User talk:Labattblueboy/Archive 1

Vimy
Yes, I have access to the Sheldon Cave book about Vimy. It will take me a few days to order it. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the quote references!Facepalming (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WW I
Please don't be barbarian! What's your problem with "ARMY SIZE" section? It is a very important statistic data, please don't delete! Don't be barbaric! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stears81 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See the separate articles Entente Powers and Central Powers. We deliberately chose to sever this content from the World War I article, largely because minor details of numbers on one or another part were regularly turning into disputes that disrupted work on the article.  Also, please review WP:CIVIL.  Calling editors barbarian is not conducive to cooperative editing. LeadSongDog (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill (prof) 00:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Request For Rollback
Hiya. I've fulfilled your request for rollback. Please review WP:RBK or ask me if you need any help with the tool. Please remember to use it only for clear cut vandalism, or for reverting your own edits when an enhanced edit summary is not required. Pedro : Chat  23:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Mont Sorrel
Impressive! I'll add a quick pre-GAN copyedit of it to my list of things to do. Granted, it might take a few days (I'm up to my neck in Physics & Chem labs at the moment, which is occupying most of my time). You've done a fine job, and I will be on-hand during the GAN process in case there's any technical stuff I can help with (you seem to have all the info stuff well covered;) Cam (Chat) 04:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey there. A few tips:

I've done a copy-edit, and it looks to be in good condition for GAN. Good luck! Skinny87 (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead could do with a bit of an expansion - nice to have two paragraphs but they're a bit on the lean side at the moment
 * Background could do with a little expanding as well - at the moment it's a little abrupt. Some background on how the conflict was going at the moment, why Alderson was abruptly replaced, why the Germans were preparing to attack the Canadians (mentioned in the lead but not in the Background section)
 * Not sure if 'Allies' is the correct term considering the Americans hadn't entered the conflict yet. But I'm not a WWI expert, so that's more of a query.

Page blanking
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. --Allen3 talk 20:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Battle of Passchendaele to Third Battle of Ypres
Wanted to let you know that I have proposed that the Battle of Passchendaele be moved toThird Battle of Ypres. As you put the original redirect in place I wanted to let you know. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit confused as to your comments regarding the suggested move. We are clearly of the same opinion that naming the entire campaign after Passchendaele is just plain incorrect, but you noted that you are opposed to moving it to Third Ypres. I am happy to support either Third Battle in Flanders or Third Battle of Ypres but it is rather important that the Passchendaele name be abandoned so that true structure and format editing can begin on the article. Are you in agreement? Pass along your thoughts.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there, keep up the great work on the Canadian involvement ! I was trying to say that "Third Battle Of Ypres" is just the official name the British chose to give, and they weren't the only people there. Hence by using that name, Wikipedia to some extent ceases to be neutral. But we have to use some name, so as "Third Battle of Ypres" is most commonly used in the English language, I suppose that's what we should use. I would really like to see collaboration between French, German and Brit/Canadian/Aussie/NZ Wikipedians to make these articles representative of the views & experiences of all the combatatents.. that has started to happen with Turkish contributors on the Gallipoli articles. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Trust me, I am in full agreement with you. I would personally love to see a fairer preservative given to all belligerents, especially the often demonized German side. I am frankly prepared to get behind any naming convention that proves better than the current one. You are right in that some name needs be chosen. I do find both Third Battle of Ypres and Third Battle of Flanders to be perfectly acceptable and am not partial to either one or the other.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Hill 70
I am reviewing your article Battle of Hill 70 for GA and have entered my comments here: Talk:Battle of Hill 70/GA1. Your article is excellent and only needs a few things to complete it. Please feel free to contact me with questions or comments. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 03:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Second Battle of Passchendaele
The article Second Battle of Passchendaele you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Second Battle of Passchendaele for things needed to be addressed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Labattblueboy. Only three further (minor) issues remain:

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The clarification of the two army commanders.
 * Distinguishing between the two Commonwealth War Graves Commission citations. ✅
 * The statistics in the infobox require citations. ✅


 * Everything looks good now, so I have just gone off and passed it. Congratulations and well done! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Books
Ping! – Roger Davies  talk 07:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong template
You were wanting Di-orphaned fair use, right? ViperSnake151 02:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which image are you talking about? --Labattblueboy (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

B.Gen Ross quote (Vimy Ridge)
No objections. Just wanted to see an expression on how the Battle reflects our Canadian identity. As you suggest that it'll be more appropiate in the memorial, so be it. Thank you for all your efforts. TheStarter (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC) aka Facepalming

Military history Coordinator Elections
As a member of the WikiProject who is running for coordinator it is so go great to see people getting involved. It seems as if most of the members truly do care about the future of the WikiProject. Keep Up the Good work. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver  The Olive Branch 22:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Canadian Corps - Canadian war graves.jpg
Just a couple little things - you captioned the photo stating that they're graves from 1918 and upon close inspection and conferring with CWGC records, they're from 1916.

You may want to also add/ammend that the graves of these men are found in the Railway Dugouts Burial Ground (Transport Farm) Commonwealth War Graves Commission Cemetery and that the photo may represent the patchwork layout of graves that swelled around the advanced dressing stations that were located in the railway embankment there. Further to this point, the graves in the present day cemetery are in the exact same configuration as in the photo (Pte. Portelance in VI. G. 29, Pte. Laurent in G. 31, Pte. Littlejohn in G. 32, Pte. Mcburney in G. 33 and Lt. McCoy behind them in H. 41). I'd think it is unlikely that they were exhumed, transported and re-buried in exactly the same arrangement in a postwar cemetery concentration.

Regards, and compliments on so much diligent contributing to wiki on Canada's WWI military history!

Whiskymack (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Your work on McMaster University article
I apologize if I appear to be hostile towards you, it is not deliberate but really due to bad experiences with previous wikipedia editors who don't give much credibility to non registered users. Also, thank you for the hard work you did on the McMaster page. It normally does not get much attention and constructive contribution. I hope one day it would also be a good article nominee. 218.102.179.188 (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

McMaster
"The universities infobox template states that either the shield, seal or coat of arms are acceptable (depending on which is used in official documents) but there is no direction provided as such in the guidelines."

For your information, the coat of arms is used in official documents and is the official trademark of the Office of the President and the Board of Governors. The "shield" used at McMaster is merely a logo trademark, part of the graphic identity system. I've reverted back to the coat of arms. The McMaster shield is not used in official documents, it is a simplified version of the coat of arms for logo use. Keitherson (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've put in my two cents in the discussion as well. Keitherson (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not an authority figure, I just talk a lot. :) I've put my 2 cents in there. Any decision should be reached by consensus, not by writ or decree. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, it's my pleasure to improve images using my photoshop skills. Likewise, let me know if there's anything you need worked on.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

McMaster Mascot Citation
Hi. I'm not trying to drag this along but your citation of what the Mascot name should be doesn't reflect this information on page 36. I can see you used the same link I posted i.e. (http://macoffcampus.mcmaster.ca/ocrc_static/downloads/LivingOffCampus2007.pdf) but the caption for the link is Student Affairs Annual Review 2008: We’re Making History 25 Years of Student Affairs ? 219.77.82.3 (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, well that would be because I accidentally used the wrong url. I have corrected that. Good catch, it's always helpful to have double checking when it comes to the kind of stuff. --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:CWGC Logo.gif)
 Thanks for uploading Image:CWGC Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 20:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Saint Julien Memorial Gallery
I`m not quite sure why you are so insistent to remove additional photos of the St. Julien memorial. For many who have not been as blessed as I and those who can or have travelled there, photos that they may find on wikipedia or elsewhere on the net may well be the only way that they can come to appreciate places like this. If photos of these memorials are not welcome on their wiki pages, where might you suggest they should go?

 Yes, I am proud; I must be proud to see Men not afraid of God, afraid of me. - Alexander Pope 

Whiskymack (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Currie's Role
You recently reverted my edit of adding Arthur Currie as a commander at Vimy Ridge. I do not have the time or the will to cite for you outside sources on the matter, but I will quote you passages from the Arthur Currie Wikipedia page (et al.) to support the claim (appropriate as we are dealing with Wikipedia.)

To put the matter simply, both Byng and Currie served crucial commanding and preparation roles in the battle "Both Byng and Currie were firm advocates of analysis and preparation." and "Currie began a series of lectures to the generals of the Canadian Corps based on his research, and he set out what he believed would be the keys to the battle." Also present is the universal directing role which Currie had on the Canadian Corps "As Currie had dictated, every soldier was shown maps of the battlefield, was taught his platoon's objectives, and was given a small map of his part of the battlefield."

Byng was the head commander pre-Vimy, but rarely on military articles on Wikipedia is there a single commander listed. For instance, in the Battle of the Bulge article, there are 5 American commanders listed for the battle. In this case, Dwight Eisenhower is the Julian Byng figure, but the other commanders such as Courtney Hodges and Anthony McAuliffe are also listed, even though their rank, or level of command if you will, was lower than Eisenhower's. It is thus appropriate to list Arthur Currie underneath the commanders at Vimy Ridge.--Ryo (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Over the next couple of days I am going to gather some secondary sources to verify the claim to the 'twosome leadership' of Byng and Currie. At the same time, do NOT try and take a faulty air of superiority with me; attempting to remind me that my sources should be 'academically reviewed.' I am a senior history major at the top ranked institution in the country, the University of Toronto, with a virtual straight A average and a partial academic scholarship. I will bring my research to the discussion page of Vimy Ridge when it is complete.--Ryo (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Vimy Ridge
Well done for making FA.  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   13:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to Canadian Ivy League AfD
The message you left me about your AfD nomination of the Canadian Ivy League points to the wrong discussion (the first nomination, not the current/second one). I am guessing that any other messages you left for other editors may also point to the wrong discussion and it might be good to correct them so we can have a worthwhile discussion. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

St Julien Memorial Gallery
Thanks for the reference to the Wikipedia guidelines regarding galleries.

Ironically, however, the way I read the first lines: "...the use of galleries (usually by way of the gallery tag or gallery template) may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject."  it bears out that a gallery is appropriate for use in the article  (and other Canadian & Newfoundland WWI memorials) as:  *  A gallery of images in these articles provides illustrations of the memorials that words simply fail to describe (i.e. the words can neither easily nor adequately convey).  *  I'd also contest the images that were and will be used with the article are most certainly of encyclopedic quality and value.

The policy goes onto say that galleries  should not  be employed as vehicles for "shoehorning" or creating "articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries".  However :  *  Adding these photos, in the manner that they were added in the past, would not qualify as 'shoehorning' as they have a bonafide connection to the article and a reason to be included, as per the conditions above. Further, they were/will not be used in an "indiscriminate" manner' as they were/will be appropriately labelled, per the policy  *  Finally, the way in way in which they were employed did not tip the balance of the article to be predominantly image based.

As such, by the letter of the policy, point for point, it would be appropriate to include galleries in these articles.

 Yes, I am proud; I must be proud to see Men not afraid of God, afraid of me. - Alexander Pope  Whiskymack (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Invasion of Poland
I reverted your blanking because I object any removal of existing content that is not discussed in the talk page. Content blanking would be acceptable if it was a patent nonsense entered by an editor or an obvious vandalism, but not the text worked out collectively by other editors. Blanking an existing part of article shows no respect for the effort of the editors who worked on it. As you now know that your blanking is contested, please do not remove it again. Thanks. --Lysytalk 16:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

On a second thought, while the text that you unilaterally removed is has no less citations than other portions of this and many other FA articles, after reading it again, I agree that it is confusing - I don't even quite understand the message. I will restore only this sentence that is cited. Thanks. --Lysytalk 16:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, I misinterpreted your action as POV-motivated blanking. Sorry about that. --Lysytalk 16:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Population Transfers
I am frustrated because these articles have turned into an ethnic battleground. I want to see the editing done from a NPOV based on reliable academic sources.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I try to limit my time on this topic because it has become an ethnic battleground. I get the impression that some editors do not have a life in the real world, Wikipedia has become their full time obsession. That is not me. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a form for RM when you are interested in moving from the present location(s) but don't care where the result is. You may want to try again with that. A standard form is a minor good, and should be supported when it does not cause more harm than its benefit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Canadian National Vimy Memorial
The article Canadian National Vimy Memorial you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Canadian National Vimy Memorial for things needed to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with you creating a small stub.
Sorry, if that now looks weird, but it took me so long to write my first mil-history stub that you meanwhile put it up for RFD.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger discusssion
Ok, but we schould establish an ending date. The discussion is obviously slow and only becouse of this fact it schould not last too long. I propose the end of October. What do you think? 156.17.122.152 (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Template box for German Spring Offensive
G'Day, re: Template:Campaignbox Spring Offensive (World War I), "Operation Michael" is also known as the First Battle of the Somme (1918) (see Battle of the Somme (disambiguation)). I've left the template as "Operation Michael" (as it isn't _that_ important to change) - but just wanted to drop you a note explaining where I got the name from.... MWadwell (talk) 07:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

this is not voting
Remove oppose and support stuff you added immediately or I will revert your whole edit. We are not voting there and you have no right to present comments by other editors as such votes.--Staberinde (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
Per WP:ROLLBACK, please take care and use undo when reverting edits that are not obvious vandalism. The purpose of this is to get you to use an explanatory edit summary which will expount upon your reason for reverting. If I continue to see you using rollback in situations like these, I will remove your access to the privilege. Thanks and cheers, — Ed  (talk  •  contribs)  23:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not leave snarky messages; it does no one any good. Ed is correct&mdash;rollback should only be used to revert obvious vandalism, not legitimate edits. Parsecboy (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth War Graves Commission
Thanks for your effort in creating the separate List of total Commonwealth War Graves Commission burials by country article to contain the complete datasheet. I took the liberty of adding a footnote reference to the annual report, which I expect is also your source.

StephenMacmanus (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Vimy Ridge main page FA?
Hi there.

There's been a brief discussion about requesting a WWI-related FA for Armistice Day on the 11th, and the consensus seems to be that Battle of Vimy Ridge would be a pretty good possibility - you're the main contributor to the article, so I thought I'd run it past you and see if you had any thoughts on the matter. Shimgray | talk | 00:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Revert
Please could you unpick some of your revert, because you also reverted the Telegram refs, one of which was a response to one of your citation requests (about the significance of the fall of Warsaw). This is all taking me ages and surely you can find a better way of improving this article than just reverting. At the moment I am assuming good faith that you want this article to be kept; but if you want it to fail, tell me now and I'm out. qp10qp (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No Man's Land, etc.
I don't know what you were trying to do with these article titles, but the current result is a mess.

The disambiguation page should be located at No Man's Land if there is no primary topic for the phrase. And placing the military meaning at No Man's land doesn't make sense at all -- that appears to be a totally random capitalization. The logical placement for that article appears to be No man's land. I'm really at a loss as to what your edit summaries like "relate to same name as disambig" are trying to say. Propaniac (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Super Series 76
Howdy Lab. Ya may have to fix things up at RM, as it says move Super Series 1976 to Super Series 1976. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the problem for ya, at the RM page. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
You are one of the twelve editors advancing into the second round of the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. The second round started at 00:00, 29 December and ends 23:59, 31 January. The top six ranked players at the end of this stage will advance into the final round of the contest so keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Rutger Macklean, etc.
I think I've moved all the pages as desired! Let me know if I have missed/miss-done anything. Pages will need some tidying up to reflect the changes.  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Don Cossack Choir Serge Jaroff
Take a look please on the official (German)site of the Don Cossack Choir Serge Jaroff. Wanja Hlibka (the conductor) renamed the choir. 94.215.61.61 (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

disambiguation vs. prosopography
You might want to review this archived G&R project discussion on the problems of disambiguating Romans of similar names; the disambiguation police will often come along and remove useful information if it doesn't conform to strict rules. I don't want to see your good work lost. That's why I created the cumbersome category "Prosopography of ancient Rome", so we wouldn't have to subject such pages as your Quintus Fabius Maximus (disambiguation) to suppressive editing.

Here's what that page would look like after purging by the disambiguation police:

Quintus Fabius Maximus most commonly refers to;
 * Quintus Fabius Maximus (consul 45 BC)
 * A number of ancient Romans from the gens Fabia.

The ancient Romans who share the name Quintus Fabius Maximus include:


 * Quintus Fabius Maximus Aemilianus, consul in 145 BC.
 * Quintus Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus, consul 121 BC.
 * Quintus Fabius Maximus Eburnus, consul in 116 BC.
 * Quintus Fabius Maximus Gurges (consul 292 BC), consul in 292 and 276 BC
 * Quintus Fabius Maximus Gurges (consul 265 BC), consul in 265 BC.
 * Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus, three-time consul (322, 310, 308 BC)
 * Quintus Fabius Maximus Servilianus, praetor by 145 BC, consul 142, proconsul in Hispania Ulterior 141–140, mentioned as pontifex in 141 (exact term unknown).
 * Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator (d. 203 BC), the general, five-time consul and censor most often called Fabius Maximus.

Note the absence of Quinti Fabii Maximi who don't have their own pages. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguating Page Titles
I thought the consensus we arrived at on the Classical project page was to include the date of the magistracy. It was quite clear from the discussion that there were often multiple individuals with the same name who held a particular magistracy. It was also clear that when moving these pages to more appropriate titles, we need to find the articles that link to them and redirect them, instead of leaving them directing to the old page.

The last two days I've found several articles that have been ambiguated by having the date of the magistracy removed from the title, and which I only arrived at through redirects from the previous titles. The latest instance was properly entitled Servius Sulpicius Galba (consul 144 BC) and now is titled Servius Sulpicius Galba (consul), which is not appropriate because there were other individuals named Servius Sulpicius Galba who held the consulship, not to mention several other Sulpicii Galbae who were consuls.

Please do not move these pages by removing the date. They're there for a reason. P Aculeius (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No man's land
I came across the article No Man's Land and found it surprising that the title is capitalized, as "no man's land" is not a proper noun. As you placed it there, could you please explain why the capitalization is needed? Ucucha 16:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I remember, No Man's Land was a dab page and No man's land was the article (or it might have been the other way around). Either way, it was done to clear up the ambiguity between the two pages. In short, no strong reason. I'd certainly support the move request to the lower case name, if you put it forward. --Labattblueboy (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not getting back to this earlier, and thanks for starting the RM. I must have missed this on my watchlist. Ucucha 16:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Vote
Hi there. Would you mind putting your two voting comments together, indicating you weak support for the current proposal and support for a change to "... State of Palestine"? It might be confusing for the closing admin to see see two support votes for two different things by the same editor in two different places. Cool? Thanks for your contributions there by the way.  T i a m u t talk 13:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Review citations
I reverted your edit on the How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul?, per Template:Album ratings. It shows that u can simplify the review site's url title to just "Review: title". I've seen this style used by many editors for the review citations; its where i picked it up. Dan56 (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles
Sometimes it's best to just let things go. People have different styles and not everyone or every article needs to be in exactly the same format. Surely there are other palazzos that would benefit from your attentions and that wouldn't involve pushing a dispute with an enormously accomplished contributor? Just a suggestion. I hope you'll accept it in the good spirit with which it's offered. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, not necessarily. I would suggest discussing the changes calmly on the talk page of the article - I know that Giano is an amazing editor, but as I said on the talk page of the article in question if he wants to merge in his material that's fine, but he'll need to make sure he doesn't unilaterally revert others edits. I'm sure your input is valued - why don't you come back to the talk page and detail what you think is a good idea? If you can give a reasonable reason I'm sure that we can find compromises and get this article to FA status :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am very much stepping away now, I though there might be a possible chance of contributing in a support function but I no longer think that's a good idea. Maybe I'll give it another go in the spring and see if the environment is better then. In the mean timehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Labattblueboy#Articles, I remove the article from my watchlist (lest there be any temptation to contribute).--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OH, no, no, no, I won't hear of it Labattblueboy I am looking forward to this colaboration between you and TBSHY - think of all that money you have pledged, I won't let this rest until I see the page completed by you both -I and 100s of others are looking forward to it.  Giano  00:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of McMaster University Residences
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of McMaster University Residences. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of McMaster University Residences. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI notification
Hey dude, sorry to do this to you but you are being discussed on WP:AN/I. Unfortunately, you have been accused of self-aggrandizement and disruption. I know this to be incorrect, and I will defend you to the hilt, but I think you might want to make a comment there. Your bounty is also being constantly removed from Talk:Blenheim Palace. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Just in case
If you are feeling aggrieved, bewildered or both, over recent events there is a discussion at my talkpage where you may or may not find some enlightenment. Participation is not required, but will be responded to. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Mike moral  ♪♫  19:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Clergy naming convention
Could you please move back all of those clergy pages you moved to the correct titles? Per the naming convention, "Metropolitan" and the like are supposed to be used. If there is some reason I do not know about, it would have helped if you had included an edit summary explaining why you moved them, not just what you did. Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly make no further moves until the naming convention RfC regarding honours and Eastern officials has come to a complete close. No opposition has yet been raised to the removal of titles, with the exception of those at the head of autocephalous churches. None of the moved officials were in such a position so they were moved. I will be certain to execute any further changes through a formal WP:RM.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits
I was disappointed at your changes to my changes to the Passchendaele page. At the moment it reads a little bit like a case for the prosecution rather than a description of what happened. I request that you have another think about the effect of the battles on the Germans and accept that whatever Haig's initial intentions about a battle with unlimited objectives he swiftly changed his method when the first battles (Pilckem Ridge and Langemarck) obtained limited success rather than a breakthrough. Note that the German counter-attacks recaptured some ground but not all of it and the cost to the Germans was high. The later [more] limited objective attacks brought the Germans to the brink of destruction.Keith-264 (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want citations you can ask.Keith-264 (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OH II p. 178, 'Pilckem', "A general advance of about three thousand yards had been made,.... P. 180, When ...definite information was received...that...II Corps and XIX Corps were back about the German Second Line...."
 * So the German counterattacks on the first day didn't push the attackers back to their front line, they recaptured some of the ground lost.
 * PP. 294-295, "Ludendorff (ii, p. 480) bitterly complained that "the enemy managed to adapt himself to our method of employing counter-attack divisions".
 * "The failures (Misserfolge) of the 20th and 26th of September caused the German High Command to review their defensive tactics...." "The Germans were in fact returning to their pe-war axiom in field fortification: "one line and a strong one"." Keith-264 (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title
You are invited to join the discussion at. DrKiernan (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using )

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Canal du Nord map
Just curious, did you make this map or take it from another wiki? Looks great here and adds value. Is there s/w that helps you do this, or is it brute force? If this were a summit canal, would the ascending gates point in reverse direction to those descending? GloverEpp ( talk ) 23:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Move error
Please see here There appears to be a slight error in your move request; otherwise, I think it is very sensible. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

very Fair answer
I greatly respect your stance, even if i disagree with it in this particular caseWeaponbb7 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How very Voltaire of you. I as well appreciate that we can have healthy debate and still respect one another.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Newfoundland in fiction - requested move
In line with your suggestion on the talk page, I have nominated it for AfD (Articles for deletion/Newfoundland in fiction), and closed the requested move as "Opposed".  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs New World Headquarters
Hello. The buildings official name is Goldman Sachs New World Headquarters. 200 WEst Street is its address. After my knowledge buildings are named by their official name and not adddress. Check out all reliable source, I do not find this name. Jerchel (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill Redirect
The change you made the the redirect format makes it very confused and jumbled. Are you sure you want to keep it this way? -  Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 01:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Deepwater Horizon oil spill
--Wanted to make sure you got one of these. Awesome job! -  Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Name for Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
You reverted my edit adding Mississippi Canyon 252 to the list of names. If you had looked at the citation I added along with this edit you would see on page 4 of the PDF that Mississippi Canyon 252 is the official name of the oil spill as given by NOAA. I'd ask that you revert your edit and re-add the name. The "length" of the list of the names is not relevant. What is relevant is that the encyclopedia record the various names and an official name should definitely be on that list. Theflyer (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Mississippi Canyon 252 is not a common name for the event and certainly hasn't been featured prominently in news reports, vis-a-vis other names. If you feel that strongly about it, we can discuss on the article talk page.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The section has been started. Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  In the section you created about length, I also asked editors to reconsider your revert removing references because the article was too large.  Theflyer (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That anon. IP miscreant
Glad to know that you brought the behavior of User 83.59.244.54 to the attention of an admin. It's absolutely clear from the edit history of the one other article he's edited that he is an IP hopper and serial offender. What response did you get from the admin? Cgingold (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
You made, by my count, 7 reverts to Deepwater Horizon oil spill within the last 24 hours. That said, I'll overlook the reverts of the IP (whom I've blocked for 24 hours for edit warring) this time, but in future, please be much more careful- if I were being pedantic, I could block you for 24 hours for a WP:3RR violation. When you have someone as annoying as that, first, let someone else revert them (partly to make sure you're not barking up the wrong tree, partly to avoid a 3RR vio) and if they continue to add shit like that, report them to AIV much sooner than you did (issuing 4 "final" warnings kind of defeats the point!). I might end up protecting the article tomorrow, but we'll see how it goes for now. Regards, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill
I got a very nice illustration depicting what's happening with that oil spill. It's from The Economist magazine. I would like to include it in the article. Can you advice on the best way to do it? Should I aks for a permission at the Economist? If you wish, I can e-mail the illustation to you. Please let me know your e-mail. Kind regards, Invest in knowledge (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Multiple edits
I'm having a hard time with your multiple edits. Makes me highly reluctant to contribute. One at a time, please, well-summarized. Thanks! 02:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My edits are already well-summarized thank you. Your IP shows no contribution to the article, so I can't very well be accused of discouraging you. --Labattblueboy (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ, as do others. I forgot to sign in.  Mea culpa.  I've contributed a good deal.  See Deepwater Horizon oil spill History & esp. Discussion page.  Thanks.  Paulscrawl (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your level of contribution has not gone unnoticed, and it's been increasing which is nice to see. I am doing my best to include as much in the edit summaries as possible but I don't plan on breaking up my edits any further.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No man's land
Hello Labattblueboy, The area I'm referring to in the No man's land article is the heavily volatile land between the West Bank and Israel. The area is neither Israeli or Palestinian. It is a "buffer" if you will which is littered with land mines, burnt out tanks/armored vehicles. (Similar to the no man's land of the world wars) The land is unoccupied, and neither side ventures into it very often due to fear of sniper or rocket attacks. The area is actually called "no man's land". The map I provided points out the area's. If you were to google "No man's land Israel" many links would appear and provide info. Please feel free to add anything I have left out, or if you have any questions just write me back. Thanks, Labattblueboy. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Congrats
... on Rollerbacker & Reviewer promotion. Now get busy with massive summary edits and kick ass commentary on Deepwater Horizon oil spill! Paulscrawl (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Passchendaele barrage map
I've nominated the Passchendaele barrage map you uploaded as a potential Featured/Valued Picture candidate - hope you don't mind - please take a look at the discussion here... Picture peer review/Passchendaele barrage map. Regards! The Land (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

ce, move ecological conclusion to consequences section
Hi, on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, did you move this section, or did you remove it leaving this comment as a suggestion? I had trouble finding where it was moved, if you did. Thanks! 174.74.2.72 (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Vimy Ridge
I'm not sure what to make of the edit summary you provided when deleting the material I added to Battle of Vimy Ridge; I'll assume you mean the quote doesn't relate to the influence of the battle on Canada. If so, and seeing as the material is clearly related to the Battle of Vimy Ridge, where do you then suggest it go on that page? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Justin Bieber awards
Thanks for contributing to the merge discussion at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Justin Bieber. If you have the chance, please comment on how the information should be merged to the Justin Bieber article. Regards, – Chase  ( talk ) 21:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Romani_people
Replied. Nergaal (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I've used your Sarajevo Rose picture on a blog post here: http://aonghus.blogspot.com/2010/09/cathracha.html Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.168.129 (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Character property (Unicode)
Your move was not as described in the edit summary: if no dab is needed, you would have used "Character property" sec for the new name (as is clear for someone who read the article and topic). But more important, you are knowingly move-warring, while talking at the same time. This is a second time. I suggest you redo the move yourself. -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your reply. Reverted to pre-"October 6"? No you didn't. Before, it was Unicode character properties. "qualifier not required" - if so, why then Unicode added to the title? You ignore my earlier piece on this (addressed to your talk), including the admin's decision I pointed to. "Improper" is doing a move while talking about that move. "Improper" again is doing so twice. -DePiep (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh, splitting the Talk, into two places? Why don't you expand the talk you were already involved in? Are you playing? -DePiep (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your move request did not describe the history correct. There was an intermediate move by me. And you knew the name is contested, at least between the two of us. So I asked for a revert here.
 * If you want to change the name, you should propose such a move through a discussion, as is explained at the page WP:RM. Hope to see yuo there. -DePiep (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Allan Perley
Is there a certain number of references that I have to add, because I just added one. If you could send me a response ASAP, that would be great!

ZZero4K 05:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZero4K (talk • contribs)

Historic Sites Template
Excellent work on the language issue. Thanks for putting in the effort. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Bell Telephone Memorial
Hi Labattblueboy: I was a bit surprized when I checked the 700px. rendering of the Alexander Graham Bell Brantford Monument 0.98.jpg image on an IE browser, and found that the horizontal scroll bar was missing, thus leaving the right hand portion of the image off-screen and unviewable at various browser aspect/zoom ratios. That doesn't appear to happen on the latest Firefox browser, thankfully. However in one of your past edit summaries you've referred to 'line breaking' which I haven't seen on a Windows platform, so I'm wondering if you're seeing that issue on Leopard or Unix.

As the monument's photo, as prepared by the Brantford Heritage department, is one of the most elegant memorial photos I've seen—I obviously don't get around much—it would be of great benefit to those interested in the subject to view it in its widescreen version. I propose downsizing the image to 450-500 pixels width to avoid the line breaking that you're observing, and would like your comments on this suggested work-a-round, or are the aesthetics of a wide image also a concern for you? Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for moving it into the infobox which I unsuccessfully tried a few times, but was unable to deduce the correct parameters at the time. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Historic Site
--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Hello Labattblueboy, thank you for your comment on Heyvali talk page. Could you please comment here as well?  Tuscumbia  (talk ) 20:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Outdenting
Sometimes a long discussion can cause indentation to become too deep, which may make it difficult to read, especially in narrower browser windows. In such cases you may consider 'outdenting' your post (also called 'undenting'). When doing so it is helpful to make clear what you are doing, for the benefit of readers. The templates and  exist for this purpose.


 * Comment: New information was shared about the initial subject for consideration. The page formatting was on Talk:Eureka, Wisconsin was intentional. Eurekanative (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't think you're the most appropriate person to be lecturing anyone regarding talk page formatting and indentation convention. The only reason I was indenting your posts is because you have been failing to do so (see WP:TPG). Look at your own post before lecturing others.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for causing any offense. There was no lecturing intended.  Just explaining my edit to your edit.  I should have thanked you for fixing my error.  The EditingComments-OthersComments and Outdenting were a direct copy/paste from Wikipedia guidelines, not my words.  My words are behind the bulleted comment.  Others have left my mistakes alone but kindly sent me a message so that I can fix them myself and do them properly in the future.  See my talk page.


 * Please keep any future contact with me civil. Personal judgments such as "you're not the most appropriate person" are unnecessary and against Wiki policies.  As a new person to the Wikipedia, I would truly appreciate your patience and guidance rather than anger. I will also be more thoughtful.  Thank you... Eurekanative (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for opinion
You have taken part in a move discussion a week ago. Now I would like to come up with a consensus, and would appreciate very much if you weigh con/pro arguments there. Thanks. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 08:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Egyptian protests talk page revert
Hi, I noticed you un-archived the previous move request (by the same editor) and added the earlier discussion following the recent discussion, which will be confusing for some editors. If it was your intention to restore the old discussion for context, please separate it with a different header, as this is a discrete move request. Alternatively, please order it chronologically, with the first request up top and the resumption of the request and most recent comments at the bottom. Thanks. Abrazame (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An appropriate suggestion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan Uprising
Hiya, I didn't see that RM notice up top before I decided to take drastic measures and put that wee stop sign up at the very top (ten minutes apart). After your reorganisation (which won't be the last it seems :p), Civil War? I still the main one yeah? I think the small blinking stop sign is necessary as many editors will probably ignore that whole stack of boxes and maybe just click New Section. That seems to be what has been happening in some cases. I figure put it where they can't miss it. Your thoughts? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The RM Notice should ofc be left. I was just wondering about the little stop sign notice I put up as it was so unorthodox and maybe there is some taboo etc about putting things above the boxes. Or is that what you were referring to? After Tripoli falls and Gaddafi recieves whatever gruesome death awaits him, I don't think there will be any real contention over the name of the article. *Knock on wood* Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not my intention to remove material that is important to the article in the lead, but its becoming quite difficult to keep the bias down in the article, and it keeps flowing back in tsunami waves of material. I appreciate what you're doing to clarify the material and it should help to some degree.  Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way this SuperblySpiffingPerson (who seems to be only a few days old as a user) seems to be going full speed to redo a lot of content in these articles. I don't think it is terribly sourced or consensus driven, and I'm not sure how to revert it because some of it involves page moves and so on. -- Avanu (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan uprising
You removed three sentences from the text and then claimed in the edit summary "ce lede, removed for banner at top, it's already in the article". Can you explain, for what reasons you removed the three sentences? and did not give a reason for that in the edit summary? actually in my view you gave a misleading edit summary compared to your actions. noclador (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The timeline article is already listed as the main article relating to the Battles between Gaddafi and opposition section. The statement regarding the execution of soldiers relates to one sentence in the article. The human rights abuses element is covered by the ICC statement and the no fly zone implementation was mentioned twice. Nothing nefarious in any of those edits.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ah ok, thanks for the answer. The article is repeatedly vandalized by pro-Gaddafi editors and IPs, who keep removing sourced material and try to morph the article into: "bad, bad warlord Mustafa Abdul Jalil vs. the people of the glorious Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya... therefore the undo button is often used. Sorry, for undoing your edit. noclador (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Salt Spring Island Dollar - One Dollar.jpeg
 Thanks for uploading File:Salt Spring Island Dollar - One Dollar.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's been addressed. -- Avanu (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Jack Crippen hospital ship Tobruk Harbour 1943.jpeg
Hi. I noticed you recently tagged the image File:Jack Crippen hospital ship Tobruk Harbour 1943.jpeg which is currently in use on the article War artist with a fair-use rationale. I was wondering why this particular image was nominated for speedy deletion, as a similarly licensed image on that page, File:Kim Sung-hwan 1950 Near Donam Bridge.jpg, was not tagged? Any insight into your rationale would be appreciated. Thank you - Diannaa (Talk) 03:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no shortage of examples of free use war art in the commons. Since the rational is to "help the reader identify an war artist ", it's no longer a valid explanation. I've just tagged nearly everything on the war artist page for the same reason. The only time it's really acceptable to use non-free art is for "critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school", which is not the case here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I just wanted to double check as the uploader is not available at present to investigate. It is pretty clear in my mind now, so thanks for your time. -- Diannaa (Talk) 04:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am doing my best to find replacement images that are free, so as to not negatively affect visual content.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- Diannaa (Talk) 05:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: File:Jack Crippen hospital ship Tobruk Harbour 1943.jpeg is hyperlinked from and mentioned only in a general context in The Oxford companion to New Zealand military history by I.C. McGibbon and Paul Goldstone; excerpt at p. 576, "In the Mediterranean theatre, they included John Snadden (who produced nearly 200 sketches of North Africa and Italy), Jack Crippen, and Robin Kay." A quick search for the scant information available about this artist and his work helps me understand why deletion is justified. In contrast, File:Kim Sung-hwan 1950 Near Donam Bridge.jpg is the subject of sourced commentary here. --Tenmei (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Works by Ashley George Old
Please remove the copyright problem tags.

The copyright status is fully explained on the files.

I can absolutely confirm there are no copyright problems with the publication of these works.Tomintoul (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Further details have been emailed to permissions-en@wikimedia.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomintoul (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The permission folk will remove the tag, and insert an appropriate OTRS number, one it's confirmed that the files are given the appropriate permissions.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Kim Seong-hwan
This disputed image of a sketch by Korean artist Kim Seong-hwan has three distinct fair use rationales, one for each of the articles in which the image was found. In reviewing Criteria for Speedy Deletion, I find good cause for disputing your removal of two of these rationales: (a) the one justifying use in Korean War, and (b) the one justifying use in War Artist. Neither are clearly invalid; but perhaps you can work with me to find a better wording. In each, the image itself is the subject of sourced commentary.

As you will recall, this artwork depicts the invasion of Seoul, which is an historical event. The rationales are similarly worded, but the emphasis in the complex sentence is different. Perhaps the addition of underline and bold will be better, e.g.,


 * Rationale for War artist
 * The significance of the image is to help the reader identify the work of a war artist who is depicting historical events on June 27, 1950 in near-contemporaneous artwork . The significance of the image is to assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the artist and an event in the early days of the Korean War, and to illustrate that context in a way that words alone could not convey . In other words, this image shows what a war artist does and it shows the kind of art a war artist creates.


 * Rationale for Korean War
 * The significance of the image is to help the reader identify a seminal event in the Korean War as seen first-hand by a war artist who is depicting historical events June 27, 1950 in near-contemporaneous artwork . The significance of the image is to assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the artist and an event in the early days of the Korean War, and to illustrate that context in a way that words alone could not convey . In other words, this image shows an event in the Korean War and the first-hand impression of one of those who lived through it.

Can you suggest ways to make this better? clearer? shorter? --Tenmei (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are certainly free to dispute, but you will need to do so for each item. The non-free use guidelines make it rather clear that, in the case of paintings/drawings non-free is acceptable for " critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." or "iconic status or historical importance". I don't see this image fitting into either of those categories. It is certainly acceptable for the Kim Seong-hwan article, but there is no shortage of free material relating to the Korean War and war artist for non-use in those areas to be acceptable. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is the case that I misconstrue the fair-use criteria? Is it that   paintings/drawings are conventionally considered as only illustrative of the artist's skill?


 * Please explain how these words reveal that I am missing the point:


 * Rationale for File:Kim Sung-hwan 1950 Near Donam Bridge.jpg for use in War artist
 * ... war artist who is depicting historical events on June 27, 1950 in near-contemporaneous artwork . The significance of the image is to assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the artist and an event in the early days of the Korean War, and to illustrate that context in a way that words alone could not convey . In other words, this image shows what a war artist does and it shows the kind of art a war artist creates.
 * In other words, the historic occupation or job title is a subject of public interest. The historical sketch helps the readers identify the function or work output of this historic occupation or job title, assure the readers that they have reached the right article about the historic occupation or job title, and illustrate the function or message of the historic occupation or job title in a way that words alone could not convey.


 * Rationale for File:Kim Sung-hwan 1950 Near Donam Bridge.jpg for use in Korean War
 * ... Korean War as seen first-hand by a war artist who is depicting historical events June 27, 1950 in near-contemporaneous artwork . The significance of the image is to assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the artist and an event in the early days of the Korean War, and to illustrate that context in a way that words alone could not convey . In other words, this image shows an event in the Korean War and the first-hand impression of one of those who lived through it.
 * In other words, this image of an historical event is a subject of public interest. The sketch helps the readers identify the event, assure the readers that they have reached the right article about the event, and illustrate the event's intended message in a way that words alone could not convey.


 * Alternately, will you please point out the specific wiki-policy text which I appear to mis-interpret? As context, please compare the following statement of purpose:
 * Rationale for File:Signing ceremony for the Axis Powers Tripartite Pact;.jpg for use in Tripartite Pact
 * The event is a subject of public interest. The historical photograph helps the readers identify the event, assure the readers that they have reached the right article about the event, and illustrate the event's intended branding function or message in a way that words alone could not convey.


 * Again, can you suggest ways to make this better? clearer? shorter? --Tenmei (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed use
Although the speedy delete issues appear to be behind us, we still seem to disagree over use of artwork in War artist and Korean War. As I understand it, these are the relevant factors


 * Your reasoning is based entirely here where the acceptable use of "paintings and other works of visual art" is explained:
 * Wikipedia:Non-free content Acceptable use#Images: "For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school."
 * It appears that you construe these words as exclusive. In other words, artwork can only be used to illustrate a particular technique or school.


 * In contrast, my reasoning is based on the next line in the same section. The acceptable use of "images with historical importance" is explained:
 * Wikipedia:Non-free content Acceptable use#Images: "Subjects of commentary."
 * I notice that this is restated and amplified at Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Deletion#F7 where the words "subject of sourced commentary" are emphasized with a hyperlink to Non-free content

IMO, this image is appropriate for use in War artist and in Korean War.

This artwork depicts the 1950 invasion of Seoul. The argument for the fair use of this image and the reasons why I believe the use does enhance the quality of each article are the similar.


 * Rationale for File:Kim Sung-hwan 1950 Near Donam Bridge.jpg for use in War artist
 * The purpose of the image is to help the reader identify war artist who is depicting historical events on June 27, 1950 in near-contemporaneous artwork . The significance of the image is to assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the artist and an event in the early days of the Korean War, and to illustrate that context in a way that words alone could not convey . In other words, this image shows what a war artist does and it shows the kind of art a war artist creates . In other words, the historic occupation or job title is a subject of public interest and the subject of sourced commentary here. The historical sketch helps the readers identify the function or work output of this historic occupation or job title, assure the readers that they have reached the right article about the historic occupation or job title, and illustrate the function or message of the historic occupation or job title in a way that words alone could not convey.


 * Rationale for File:Kim Sung-hwan 1950 Near Donam Bridge.jpg for use in Korean War
 * The purpose of the image is to help the reader identify a seminal event in the Korean War as seen first-hand by a war artist who is depicting historical events June 27, 1950 in near-contemporaneous artwork . The significance of the image is to assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the artist and an event in the early days of the Korean War, and to illustrate that context in a way that words alone could not convey . In other words, this image shows an event in the Korean War and the first-hand impression of one of those who lived through it . In other words, this image of an historical event is a subject of public interest and the subject of sourced commentary here. The sketch helps the readers identify the event, assure the readers that they have reached the right article about the event, and illustrate the event's intended message in a way that words alone could not convey.

As always, can you suggest ways to make this better? clearer? shorter? --Tenmei (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Alfred Munnings
This disputed image of a painting by official war artist Sir Alfred Munnings has four distinct fair use rationales, one for each of the articles in which the image was found. In reviewing Criteria for Speedy Deletion, I find good cause for disputing your removal of each of these rationales. None are clearly invalid; but perhaps you can work with me to find a better wording. In each, the image itself is the subject of sourced commentary.

My guess is that you are primarily concerned with this because Munnings is not Canadian. In other words, your viewpoint is arguably based on the belief that Canadian exemplars are better for illustrating War artists from Canada and Canadian official war artists. This is made explicit in an edit summary here when you explain lots of free Cdn war art out there, non-free ins't necessary. I take your point, but any decision-making about whether an image should or should not be included in any specific article derives from distinctly different criteria than whether an image should be deleted.

Paraphrasing your your edit to the fair use rationale for the use of artwork by Kim Seong-hwan in the article about the artist, I have edited the rationale for use of this painting in the article about Munnings:


 * Rationale for File:Munnings draft-horses Dreux 1918.jpg for use in Canadian Forestry Corps
 * Rationale for File:Munnings draft-horses Dreux 1918.jpg for use in War artist
 * Rationale for File:Munnings draft-horses Dreux 1918.jpg for use in Alfred Munnings
 * The purpose of the image is to help the reader better understand that the range of this artist includes non-typical, rough brushwork. The image is an historical event as depicted in near-contemporaneous artwork; and it has specific value in the article about this artist because he is not conventionally associated with this subject. The value of the image is to assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary which (a) shows the painting style and the arc of the career of the artist Alfred Munnings ; (b) shows the work of a representative war artist depicting a non-typical logistics support subject ; (d) shows Munnings' work as one of very few Canadian official war artists, which are those men who were attached to the Canadian Expeditionary Force in Europe in the First World War; (c) shows the not-widely-known contribution of the Canadian Forestry Corps in the Western Front of the World War I  -- all of which are shown in a way that words alone could not convey.
 * Rationale for File:Munnings draft-horses Dreux 1918.jpg for use in Canadian official war artists

Can we begin the process of re-visiting this subject by addressing just one of them?

On the basis of this revision, will you removed the speedy deletion tag?

Can you suggest ways to make this better? clearer? shorter?

Please give some thought to the increased numbers of readers who may be consulting these articles in the near future as we approach the 100th anniversary of the Great War. Also, please bear in mind the expanding interest in the subject of Horses in World War I which will follow the release of Steven Spielberg's newest file, War Horse whcih is scheduled for release in December 2011. --Tenmei (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My concern is that this is not the nationality of the painter but that this is not a appropriate use of a non-free image. This is particularly so given there are no shortage of free images of WWI horses, WWI Canadian artists and material associated with the Forestry Corps. The employment of a non-free image isn't necessary.-Labattblueboy (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The more narrow issue here is the speedy delete tag. Paraphrasing your your edit to the fair use rationale for the use of artwork by Kim Seong-hwan in the article about the artist, I have edited the rationale for use of this painting in the article about Munnings.


 * Will you now remove the speedy delete tag?


 * Other issues may be discussed after this immediate issue is resolved. --Tenmei (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed the speedy deletion tag for the Munnings piece, on the basis that the rational is now only for that article and is being used for the purpse of demonstrating that artist's style
 * I am not entirely comfortable with the Kim Seong-hwan piece being on both his article and at Korean War. There is a healthy supply of images already for Korean War and I don't see the use of a non-free image as necessary. If the rationals was only for the artist's article I'd support removing the speedy deletion tag.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Unadilla class gunboat
Thanks for this article Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Female GM
Hey, I saw you commented on the request to move that I did so I'm just dropping you a line. There is an ongoing discussion over whether the term FGC should be retained now that the title has been changed to FGM. (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Female_genital_mutilation#Terminology). More input is required to determine whether the consensus on the usage of FGM in the title extends to the article, thanks. Vietminh (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Allan Perley
My article contains no original information, I have added references to the article. I have only forgotten to add the references. By clicking "references," you will find that my article contains references. There are no statements of original research. All information was from the History and Genealogy of the Perley Family, from Family Databases of distant relatives, Familysearch.com, and from Ancestry.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZero4K (talk • contribs) 05:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Original research simply means that there are elements for which no reliable published source exists. There are large swaths of the article that contain no references. For instance, the entire Settling to Ipswich, Massachusetts section only contains 3 citations. The claims that do not have citations certainly look like they are derived from unpublished sources.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Liaison
Dear Labatt, I notice that you wrote some of the material on Polygon Wood, Broodseinde etc. Do you mind looking at the detail I have added on the P'daele page to see if any of it would be better in the battle pages proper? TaKeith-264 (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't expect all of the detail I've added to stay there. What to move and what to leave behind is what I'd like opinion on. Menin Road also needs a separate page but I don't know how to do that. I don't even know how to put an [edit] button on the page.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this 'Background: sp, parenthesis not needed, standarize english' is needed, will you put it back? As for spelling, which convention are you using? I would have thought English English for this article?Keith-264 (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Jenna Rose for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jenna Rose is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

I noticed you were a member of the first AfD discussion. I have nominated the page again and felt like it was appropriate to notify you. Rogerthat94 (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings
How are you getting on with your reading? I'm pleased to report that I got a copy of G.C. Wynne 'If Germany Attacks' last week so I can put a better commentary on Lossberg into the Pdaele page.Keith-264 (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Battle of the Canal du Nord
Hi! Are you still interested in that battle? If so, I wanted to invite you to take a look at my Italian version, which I have translated from the English one and expanded with other info from Encyclopaedia Britannica and other sources. Should Google Translate be unable to offer you a readable English translation, you might at least download and translate the map I have made... Goodbye, --Gengis Gat (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Langemarck
Thanks for unbuggering the reference to Langemarck, there's some things I haven't a clue how to do or to find out how. How are you getting on with your reading?Keith-264 (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you mind esplaining this though? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Battle_of_Passchendaele&curid=11489554&diff=466180892&oldid=466145740 Keith-264 (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which part is of concern?
 * I haven't see a wide body of material describing Gough's strategy as a following a bite and hold approach. A change of that variety with require a solid defence.
 * Near everything everything I`ve read in the past views Langemark as a battle where the gains are described as rather limited. Particularly given the gains were made in the north but nothing with regards to the plateau.
 * The statement that the Langemark was costly to the Germans is not mentioned in the current ref. If Sheldon or other has defended statements along that lines I see no issue is including something to that affect once again.
 * Also, I`ve included a citation needed tag for a number of the German divisions that participated. Nicholson covers a number but a number that you had mentioned are not listed in that source, so ifyou have something that covers all of them for this battle that`d be great. --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I got the OOB from here http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=61236&view=previous but my request for a citation (from Der Weltkrieg) seems to have fallen on deaf ears (hence the delay in adding a citation). http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/germanarmywwi.pdf seems definitive but I'll have to trawl it to justify each divisional mention. Sheldon in The German Army at Passchendaele has a list of divisions in the index, pp. 331-332 as well.


 * Gough; see OH 1917 II, Appendix XV pp. 436-442, especially Gough's reply to Davidson's memorandum of 26 June pp. 440-442;


 * "In its broad principles, I am in agreement with this paper, in so far as it advocates a continuous succession of organised attacks."


 * "...in this war of masses and great depth of reserves, that immediately the organised battle has been fought, it is necessary to plan and prepare for a second organised battle, and after that, without delay, a third, and even a fourth."


 * "The operations for the capture of Passchendaele-Staden Ridge envisaged by me, and put I trust clearly before my corps commanders, do in truth constitute a succession of organised attacks at short intervals."


 * Langemarck; yes limited gains of ground but only at the cost of heavy German losses "... and the costly August battles imposed a great strain on the Western troops. Our wastage had been so high as to cause grave misgivings, and exceeded all our expectations (Ludendorff, memoirs)." p. 210, OH 1917 II, fn 4.


 * 10 August was a success for us, but on the 16th we sustained another great blow. The English pressed on beyond Poelcappelle and, even with an extreme exertion of strength on out part, could only be pushed back a short distance. Ludendorff ii p. 479 in Terraine, J. The Road to Passchendaele, p.232.

fair enough?Keith-264 (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I went through that pdf last night and counted 85 German divisions on the Flanders and coastal fronts for late 1917, I'll use the data to verify the OOB Messines to Passchendaele.


 * But the pain was not all on one side. Ludendorff described the Battle of Langemarck on 16 August as 'another great blow' (Ludendorff, Memoirs, ii, pp. 479-480) that landed on the defenders - a sobering reminder that the success of a battle can only be judged by considering both sides of no-man's-land. Sheffield, G. The Chief, p. 237. (2011)[Clarified the bit by Ludo]

enough?Keith-264 (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not permitted to base a statement on a primary source, particularly if the argument being derived runs contrary to most statement is secondary sources. A broader pallet of sources is going to be required to validate Gough as not only a advocate of bite and hold but that his employed strategy is accepted as a bite and hold manoeuvre.
 * As state before, I entirely support a mention that Langemarck was a costly to the Germans. I`m hesitant to utilize memories for such a statement. That being said using the Ludendorff memories as the reference in this case would be better than nothing. Something along the lines of: Torrential rains in August interrupted the tempo of the British advance and led to little progress at the Battle of Langemarck and heavy casualties on both sides.
 * In how we classify Langemarck, I have no disagreement that progress was made in the north. However, the general one-line assessment of the battle is that only limited progress was made. Once again that must come from the analysis of a secondary source--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Edmonds, Davidson, Wynne, Terraine, Sheffield and Sheldon are secondary sources. They refer to Ludendorff etc to add weight to their conclusions that's all. How many more secondary sources do you want? ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PS Edmonds's erroneous description of the plan for Pilckem Ridge in the narrative of the OH is the biggest mistake in the book (as demonstrated by the footnotes and appendices and some paragraphs which are out of chronological sequence).Keith-264 (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell me the page number and statements where the author, in their main body text, expressly states or supports (no personal analysis) the line of text you believe should be included. It has to be the comments of the secondary source author, not a primary source. For example, if you were to have something where Sheffield, in his analysis, states that Gough employed a bite and hold strategy (and the words bite and hold would need to be in the statement) then we can move forward. Same goes for the others.-Labattblueboy (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Langemarck 16-18 Aug
Wynne, p. 303 "Instead of being three to four miles distant, as on 31 July, the objective was 1,500-2,000 yards away. The asault was timed to be much quicker, so that the final objective, the Wilhelm Line at the back of the forward battlezone, was to be reached by 8.00 a.m. .... it was a procedure which confounded the German counter-attack divisions. After crossing two miles of mud they fond the British already established along a new defence line. Cosequently the forward battlezone and its weak garrison was lost beyond recapture."
 * Are the operations 19-22 Aug still part of Langemarck? XIX & XVIII Corps captured and held about 50% of their objectives set for the 16th after a weather delay.
 * Do you have something that provides an overall assessment of the battle. As I noted before, this is an assessment of the north end of the advance (where I entirely agree progress was made), but does not include the limited to no progress made in the centre or the south (Zonnebeke spur and Gheluvelt Plateau . The sources currently employed, not to mention most contemporary ones I`ve seen, expressly state either limited or little progress to describe the Langemarck as a whole. How about something along the lines of the British making progress on the north end of the battle but limited progress overall, keeping in mind that this is a backgrounds section and the attempt is to summarized everything as much as possible.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, 'progress' has two meanings as defined by Haig's plan 'The British objectives of the offensive were, 'wearing out the enemy' with a high-tempo series of bite-and-hold attacks, intended eventually to force the German army into a general withdrawal'. I think we need to do a little bit more to keep in mind the attritional aspect of the campaign as well as the recapture of the Flanders coast.


 * The object of the Fifth Army offensive is to wear down the enemy, but, at the same time to have an objective.... (Haig, OH p. 131).


 * But the pain was not all on one side. Ludendorff described the battle of Langemarck on 16 August as 'another great blow' that landed on the defenders - a sobering remnder that the success of a battle can only be judged by considering both sides of no-man's-land. In August the Germans lost several important positions in the salient.Ludendorff later spoke, in terms which would have gladdened Haig's heart, of some of the German defenders 'no longer displaying that firmness' that their commanders expected. (Sheffield, The Chief p. 237)


 * That apart, he [Haig] was certain that the British effort was striking a massive blow at the main enemy. If, under Charteris's prompting, he was being too optimistic, it is nevertheless to be noted that German accounts substantially support this view.... 'The 22nd was another day of heavy fighting. The 25th August concluded the second phase of the Flanders battle. It had cost us heavily....' 'Our wastage had been so high as to cause grave misgivings, and had exceeded all expectaton....' At least we learn from Ludendorff that the view did not look any better from the other side of the hill.(Terraine, Haig the Educated Soldier, pp. 354-355.)


 * It is a simple fact that almost always the defence had prevailed during August, but it was paying a high price in casualties to stave off the Allied advance. (Sheldon, The German Army at Passchendaele p. 138.)


 * My point abut going on about Langemarck and Gough is that I don't want to get reverted every time I add detail to 2nd Passchendaele so I'm looking for consensus with you. You're a lot more knowledgeable about Wiki rules for a start, which I find helpful even when I'm disputing what historiographical school is most accurate.Keith-264 (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In terms of editing cycle, see BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Bold edits are made, if controversial they may get reverted and then you discuss to develop a consensus, which is then applied. Given we are working towards a consensus I think things are working well.
 * Now is terms of Langemarck, we could expressly frame the statement in terms of territorial gains. That way we can keep it short within the scope of it being in a background section. The Haig statement of the offensive was intended to wear down the Germans is a controversial one and certainly debated as to whether that was a wartime position or one developed post-war to defend the approach taken. Either way, that would be something to address on a Battle of Langemark article, not this one. No debate that Germans suffered, but 15K British casualties is not something to scoff at either. So if we throw in the topic of casualties it should read something along the lines of them being high on both sides.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wearing out is all over his contemporary written material,


 * The broad strategic intent of Third Ypres was consistent, this was defined much earlier and was the basis for the first plans as far back as February 1916. As late as June 14th 1917, Haig stated to his Army Commanders, those who would be responsible for

executing Third Ypres, that the general intent was to wear down the enemy. The campaign's strategic context was equally clear, securing the Belgian coast up to and as far as the Dutch border. Within that strategic context, Haig defined a series of clear steps. All of this was consistent with what had been decided previously.


 * 14 June: "I presided at Conference with Army Commanders at HQ First Army, Lillers, at 11 am. Some 40 officers were present. The Agenda included:

1. General situation 2. Situation in front of each Army 3. Future plans As regards the latter, I stated that there was no departure from the plans I had outlined at the Conference of 7 May. Viz. British and French wear down and exhaust the Enemy by attacking by surprise as far as possible at points where not expected. Finally British will strike the main blow probably in the north."


 * Haig continued: "Underlying the general intention of wearing out the Enemy is the strategical idea of securing the Belgian coast and connecting with the Dutch frontier.

copiously quoted in 2ndary sources. Some of the confusion appears to stem from some of his writing early in 1917 when he was thinking in terms of a sequel to a successful French breakthrough offensive, since German reserves would have been greatly depleted. After the Nivelle fiasco this became untenable since German reserves had been damaged but not by anything like the extent that would have been the case if Nivelle's gig had gone to plan.Keith-264 (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One view I've just seen is that the tempo of Gough's operations had a positive effect by using up German reserves in August (17 divs 31 Jul-20 Aug according to Ger OH xii p. 211 in Nicholson p. 308) despite the weather delays and that this helped mislead the Germans as the pause before Plumer's series of attacks led them to move troops and artillery away from Ypres. Another point is that the limited effect of British counter-battery fire was less influential on events than the ability of the artillery to see enough to respond to British infantry advances with standing barrages and SOS fire on German infantry counter-attacks. Looked at like this it's differences in visibility in August and September, the wet ground diminishing the effect of HE shell and high winds reducing the effect of gas bombardments, rather than preparatory destructive bombardment that made the most difference. Certainly the failings of August's attacks seem to be more a matter of British infantry losing the support of their artillery after succeeding in advancing. On 31st July for eg, II Corps advanced and held as far forward as the replacement corps on 20 September.Keith-264 (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose that there are any page models to use for linked articles are there? I want to put much of the detail I've added to the main article on separate pages like the ones for Messines and 2nd Pass but I don't know how.Keith-264 (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are also numerous sources stating that attrition was not an express aim, so I have clear misgivings. Further, the discussion as to whether the intent was attrition is probably best left to the main page. The background section is after all just to provide a basic overview. How is this for a crack at a middle ground (utilizing Sheldon as the source):
 * "Torrential rains interrupted ['slowed the still relatively rapid'] Allied battle tempo and they achieved little in terms of [their intended] territorial gains during the month of August. The German defence [especially the forward defence of the Gheluvelt Plateau] was largely successful [but] Germans consequently suffered a [large] number of casualties."
 * Are you looking to create new battle pages. If so, there is. See WP:MILCG. If you want a hand I can always get the basics framework started up for you and then you can go to town.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can do that it would be brilliant. Do you know if there's a formula for what goes in the overview and what moves to the linked page? I notice that the ones you've worked on have comparatively short (2-3 paragraph) entries on the main page, which is what I'd like to work towards. It seems from my recent reading that Travers is one of the main advocates of the 'breakthrough' view but Simpson is rather severe on him, by referring to prinary sources as well as deconstructing Travers's analysis. Perhaps a historiographical section describing the range of views and their reasons (like me going on about the OH mistakes all the time) Apart from that, there's a bit more on air operations and chemical warfare I want to add somewhere. Thanks for taking so much trouble over this!Keith-264 (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Gough
Bite-and-hold isn't a strategy, it's an operational approach. The whole point of the debate is that Gough's version was more optimistic (supported by Plumer) than events warranted and that this is hindsight; not that his attacks were 'breakthrough' or 'unlimited' operations (compare 31 July with the Nivelle Offensive). OH 1917 II p. 236 "Although the general plan remained unaltered the tactical scheme was radically revised." (24-29 Aug).
 * The article currently describes Gough's approach as 'more optimistic semi-open warfare'. There is no statement in the article arguing his operational plan consisted of a breakthrough but rather advancement out of the Salient and it already indicates that Plumer took a less ambitious approach. I`m not entirely clear what change you are looking for here. Either way, you can`t call his approach/strategy bite and hold without a source expressly calling it such.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you defining 'bite-and-hold' in isolation or relative to unlimited ('breakthrough') attacks? I'm not necessarily insistent on the use of the term but the sources clearly indicate that Gough and Plumer's methods were variations on a theme. I paraphrased Paddy Griffith's terms to try to get away from nomenclature towards a description of behaviour 'succession of blows', p. 88.Keith-264 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Gough responded with a plan which, while it did not call for a breakthrough on the first day, still anticipated rapid success. The attackers aimed to penetrate about 3,500 yards into the enemy line at the initial surge, and then after a pause of a few days planned to bring forward their guns so that they could reach the enemy's final organised positions. Gough had preferred a less-controlled advance on the first day, but one where the infantry gained as much territory as possible to take advantage of the enemy's confusion in the attack's opening hours. However, on the eve of the battle Gough issued instructions that the infantry were to halt on predesignated stop lines, so that the organisation for the second round could proceed in a more systematic fashion. (Palazzo, Seeking Victory on the Western Front p. 119).


 * Sir William Robertson visited me about this time and I told him that I did not look for a 'break-through' nor for rapid and spectacular success, but I envisaged a series of carefully organised and prepared attacks, only gaining ground step by step, and tat it would be a month (given fine weather) or perhaps two, before we were masters of the Passchendaele-Staden Ridge. (Gough quoted in Terraine, The Road to Passchendaele p. 111)


 * In GHQ's initial predictions for the Third Ypres battle, including its plan for 31st July, each such repositioning (or easch 'bite and hold' operation) was assumed to need something like two or three days. (Passchendaele in Perspective Ed liddle; ch 5, Griffith, P. p. 68).


 * The limited 'bite and hold' expectations that the British had learned by this time meant that BEF attacks were usually halted and consolidated at the point when they had overrun the German first-line system but had not yet over-extended themselves in the way the Germans would have preferred.... The peculiar intensity of the fighting at Third Ypres may perhaps be explained as much by this carefuly-calculated balance of high aggressive intention from both sides simultaneously, as it may be by any other factor. (ibid, p. 70).


 * The British fought and won Third Ypres by virtue of the dominance of their artillery and the endurance of their infantry. Despite the awful conditions and the various tactical surprises that their enemy continued to spring, the 'bite and hold' system kept on moving doggedly forward until it finally ran out of momentum in November. Th gains from each 'bite' were not perhaps spectacular, and Haig certainly continued to be impatient for bigger breakthroughs and greater mobility almost up to the end. Nevertheless, by this time the BEF had developed a workable system of offensive tactics against which the Germans ultimately had no answer. (ibid, p. 71).


 * Again while Plumer is generally associated with a more limited 'bite and hold' approach to operations.... (Op.cit. Ch 8, Beckett, F.W. p. 108)


 * The design of the attack was a methodical series of advances in three stages, at any one of which a halt could be called if necessary, while a further line was given for exploitation purposes should success warrant such action. (Bax & Boraston 8th Division, p.127.)


 * "In the Passchendaele attack General Gough complained severely that GHQ expected him to go "right of the map", whereas he felt that with limited objectives and the attack carried out in successive stages the battle was far more likely to be successful and that success would be obtained with far fewer casualties." (The War Memoirs of Earl Stanhope of Chevening: General Staff Officer in France 1914-1918 by Earl Stanhope. Ed Brian Bond, p. 131.)


 * "Gough had said that his orders were to get as far on as he could, but that when he encountered organised resistance he was to sit down to organised attack. On such lines he should do well.... My friend thought that the main interest was our methodical manner of conducting these attacks which were now systematised." (The First World War, 1914-1918 Vol. II by Repington, Charles à Court p. 26.)


 * The only difference of note from the earlier attacks were that more emphasis was palced on training and on resting the artillery than before. (Andy Simpson, A. Directing Operations: British Corps Command on the Western Front 1914-18 p. 135.)Well worth a look at the 3rd Ypres chapterKeith-264 (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am entirely comfortable with an edit wherein it states both Gough and Plumer employed a sequence of attacks and that Gough`s were initially more ambitious and Plumer`s more limited. We can even abandon the bite and hold terminology. If you have an edit in that vein I am all ears.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, are you referring to the main article or to 2nd Passchendaele? I stuck this in the P'daele page earlier,


 * The design of the attack was a methodical series of advances in three stages, at any one of which a halt could be called if necessary, while a further line was given for exploitation purposes should success warrant such action. Bax,C.E.O. & Boraston, J.H. The Eighth Division in War 1914-1918, p.127. (1926, 2001 edn)Keith-264 (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To Second Passchendaele. Keeping my mind the current flow of the text, maybe: "Plumer planned a series of more limited attacks, taking advantage of recent experience, rather than Gough's attempts at a more optimistic succession of advances".--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's as accurate and succinct as it gets.Keith-264 (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Battle of Pilckem Ridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page XIV Corps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wording
"inserted agreed text, although unsure if it should be semi-open warfare version or succession of advances" I'm still looking for a good source and form of words on the distinction between Gough and Plumer's methods. At the moment I'm finding it in the details of writing not addressing it directly - the red line for 31 July is pretty definitively established as dependent on the Germans folding and was to be attained by forces separate from those advancing to the previous three lines. By Langemarck Gough had already dispensed with the idea of a German collapse.

This is the best I've found since it refers directly to a primary source. Notes on Conference Held at Lovie Chateau, June 6th. WO 95/519, PRO.

PP. 119-120 The first fruit of this conference was the issuing of a memorandum setting out the principles by which Army expected the offensive to be governed. 12 It reiterated the arguments Gough had given in the conference, about exploiting the "demoralisation and confusion" of the enemy, and citing the examples of 1st July 1916 (presumably referring, optimistically, to the southern flank of the attack), 13th November 1916 and, of course, 9th April 1917. Consequently, "platoon, company and battalion commanders" were to occupy ground abandoned or lightly held by the enemy and "These officers must be taught and encouraged to act upon their own initiative and responsibility. There is no time for reports to go back or orders from Corps or Divisional Commanders to come forward." This was the most important of his points, in which he was pressing the need to make the junior officers, accustomed to trench warfare, independent of the need for guidance via the normal communications system for as long as possible, since it would inevitably cease to function reliably or sufficiently responsively for a while once the attack had begun. This adds emphasis to the point made in the last chapter that Army commanders had their best opportunity to win a victoiy before the fighting began. Gough did not recognise that simply advancing would lead his men on to stronger German defences (though he apparently was aware of the deep and complex Gennan defensive systems on his front), instead attributing the inevitable pause in the forward movement to his own men. "Unfortunately, Both these ideas and the proposed advance to the Red Line were in no way contradictory to SSI3S." there comes a time when troops are exhausted and must be rested or reiieved.0 This gives the enemy fus opportunity to bring up fresh troops and reorganize." This was now the time to break off the small attacks and return to a careful approach, as stated earlier. However, "The real difficulty is to discover the right moment at which to change from one method to the other, and in forming a decision [note that this was not left to the formation on the spot] the higher command is very dependent upon the judgement of subordinate leaders and upon their reports." Gough concluded by saying that "The Army Conunander regards it as important that there should be mutual understanding and confidence between the command and the regimental officers on these points [i.e. those addressed by the memorandum as a whole], and that Corps Commanders will take the necessary steps to make his views known to all ranks..." This memorandum does not seem to have been written in a spirit of dictation from the top; Gough wanted his plans not merely to be carried out, but understood. The Operational Role of British Corps Command on the Western Front, 1914-18 Andrew Simpson 2001Keith-264 (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Balck (after one page on Messines) has just this to say about 3rd Ypres.


 * Even the subsequent battles show the same: destroying by "drum" fire a relatively small sector of the front line through enormous artillery effect; the attacking infantry satisfied with assaults of minor depth; the advantages of surprise, not utilized. (Development of tactics, World War (1922) Balck, W. trans Bell, H. p. 103; Ch III, position Warfare in the West pp. 47-107. (2010 edn)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Battle of Pilckem Ridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British Expeditionary Force (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sceptical
With a 'k'? That's foreign, that is.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fnar, fnar! Where there's a direct reference to Canadian forces, I've left the transatlantic usage alone. Apropos, can you direct me to a page which explains how you can link without putting all of the link on the page? I've tried using the punctuation marks etc below the editing box and got nowhere (e.g. square bracket-Eingreif-'followed by vertical bar'-then another word-square bracket) and that nbsp thing for adding metric to yards? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * British spelling and Canadian are in fact different. If you can believe it, its actually skeptical in Canadian English and sceptical in British. Since the principles forces and audience likely to take concern is British it seems more appropriate to use that form of spelling.
 * WP:MOSLINK explains now links work, for distances, use the convert template as yards is an outdated form of measurement on its own (seeTemplate:Convert). Its an easy template to use. For conversion between yards and meters use distance in yards yd . Nbsp, or Non-breaking space, are used for elements where end of line displacements could be awkward at the beginning of a new line. Numbers are a principle one for this (see WP:NBSP for more details).--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mind putting a seperate page on for Menin Road when you have time please?Keith-264 (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Once I have completed Eingreif division to a satisfactory level, I'd be happy to.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Talkback
the change of name is being discussed here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Mount Sorrel
I wondered if a Canadian might be guarding this page! ;O) You might have noticed that someone told me how to do a link which fits with the flow of a sentence. I expect that I've done a few more than strictly necessary.... I've been searching Wiki to see if there are any pages that are worth linking to the Passchendaele page, which is how I found M Sorrel and a few others. Are you really sure you want the phrase "After his appointment" though? It seems redundant to me. OH 1916 I 227-245 covers the battle so I won't make any changes to the page until I've read it and liaised with you. OK?Keith-264 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right,that can go. It's not particularly necessary. I was really the "big push" text that was an issue.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Grouping citations
Thee's a note on the P'daele page about not using ibid etc in footnotes so I've been trying to find out how to abbreviate different footnotes to the same reference and all I've got is a headache. Do you know where I can look to find out? I tried copying one (yours?) that's already on the page and altering the page number but that didn't work either. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind having a look at the lead on the P'daele page please, some of it has been questioned. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I tried to push on with the bits of the page I felt confident about while you and Eye were away (between two bouts of man-flu and a sprained big toe) and now I feel ok about moving lots of narrative to the 'battle pages' rather than copy & pasting it, which should remove much of the bloating that I put there, before you set up the new ones (I had a stab with Menin Road too which seems to have worked). Mind you I've developed some of the Pilckem Ridge section on the main page so it's out of sync with the separate one....

I thought your comment about moving some material to the Eingreif page was a good idea. If there are significant chunks of material I put on the main page which you think are unnecessary would you mind moving them to the talk page or my sand box so I can keep them for later?ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed a lot of the detail from the main page but I think that the Pilckem Ridge section needs a bit of thought, since its the first one and since you've done so much on the linked page. Any views? I'll sleep on it.Keith-264 (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Pilckem
I've had another think and decided that a new page like the Eingreif one would be preferable to a link to the WF page. I've copied all the new material I added so would be happy for you revert what you don't want on the Pilckem page and add a link to Tactical development on the western front in 1917 instead. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the idea in principal. However, you'll have to keep vigilant as to the amount of material. A topic rarely requires an article as large as 100k; For a rule of thumb see WP:SIZERULE. I believe your challenge is going to be communicating everything in as few words as possible. Your approach of going chronological likely isn’t bad. You make find it equally as useful to sort information by topic. Air, artillery, infantry, armour, etc. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had been trying to move material from the main page since that was rather bloated but on reflection moving it to Pilckem and Menin only shifted the problem. If you take out of Pilckem the stuff you think is extraneous I'll do the same on the Menin page using the same format so they're consistent. This should keep me going all year.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. First an apology as I said some weeks ago I would post material and have not yet done so. Bearing in mind the need to keep any individual article from the Third Ypres family within reasonable size, I would have thought it makes sense to pull out the origins of the offensive into a separate sub-article rather than have them both in the main article and in Pilckem as well. That (Haig's intentions and why the politicians agreed to it) is an obvious area where coverage needs broadening, along with (OTOH) the failure of political monitoring, the degree to which the offensive was necessary because of the state of French morale, the mud-slinging in the memoirs afterwards, and the views of reputable historians since. If you like I can just post what I've got rather than expect everyone to hang around for ever.Paulturtle (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where would you put it? The politico-strategic level ought to be mentioned on the P'daele page (like Haig not being given permission to proceed until about a week beforehand) but the detail not necessarily; that might be better on your Haig page and the one on Ll-G. Anyway, I was under the impression that the offensive was necessary because of the Germans.Keith-264 (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not entirely convinced that further sub-article are required, simply a more concise summary and presentation of material already existing. For Pilckem, the concern is those strategic elements that provide context to this battle alone. If what we have for Pilckem was better summarized/organized I think it’d be set. I don't see the origins of the wider offensive being so complex as to require its own article. Remember an article is supposed to be a summary, not a historiography.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough but Pilckem and Menin were significant for the changes they embodied a well a for the other things about them. It's difficult to be concise when a narrative decribes a lot of detailed changes. I was thinking more of a sub-article from the main page, not Pilckem-Menin so I could put a summary there and shift the bulk of the German changes too. I have a section in mind about medical arrangements at P'daele which could go with the casualties section at the end (I'm looking for ources on German medical practices in English) so I'm thinking of ways to make room. I had another look at the Pilckem page and thought that we could take back out the stuff I put in bar the paragraphs under 'Fifth Army' and some of the German stuff under Rupprecht. It would mean putting different titles on them though. What do you want to keep?Keith-264 (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Walter Seymour Allward
Category:Walter Seymour Allward, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Battle of Vimy Ridge
This is a note to let the main editors of Battle of Vimy Ridge know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 9, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 9, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



The Battle of Vimy Ridge was a First World War battle in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region of France between four divisions of the Canadian Corps and three divisions of the German Sixth Army. It lasted from 9 to 12 April 1917, as part of the opening phase of the British-led Battle of Arras, a diversionary attack for the French Nivelle Offensive. The Canadian objective was to take the German-held high ground along an escarpment at the northern end of the offensive. Supported by a creeping barrage, the Canadians captured most of the ridge on 9 April. The town of Thélus fell on the 10th, as did the crest of the ridge once the Canadians overcame a salient of considerable German resistance. The final objective, a fortified knoll near Givenchy-en-Gohelle, fell to the Canadians on 12 April, and the Germans retreated to the Oppy–Méricourt line. Canadian success is attributed to technical and tactical innovations, meticulous planning and training, and powerful artillery support, and the failure of the Germans to properly apply their new defensive doctrine. For the first time all four divisions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force fought together and the battle remains a Canadian symbol of achievement and sacrifice; the battleground now contains the Canadian National Vimy Memorial. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Links
Is there a way of linking sections of a page to sections of another? Keith-264 (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's ok I've worked it out thanks. I can replace the verbiage in the main and Pilckem articles with links now. Do you mind having a look to decide what you want to retain?Keith-264 (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is the text you are suggesting? I'm not entirely certain that both the main page and the Pilckem page require the same level density but I am curious to see a standardization approach.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I duplicated the material I put into the Pilckem page here Tactical development on the Western Front in 1917 so I can take it back out (or revert to the page before I meddled) and leave a link to the appropriate section (now that I've worked out how).Keith-264 (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

reverting red links
I was about to create the page for the War Purchasing Commission, nonetheless, reverting pages just because they have red links is counterproductive. NorthernThunder (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are creating the page by all means reinsert the link, was just following WP:REDLINK. I didn't see anything in your edit history to suggest you had one in the works in a sandbox.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Pilckem
I have (at last) got the separate page on tactical changes in 1917 in a reasonable state so have removed a lot of the verbiage parked on the Pilckem page. Do you mind having a look to see if its satisfactory? Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have a higher resolution version of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Poelcappelle_-_barrage_map.jpg I'm trying to compare it with the one on Passchendaele I, thanks Keith-264 (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, been on a it of a wiki hiatus while dealing with home renos. I will have a look and see if I can find the original source if the file. I pulled it off the web somewhere but I don't suspect that there is a larger image. However, I will still have a look and see if I can find it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded a couple images, including a somewhat larger image of the barrage map. I have started pulling the online war diary records of the Australians as they seem to have large number of maps included. I already have approx. a dozen more to upload.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Would you mind looking at 1st Passchendaele when you've got a mo? Keith-264 (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Historiography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keith-264/sandbox2 contains a piece on Pilckem Ridge 31 July 1917 and the OH which I fear got a bit out of hand. It's too big to use as a note and has some analysis in it not from a published source, (about the absence of published sources). Is it Wiki enough? Thanks, Keith.Keith-264 (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Weather data
Added weather data from McCarthy as a note to each page.Keith-264 (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

2nd P
No problem, the source is a library book so I've had to be quick. The 2P page has a substantial difference to the others, since it incorporates four attacks. If I find anything else I'll put it on the talk page instead for you to consider. I've been synchronising the other pages but again, that's not definitive, it's more an excercise in removing overlaps and repetition. The stuff in "Subsequent operations" might be better placed in the next page under "Offensive preparations". Any thoughts? Keith-264 (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

PS I copied your sfn format for references which seems to have worked this time. Keith-264 (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)