tell me please. Thank you. SashaHutsalyuk (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies for tarrying with my reply; I'm afraid that I know nothing beyond what's in the article. Keith-264 (talk) 08:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019
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) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Villers-Bretonneux
Hello there. What causes confusion is that one A7V failed at Charleroi before entraining, and another at Guillaucourt. Pip pip!

Oh. Sorted out your dispute with A. Dingley?


 * Which one? ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Tis here, it wasn't a dispute with Andy, he was quite helpful. Keith-264 (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019
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) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

You may find this amusing
Hey, Keith, there's something I just noticed while looking up Campaignbox Scandinavia in World War II's revision history. You see, in your reversal—no hard feelings—edit summary you state, "this is about military operations not the life an times," by which I take it you mean you oppose the inclusion of non-military links. Well, I think I found the culprit that added them. It's this guy: User:Keith-264. You may know him ;) Jay D. Easy&#8202;(t&#8202;•&#8202;c) 17:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ooh-er Missis.Keith-264 (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019
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) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edits
The reverted edits you keep making to the Operation Aerial page are making the relevant sentences harder to read, and also adding poor grammar which I had just edited out. What is the reason for this? I don't want to get into an edit war, but you've created new issues which now need to be corrected. I suggest you research the relevant grammar, punctuation and style before making any more edits in order to avoid creating more work for other editors.

Cadar (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This should be in the article talk page. Keith-264 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Operations on the Ancre, January–March 1917, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Barrow ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Operations_on_the_Ancre%2C_January%E2%80%93March_1917 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Operations_on_the_Ancre%2C_January%E2%80%93March_1917?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunate
Hi, edits like this -- including and especially its edit summary -- have a strong scent of WP:OWN about them, and discourage others from continuing to try to help improve the article. It's a pity, as I found it a fascinating article, and I thought it had a lot of potential. MPS1992 (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Tu quoque; I'm always ready to discuss edits but you seem resistant to a quite elementary point of WP;BOLD Keith-264 (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

A slight slip?
Here you removed a citation you'd added in the preceding edit. DuncanHill (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019
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) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Auto Ed
Afternoon Keith, The AutoEd feature is running again. Just so you know. : ) Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Guillemont
I see that you have put much work in on the Battle of Guillemont article, so I am hoping you may be able to relieve some of my initial confusion. The 55th divisional history describes what seems to be an all out assault on 8th and 9th August towards the village, but this is not mentioned in the background in the Guillemont article. The article seems to be based on the OH, which describes a series of delays instead. I have yet to dig further into the sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It was quite a while ago so I've had a look at the article to refresh my memory. The attacks are in the main body of the article, where do you think they've been omitted? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that resolved my confusion! Late night reading does not mesh with critical thinking. You are quite right, good sir! Embarrassing, it appears I had not read far enough through the article to establish this.
 * It does raise a question in regards to nomenclature (First World War is not my forte), would it be accurate to describe the (on the 55th Div article) that the division took part in the battle of Guillemont considering the September dates? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I hesitated about them but in James, E. A. (1990) [1924]. A Record of the Battles and Engagements of the British Armies in France and Flanders 1914–1918 those are the dates. It's as if the earlier fighting hasn't been seen as part of it, only the few days leading up to the capture of the village. If I had only put those events in the Battle section the background and prelude would have been the majority of the article. I remember that when I started I thought it would be a fairly small article, like the Battle of Thiepval but that for continuity I had to begin with the end of Delville Wood. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips here, and the C/E you have provided. I am just drawing up some material to write up the section on Cambrai, what a confusing fight is described for the German counterattack! I note that Coop doesn't provide casualty figures for the division's actions during the battle. I note that Miles has an overall figure, I don't suppose he breaks it down on a divisional level does he?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Grand Couronné
If the relevant dates for that part of the Battle of Grand Couronné are 1–3 August or 1 July – 15 August, the article should be changed to reflect that. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No it's an example of spacing of date ranges; you closed the spaces where they should exist. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
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) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
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) 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Pedestal
Hello Keith Thanks for sorting this out: I'll be out of touch for a while, as I'll be on holiday. Ahh, The burden of having to enjoy oneself! Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad that we have worked together, I'm always open to constructive criticism. I looked at the Hague book...forty quid! Hope the holiday goes well. ;O) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you (belatedly) for your felicitations! Amongst other things I was able to visit HMS Caroline in Belfast: Very interesting... We had a copy of Hague's book in our library, but it disappeared (probably because it could go for £40 on Amazon) so I ended up borrowing it on Inter-library loans and photocopying it. So if you need something looking up, give me a shout. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Random question
In the past you have been able to highlight where to access PhD papers, just wondering - since I have had no luck - if you have any idea if it possible to access the following online?


 * Brig. K.J. Drewienkiewicz, ‘Examine the build-up, early training and employment of the Territorial Army in the lead-up to, and the early days of, the Second World War,’ (Royal College of Defence Studies dissertation, 1992)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings, this is the best so far but \I'll keep looking. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look, much appreciated. It is unfortunate that their online archive only goes back a few years.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I had a look for contact details but couldn't find an e-mail address. apols Keith-264 (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next 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 coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019
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) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Christmas offensive
Could you take a look at the page about the 1935 Ethiopian Christmas Offensive? It seems that the "source" for Italian casualties in the battle are 1930s articles from "Time" magazine, hardly a qualified or neutral source... --2.36.88.105 (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)--2.36.88.105 (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Edmonds source question
Evening Keith, the above quote was sourced from Edmonds, Vol. II, p. 285. If you still have this source, are you able to verify which battalion the 1/5th were from: King's, South Lancs, Royal Lancs, or Loyal North Lancs? Based off the context I think it was the Liverpool regiment, but just want to make sure.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've checked Edmonds and clarified the point. Kges1901 (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, excellent. I didn't realize you had access to it. Huzzah! In which case, never mind Keith old chap :)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019
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) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Behave yourself, I'm defending myself against several verbally abusive attacks. Keith-264 (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Mind your manners.Keith-264 (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)