User talk:Keith-264/Archives/ 3

Dash
In Battle of Polygon Wood, the counter-attacks is not using a standard en-dash but some other, perhaps a Hyphen. I've fixed the AWB rule dealing with counterattacks. This might be an related to the situation you reported with AutoEd. It a complex problem because you can manually overwrite the hyphen in the text and save, and it unexpectedly keeps the original hidden character. Sun Creator(talk) 19:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the hyphen from this laptop - but I'm not an aficionado, do you mean that is should be counter–attack rather than counter-attack? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Battle of Polygon Wood has 'counter-attack' eighteen times, but only seventeen are exactly 'counter-attack' and other is on the wording which was replaced and reverted, it doesn't have a dash like the others. It could be that it is an Em-dash or it could be another Unicode dash. Sun Creator(talk) 20:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

WWI Casualties
Hello Keith. I would like to bring to your attention a new section I made on the talk page for the WW1 casualties article. Can I get some feedback on it, and if you agree, can you help make the required changes? Cheers. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Operation Crusader
Hello Keith I've just been doing a bit on the Crusader page, which I know you've had a lot to do with; I've left a suggestion on layout on the talk page (here) if you wish to comment. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

PS: Did you know there's a full set of military maps of North Africa online at the University of Texas? The index webpage is here. I found it tucked away as a reference on the List of North African airfields during World War II. They take a bit of getting used to (you have to search quite a bit to find places) but very interesting. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. How do you get an enlargement? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wrong page! This is the index list; you pick the map wanted using the index map ref (the Crusader battlefield is on NH-35.1 (Bardia) and NH-34.4 (Al Adem), for example) and it should load up. Have fun! Xyl 54 (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wheee!Keith-264 (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019
{| style="width: 100%;"
 * valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" |

Battle of Sidi Barrani
I have finished with the OrBat. Two quick notes:
 * 1) it's "Cannons Company" (Italian "Compagnia Cannoni"). They are part of the infantry. Italian nomenclature:
 * Infantry: Regiment -> Battalion -> Company -> Platoon
 * Artillery: Regiment -> Group -> Battery -> Section
 * Cavalry: Regiment -> Squadrons Group -> Squadron -> Platoon
 * So an "Artillery Company" can't exist.

Best regards, noclador (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) the "" are an integral part of Italian unit names. Naming is always: nr. type size "name" i.e. 132nd Armored Brigade "Ariete", 28th Bersaglieri Battalion "Oslavia" (except for the cavalry. there it is: size "type name" (nr.) i.e. Regiment "Lancieri di Novara" (5th)). Therefore please leave the "" in the order of battle.

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 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) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Help
There is a discussion going on at the Easter Rising talk page about whether the revolt should be included as part of WW1 since it was influenced by it. Can you please contribute? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I appreciate your help.98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help, despite the other editors refusing to put "part of WW1." I appreciate it. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's all right, any time. ;o) Keith-264 (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Highlight duplicate wikilinks
Hi Keith, I saw on Battle of Verdun that you mentioned a Highlight duplicate wikilinks script, can you please tell me how I install/use this? thanks Mztourist (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Tobruk
Hi, Keith. In yr edit here you've left a few hasty little typos which you may care to fix yourself. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I forgot to check before saving. Keith-264 (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020
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) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020
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) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Operation Jupiter casualty figures
Hi Keith,

I'm researching a question on History Stack Exchange about the apparent gross disparity in casualty numbers in Operation Jupiter: British 2000 vs German 6,469. This does seem quite out of balance for a tactical failure.

I have a copy of Sons of the Reich, though a different edition. I've confirmed the 2000 number in footnote 28 on my page 44 for July 10/11. I can't find the quoted 6,469 German casualties. Closest I see is at the end of the Jupiter chapter "In two weeks' fighting the Hohenstaufen had lost 1,891 men and the Frundsberg 2,289" which is 4,180 men for two weeks, not two days.

How did you arrive at 6,469 German casualties?

Thanks, Schwern (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings I didn't write that bit, I don't have a copy of Reynolds but I'll do some delving. Keith-264 (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume that the absence of data in the casualties section reflects my lack of sources, including Reynolds. If you have decent casualty data please amend the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I see the correct change now. --Schwern (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020
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) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Tobruk
Suggestion: combing air and sea war aspects as there is so much overlap. Dapi89 (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020
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) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

WW1
I hate to bother you, but I'm at my wits end with the Banner. He just reverted every edit made on the World War I casualties page up to mid-2019. It's essentially vandalism at this point. With the reversion he got rid of losses from countries like Brazil, which literally declared war on Germany, and which I provided reliable sources for.

What now? Do I just ignore his irresponsible actions? 2601:85:C101:BA30:85AA:4FD2:627D:4738 (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Banner and I have met before so I have a conflict of interest. The most eminent contributor to the Great War casualties page is Woogie; I suggest you ask him to look at recent edits because you have doubts about them and leave it at that. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Woogie has been AWOL since mid-2019. Last thing he wrote on his talk page he seemed sorta scared about hacking or something. But I get your concern. Thank you nonetheless. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And, I may add, the Banner's latest mass revision now puts the continent of Africa as an Allied power during WW1. Just saying. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The best way to deal with banner is to stop editing on that page until the heat dies down and people keeping their heads down start revising the page according to scholarship not by implicit support of you or him. Let personality drift away, however painful it may feel at first. I've resigned from a few pages to keep away from arseholes and I've fought for scholarship on others and won but Wiki isn't definitive, there's always tomorrow. If Africa has become an Allied power, the absurdity won't stand, let someone else deal with it, then you can't be blamed or smeared. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your level-headedness. I will take your advice. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

breaking spaces
You do understand that if No. 92 Squadron shows up on your browser as 92 Squadron, it is considered bad style. That is how this shows on my settings on my browser. But do as you consider best. Enjoy MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'd put it in a nowrap but it's been an interesting discussion. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020
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) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Templates on military aviation articles
Do you think we need a navbox for the airwar in Western Europe for the Second World War? Something a bit between Template:RAF WWII strategic bombing and Template:Campaignbox Western Front (World War II) - could link in Coastal Command, Fw 200, the Baltic ops later in war, Blitz(es), V-1, Bodenplatte... GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's a rather good idea, I didn't know about the Ramrod 16 article until I stumbled on it. As for RAF day bombing, I've struggled for sources but there's a book on 2 Group I've ordered. Keith-264 (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'll draft something. I think the RAF ops after Battle of Britain but before CBO are overlooked (along with Coastal Command and "Gardening"), and I'd like to know if the Ramrod ops pre-figured the USAAF bomber offensive intention of forcing the Luftwaffe into battle in order to wear them down. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I made a start at Draft:Template-Air warfare in Europe during WWII GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Boulogne
-- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  12:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Verdun
Hi Keith! The transfer of an entire field army from Verdun to the Somme Offensive occured in July 1916 as a response to the german transfer. Only the german transfer was mentioned for unknown reasons, so I included it. May I know why you removed it claiming those transfers didn't occur in the same month? (Jules Agathias (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)).
 * Greetings, I was under the impression that the Tenth Army moved in September, I'll have another look. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Saw you were quite active on the page and contributed quite a lot to it. I'll do some further editing of the infobox later on. And you can check if they match your sources or are close enough. Have a great evening (Jules Agathias (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC))

Kanalkampf
Not opposed to reinstating Smith, but Murray's work must be heard. More reading needs to be done to see what else is out there at any rate. Dapi89 (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Operation Ramrod 16
I left a comment on the talk page of Operation Ramrod 16, my German sources do not fully match the current wording in the article. May be worth considering. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks for that, I've left a reply. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Made some additions to the article MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Operation Ramrod 16
I left a comment on the talk page of Operation Ramrod 16, my German sources do not fully match the current wording in the article. May be worth considering. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks for that, I've left a reply. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Made some additions to the article MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A possible target for your skills
I see you've taken on Kanalkampf, but I was wondering if you had time to bring your skills to bear on Operation Jericho starring our favourites in 2 Group No. 464 and No. 467 squadrons. Not to give it the full Ramrod treatment but to clear up couple of obvious questions when reading it as it stands. What happened with the Typhoon escort (if 3 squadrons ordered, what happened to the third and did they do anything constructive in the raid)? And what was the Luftwaffe doing (one Fw190 brought down as Mossie, so where were the rest)? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been pottering round Kanalkampf for ages so I'm not committed to it full time. I'll have a butchers at Jericho in case my sources are useful. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020
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) 04:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

No.2 Group knowledge
I've found an area where your knowledge base might be useful - the Dieppe Raid. Obviously the article focuses on the ground events but there was a large RAF involvement. Spitfire squadrons keeping German aircraft away from the naval force etc is one thing but the article as it stands mentions 7 squadrons of 2 Group involved (as well as Army Air Cooperation Command Mustangs and Hurricane "fighter bombers"). And that's about all that's mentioned. Struck me that 2 Group contribution might have been Circus/Ramrod style to draw attention away from Dieppe and/or isolate Dieppe from nearby ground reinforcements. Can you throw any light on situation? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Bowyer and Bowman go into detail so I'll have a butchers. Still waiting on the Jericho book. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Between Wikipedia and the We Have Ways of Making You Talk podcast (James Holland (author), Al Murray), if there's one thing I've learnt it's that there's much yet to learn. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Always a pleasure to work with you; 2 Group did a lot of smokescreening (there's a photo of a Boston with four things dangling from the fuselage which puzzled me but turned out to be smoke dispensers) so I will knock something out tomorrow. Keith-264 (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've found something in the official history which identified the bombers, and a USAAF op in support, and this modeller's blog mentions Hurricane fighter-bombers attacking defences just before the landings start, tactical markings (similar to later Invasion stripes) and their sources include "Air Operations at Dieppe – An After-Action Report” By Air Marshal Trafford Leigh-Mallory which is here for the reading. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Which OH? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Typhoon tails
I see you've been extending and polishing Op. Jericho some more and found another instance of a Typhoon and its tail socially distancing. "You wouldn't get me up in one of those things" is the phrase. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fnar! The car doors look a bit cumbersome too. Fishman is very good on detail, much of it gleaned from participants but he writes reportage, with lots of reported speech, scene-setting and aside so it's slow going. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Heligoland Bight (1914)
Hi Keith. I've been trying my hand at editing the Battle of Heligoland Bight (1914) article, and I've run into confusion over the usage of the term "torpedo boats" for the Imperial German Navy as a substitute for destroyer. If Germany only operated torpedo boats (in lieu of destroyers) during the First World War, then why does it say in the infobox that 1 German "destroyer" was sunk? I noticed you had edited articles like and similar to these, so I assume you must have knowledge on this- should the article say "3 torpedo boats sunk" or "1 destroyer and 2 torpedo boats sunk" as it is now? Right now it looks very confusing to have no destroyers for the Germans in the strength section but 1 destroyer sunk in the casualties section. Awaiting your reply, Snagemit (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's a matter of nomenclature. The British abbreviated torpedo boat destroyer to destroyer and the Germans (and Italians) called them torpedo boats which were different to smaller, fast, motor torpedo boats. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also the Germans categorized pretty much anything that carried torpedoes that was smaller than a cruiser as a "torpedoboat", as such vessels like the small A-class torpedo boat and the larger more destroyer like V25-class torpedo boat were categorized identically, with the caveat that sometimes vessels of larger displacement were referred to as "Grosses torpedo-boats" which in german just means "big torpedo boat".XavierGreen (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also note that English language sources, even recent high quality ones, tend to be inconsistent about calling the ships in question torpedo boats or destroyers, particularly as the ships get larger.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020
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, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

disruptive editor
I am concerned about the disruptive editor that you warned yesterday. If you look at the sheer volume of edits produced, it would appear impossible for the problem editor to consult any sources before making edits and moving on to the next article. I am not someone who is fully versed in all the procedures for dealing with such an editor, but surely an administrator needs to put a stop to this before hundreds of articles are damaged. What do you think is the best course of action?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message, I was going to get in touch with you after I saw your comments on his talk page. I'm inclined to wait and try to have dialogue with him (again) because he could be an asset with more experience. I'll try to summarise the WP he's breaching in his talk page but I'm at work all day so it ill take a bit of time. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems events have overtaken us - this passed me by whilst open for discussion as my internet failed for most of the day. Nevertheless, I could not see any different probable conclusion - though this did seem a tad precipitate. I am sure there is a psychology doctorate or two out there for someone to study the behaviour of editors who get blocked. From a totally inexpert position, I would guess this one would never have worked with other editors - but we will never know. However, the manic editing style did seem vaguely reminiscent of another editor who was blocked - so perhaps a sock who we will see again in due course?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, I did wonder if there might be a pathology involved. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit on the Gallipoli campaign article?
It was a constructive edit that corrected the internal link, preventing that unsightly '(Redirected from First World War)' note at the top of the 'World War I' article.

And if you somehow believed that it was necessary to revert my edit, it was rude to not acknowledge my intentions in your summary, and cite my "Good faith" per Assume good faith.

It's little wonder that newcomers often don't feel particularly welcome, and would question the point of editing to improve Wikipedia.

Thanks. Crackersgreen (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good morning, First World War goes straight to the First World War page. I put "no need" in the summary because there's no need for a pipe. I didn't question your good faith but did wonder if you were an inexperienced editor and had a butcher's at your talk page and saw that you were an occasional editor. I took it that your edit was a consequence of inexperience. I regret that you feel that I was rude in the way that I did it. You're quite welcome to make enquiries here if you aren't sure about Wiki usage and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history is a good place to pick people's brains. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * An editor has shown me WP:NOTBROKEN. Please accept my apologies for the tone of my question, which was uncalled for. I would have appreciated being pointed directly towards that guideline, ideally in the revert edit summary. All the best. – Crackersgreen (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't mind at all, we all start from somewhere. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

New message from Serial Number 54129
—— Serial  14:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020
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) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

East African Campaign
Good evening (translate google). It was Jean-Luc Maillet, the author of a study on the free French air forces who told me about this book he used for this work. Here is the study in question:

http://francecrashes39-45.net/recits_avions/org_fafl.pdf

21. FBF N ° 1 - French Free Grand Reconnaissance Squadron n ° 1 (French Bomber Flight n ° 1). On July 3, 1940, a small group of airmen flew 2 Glenn-Martins from GB 1/61 based at Youks-les-Bains (near Tébésa in Algeria) to reach Heliopolis in Egypt. Integrated into RAF Squadron 8 and based in Aden, the unit was quickly decimated and disbanded. Its 2 aircraft were shot down over Abyssinia in September and December 1940, killing 5 members of the small squadron.

I contacted him two days ago because he had made a typo, 6 killed (and 2 prisoners of war) instead of 5. He sent me the photos of the pages of the book in question - the biography of crews killed in action - that I have. put in link below, no page number sorry:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/93591301@N04/

I cannot find for the moment the human losses of Free French Orient Brigade (1st Free French Division).

L&#39;amateur d&#39;aéroplanes (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for taking the trouble, I'll ask around in case anyone has a copy. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you have against my Channel Dash edit?
You said my "prose was abysmal." But I'm not even writing new prose, I'm just fixing some of the more egregious problems with the existing prose.

Let's look at some examples.

Original:


 * More raids were planned and the ships for refitted at Brest.

My edit:


 * More raids were planned, and the ships were refitted at Brest.


 * Typo, OK

The original is nonsense. How can you object to this edit?

Original:


 * The ships were a substantial threat to Allied trans-Atlantic convoys and RAF Bomber Command attacked the ships...

My edit:


 * The ships were a substantial threat to Allied trans-Atlantic convoys and RAF Bomber Command attacked them...

The repetition of "the ships" is unnecessary, and removing it is good style.


 * OK

Original:


 * On 23 February Prinz Eugen was torpedoed off Norway, repaired and spent the rest of the war in the Baltic.

My edit:


 * On 23 February Prinz Eugen was torpedoed off Norway; after repairs, she spent the rest of the war in the Baltic.

The original sentence isn't even grammatically correct.


 * Not OK, no need for after, no need for plural, no need for she.

Original:


 * The work had been expected to take ten weeks but along with mines dropped in the vicinity, the ships were not available to support Unternehmen Rheinübung...

My edit:


 * The work had been expected to take ten weeks; with mines dropped in the vicinity further complicating matters, the ships were not available to support Unternehmen Rheinübung...

Are we really expected to believe that the issue here is that the mines in the vicinity were not available to support Unternehmen Rheinübung? That's what the original sentence implies.


 * The work had been expected to take ten weeks but along with mines dropped in the vicinity, which hindered navigation, the ships were not available to support Unternehmen Rheinübung...

What exactly are you objecting to in these edits?

I apologise for taking you for an American, it's an occupational hazard on wiki. I don't mind you blamming typos but you punctuate conjunctions and your more ambitious efforts tend mirror your objections. I would never use "so" to begin a description of an event following another. I'd be quite interested in going over the article with you word by word, I think we could write a better article and learn something from each other. Regards.

--Jtle515 (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC) Keith-264 (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2020 (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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020
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) 12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 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 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Fewer for numerable nouns, less for uncountable nouns
But I will leave your revert. Perhaps you use a different form of English. Or I could be mistaken. — Neonorange (Phil) 07:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll have second thoughts. Keith-264 (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Corfu trilogy
Looks good, yes. The question is how much fiction there is in those books, but that's a different story. Taurus Littrow (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't want to tread on your toes. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by formatting
Hi Keith, I would appreciate if you left formatting issues to the article writers. Formatting is generally a style issue, and covered in guidelines rather than policies. I saw this article get to Good Article status through extensive effort, and would prefer to keep the paragraphs not wedged between images like your drive-by edit made it. ɱ (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't spoil a fine article with stylistic infelicities which detract from it. Please try not to get pompous and diminish my improvements by using disparaging terms. You did a good job and I made it better, leave it at that. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My god, really? Formatting like this isn't covered in guidelines, and I always format the way I did there to reduce unnecessary whitespace and not have few lines of text wedged between images. If that "makes it better" as you so proudly state, I don't ever want to work with you... ɱ  (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

All I'm gonna say is that the images sandwiching the text on my monitor, notably the source and the Balloon Festival pictures, need to be moved or otherwise dealt with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what we're talking about here. ɱ  (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * care to reply to my comment instead of simply just reverting, using archaic words? You're showing ownership with your preferred formatting style. Why don't you go reformat every FA and GA on the website, see how others take to your assertion that you're somehow correct? I personally know some people who would raise higher hell over this. ɱ  (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No thanks, trying to humour you is a waste of time. I haven't got all day to remedy every formatting error or to teach English. Sturmvogel has a fair point which you would do well to take seriously. Keith-264 (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Operation Compass
Hi Keith, this is about your reversion of my edit on Operation Compass. I made that edit as a link was needed there. I understand you would have had a good reason for reverting; could you clarify why? HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, we put a link in at the first use; we don't duplicate it except when a link already occurs in the Lead. this explains it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. I hadn't noticed that there was already a link to Balbo's article. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a script that you can install which allows you to scan for dupe wl. If you set up a page like this User:Keith-264/common.js and import importScript('User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js'); this, you'll get the search function in the toolbox down the left margin of an article page. Regards. Any problems let me know and I'll try to help. Keith-264 (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020
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) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Decisive
Hi Keith, I hope you can help me. I understand we don't call victories "decisive" in infoboxes. Could you point me to the guideline or policy that says this? Just noticed adding "decisive" to a lot of Ottoman victories. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I found it at Template:Infobox military conflict. DuncanHill (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

much vs. lots of
Although "much" and "lots of" overlap in meaning, I believe the former is the better choice in Wikipedia when they are both appropriate. The latter sounds informal. When one word suffices, why use two words to say the same thing? Jellysandwich0 (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I wrote, it's a distinction without a difference; your too informal is the opposite of my too pompous. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020
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) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking for a source
Hi Kieth, I am not sure if you can help, but I am working on Battle of Heraklion and am looking for a source to support the statement that the 2nd Leicesters, which arrived four days before the battle, was transported from Alexandria to Heraklion by HMS Gloucester (62) and HMS Fiji (58). Do you have any suggestions? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll check tomorrow, I'm in the midst of vodka frenzy at the moment. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long but I forgot; I don't have anything I'm afraid. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , no worries. Thanks for looking. (The article is coming along nicely.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020
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) 22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Comma usage
Hi Keith - I was surprised to see this reversion. I've never heard the rule that you "never punctuate a conjunction," and every single source I can find says that you should put a comma before "but" if it's separating two independent clauses, as it is here. Let me know if this is some kind of WP:ENGVAR weirdness or something, but for now I've gone ahead and undone the reversion. (Your reversion also - perhaps by mistake - restored a certainly-wrong comma after "14 December.") -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've had this conversation a few times since singing on at Wiki, often with US editors. I find punctuation of conjunctions as outlandish as you find the opposite. regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell this is an idiosyncratic view of yours that doesn't line up with standard UK style either. This UK source says to always use them in this kind of context. This UK source says they can be omitted, but only should be when the first clause is short. I can't find any source that says anything close to "never punctuate a conjunction." Your semicolon solution is ok in this case (although in my opinion a stylistic downgrade), but this might be a battle you should stop fighting in general. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Never! ;o) Keith-264 (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing
G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021
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) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for the thanks, man! Bulgariansoviet1878 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
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) 14:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
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) 15:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021
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) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

oclc
Hi Keith, may I ask (for information – I'm not objecting!) why you removed the oclc parameter ? Because it's redundant to the ISBN? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good morning, I did it because it seems pointless to duplicate an identifier and because the isbn is the better one. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense – thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you; sfns can be combined to avoid lots of numbers at the end of a sentence. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So I see – I'd not seen sfnm before. Very nice! I seem to have got into "tidying up articles with harv/sfn references" recently and that will come in handy.  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I found out about sfnm recently too. I'm a shift worker now so editing and re-editing is about all I have time for. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If there's anything I can to to help, please ask. Keith-264 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank-you! I will do. Wham2001 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)