User talk:Keith-264/Archives/ 4

Alberich
I've always thought you were above such things. I'm sorry, but I firmly believe that miles is more appropriate than mi. But the comma is necessary. It's a different clause. You're not saying that "fewer German divisions were needed for line holding and Allied plans"; you're saying "fewer German divisions were needed for line holding, and Allied plans . . ." Hengistmate (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to commit that solecism, you shouldn't be copy editing. You shouldn't start a sentence with "But" either. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How now? Keith-264 (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It's as if Andy Dingley hasn't really gone away. I like fish and chips are an ideal accompaniment.
 * I didn't know he'd left, was it something I said? ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Andy_Dingley All of a sudden. Probably expecting to return in triumph by popular demand, but for the moment confining himself to Facebook. The brouhaha must have triggered something in his interesting personality.

By the way, I've told three people about this, so, at least, three people have been told and at least three people have been told.
 * Well done, that bloke. Keith-264 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive and create a worklist at WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

"War against Japan" series
Hope all is well Keith. I was wondering if you still had access to the books of this series? If so, do any of them mention why the 2nd Infantry Division was dispatched to India in 1942? From what I have read so far, it seems the div dispatched to India and buggered around for the year before they got sent into Burma. If you have anything that could add context, it would be greatly appreciated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not bad thanks, I'll have a look. Keith-264 (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems as though the 2nd Infantry Division was earmarked for Operation Anakim which kept being postponed. the division was in the Indian strategic reserve then the Indian Expeditionary Force. I can provide page numbers etc if you want. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you dont mind thank you. Two follow-up questions: was Anakim a precursor to Dracula? And, does the article reflect (if Kirby elaborates) about the division's role in the strategic reserve (offered up for NA in case of a German breakthrough, and to be marched off to Iran if needed)? I was able to find another source that referenced Kirby for the casualties at Kohima. I believe I have referenced the correct volume, would you be able to double check?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

History of the Second World War United Kingdom Military Series The War Against Japan: India's Most Dangerous Hour (Vol II) 2004 [1958] Woodburn-Kirby, S.

The 2nd Division would reach India in June 1942 p. 130; Reinforced by the 70th, 5th and 2nd divisions Wavell rebuilt the strategic reserve at Ranchi, p. 235; Wavell told on 11 July that because of the Russian front, he might have to send divisions to Iraq; 5th and 3nd divisions chosen (in that order) if necessary. Sending the 5th Division and 7th Armoured Brigade forced another postponement of Operation Anakim (see Burma Campaign). Keith-264 (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the extra content and research, much appreciated!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have another research follow-up, if you do not mind? I outlined the basics of the infantry division at List of British divisions in World War II, and during review it was questioned if "'light' establishment[s were] adopted for the infantry divisions in Burma late in the war?"
 * Joslen does not discuss this (the 2nd and 36th Infantry Divs in Joslen just look like any other; the African divisions are shown having brigade groups then reorganizing to brigades and a change to the "standard divisional establishment" in late 1944, but Joslen does not explain what this is). I found, via Google snippet view, that Kirby's The War Against Japan: The reconquest of Burma may have some sort of answer? On page 25, snippet view shows "the organization of the basic infantry formation in India — the I division - had been adjusted several times, and by early 1944 there were no fewer than five different types in S . E . A . C . : the Indian light division, the Indian standard ( A . & M".
 * If you still have access, does this page elaborate and provide some sort of brief overview of how the British divisions in Burma differed from the establishment of those in Europe?
 * As always, thanks for any assistance and kind regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

"titles"?
Keith, in this revert you recapitalized a number of things, including Siege of * and Fortified Position of *, with summary "They're titles (albeit translated)". Based on this edit of yours, I assume it's about the Fortified Position articles. But it's not clear what you mean by "title". In WP, I know about capitalization in article titles and composition titles (WP:NCCAPS adn MOS:CT), but it doesn't appear that you mean either of those. I don't find these capped in sources:,. Let me know if you see a reason I shouldn't lowercase these. Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Greetings, thanks for asking; I took my lead from the sources I used. I don't have much faith in engrams they are a quantitative measure of a qualitative phenomenon. To me the "Fortified Position of..." is the name (title) given to a fortified place by the people who built it, rather than a description of what it is, which I would put in lower case. Keith-264 (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you say what sources cap these? All the books I looked at use lowercase.  See  and .  I don't see any sources you've added, so it's hard to guess what you're looking at.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go but it could be a bit of a wait, I'm on nights. Are you looking at the article bibliography? Keith-264 (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking, but there's not much online visibility there. I ordered a copy of Kaufmann for cheap.  I can order Dunstand and Donnell for a bit more, but costs add up, so I was hoping you'd check and tell me.  I'd be surprised if these books cap it, given that all the book that I can see use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and fix it per sources again. But do let me know if you find sources that cap these things. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I won't finish nights until Friday. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Keith, re your recent "Action" reverts, please join the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history and say if you think some are proper names, and why. Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 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) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Direct links in templates
Hi Keith, thanks for the thanks, I've checked and fixed all of Category:World War I campaignbox templates. This won't include all the templates affected by moves of the Campaign -> campaign and Offensive -> offensive (and vice versa) merry-go-round, but it's a start. Hope you're well, DuncanHill (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm very well but hampered somewhat by a full-time job. As for Campaign/campaign and En Grams, I think someone has an idée fixe and doesn't ant to admit that since Gore Vidal's death, the US has become the land that literacy forgot. Keith-264 (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Comma before but
Sorry, I didn't know British English suggests not using a comma before but connecting clauses. I can't find a source about that. Please help educate me if you know of one. Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Opinion varies in England too but stylistic usage in a Wiki article is supposed to follow the originator unless a consensus is reached to change it. I don't look at style guides, they're too commercial. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case I reject as unfounded that this is a British English thing. It's just poor grammar to not use those commas between long independent clauses. Dicklyon (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't have a choice, this is elementary, I learned it at school. Keith-264 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what sources your school used, but all the ones I can find say you need those commas. Dicklyon (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time. Keith-264 (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Spring Offensive
Hi Keith, did you see a move discussion for Spring Offensive anywhere? DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I assumed it's the zealots trying to remove capital letters. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I found it, it's at Talk:German spring offensive. There are now nearly a thousand links pointing ultimately to the disambiguation page (see here. I've fixed a few but I am increasingly pissed off with people making these moves and then doing bugger all to clear up after themselves. I also dislike the piecemeal way it's being done - no opportunity for a centralised discussion on the whole issue. Even if I supported the moves I think I would struggle to accept the way it's being done. DuncanHill (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a dreadful bore but now that I have so little time for editing, I'm content that they leave most of my writing alone, mostly. Keith-264 (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

harvid (sfnref) removal.
I just picked a letter in "duplicate default ..." and edit articles that strike my fancy. This is less controversial than content edits but many editors don't like change, period. User-duck (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that Vigorous caught your attention. Regards ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 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) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

GOH cites.
You only need to change the cites if you are more compulsive than I am. With cut-n-paste used so much on Wikipedia, I feel compelled to get what I contribute "right". There is probably some way to construct a bot script to change the cites. The scripting language and bot construction are well hidden secrets. You may be able to solicit some assistance. There appears to be plenty of bots around. User-duck (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do like to get things right. Now that I've bothered to look in Wells, I can at least give an editor cite. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 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) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Attack on Mers-el-Kébir
The result from your edit makes no sense. Could you review and correct? Shenme (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Rollback on Battle of Dogger Bank (1915)
My apologies for that misclick! I've left a note on the article's talk page about the edit. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Welsh Division
Hi Keith, is the redirect of Welsh Division to 53rd (Welsh) Infantry Division appropriate in your view, or should it be a dab page for the various Welsh Divisions? You're much more knowledgeable about this sort of thing than I am! DuncanHill (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, this is more Enigma1990s pigeon. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 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) 12:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Question
Hey, I had posted this at milhist with no bites yet, but then noticed you edited the page today, so thought I'd ask you; is a long clunky name like "Bermudian Militia, Volunteer and Territorial Units of the British Army, 1894-1965" a typically acceptable title? Or should it be reconsidered? Thanks -  wolf  04:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Good morning, I prefer titles to be as short as possible but this one German attack on Vimy Ridge took quite some trimming. Wouldn't Bermudan units of the British Army work? Militia etc could be done as headers. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking along the same lines. Maybe if you have a moment, you could repost your comment over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, to help jump-start that thread? Cheers -  wolf  13:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 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) 15:48, 28 August 2021 (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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Siege of Dunkirk (1944–45)
Hey Keith-264, Thanks for your corrections!, Jan à Brugge, Belgium jmenboisJeanmarteauenbois (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Any time, it was a good edit. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

About the Italian invasion page
What you mean is that it is an Italian victory. This means that it succeeded in achieving its goals, and this did not happen!! The goals of the campaign were the conquest of Egypt and control of the Suez Canal, and Italy did not do that! Rather, the British repeated the raid with a counter-raid and carried out the Bursa operation and then the first and second battle of El Alamein, and the war ended with the fall of Italian Libya --Ahmed88z (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Italians set out to invade Egypt and succeeded. see Template:Infobox military conflict


 * "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."
 * This isn't an opinion, it is what the reliable sources say. regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Your edit on the attack of Mers el Khébir
I agree whive the point, your edit seem to be quick and not argumented.

The goal of the attack was to "capture or destroy " the french fleet, Talking about the 'Matérial destruction' isn't pointless at my eyes . Thank you.

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 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) 13:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. 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 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

East flank
Hi Keith264, regarding this change at Battle of France: interestingly, eastern flank has always been somewhat preferred over east flank, *except* during the WWII period that this article covers, so I'm not quite sure what to do about that; probably nothing. Thought it was interesting though. It did make me wonder what the motivation was for your change, and whether you were trying to align with usage of the period. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I put both versions in and had doubts as soon as I changed it to east. I think I'll revert myself. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It was a close call. Thanks also for and  conversions. Mathglot (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Defuzing
Hi. It looks like I owe you an apology. Despite being British and over 70 years speaking English and 6 years in the army, I have never seen it spelled/spelt like that in the UK. I now discover that in weaponry, fuze is a fairly common spelling; indeed:  'the term fuze is sometimes used when referring to a more sophisticated ignition device incorporating mechanical and/or electronic components, such as a proximity fuze for an M107 artillery shell, magnetic or acoustic fuze on a sea mine, spring-loaded grenade fuze, pencil detonator, or anti-handling device.,  although some other Wikipedia articles on artillery and ballistic missiles still use 'fuse'. I've learned something. I stand corrected ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's quite all right, it's what wiki is for. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 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) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Previous Battle at the Well Gubby
Hello Keith-264,

You seem to be deep into WW2 Wikipedia. The articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_Bir_el_Gubi_(November_1941) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_Bir_el_Gubi_(December_1941) call the battles "first" and "second" at this well. But this is false. There already was a battle at this well on April 23rd 1923 as part Omar al-Mukhtar's jihad against Fascist Italy among the most important in the Second Italo-Senussi War, where he led 50 men against 7 Italian tanks there. This battle has an entry on the Arabic Wikipedia. https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/معركة_بئر_الغبي I think the phrasing in the English articles should be adjusted to reflect the history of Libyan resistance and of this well more accurately. I can do my best to translate the Arabic article, but idk too much about things work in the whole WW2 section, so I'd be really thankful for any advice on from You!

Greetings -Pari Sarcinator (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Greetings too, I suspect that calling them bttles is not supported by the sources and that an overenthusiastic editor got a little carried away. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How now? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it seems more accurate now! I started translating the other article but needed to ask some people for help for the Maghrebi Arabic in the quotations in the article, so it might take a while! --Pari Sarcinator (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a great help, there seem to be lots of versions of Arabic words which have been transliterated into English, French, Italian and then Arabised again since the war. Thanks very much. Keith-264 (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 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) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Ramree Island
Hey there. I was inquiring into the rationale behind your undoing of my edit on the Battle of Ramree Island page. As you have likely forgotten, my edit consisted of changing up the sentence: If Wright was correct, the Ramree Island crocodile attacks would have been the worst recorded in history. To become: If Wright's statement was accurate, the Ramree Island crocodile attacks would have been the worst animal attack recorded in history.

Of course, the addition of animal attack is obvious and undeniably a necessity, so I will not argue for such a condition in the edit. This leaves the change of "correct" to "accurate". Correct is most definitely the wrong word to say, as true and false is, in an encyclopedic context, binary. I don't believe it is neutral to deny that there could have been crocodile attacks (or even the full extent as mentioned by Wright) in the night. Accurate is simply a better word than correct. If you can think of a better word, let me know. Other than that, I'd still love to hear your logic on the topic. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Greetings, the subject had quite an extensive airing when the article got its B class but this reply is off the top of my head because I've just got back from a night shift. That there is writing about a crocodile feeding frenzy is a fact but the fact of it being fiction is also a fact by weight of the scientific consensus, the logic of what the crocodiles would have eaten begore the Japanese fugitives turned up for lunch and the lack of corroboration from sources from the time. I fear that your edits edged towards undue weight. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting viewpoint, but I believe that the scientific concensus should not be the only perspective shown. Regardless, a single word at the bottom of a Wikipedia page of a fairly inconsequential battle is little to fuss over. I'll just add the "animal attack" portion if that's all right with you? Mebigrouxboy (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Morning, the scientific consensus isn't the only point of view, the myth of the crocodile rock is the reason for the science and the lack of contemporary sources mentioning it being in the article. When I revamped it and got it a B, I included crocodiles in the infobox as combatants3 (with tongue firmly in cheek) to see how long it lasted. ;O) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia (If you reside in the United States)
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Already done. Keith-264 (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Long Range Desert Group
Hi Keith-264. Happy Holidays to you! I have been interested in the Long Range Desert Group and would like to read something on them, their raids, escaping from attacking aircraft, finding water, their interactions with the Bedouin, measures they took to stay seemingly invisible. I have heard they were mostly New Zealanders. It sounds like an amazing story. Is there anything you could recommend? Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not really my field but I'll have a look round. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 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) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

First World War official histories
Howdy Keith! It's been a while, and I hope all is well. I know you have worked on quite a few First World War-related articles and based a lot of your work off the official histories. Do you have the entire set for the Western Front (I think its a collection of 14)?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've got most of the British divisional histories too and that part of the German OH edited by Mark Humphries. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a pretty impressive collection! I know I shouldn't get my hopes up, but I am hoping that the website going live next week will have them all on there: https://www.armymuseums.org.uk/the-ogilby-muster/
 * If I can get something settled about the 1st Division (or at the very least, the infantry division article seems to not be an issue), I was wondering if you would be interested in crafting a basic First World War sourced framework of what the OHs state the 1st Infantry Division (United Kingdom) got up to? It seems their divisional chaps did not decide to publish an history for the work, and there is nothing to go off.
 * I think I have the majority of the sources I need to do the sections for the Napoleonic, Crimean, and Boer Wars (although it will probably take me a while). I have the various OHs to knock up a Second World War order section do, or at least a basic outline. It just leaves that pesky Great War.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/191286620X/?coliid=I38XB98M9LSOBB&colid=3M9QSB4H2OMKD&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

this what we both want but it hasn't been published yet. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it is! With practically every division creating their own official record, and it being basically policy for the official histories, is such a wonder why such a tome hasnt already been released.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A brief follow-up, I had read that it was due to be released this month. WH Smiths is stating the release date is now 31 October 2022!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Fake history alert
Hi Keith-264,

I have spent a lot of time rewriting an article on the Battle of Lake Borgne that was written in 2009. The person that created the article wrote what he wanted, and did not let the facts get in the way of his stories. On those rare occasions where he did use sources for other articles, he did not cite but plagiarised. He got in trouble for this, bullying and sockpuppetry which has seen his accounts being indefinitely suspended. In essence, anything he has touched is highly suspect.

I came across one article he wrote, which was about something that did happen, but it took tens of man-hours to re-write, adding primary and secondary sources, and removing the fantasy content that he had written.

I have come across one further article that he wrote in 2009, with no sources whatsoever, and this is very concerning. He has created an article about a "battle" that does not exist, one for which there is no battle honour that is upheld by the US Navy. (If the USN does not consider a firefight within an engagement to be a battle, why does he?)

I have asked for this to be deleted, because it is pure fantasy, and the skirmish that occurred that day is summarized in one paragraph in the Battle of Lake Borgne article. The source materials are in the public domain, and easily accessible. I have found the histories by William Clowes and Theodore Roosevelt to be of interest. The primary source accounts, in the form of Jones's letter, is in Brannan and Latour. The Lockyer account of the activities from 12th to 14th December 1814 are preproduced in the London Gazette.

Please can you read my request for the article to be deleted, and add a comment if you also feel it should not be on wikipedia. I think it degrades the credibility of wikipedia as a resource. Articles_for_deletion/Action_of_13_December_1814

On the talk page for this bogus article, I have given further reasons as to why I am of the opinion this fantasy content should be deleted.

I shudder to think what other fantasies have been added to Wikipedia and never fact-checked. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Greetings, I'll have a look but you should be cautious about canvassing as it's frowned upon. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, apart from approaching people to look at it, I don't otherwise know how to get others to take a look at it, sense-check against sources, and opine as to whether it should be deleted or otherwise. Thanks for the warning. Keith H99 (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Have you considered making a comment on the milhist talk page? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I went that route, nobody bothered to comment, and it got relisted twice. I created an article, in good faith, and although it was sourced it was deemed not notable. It was swiftly deleted last year, after two people commented it could be deleted. Yet in this instance, the process has failed. Nobody is showing any interest. Given that the process is broken, this is why I approached you to take a look, and to comment accordingly. Keith H99 (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 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) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Convoy PQ 16
Hi, I just checked the book, I couldn't find Küstenfliegergruppe 123 nor KüFlGr 125 in the book. According to this book, the Luftwaffe had KüFlGr 106, 306, 406, 506, 606, 706, 806, and 906. They also had Seeaufklärungsgruppe 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, and 131. With respect to KüFlGr 123, could it be that it may be Fernaufklärungsgruppe 123, however this unit was not deployed up north? In essence, I can't map these two units (KüFlGr 123 and KüFlGr 125) to the area of operation mentioned in the article nor to units documented in this book. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To add, 10./ZG 5, the Luftwaffe had no Zerstörergeschwader 5, could it be the 10. Staffel of JG 5? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did wonder because I couldn't find ZG5. It probably is a typo by Claasen. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I left a few comments on the talk page. Claasen may have made typos or tried to simplify nomenclature of Luftwaffe units. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Dunsterforce
Hi. As a major contributor to Dunsterforce, you might be interested in this unique video: I think it should be linked to the article in some form. Grand master  20:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 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) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 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) 09:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 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) 22:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 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) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 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) 21:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Compass
Compass was originally planned as a raid. However, it became a major counter-offensive and lasted for 2 whole months leading to the British conquest of Cyrenaica. So writing that a 5-days-raid was the Operation Compass that destroyed an entire army is just incorrect. The actions and battles of December, January, and February, were all part of Operation Compass. The 10th army was finally destroyed at the Battle of Beda Fomm; it took place on February 6 and it was still Operation Compass. Barjimoa (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC):


 * Operation Compass was a five-day rid that was extended opportunistically, this does not mean that it was or was conceived as a counter-offensive. This is a matter of the OR not our opinions. regards. Keith-264 (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The only problem is that Operation Compass was not a 5-days-raid. It continued as a counter-offensive that lasted 2 months. I don't know how the fact that it was opportunistic can change that. Barjimoa (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Try reading the sources. Keith-264 (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Grand Slam (bomb)
Hello Keith-264.

You recently reverted an edit I made to Grand Slam (bomb).

As someone with a longtime fascination with words and their meanings I was wondering where you found to formate as a verb and its meaning?

Regards Orenburg1 (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good evening, I'm English and it comes from reading about air warfare fact and fiction. When aircraft take off, they get into formation by formating. A stray aircraft after a dogfight looks for other friendly aircraft in formation to to formate on. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello again Keith-264
 * Thank you for your explanation. Do you have any third party examples that you can share or point me towards. The reason I ask is that both the OED and Merriam-Webster do not have an entry for formated or formating nor do they give formate except as the chemical salt.
 * Regards Orenburg1 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too, I'll have a look about. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, talk page stalker with access to the OED here. The OED lists two verbs "formate", the second of which is "Aeronautics. intransitive. Of an aircraft or its pilot: to take up formation with, to fly in formation. Also const. on. Also (rare) of a boat: to proceed in formation". First citation from The Times, 1929. Other examples from Aeroplane, T. E. Lawrence, Winged Victory by V. M. Yeates, Flight, and, in 1942, We Speak From the Air (broadcasts by the RAF). This sense is also in my 1983 Chambers 20th Century Dictionary. DuncanHill (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Duncan. I remember reading Winged Victory; a bit of a trudge until the end when they are put on ground attack, my buttocks still clench at the remembrance. ;O) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

HMS Sahib
I just rolled back your changes to this article. Why aren't you respecting WP:CITEVAR? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The long references are templated and the short ones aren't so I made them consistent by doing sfns. Is this so bad? Keith-264 (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But you didn't do all of them to make the article consistent. I only wrote the description portion so had only a limited amount of interest in the rest of the article and missed that fact that Santoni was the only sfn cite in the article and should have been changed to match the rest of the article when I was working on it. I'm not that fond of sfn and generally prefer for people not to change my cites to that format without notification on the talk page or similar. If you want to do that, either do all of them or not at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do like sfns but if it is left as it is all the biblio details will keep "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAkermann2002." etc all over them. You're quite right that I gave no notice of wanting to change the short cites and for this I apologise, I work on so many derelict articles that I've been complacent. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have my prefs set up to acknowledge Harv warnings and the like, so I'm totally unaware of them. I'm much more concerned about how articles are presented to the reader than about stuff that only (some) editors can see. I appreciate what you're doing, I would only ask that alert any interested editors that you'd like to change cites formats and the like, and then to be consistent throughout the article so it looks tidier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks I've put something on the talk page. Keith-264 (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 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) 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 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) 10:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Crusader
Not understanding your reversion Feldercarb (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Initially and later add noting to the words used. Keith-264 (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Battle of the Frontiers
Why did you reverse my last edit in the Battle of the Frontiers? After the series of these battles, the Great Retreat began, that is definitely a result of the battle and I think it makes the article clearer. There is no mention of the Great Retreat which followed in the introduction, so how would someone fully understand what happened? אוהד בר-און (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Because of this Template:Infobox military conflict


 * result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. Keith-264 (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)