User talk:Keith-264

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Keith-264/Archive 1

Sandbox

Sandbox2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Note

[[1]]

Material moved to archiveKeith-264 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Who you looking at?

Blockquotes[edit]

I revised the article on the Battle of Cambrai to show quotations because it's not obvious that it's a quote

You undid this saying block quotes don't require quote marks. Wiki has an article on block quotations which show how a block quote is set apart from the article - they give an example of a quote in a shaded box. They give an accompanying explanation, viz "In typesetting, block quotations can be distinguished from the surrounding text by variation in typeface (often italic vs. roman), type size, or by indentation. Often combinations of these methods are used, but are not necessary. Block quotations are also visually distinguished from preceding and following main text blocks by a white line or half-line space.[3]" (Ibid.)

Would you like to format the quote as such? Montalban (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I had a look after the revert and redid it as a {{quote|text}} so it's indented. OK?

Ooh-er[edit]

I don't like it, sir . . .

It's too quiet.

Architect: (X has suddenly disappeared from his meeting with the architects at the car park building) It's very rude to disappear like that. Where can he possibly be?

Architect: (Sounds of police cars converging on the car park can be heard below) I have an awful feeling we're not going to get our fees on this job.


"Ah. Movie references." Btw, why is my edit all wonky?

Ooh-er Mr[edit]

I don't like it, sir . . .

It's too quiet.

Architect: (X has suddenly disappeared from his meeting with the architects at the car park building) It's very rude to disappear like that. Where can he possibly be?

Architect: (Sounds of police cars converging on the car park can be heard below) I have an awful feeling we're not going to get our fees on this job.


"Ah. Movie references." Btw, why is my edit all wonky?

new section[edit]

test

Ooh-er[edit]

I don't like it, sir . . .

It's too quiet.

Architect: (X has suddenly disappeared from his meeting with the architects at the car park building) It's very rude to disappear like that. Where can he possibly be?

Architect: (Sounds of police cars converging on the car park can be heard below) I have an awful feeling we're not going to get our fees on this job.


"Ah. Movie references." Btw, why is my edit all wonky?

Ooh-er Mr[edit]

I don't like it, sir . . .

It's too quiet.

Architect: (X has suddenly disappeared from his meeting with the architects at the car park building) It's very rude to disappear like that. Where can he possibly be?

Architect: (Sounds of police cars converging on the car park can be heard below) I have an awful feeling we're not going to get our fees on this job.


"Ah. Movie references." Btw, why is my edit all wonky?

new section[edit]

test

All right.[edit]

I heard you the first time. Hengistmate (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes dad, I'd used nowiki but forgot the /nowiki at the end. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Treasure Hunt.[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brumby

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trainspotting_%28film%29

Hengistmate (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

1st Ypres[edit]

Hi Keith.

The year 1914 certainly looks better for your efforts. I may have created a bit of imbroglio on 1st Ypres. Attempting a chronologic structure was perhaps not the best idea and I think the detail has 'over-cooked' the article. I would certainly not have written that way now it as I did in 2008/9.

Anyway, to your question. I think that pivotal to the 1914 campaign was the Battle for Lens and Arras. As with Ypres, I think the Germans missed on opportunity here. I think the developing threat to the Lens-Arras-Ypres line could be exploited in separate articles. These battles and fronts decided the fate of the channel ports. It is my belief that the German army failed to sufficiently coordinate their army groups to break this line. I don't think the lack of resources excuse (sometimes given) applies to the Germans here. I think they had significant superiority in numbers and resources in the north. There is plenty of scope for the Battle of Arras 1914 which could go beyond supplying a narrative of the battle. I think these three battles expose the core problem of the German approach to war in the West; demonstrating that they had no clear strategy after the failure to capture Paris and that their operational behavior reflected this post First Marne. This was also true of the Allies, at least in 1914. Although the Allied behavior was governed principally by what they wanted to deny the enemy on the defensive, rather than achieve on the offensive. At least they learned. By 1918, there had been no discernible learning curve at the strategic or operational level in the German army. Dapi89 (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Eythenkew! You've not done bad yourself. Battle of La Bassée I have had a dash at this as the sources are limited so I should be quick for a change. ;O) The narrative taken from Beckett is here User talk:Keith-264/sandbox5 which since it's derivative of the OH, means I can weave in the unit details and anecdotes. I decided that I would move north like that shark in Jaws so that the 1st Ypres page can get the frighteners as I get closer. Unfortunately the inter-library loan I got of GOH 1914 I expired before I sacked it for these actions.

User:Keith-264/sandbox5 has the outline of a 1st Ypres page with the three battles proper on separate pages, which could simplify it while keeping the detail. I'm interested in the Arras gig because I'd like to do the lot from 1914-1918 like this Second Battle of Artois but even English language stuff is limited, some even have a "Second Battle" in 1914. The Record of Battles has Operations in Flanders, 1914 (10 October - 22 November) but that's just the British contribution.Keith-264 (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ball ache isn't it?
Basic principle; flog the sh1t out of the sources on sub-pages to give 'em plenty of detail (and justification for existing) and then be sickeningly concise on 1st Ypres.
Can't think of anything content-wise that will help. Dapi89 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Btw, I like the new one much better. Dapi89 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Glad to hear it, some of the early stuff needs a CE to remove overlaps and I may redo the Analysis somewhat but I think that before I add it to the article space I need to put the material about the battles into the other draft pages so that they can go on at the same time (in outline at least).Keith-264 (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Schlieffen Map[edit]

Can you fill me in on this obsolete thing this article has going on? (It will help me stay on-message and not add irrelevant info) RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

There's quite a lot on the talk page but in short, a false view of German strategy was propagated by many German writers after the war to excuse the failure of 1914. The map you added is a diagram of this false view, which is described in the Obsolete Analyses section. The big French retreat was foreseen as a possibility before the war by German planners, as was the sequel of a French revival from Verdun to Rheims to Paris. It's nice to know that someone reads this stuff. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Marne[edit]

Hi casualties seem somewhat askew, aside from awkward comparison found the following: There were 12,733 British casualties, including 1,700 dead. Source: Sumner, Ian. The First Battle of the Marne 1914: The French 'miracle' halts the Germans, Osprey Pub., 2010, ISBN 9781846035029, p. 89, "...according to the British Official History... .Tttom1 (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I raised a sceptical eyebrow when I wrote it but the BOH volume doesn't tabulate casualties in an obvious way.Keith-264 (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I see you've done a lot of excellent work on WWI articles and in a couple, like 1st Aisne, the section on the battle of the Marne is larger and more developed than in Battle of the Marne article. With the 100th anniversary coming up perhaps you can get Marne up to speed very soon with the others by moving some of that over - it is the Big Dog of 1914 after all (I'm told one has to cite a wp source article, see: Meeting internal copyright on my talk page)Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.Tttom1 (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Keith. I recently reordered the chronology of the section on the Battle of the Frontiers, and noticed that you had also made key contributions. I was confused to read your opinion of my edit, however: "Reintegrated disintegrated paragraphs. Using chronology as a criterion instead of geography substitutes one partial criterion for another." I find this historiographical stance confusing when we are describing a series of events that each had direct causal effects upon each other, despite occurring in different geographical areas. Prior to editing the section, the reader was introduced to the Battle of Mulhouse and the defeat at Sarrebourg, the recapture of Mulhouse by the French, and the recapture of Mulhouse by the Germans, all before the fall of Liege and the arrival of the BEF. According to the article, the Germans conduct and are held during an offensive in the Vosges mountains on the 24th August, before they conduct their Lorraine offensive on the 20th, and their Ardennes offensive on the 19th, and so on. The section finally ended with the French Fifth army digging in on the Sambre and the British at Mons, waiting for the German assault, all seemingly none the wiser to events that had happened elsewhere and with no reference to events that were going to happen later in the campaign, and giving the mistaken impression to a casual reader that they constituted the final phase of the battle. I did not think this was a summary that the casual reader could readily comprehend. You can review this version at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Battle_of_the_Marne&oldid=620998407 I hope that you will understand why I made the amendments that I made, that they were merely intended to facilitate comprehension, and that we can form a consensus that recognises the relevance of a clearer chronological narrative that can also, as your note emphasises, highlights events as they impacted front by front.Ethdhelwen (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It is difficult to narrate events spread over such a wide area coherently, I found that describing events day by day had the narrative leaping all over the French-German, French-German-Luxembourg, German-Belgian and French-Belgian borders - coherent chronologically and geographically incoherent, so I decided to try it in geographical sections, which became coherent as to place and incoherent as to time. Having seen your edits I thought the chronology was clearer and the geography vaguer. I don't think there's a right way to present the information given contradictory criteria but perhaps starting with a short explanation of how events hundreds of miles apart were symbiotically linked but difficult to describe would help? I parachuted those sections in from other articles, so was by no means satisfied that they were good enough for the specific Marne page but am busy elsewhere (Messines Armentieres and Ypres as part of my attempt to finish work off) so I have in mind something which is a better synthesis of time and place - perhaps by explicitly sectioning areas so that the narrative within can be based on chronology? Since I can't devote the time the article needs, I'll lay off drive-by edits and see how things go but If you want me to take a look, leave a message on the talk page. Thanks for taking the trouble to discuss things. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
PS it occurs that the Lorraine and Ardennes divisions in the historiography might do the trick, since they already exist and already have Wiki pages?Keith-264 (talk) 06
22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

A virtuous circle?[edit]

Ah! Thank you for your thanks! Xyl 54 (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It's the least I can do for so many typos. I found the land instead of lang error but thought I'd got them all. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits to Fokker Scourge[edit]

Cleanups like this are hard to do well - and require intelligent reading of the context rather than just cutting out words and phrases that superficially seem to be "redundant". Your edits to this article work very well - good to have the faults in my sometimes rather prolix style tightened up so neatly. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you approve, people are going through my recent efforts and picking up some real howlers. I added the links to the RAF OH and Neumann as I think both have useful material on the period. I hadn't realised that part of the "Scourge" was a public relations manoeuvre, so thanks for writing such a good article. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Women writers Invitation[edit]

Marywollstonecraft.jpg

Hello Keith-264! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia.

If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

Hi Keith, I went through the edit histories of the women writer biography FAs and GAs that are currently listed on the project's talkpage and apparently you made some edits on one of those articles as I don't know of you otherwise... but pleased to meet you now. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Capture of Schwaben Redoubt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[File:ZK-BFR IMG 3379-Edit.jpg|thumb|<center>B.E.2f A1325 (2009)</center>)]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Capture of Le Quesnoy (1918)[edit]

Gidday Keith, thanks again for your additions to this article. I nominated it for a GA review and a couple of comments have come up here regarding the strength/casualties/pow/garrison numbers. These seem to have come from your Edmond & Maxwell-Hyslop ref; are you able to take a look at the comments and confirm the numbers for me? Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance! The article has been passed as a GA. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Well done yourself ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Operation Michael[edit]

Keith, I notice that you have reverted my change to Operation Michael. I removed the geographical coordinates as they are irrelevant to such a wide-ranging battle. The battle was not confined to St. Quentin. Hamish59 (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer it if you replaced them with a wider ranging coordinate than rejecting them out of hand, it seemed to me to be an unconstructive edit.Keith-264 (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I decided to take my advice and found a way to get a coordinate for a wider area than a city. I left a note on the talk page; see what you think.Keith-264 (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

cat[edit]

That is a very handsome looking cat. DocumentError (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

harv harvid[edit]

AFAIK it does, but it is also case sensitive "RAF staff" and "RAF Staff", and as "RAF staff" is not a name but a description, I think "staff" ought to remain lower case. -- PBS (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair 'nuffKeith-264 (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Antwerp (1914)[edit]

Thanks for reverting my edit here Keith - I hadn't noticed that it was the style used throughout the article :o Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorting the Somme[edit]

Keith, I've looked at Category:Battle of the Somme and note that Regina Trench is now filed under 'A' so that it can be next to Ancre / Ancre Heights. Please note that this is meaningful to an expert in the Battle of the Somme (not myself), but renders the Regina Trench article unlocatable within the category for the inexpert reader. While going out of order is a good idea in some circumstances, e.g. 'Order of Battle for the Battle of X' should be filed under X so that it goes next to the Battle of X article, in general it needs an overriding reason for moving articles out of order. Also please note my colon prefix in the Category link above to avoid categorising your talk page within the Somme. Thanks, Ian 81.159.157.209 (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I expected it to go under R for Regina, which is why I referred to you for an opinion. Several of the titles have been moved in the last few weeks, as I've filled in the unwritten and part-written articles to conform to the Nomenclature Committee titles and some don't have DEFAULTSORT labels so I thought that some reorganising might be called for. When I tried nothing happened (at first), Regina seems to have migrated from "C" somewhat later than my attempt to move it to "R"; it's rather perplexing, thanks for your patience.Keith-264 (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to David Lodge (author) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • a major theme. ''[[The British Museum Is Falling Down]]'' (1965) and ''[[How Far Can You Go?]]'' (1980; published in the US as ''[[Souls and Bodies]]'', examine the difficulties faced by orthodox

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Keith-264. You have new messages at Jprg1966's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

UK Casualties and Mixed martial arts[edit]

We really need a reliable source to explain the differences in UK casualty figures in WW1. The War Office, the CWGC, the General Annual Report of the British Army 1912–1919 and the 1931 Medical Report all have different figures that readers on Wikipedia can review and make their own judgments. We can only hope that Colonel Blimp will brew up a pot of tea and sort this out for us. I hope that all is well with you. Tonight I will be going to see a Mixed martial arts match here in New York with a crew from Poland. Cheers--Woogie10w (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not been able to find a source that explains the differences between the sources for UK WW1 casualty figures. The chaps at Naval and Military press that put together that update of Soldiers that died in the Great War 1914-1919 should have provided an reconciliation. My hunch is that the difference is related to losses of forces stationed in the UK and the Royal Naval Division. In any case, the figure for RN losses of 32,287 and the losses of 876,084 in the 1931 Medical report page 12 [2] is equal to the War Office figure of 908,371 for total dead, this indicates to me that the number was forced since they did not provide details of that figure. --Woogie10w (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Keith-264. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

--Woogie10w (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

World War I Resources[edit]

The Pritzker Military Museum & Library has a strong holdings on WWI. The staff and volunteers want to help improve Wikipedia. Please feel free to use our resources in doing so. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

BBC[edit]

Hi Now I am listening to BBC World Service [3] The War that changed the World--Woogie10w (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)