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?

Contents

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)

Gold follow up forces[edit]

Do you have any info on follow up forces that landed on Gold or if they shut the beach down?

I ask as I noticed a few things during some reading: 1) Sword and Juno are described as being protected via water breaks whereas Gold apparently was not despite the construction of the Mulberry and Gooseberries. 2) Important divisions such as the 11th Arm landed across Sword ... despite Sword being under fire and having to be closed down by the end of June.

Finally, I feel the references used to state the 49th landed across Gold is a bit to circumstantial. Ellis states it was assigned to Gold, but other than that the next mention of the div is when it just "pops up" in Normandy. Chappell states it landed on the 12th, but doesn't specify Gold. I have been trawling Google books and JSTOR without success so far. Who would have thought the most famous invasion of all time would have so little info on when troops landed!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of my sources are out of reach except for Ellis who doesn't mention the 49th Div but has a diagram on pp 172-173, 50th Div for the landing then 7th Armd 49th Div then 33 Armd Brig (all XXX Corps). Since the 49th had not finished landing before Villers-Bocage I doubt it began to land on 6 June with the 7th Armd (p. 219) but 24,970 men landed on Gold 6 June (p. 223) The Polar Bears (Delaforce) gives 10 June on p. 31. which may be the commencement. I'll try to get to my books tomorrow.Keith-264 (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Club Route has the 7th AD landings beginning on 7 June p. 23 and the 49th Div ashore by 16 June p. 27. The Polar Bears has the 49th Div coming ashore 11-14 June, slowed by the weather, pp. 32-33. The Rise and Fall of the German Air Force has fewer than 100 sorties (70 fighter) on 6 June p. 329 and overnight 6/7 June 330 sorties, (inc 175 bomber and torpedo bomber sorties). Hope this helpsKeith-264 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

To you and yours

Weihnachtsschmuck.JPG

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 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) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear Keith-264,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Thejonesjones[edit]

HelloThejonesjones 14:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejonesjones (talkcontribs) 14:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

jonsey Comment[edit]

yoohooThejonesjones 14:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejonesjones (talkcontribs) 14:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

jonsey Comment[edit]

yoohooThejonesjones 14:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejonesjones (talkcontribs) 14:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

You've made a significant number of reverts at Battle of the Somme recently, and I'd be well within Wikipedia's SOP to block you. I've instead protected the page, and you need to start using the talk page to discuss your edits. If you do not, I will be forced to issue a block. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Been there, done that, asked for dispute resolution.Keith-264 (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia at its farcical best. Hengistmate (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's given me a headache. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

66th Division[edit]

Thanks for the recent edits. Do you have anything on the 66th in the last few days of the war? This seems to suggest they had closely attached cavalry and air (!) units at some point, and the 1914-18 page refers to a "Bethell's Force" formed on 9/11/18. I'm a little confused as to what exactly this force was - it seems to have been an advance guard to keep contact during the German retreat. It was commanded by Bethell, and presumably built around a core of units from 66th Division, but was it really the same thing? Hopefully there's something buried in the last volume... Andrew Gray (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

'Tis done.Keith-264 (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Keith. Hopefully the home stretch now - I'm about to start work on the Spring Offensive. I've a few questions you might be able to trace in the Official History, if you have a chance...
a) Did the 66th really arrive in February 1917, and do we know where they spent their time before moving to Flanders? They don't appear in the *March* order of battle, but do appear (under XI Corps, 1st Army) in the mid-April issue.

OH 1917 I p. 64 has the 66th en route to France, late February 1917

b) Relatedly, July's issue has them in XV Corps, which matches our article - but it's not given as belonging to any army. Was it independent? It's back under Fourth Army in the August issue.
  • 4th Army given command of the coast 22 May 1917, XV Corps HQ followed in June as 3rd Army extended south.
  • On 20 June, 32nd Division took over from the French XXXVI Corps from St Georges to the coast. The 66th arrived from the 1st Army to join XV Corps "before the end of June" (OH 1917 II, p. 110)
c) I believe they were attached to II Anzac Corps for Poelcappele; is this correct?
  • Yes, 66th and 49th divs joined II Anzac from the coast before 9 Oct. OH 1917 II p. 323
d) Where did they spend the winter of 1917/18? They seem to have still been with the Anzacs on 22 December, but it was moved a long way south into XIX Corps by late March. It would be good to be able to say which region they spent the winter in, even if not much happened.
Thanks!
I put several quotes from books below the assessment template which has answers to some of your questions. Bethell's Force was cited to OH 1918 V.
Very odd edit conflict there! Thanks for the notes - will get these incorporated. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Followup Q - any idea which book these are from? Page numbers but no obvious title. Edmonds? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that's Randal Grey, Campaign series no 11, Kaiserschlacht 1918: The Final German Offensive 1991 (2002 edition), Osprey, Oxford, isbn 1-85532-157-2 Keith-264 (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Just discovered the 50th Division (who do have a detailed history) were tangled up with 66th Division in late March, so that's helping flesh out a lot of the details. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Will you try to pass it off as a 2002 (edition) book rather than a 1939 publication....? ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the recent edits - just tidying them up now. I've removed the OH casualty numbers as they don't seem to add up - "(From 21 March to 5 April the division lost officers: 32 killed, 130 wounded and 178 missing and other ranks: 341 killed, 1,254 wounded and 5,088 missing, for a total of 7,023 casualties.)". Middlebrook lists 711 dead for 66th Division on 21st March alone, and all things considered I'd be more comfortable with the more recent source. A quick confirmatory check on CWGC seems to bear this out.
7023 casualties + 2500 all ranks remaining would also suggest a starting strength of 9500 men, against a paper divisional strength of ~16,000. Even allowing for it being understrength at the outset, the numbers don't quite seem right. Does he give comparable numbers for other divisions? Andrew Gray (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Middlebrook or Edmonds? I assume that the 2,500 is the remaining front-line infantry not the artillery, engineers etc and that many of the dead were counted as missing. What does the CWGC have to say about the other categories of casualty? Keith-264 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • During the day, 711 men of 66th Division had been killed; while detailed figures are not available this would suggest around 1,000 men were wounded and another 2,000 captured.[25] I think this may fall foul of OR. Keith-264 (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
First six divisions in table: 59th 807 killed, (66th here), 6th 602, 16th 572, 14th 370, 61st 361. p. 315 (no citation) Keith-264 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Splitting the points out -

  • OR - I tend to feel arithmetical inferences are okay as long as it's simple and you explain why in a footnote; this is about as far as I'm comfortable pushing it.
  • 2500 all ranks - this is from Edmonds (I think you added it originally, as I don't have that volume). Guinness quoted in Bond gives an explicit figure of 1200 rifles, which would fit reasonably well with 2500 including support elements. Can you check if Edmond specifies what the number meant?
  • CWGC - For 21/3 only, there are 163 deaths recorded for the East Lancs, 217 Lancs Fusiliers, and 302 Manchester. (This only counts the nine battalions in 66th Div, not any others). Total of 682, not counting any supporting arms - it'd take a bit more work to identify exact numbers for those, but we're well in the Middlebrook range rather than the Edmonds one. It looks like Edmonds was definitely counting a lot of killed as missing, so going with a more up-to-date figure seems reasonable. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
By late 30s the OH historians should have established the fate of the missing but it's an older source. Middlebrook didn't cite his table which is why I have reservations, although he seems to be using CWGC figures. Keith-264 (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Note I Casualties "Only the gross uncorrected figures, reported soon after events, can be given...." so I was wrong, the CWGC must have delved into the missing category. p. 488 Keith-264 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Snarky Comments[edit]

I considered hatting some of your most recent snarky comments at the dispute resolution noticeboard and decided to leave them standing. You said that the Historiography section was added over your objections, and that your "hands are tied". That sort of comment is not constructive. If you don't think that there should be a Historiography section, you can use moderated discussion to propose its removal. (In general, articles about wars usually have a Historiography section, and articles about battles sometimes have a Historiography section, because how later historians discuss the impact of wars and battles is of encyclopedic interest to the importance of those events.) You also said that your "hands were tied" about the deletion of your reference to "Anglophone monoglots", asking how else you could make the same comment in two words or less. That comment again wasn't constructive. My comment (but I have no special authority) is that sometimes using shorter words may be just as concise as using fewer words. However, if you think that a particular phrase should be used, moderated discussion is a vehicle to advocate it. Please don't use cynical or snarky language. It runs the risk of derailing the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There are no snarky comments or cynical language, that is your inference and I suggest you own it. Ed17 threatened to blacklist me, which has tied my hands over a historiography section, because I think it's unnecessary and would remove it, since it was addressed sufficiently in the Aftermath (Analysis section, subsequently truncated). That is the only part of this issue where I consider my hands tied. The phrase anglophone monoglots has already been resolved as you can see from the discussion (see: dead horse) that has already taken place and my proposed form of words in the lead. I asked a question as a side note, hence the brackets. I have exercised considerable patience and expended considerable effort to obtain a minimum of what I believe to be right for the article and have gone along with your wishes about dispute resolution, since I was the one who asked for it. This is the second time I've been singled out and I will abstain from further discussion on the DR page, article talk page and cease to edit the article if it happens again. Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015[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) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Battle of the Somme 2015[edit]

There were no hostilities on my watch, although it appears that there were before the neutral American arrived. I was pleasantly surprised by how civil the discussion was, compared to some other dispute resolution threads. There were millions fewer wounded than ninety-nine years ago, and about a million fewer killed than ninety-nine years ago. If I don't hear anything more, I will close the dispute thread as resolved (pending outcome of RFC). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Verdun.[edit]

Did you get a reply from your expert editor? Thought not. You might be surprised to learn who his grandfather was. Hengistmate (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't think so, it all went rather over my head.... Keith-264 (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

stop the edit war[edit]

If you are unable to support your mistaken edit with a RS, then stop complaining when other editors delete the nonsense. Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Dinant[edit]

Hey - Dinant is really not part of Charleroi as you claim. "Main article" templates like that are intended for sections - if you get to Battle of Dinant, the chances are you were not looking for Battle of Charleroi! —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Was too, it took place on the right flank of the 5th Army! Fair do's though it ought to be the Actions of or Affair of....Dinant, which is why I put a link on the Charleroi page. What do you suggest?Keith-264 (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
How about putting "Battle of Charleroi" in the "Part of" section of the infobox? —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
May I compliment Sir on such a stylish suggestion? Keith-264 (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015[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) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I Don't Think This Is True.[edit]

"The 1st and 2nd Provisional Brigades of the United States Tank Corps would eventually go on to provide the original cadre for what would become the 66th Armored Regiment in World War II. In September 1918 both brigades - which were attached to the 1st Infantry Division in France - participated at the Second Battle of the Somme (the second phase of the final British offensive of the war)"

Do you?

Hengistmate (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Haven't found anything yet....Keith-264 (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Operation Atlantic[edit]

I am not sure why you want to add the statement it was an allied victory here? You are aware that it did not say this before today right? "During the course of the battle, two units, the Essex Scottish Regiment and the South Saskatchewan Regiment were driven back. In the aftermath of the battle the Essex Scottish Regiment and their commanding officer were criticized for their poor performance. " Verrières Ridge remained impregnable for days beyond this articles time frame. We should not overstate things in the infobox...even the lead says "limited strategic gain" ....I would not call this a victory! -- Moxy (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I used
  • result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

as the authority. If you think it needs elaboration why not compromise with See the 'Aftermath' section as above? Keith-264 (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree it should be omitted..this is what I was doing....even the source you pointed to in your edit summary says "The attack on the ridge had gone disastrously for the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division" . As of now it says its a victory with a link to Allies of World War II...not sure how this is right or helps our readers understand. -- Moxy (talk)
Perhaps I should say more...the edit to add Allied victory was done today by an IP...we are having problems with ( see here)...victory was not there before today. -- Moxy (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know that but I've been altering the unorthodox verdicts I put in infoboxes before I read the criterion as they crop up so, thought it was a good moment to change it. See the 'Aftermath' section it is.Keith-264 (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Is that satisfactory? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Yup looks good but we should also mention how 2 unites were criticized for their poor performance as per Maker, John (2009) "The Essex Scottish Regiment in Operation Atlantic: What Went Wrong?," Canadian Military History: Vol. 18: Iss. 1, Article 3. . On a side note all should keep an eye on this IP...some time right some times wrong...an "amateur expert" I would guess-- Moxy (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I felt a bit sheepish when I saw how short the Analysis section was.... Ha! Aren't we all....;O). Is that the Maker who's doing the translation of Der Weltkrieg? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is him (John Maker Ph.D. the University of Ottawa)...his very new but has worked very closely with Tim Cook (historian) and others in this field over the years. -- Moxy (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Keith-264. You have new messages at Talk:Capture of Wurst Farm.
Message added 03:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Monty's men: casualties?[edit]

A few recent edits to the Overlord article has places a lower British/Canadian casualty figure as well as a lower overall figure than given by the OH and some historians. Looking thru Google books I am noticing the same figures. Does Buckley give any stats for the losses in Normandy, or do you have any other sources on the issue?

I am going to make up a table later with everything I find, but early indications are making me ask why the OH is wrong on this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

He gives figures by operation rather than month, which are in the articles, courtesy of me. ;O) If there are any missing, let me know and I'll look them up. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. If you look at the Overlord casualty section, it is a mess right now and conflicts of with the info box. I thought the British figure most ght have been all dead and the American ones lacking the aircrew losses, but that still leaves unaccounted numbers. As I said earlier, I will throw a table on the talk page and populate it with every stat I can find. For a GA article, it's just wrong to have three conflicting stats for overall dead.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Wire[edit]

I just stumbled across the article on the wire that you have improved. I have to admit, I had forgot why they called the border the wire. So I was pretty glad to see the article and give it a glance over. The armoured car at the wire really stands out for me since I haven't seen that photo in like 20 years! Brought back some memories of what I was a kid and obsessed with the Desert War.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Always glad to oblige ;O) I don't suppose you've got any sources or ideas on the pre-war history of Fort Capuzzo? Keith-264 (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I saw your work on that article too! Unfortunately, nope I don't have anything that covers the inter-war years in that respect. I would also be interesting to find out what happened post-war too. I will give Google Books and JSTOR a look over later on though, and see if I can dig anything up.
I wonder if anyone has access to the Italian histories, maybe that would mention something about the fort's past?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I have done some searches, and i have found zilch on the pre-war Capuzzo. Its almost like it magically pops up in 1940!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I've gleaned a little from the online pdfs and for the post war section wrote that the frontier disappeared into obscurity. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Ha! Well that does cover it. I don't suppose you have any information on the purpose of the 80th Division? JSTOR is a bust. We Shall Shock Them and British Battle Insignia pretty much repeat what Joslen says. Hart states it was a training division, whereas the article (and so far, one book that cannot be cited due to its page numbers not displaying on Google Books) imply it was a phantom division. The dig continues!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
PS: I did find The Deceivers: Allied Military Deception in the Second World War (accessible [here, by Thaddeus Holt, which has got great reviews on Amazon and is pretty the much the only book - with page numbers - that makes any significant reference to the division. However, none of the information in the book tallys with Joslen. It is active after it was disbanded, had brigades it never had. So i am not sure if the author is saying the division was retained as a phantom after it was disbanded with a whole fake OOB.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Had a look in the OH for Britain and vol I of Ellis - nothing. The 15th Division lost the 45th Brigade somewhere so there might be something in its history of where it went. Perhaps a book on Fortitude will throw some light?Keith-264 (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Keith. I have wrote up a draft on the phantom 80th (not live yet) based off some of the Fortitude books I could find. Most don't have page numbers, so the verification process now starts. It would seem while the 80th (Reserve) was active, there was a phantom 80th Infantry as part of VII Corps/Fourth Army based of Canterbury with the actual 61st doing the wireless comms. Its not a lot, but when its done it might be enough to get the article to GA.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

No barnstars please, unless they come in a bottle marked Cotes du Rhone.... Keith-264 (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Gas warfare in WW I[edit]

Glad to see that someone qualified shares my interest! I found this article on German-speaking Wikipedia, which offers some interesting facets: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Gastruppen_im_Ersten_Weltkrieg Maybe this can be of use. Best wishes, ViennaUK (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I've never had my chemistry O level complimented before ;O). Do you know about the scripts here User:Keith-264/common.js? The first on highlights harv errors and the second one shows duplicate wikilinks, so they can be taken out. It makes a pleasant change to see that someone reads my efforts! Keith-264 (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015[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) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)