User talk:Mrg3105/Archive 11

Petersburg (Lada) class submarine
I assume Petersburg (Lada) class submarine is what you're talking about? I boldly redirected that one because redirects are cheap and it doesn't seem too unlikely a search term. I'll probably do the same for Severodvinsk (Graney) class submarine. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Belgrade Offensive
Hi, Mgr! I am sorry, but I am unable to grant your request. Full protection of articles is reserved for a very limited number of situations, and pending RfC is not one of them. In general, articles are fully protected only when they are heavily vandalized or when a revert war is going on with no signs of stopping (see WP:PROT for details). Even then, full protection is applied for as short a term as possible. Since there is no ovbious vandalism to the article in question, and the only revert war going on is the one you yourself are involved with, the best course of action is to leave the article as is (at least as far as the part being contended is concerned) until additional sources become available. Note that if you choose to continue with the reverts, you are more likely to get yourself blocked rather than to have the argument resolved.

Again, sorry for not being of much help with this. I hope you'll be able to hunt down the sources which will help resolve the discussion and improve the article, and I wish you best of luck in this endeavor. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 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) 01:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

110th Rifle Division
Two issues here.

1. I've just done an edit which will hopefully make it clear why the other two divisions were mentioned in the Konigsberg assault; the 110th was probably in the same corps (I'll have to check the online BSSA, I think) with the 153rd on one side and the 324th on the other.

2. Perecheni. I assume the list No.5 that you sourced that data from came from the rkkaonline (?) site where Craig Crofoot and his colleagues have helpfully been putting them up on the web. If so, would you mind inserting a link to the appropriate page?

3. Thanks in advance and regards Buckshot06(prof) 06:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm not sure what happened, but when I came to the end of the article there were these two disassociated division that seemingly bore no relationship to the 110th. Is it not better to include that information in theBattle of Königsberg article?
 * Craig sent me my own copy of Perecheni. I thought I did add the pages (54-55)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 06:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) BSSA says all three divisions formed part of 69th Rifle Corps, 50th Army. It said, on the right (flank) was one division, and on the left (flank) was the other. In other words, 69th Rifle Corps had three divisions advancing side by side. BSSA doesn't list any other rifle divisions as part of the corps, so the corps or army commander was happy enough with the situation have the rifle formations advance in only one echelon, though the second echelon may have held mechanised or tank formations. We have no article on either 69 Corps or 50th Army yet, so I thought it best to just leave the data where it was, until we do so. (2) Thanks for the clarification on the source. If the file is on the web somewhere, would you mind adding the link anyway? Buckshot06(prof) 07:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Try and work the tactical/operational data if you come across it into the relevant article if one exists. The 69th Rifle Corps did not participate in the assault on Kongsberg a such, but occupied a sector of the front that support the main two-pronged assaults from behind a series of stream and canal linked lakes to the east of the city opposite the German 367th Infantry division (supported by dug-in tanks/sp guns). The Corps was reinforced by a tank brigade, a light sp regiment (SU-76 judging by the serial), and a guards heavy sp regiment (i.e. SU-152s), so probably felt safe enough to forego defence in depth. You can see the deployment here
 * I lost my links when my pc crashed. Perecheni is here, but require djvu file recognition capability. The way to view them is to install on own pc.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 07:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Adamnajjarian
Looks like simple vandalism to me. If he continues like that, he'll get his standard warnings and then be blocked; perhaps indefinitely (as a vandalism-only account). I'll keep an eye on the article. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up
I see what you mean, Mrg3105. I've been trying to add assessment capabilities to the template, and it took me a couple of tries on the template to get to a point where I thought it was error-free (see Template:WikiProject Soviet Union to have a look at what I thought was finished). Upon receiving your message, I checked the Talk:Soviet Union page, and sure enough, something has gone haywire. I'll check out the problem right away, but I am a relative novice when it comes to formating templates, so any suggestions or help you could offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! TFCforever (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the problem is with the coding on the template, not with the individual tags themselves. If I can fix the main template, everything else will be fine.  I'm just trying to add a capability that wasn't there before.  In the meantime, I'm moving my work from the template to a sandbox, and reverting my edits on the template.  This should fix the problem, but please let me know if it doesn't.  TFCforever (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it has worked. Are you still experiencing any problems?  TFCforever (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to be ok now, thank you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 22:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories
Just a thought following the category discussion, which I wanted to put to you. If you've got a number of articles planned, or had planned earlier, that did not fit into the existing WW II categories, one of the options you would have had was to write them, one by one, and simply place them in the root category initially. Given you had a ordering scheme already in your head, once there were four or five of them there they might, by their naming, have suggested new categories (my experience is with things like military units, where once there's four or five brigades in the 'Military units and formations of Foo' main category, one creates 'Brigades of Foo'). That would have created a precedent, and you could have created the appropriate category for those five, or two categories, or whatever. Thus creating the categories when the appropriate articles had appeared that might go in them. That doesn't apply now, of course, but reading your and Roger's last statements I wanted to leave the thought with you. Buckshot06(prof) 01:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not unreasonable as suggestions go, but did you see the state of the root category before I started creating categories? It had become a dumping ground for any article author who could not be bothered to find the accurate category cognate for the article subject.
 * There is an added issue I had refrained from mentioning as yet - across the subject area consistency. If I write an article on a given topic concerning for example the Red Army, I want to see what treatment it received from other editors, for example the New Zealand Army, and achieve some sort of parity in coverage, presentation and formatting - the desire to promote reference work uniformity. Depositing my new articles into the root category would be singularly unhelpful in the process of authoring, and the reason why I had recently encountered at least two cases of article duplication in the new article maintenance "patrol". I'm sorry if I sound uncompromising and unreasonable, but I would rather do something right from the start, then having to wait for it to be redone at a later stage.
 * You do realise that the minimum number of articles to justify having a category is two? I had only created subcategories that had at least one article existing, but I am confident of finding others for every category I create with the exception of the five 2nd tier subcategories to the root that should be kept mostly free of articles except maybe a main article offering the overviews from disciplinary perspectives.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 02:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

World War II
Many of the points you bring up I'm attempting to redress by rewriting the last section "Impact of the War". If you check here you can see my current proposal. Oberiko (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

CSD criteria
Hi, I've answered your note re the CSD criteria for nonsense on my talk page. Kevin (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

People of the United States of America
What is your doubt as stated in the edit summary? Ultra! 20:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I had not read it right through, but even the opening seems highly unencyclopaedic "The people of USA are whites, blacks, natives and other foreign emigrants"--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 21:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Town stubs
Thank you for your input. I was actually looking for the opinion of a geographic names specialist, rather than yours as a non-specialist, however. Buckshot06(prof) 23:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So who is the 22nd Special-Designation Air Regiment? 22 SAS by any chance, a translation of the name rather than a translation of the purpose? Buckshot06(prof) 00:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, so it seems. I got a bit confused because had never heard of this designation in Russian before, and it turns out its a Russian translation of a former member of the 22 SAS--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 00:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say, in the nicest possible way, that you sometimes don't check your potential links to well. You wrote that article Aviation Division just after aviation regiment, and I had to come back today and link the two articles you wrote at the same time together. Please take a little more time looking for the correct links - WP:Quick Index is sometimes good; you can search from the exact 'Avia--' or whatever. Cheers. Buckshot06(prof) 08:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I try to link whatever I can think of at the time. Sometimes I go back, but by the same token, I am not he only editor in Wikipedia and others, including yourself, also have other ideas on what needs to be linked and what not. There are people who think that overlinking is not good, and others who jam as many into and article as they can. If you think I missed something, please help yourself. I just don't like you making comments about my editing, and following my edits like I am the only one producing articles.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 08:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't take the suggestion of using WP:Quick index for anything more than an advisory. I'm only trying to alert you to a useful tool. I'm interested in your statement above, because it seems to conflict with your repeated statements about making 'wikipedia a quality reference work,' and 'I'm not here to make friends, only to improve the encyclopedia' - which would imply you'd at least be happy to receive constructive comments. Are you not interested in suggestions that improve editors' knowledge? Buckshot06(prof) 10:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll use it, but I find it too unwieldy. What I meant is to use good sources. BTW, do we cover mythical wars Æsir-Vanir War?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 10:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I'd encourage you to give it a try a couple of times when you're pretty sure there are articles on or near the subject. Um, my take on the scope guidance would be that that was out-of-scope, but check the wording yourself on the main Milhist page if you're unsure. Oh, and by the way, my respect for you has gone up a notch. I was expecting a multi-paragraph angry response; instead you've responded reasonably positively to a suggestion. Buckshot06(prof) 10:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Re removal of Judaism-stub
What is the point of 2 stubs that put the stub into the same subject: Judaism? Also later I'll be counting the Kabbalah stubs to see if there are 60 so they can have their own stub category. Kathleen.wright5 07:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't get this
cf this edit - what, exactly, is the use of changing a "references" section to read "external links" and then tagging the article as "...does not cite any references or sources"? It seems to be entirely circular. Shimgray | talk | 11:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see what you're getting at, and in a perfect world I'd agree, but in the context of a short, single-sourced article like this I think you're being too strict. What we conventionally require for references is just that it be sourced to somewhere else, and that source be given and named; what you seem to want is us to trace that back to whatever source it initially came from. In other words - is the website in and of itself a valid secondary source, or is it merely of value inasmuch as it summarises what the original source (the regimental history, etc) says, and should it only be treated as an adjunct of that original source? [In this specific case, of course, what we're doing is quoting someone's not-very-clearly-sourced original resarch, not even a summarised source...]
 * I lean heavily towards the former - it may not be a particularly good secondary source, but it's the one I used, for want of anything better, and the article should reflect that. Remarking the references as simply external links is actually a disservice to the reader - it's no longer apparent that these are the sources from which the article was created, and so we lose that part of the audit trail. Being able to say with confidence that an article was created from a shaky source is in many ways better than not being able to say where it came from... Shimgray | talk | 12:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (PS: I went to check what the MOS says, since I tend to find it develops weird changes after a while and I might have been wrong, but it currently notes that "Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be ... linked as references ... Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section." So once they've been used as sources, keep 'em in references, seems to be the way of things.) Shimgray | talk | 12:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on the vagaries of the MOS! I'm a little confused, though - are you seriously contending that a Wikipedia article is only of value if it contains information not easily findable? I disagree entirely - by recasting even simple information into our form, by placing that page within our structure and our web of articles, it becomes intrinsically more useful, through crosslinks etc. But also through its expandability.
 * Yes, that simple information can be extended, expanded, corrected, annotated, and I have every faith someone will. But there's no need to do it immediately - if I had gone digging further, I'd have filed the draft away and forgotten about it, left it as another unfinished start on an article. Far better to have something in place, something productive and beneficial to the encyclopedia to come out of my half-hour or so of evening boredom. A short summary article, a note on the sources used to write it, and I'm happy to leave the rest for future writers. (I am confident that those writers will come, and that having the framework there is a benefit to them; I won't bore you with my reasoning here, it can get lengthy)
 * I do want to reiterate the sources thing, though - just because "better" sources may be available for a subject, it doesn't mean we shouldn't give the sources used. I've seen this business before, tagging an article as unreferenced because the sources aren't up to someone's standards, and it annoys me greatly. Shimgray | talk | 13:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In a way I agree, and I actually intended to add lots of stubs when I begun to actively edit last year, but have changed my mind after finding there are 196 pages of stubs! On of my undertakings is to intercept articles as they come into the project on daily basis and reference them at least a bit. If I can do this for a while, maybe the other editors will get a chance to tackle the mountain of stubs. Ultimately though the goal is not only to add information to wiki (quantity), but to make wikipedia trusted as a reference source (quality). Still, we all do what we do, so if you can add the stubs, great. The problem is that in reality the links you call references do not in the end qualify based on what is called a reference in the publishing world. If the article is not tagged unreferenced, it is not in the 196 pages, so there is even less of a chance to have it referenced until someone finds it and feels so inclined.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 13:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But this is the problem! They're sources, plain and simple - they're the place from which the information for the article was gathered. So we list them as the references. They don't stop being the sources for that article just because better ones could potentially (hypothetically?) be found... being good ones is nice, and it benefits the articles, but really it's a bonus not a cast-iron necessity.
 * I am all for encouraging people to improve the quality of articles, but surely there are ways to do this that don't involve claiming articles are worse than they are? Shimgray | talk | 14:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It may not be an issue for tank battalions, but verifiability of sources is of primary concern elsewhere, and so is the consistent approach to all articles. "...in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."
 * A website is not a published source--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 14:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: McCain infobox
You need to make your case on Talk:John McCain, where others can see it, not on my talk page. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, but meanwhile I'm trying to figure out why the references are not working. Don't use the repetitive style usually, and when I just did it all went weird--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 14:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

'Anti-aircraft warfare'
Are you aware that this article is actually just about AA guns and missiles? It's misnamed, and doesn't even try to cover air defence in general. We could really use an article on the greater context - might suit your flair for military theory - but this one is all about AA guns and missiles, rather than the whole thing. Air defense/Air defence should redirect elsewhere, or be raised from stub status to an article. Buckshot06(prof) 01:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought something was amiss, but no time to read the lot. The article should be named Air defence and the warfare part being the doctrine of using the systems (there is a part called tactics). How does the article deal with gunnery and missiles, but not their radars?! Interceptor units always worked with gunners even before radars for advanced warning, so not sure how the two can be disassociated either. If you want to move it to Air defence, be my guest--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I wasn't clear. The article should be named something like 'anti-aircraft guns and missiles.' That is what it covers at the moment. The whole intricate complex of 'air defence,' is much broader than that, as your edits indicate. Air Defence belongs at a separate article - (which I was suggesting you might want to start), covering fighter aviation, long range radar, as well as a mention of AA guns. The other thing that ties it to ground based AA systems is that they're PVO of the Ground Forces, not just V-PVO, to use russian terminology. Buckshot06(prof) 01:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on, just looking for a Canadian roundel for WWII--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok so there are now two categories that require main articles


 * Category:Air Defense - includes organisations (national and formations/units), histories (unit and operations), doctrines, system types/classes
 * Category:Anti-aircraft weapons - specific weapon types from infantry firing from trenches to Missile defense (Anti-missile defence?!)


 * So you are proposing to use the intro I rewrote for the main article of the former, and the rest? The AD cannons and ADA are very different things, and the missiles are just completely different technology altogether of course.
 * Anti-aircraft warfare is really Anti-aircraft warfare doctrines
 * Category:Anti-aircraft weapons needs a main category/article Air Defence systems to include both Category:Anti-aircraft weapons and Category:Military radars (of course not all radars are AD) as Category:Air Defence radars
 * The rest need to be in categories/articles Category:Infantry anti-aircraft weapons (inc. portable SAMs), anti-aircraft autocannons (and Autocannon) (maybe will need separate ground and air articles), Category:anti-aircraft artillery (don't like "guns", maybe will separate static and mobile articles), anti-aircraft missiles (maybe need separate static, mobile, and AA articles), air defence fighter interceptors (maybe will need separate prop and jet articles), Category:air defence radar networks, Category:air defence support radars
 * Also need Category:Air Defence organisations, Category:History of Air Defence
 * I'll see if I can find my work on altitudes--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 06:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've got no such big ambitions - I just know that article is inaccurately named and that you've just written a good intro for Air Defence. I can quite happily split your intro into that new article, figure out a new name for the existing one, and let you get back to the Eastern Front - and maybe finding the odd regiment for me; any ideas where the 60 OShAP, formerly in Azerbaijan in 1991, went? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 06:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Aviation regiments
I'm trying to track down a little more about the 176 иап, Миха Цхакая/Georgia, Миг-29, which was in 34 VA in the ZKVO in 1991, but apparently moved to the Siberian Military District. Can you find out when and to which airfield from the Russian sources? Buckshot06(prof) 06:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't find it immediately. You got this from Lenski?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 07:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't expect you to find it immediately. From Vad777. Buckshot06(prof) 07:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Æsir-Vanir War assessment
Hello. Recently, you made this assessment at the Æsir-Vanir War article:. Would you be more specific? I'd like to improve the article and I've checked it against your assessment chart and it seems to meet all requirements. bloodofox: (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm no expert on the subject, but it seems to me that such an important part of the eda needs to be far more sourced then just the four you have there. Maybe I have high standards, but I see at least three different sources for each section in any article as a minimum. Also, the images seem very modern depictions of the subject.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Response at: Talk:Æsir-Vanir War bloodofox: (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

HMS Carrere (1801)
I'm afraid I don't have access to the sources you've added. Surely it was Muiron that carried him and Carrere that escorted? Bonaparte can't have gone all the way with one foot in each ship? :-) Neddyseagoon - talk 16:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It was not a case of escorting. Bonaparte was not alone, and probably both ships were required to take all his staff, their baggage and escorts, in all close to 100 people. The escort was provided by two xebecs that are also named in the source I provided. Have you tried looking for the sources I have provided? They are available on Google books which I try to use when possible given the relationship between Google and Wiki. I am well aware of which ship Bonaparte was in, but had no sourced references. On short notice I did not have a source to say that he and his entourage were in a particular ship, but if you have one, just add it. However it would be more appropriate to add to the article on La Muiron. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 21:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sudom Uplands
Nope, no such plans. In general, I limit my editing activities to populated places (which is quite a handful as it is). If you occasionally catch me editing an article about some other geographical feature, this is either because I needed that article for disambiguation purposes or it was in such horrible condition I just couldn't ignore it :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, can I ask that we collaborate on these? I will need quite a few done for the Second World War articles covering all of European USSR--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RN stations
I haven't reverted your reverts yet, but they are incorrect. Roskill may be capitalising some titles, as was informal practice within the Royal Navy, but the titles are, for example, for the Mediterranean, the Mediterranean Fleet, or even more strictly, Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean. Check the list of commands at http://www.admirals.org.uk/appointments/fleets/index.php - as 'Commands' they're neither named correctly, nor Second World War temporary formations; check also the articles linked from the page, which are helpful. Buckshot06(prof) 06:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If I am wrong, then you will have to show sources for that. So far as I'm concerned the Commands were correlated to RAF commands in Roskill, and so are not just "commands". There seems to be a lot more stations then Commands also, and the Fleets are in a different appendix. The Mediterranean Command is also mentioned by Churchill, so I don't know how you can say it didn't exist, although I may be confusing the RN and the Allied Mediterranean Commands--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 06:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How do I know? Because for fifteen years while you've been looking at the Eastern Front and myriads of Soviet data, among other things, I've been looking at the Royal Navy. Take a look at the list of commanders-in-chief I've given you via the British admirals website, and do a few comparative websearches for 'Command' as opposed to 'Commander-in-Chief.' Every one of these Commander-in-Chief existed well before the war, and in several cases, long after it. The list from the British admirals website is taken from the Navy Lists, and I'll look the later ones out from the Defence Library (if they haven't been sent to Trentham or somewhere). Take my word for it (though I will back this up with sources as I get them): these are Commanders-in-Chief, they're definitely not temporary, and I would lay a large bet that you cannot find any RN document (of which there are a few on the Br admirals website) listing any 'Command.' They'll all be 'Commander in Chief X' or 'Flag Officer Y'. Buckshot06(prof) 08:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, lets be clear - we are not talking about Commander-in-Chiefs. The stations were oceanographic areas (currently says geographic). Here is a record of stations from 1856, listed after the arsenals. Commands, albeit spelled commands, seemed to have been the same as far back as 1820 according to Beeler (p.26 ), and Morriss (p.96 ) seems to refer to the accounts aspect of being stations on foreign stations. Although I would understand "to be on station" to mean that a vessel is deployed at a given point of its area of operations, it seems to relate also to the actual logistic base since one can not have expenditure while at sea. Why does Stevens say that "Foreign stations were closed down"? (p.12 )

The areas of stations in the 19th century are given here but are also said to be parts of command. So what exactly was a part of the command? Seems to me they included the Fleet (with a Commander-in-Chief), and stations named after the bases, to which were later added coaling stations [Singapore as a great emporium for eastern trade, a coaling station and base for the East Indies Command, and from 1844, the China Station.] (see page 181, 	The Oxford Illustrated History of the Royal Navy, by J. R. Hill, Bryan Ranft, 1995), so named because they had to be located within range of each other to replenish vessels with coal as opposed to general provisions that could be obtained anywhere, even by a shore party. Hew Strachan in his book says that "By now the East Africa station had been transferred to the East Indies command, and administrative confusion may explain the determination of Captain F.W.Caulfeild" (Page 581, The First World War). Now clearly it was not the ocean that was transferred along, but the responsibility for the vessels operating in it, and the responsibility was not transferred to a Fleet because the Captain would have simply receive orders for transfer from one Fleet to another. In other words, his administrative command region was changed, the actual logistic assignment of his vessel, which may have been different to the operational combat rewuirements of the Fleet or squadron he was operating with. Angus Konstam and Tony Bryan say the same thing about the Repulse in British battlecruisers 1939-45, p.35. Also look at the organisation commanded by a Commander in Chief in German Capital Ships and Raiders in World War II Appendix B. So it may be I am wrong, but everything I have seen so far suggests differently.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 09:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am focussed solely on the names of the commands. Initially, for starters and because it's closest with the most information available, I'm going to remove the term 'New Zealand Command' in a few hours unless you can find any other sources apart from Roskill. Our official histories, which you must admit were written much closer to the truth on naval activities in NZ, show no mention of the 'New Zealand Command,' but many of 'Commodore Commanding the New Zealand Station,' with sometimes a variation of 'Squadron.' . I haven't found a single mention of 'New Zealand Command' in reference to NZ naval forces on the net, and neither in my two histories of the Navy in New Zealand, Grant Howard, 'The Navy in New Zealand,' AH & AW Reed, 1981, nor in J. O'C Ross, 'The White Ensign in New Zealand, AH & AW Reed, 'The White Ensign in New Zealand,' 1967.


 * It seems to me the New Zealand Command (RN) does not refer to the New Zealand Navy, but to the RN Command role/office/facility located in in New Zealand, and quite apart from the command of the New Zealand Navy. It pre-dates New Zealand as a state I think because on the 3 August 1860 during the Second Maori War the British troops in Australia were sent to fight the Maoris, and the campaign was controlled by the commander of imperial forces in Australia until the New Zealand Command was separated from Australia in 1861. The then British colony of Victoria sent its ship Victoria and about 2,500 Australians joined either the Waikato Militia Regiment or the Company of Forest Rangers in the fighting around Waikato.
 * The NZ Command also had its own Depot in UK which during the First World War was called the New Zealand Command Depot, Codford, located in Wiltshire. So it seems to me that you may be inadvertently confusing two different organisations--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're confusing Army organisations with naval ones; you'll note that the depot you're talking about, Codford, is inland, and it's wiki page gives lots of detail about Aust and NZ army troops in WW1, but nothing of the navy. Any NZ associated naval depots would be at the naval bases, Portsmouth or Plymouth or the Nore or suchlike. I found the same page you did while double-checking things. Checking the reference links that I gave will show that there was one RN/NZ naval organisation in NZ, which was definitely not duplicated - it was small enough as it was. Buckshot06(prof) 01:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case its just curious that the RN would refer to groupings of its forces that include units and shore establishments as Commands and not by the name of the commanders. As you stated before, the history of RN is not my speciality, but I had looked into its operations during Second World War on previous occasions and had seen the various commands mentioned in other books, so assumed, maybe without warrant, that the Command referred to an actual Command with a commander. I am still not convinced this was not the case for administrative purposes though the application may have been different where Commonwealth nations were concerned--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 02:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(od) As I said, many of these organisations were informally referred to as 'Commands,' and thus, for example, the forces under the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, though formally the Mediterranean Fleet, could be called the Mediterranean command, and sometimes people capitalised them. The site at the very top of this section clearly shows the various names from the Navy Lists, and I will dig out the others through the Defence Library slowly and provide the necessary sourcing. Buckshot06(prof) 02:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I thought Roskill was pretty much 100% reliable given the years it took for the history to be written, so indeed a valuable contribution on your part--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 02:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, Feskov 2004 isn't absolutely reliable; nobody's perfect! Buckshot06(prof) 02:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * True. Still, Feskov is dealing with a far more difficult subject of research, and Roskill (I thought) was pretty much accepted as the source on the RN during the Second World War. I have seen occasional typos, and once mistake in assignment of the ship's commanding officer, but nothing so major as this. These Commands are repeated throughout the volumes. I actually think they deserve an article in their own right--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 02:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, maybe in the 1950s, but not now. You ought to have heard Andrew Lambert, one of the lecturers at War Studies, go on about how Roskill's conclusions and arguments were nuanced to support the RN's needs in the post-war resource competitions between the services, and how the Atlantic could have been won much earlier if only the resources (VLR Liberators, mostly) had been reallocated earlier. Now the 'Commands' as opposed to 'commands' are not so much a mistake, but just an informal description - everyone would be aware that when Roskill referred to the Mediterranean 'Command', he was referring to either C-in-C, Mediterranean, or the RN senior officer on one of the many Allied Mediterranean commands of various types. On expansion, the current page definitely needs more sources and references, and I'll be slowly adding those, and then if necessary later bigger sections can be split out to new articles. Buckshot06(prof) 03:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean analysis offered in Roskill's volumes. Those were contributed by the Admiralty of course :) In the 1950s and 60s the people who served in the war would have been in senior positions, so it would be expected that interpretations were less then objective, as would be expected. I think this is true for most armed forces and why military historians exist. However the Commands are a definite confusion in the volumes, the assumption being they were strategic administrative commands. Has anyone actually ever questioned this?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 03:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Hundred Days
The language for the last source is Danish. --Assisting Wiki (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I c...I don't know Danish--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 12:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Civility and inappropriate accusations
You have accused me at Participants in wedding ceremonies of bad faith edits and deleting sourced material because:


 * I moved a source into an inline reference, per WP:CITE ("You should follow the style already established in an article"), and
 * created a subsection for the history, instead of leaving it mixed in with current practice.

Initially, I assumed that you must be a novice editor -- someone too inexperienced to figure out that the "deleted" reference in fact properly appeared in the ==References== section -- but I see from your talk page that you have been an active editor for a long while, and that you have received many complaints about your incivility.

I have explained my edits on the article's talk page, and I invite you to participate in a discussion there, or to apologize there for your rude and inaccurate edit summaries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Maori battles
Can you better inline-reference your new article first, before we think about hooking it up to the template? Buckshot06(prof) 06:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Its probably more then I'm prepared to do right now, and really hoping that someone else will pick that job up. I just saw the opportunity to create the list, so did it. The additions I was considering are the pre-European tribal and mythological Epos battles. I think both have a place since they are used in European histories--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 06:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Seven Archangels
I found the above article in Category:Kabbalah articles needing expert attention. This is the only article in this category so I thought you should deal with it. Kathleen.wright5 22:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Kabbalah stubs
Here's something for you and the other members of WP:Kabbalah to get into, expanding these Stubs. Most of them are Jewish Kabbalah. Kathleen.wright5 23:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)