Greetings from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]]! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|project coordinator]] election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2015|'''election page''']] by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military history]]! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|project coordinator]] election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2015|'''election page''']] by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:The ed17@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Members/Active&oldid=682449732 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:The ed17@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Members/Active&oldid=682449732 -->
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am pleased to award you the A-Class Medal for your great work on [[Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles]], [[80th Infantry (Reserve) Division (United Kingdom)]], and [[70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)]]. A small token of appreciation, please continue the work! Cheers, [[User:MisterBee1966|MisterBee1966]] ([[User talk:MisterBee1966|talk]]) 04:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II
Why was the link that makes articles more connected in which the link is established on the template removed? The template was added to make the articles more traversiable for the reader. Also understand that the portal allows the reader to do so. However, in this case it is easier for the viewer see other links while staying on the same page. I feel in this case the template would benefit the article. Valoemtalk14:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Per my edit summary, consensus was established on the Military History task force page a long time ago that that particular navbox was surplus to requirements and the portal should replace it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
49th Totalize
with reference to Operation Totalize, the 49th were very much involved, they were already under the command of the Canadian army, they attacked towards the South-east, capturing Vimont which was an important crossroads, they made further advances until the operation ended, then they participated in Operation Tractable.5.69.22.142 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit it has been a while since I have studied the operation (or read the article!), and can concede you are correct. So my apologies for the hasty revert.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I manually did it. Other than a comment left on the article's talkpage, there has been no feedback left on the peer review since it was opened on Wednesday. I thought it would be more productive to nominate, and await, a Good Article review. I hope this did not cause any issues?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the article says "Because Germany was not allowed to take part in the negotiations, the German government issued a protest against what it considered to be unfair demands, and a "violation of honour",[98] soon afterward withdrawing from the proceedings of peace conference." They did not "withdraw" at all. The delegation was in Paris the whole time from 29 April through 16 June, when the Allies handed over the final draft. See here [1]. I translated some of it here: Cabinet Scheidemann#Paris conference and peace treaty. Drow69 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am translating this article in French and I have a problem with one sentence you have written. "In addition, helping to restore the university library of Louvain (destroyed by the Germans on 25 August 1914) was also credited towards the sum, as were some of the territorial changes imposed upon Germany by the treaty. The payment schedule required 250 million dollars within twenty-five days and then 500 million annually, plus 26 per cent of the value of German exports. The German Government was to issue bonds at five per cent interest and set up a sinking fund of one per cent to support the payment of reparations."
I suppose that a word is missing. As far as I understand the sentence it should be "...helping to restore the university library of Louvain (destroyed by the Germans on 25 August 1914), Belgium was also credited towards the sum...". Is it correct? Thanks in advance for your help. Skiff (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Skiff,
It was the German's who benefited. Restoring the library allowed them to knock off some of the total reparations they had to pay. I hope that helps, if not just get back to me :)
I would also note that I am still in the process of rewriting the article. I am currently working my way down from the 'End of German reparations' section and will be making major changes to 'Analysis' section when I finally get there and the time. So while you are translating the article now, you may want to revisit it in a few months time :P
Yes, it has helped me a lot. It's clear now. Thank you for warning me about your rewriting, I hadn't seen your modifications. I do not know what I will do, continuing with the current version and do it again in a few weeks/months or waiting for the end of your work. Almost 40% of the text have been translated, and I do not want to let it like this for a too long time. When do you expect to finish your work? Kind regards, Skiff (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I was able to be of help.
As I only find the time to sporadically edit the article, it will probably be somewhere between the end of this month and the end of next before I am able to complete the rewrite. I agree with your suggestion though, keep on working on the translation and come back maybe April-ish and hopefully the final tweaks will be getting made as the article is sent to FAC.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, take the needed time to make it good. I will take this time to complete another subject I have never finished. I will have a look to your work from time to time, but in order not to forget, could you please warn me on my French talk page when you will have finished? Thanks. Have a nice week end. Skiff (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No probs Skiff, and ill try and remember! I believe I have added everything that needs to be to the first few sections. I will be going through them over the next few days ce, adding links, improving things etc. I have also asked for a peer review. Once that is done, I will get to work on the final bit and put it up for GA review. Once that is passed, ill send you a message (if I remember! lol).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With all due repsect... I meant you should then remove the more famous and extremely notable POV pushing first, and also, it would not be my opinion alone, that the Versailles restrictions were harsh, and if it actually is POV pushing, it's at a very slight degree, virtually unworthy of the status as POV pushing. I'm just saying it, friend. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there are problems with the wiki, does not mean that it is okay to add smaller problems. You may not be alone if believing the military restrictions imposed on Germany, by the Treaty of Versailles, were harsh; but that is not the only side to the story. As noted, the French believed the treaty to be on the whole largely ineffective and lenient. Historians are still arguing over it, and have also noted that it was lenient in comparison of what it could have been. Furthermore, stating the terms were harsh ignores that the Weimar Republic blatantly ignored them. Hence, point of view pushing.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that's like saying the entire story of the holocaust is POV pushing because some pro-Nazi's don't believe it! Even at a neutral point of view, the TOV were somewhat harsh, I'm sorry, but this is undeniable! Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to get into that kind of argument. The simple fact is, not everyone thought the treaty was harsh. Elements were undeniably leniently or just. Numerous historians argue it was harsh, argue it was lenient, and argue it was about the best deal that could be made. It is not up to you to decide which version is going to be picked, as an editor you are suppose to follow guidelines and stay neutral. It is that simple, and I do not understand why you are arguing over the removal of a single word to keep an article neutral considering the various wiki guidelines that are in place that highlight this is what is suppose to be done. That is the last word on the subject and keep your neo-Nazi strawman arguments to yourself.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so when I show you videos with German war veterans saying: "We never saw any war crimes", does that mean that every single article regarding German/Nazi war crimes on Wikipedia is POV pushing? Afterall, it's disagreement, which is exactly what we have here. Lastly, don't accuse me of being a neo-Nazi. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When someone decides to utilize a Holocaust straw man argument, which screams Neo-Nazi, I will call it as I see it.
You can wriggle and worm all you want, the simple fact of the matter is you continue to push a single point of view rather than keep the article neutral (in this case, the lack of need to include a descriptive word that does not present all views nor presents the establish consensus on the subject). Considering your attacks on editors and the wiki project itself for apparently not being neutral, on the article for deletion page for your "Anti-Nazi propaganda" article, you are being unbelievably hypocritical with your continued straw man arguments here.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Always in an effort to improve Wikipedia's neutrality I continued to create and edit articles. The Holocaust statement was just an example, perhaps it was a bad example, I'll give you that if you insist, but it was really just an example. What I meant by the entire thing, was that you simply cannot deny some things happened or exist, like you cannot deny the holocaust happened, and, like you cannot deny Anti-Nazi/Anti-Hitler Propaganda exist. It has absolutely nothing to do with neo-Nazism or taking anyone's side, it's simply seeing it from a neutral point of view. Lastly, I don't really care enough about the argument on the 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony page, or the Anti-Nazi Propaganda page to continue arguing with you, I just don't want you to either directly or indirectly call me a pro-Nazi, Nazi-symphatizer, or Holocaust denier. Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly Keith! This has been explained to Jonas, but despite him not "really car[ing] enough about the argument" he keeps having it.
As for the Anti-Nazi Propaganda page, what I would call neutral would be expanding the Propaganda article or a sub-section "World War II Propaganda", which highlights how all sides disseminated information to attempt to influence people. Examples of anti-German propaganda are easily found, and I don't think anyone denied this. Examples would be here and here. They are American and British examples of propaganda aimed against the Nazi regime, and well worth talking about in an article covering the entire subject. It is something done by every side during most wars, as can be seen here and here. The latter examples, because they are notable, have articles of their own the wiki. Of course, anti-German or anti-Nazi propaganda is already covered in articles here and here, so why duplicate it under a non-notable title and with little content?
Your defense of crying foul and that people are not being neutral, despite their being material already on the subjects, and your use of German propaganda lands you in a poor position and one where people could easily think you are something you claim not to be. If you don't wish to be seen as a Neo-Nazi (my opinion based off your actions, wording, and examples), stop acting like one: expand your research, word yourself more carefully, and attempt to stay neutral.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doing good, thanks Keith. I hope the same can be said about yourself. That was quite the cleanup you did, ah the days when we had to overly cite stuff otherwise there would be an edit-war ha! EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, not bad but I've been afflicted by a lot of real life lately, which has restricted my editing to drive-by CE's. It's mostly cosmetic - I've been restricting citations to sentence endings rather than clauses. I'm a bit more expansive with headers and severe with mad commas, adjectives and adverbs, which is aesthetic rather than substantive. I was interested in the discussion about Atlantic, I assumed it was a different gig that was part of one operational concept, hence the different names. Where there's an overlap with other pages, I find that a one paragraph summary and a "Main" link seems about right, so that the pages are cross-referenced, which is what a did on the Goodwood page. Hope you approve.Keith-264 (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it is nothing too major!
Your edits look good, and it is that advise (that you provided many months ago) I have been trying to follow in regards to other articles (especially the Paris Peace Conference bunch) although I don't think I am having much luck restricting info! My own ability to be concise with info is something I am trying to improve on. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I guess :p I've dropped a line with the guild of copyeditors because I think I have thrown too much together and it really needs to be scaled back.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is an operational failure not considered a defeat? By these standards, Operation Barbarossa was an operational failure, Pearl Harbour was just an Operational Failure. I'm willing to concede Market Garden, but I'm 100% convinced on my edits to Slovakia's national revolt, which in my opinion are made for NPOV reasons
As I said, every source that has thus far been consulted during numerous discussions, on the whole state something to the effect of an allied operational defeat and not that it was a German tactical, operational, or strategic victory. If you believe it needs changing, consult the various discussions then bring some new material to light on the talkpage.
As for the Slovakian national revolt article: you inserted terms not mentioned in the article, terms that could be equally called POV pushing to the ones already in - what was - a stable article. You have developed a tendency of doing the same on other articles. I suggest you start taking your concerns to the talkpages and presenting sources to support your position rather than edit warring.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Army of the Alps
Not surprisingly the French wikipedia sums it up pretty nicely. I guess the difference stems from translation. The French wiki says the army had almost 185,000 men in 3 reserve infantry divisions (Type B), three fortified sectors (Savoie, Dauphiné & Alpes-Maritimes) and one defensive sector (Rhone). This means 7 strategic-scale units, 3 divisions as such. Riddle solved :) //Halibutt06:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes some sense considering what I have read over the last few days. I admit, I didn't check the French wiki out. I shall give it a look at tomorrow (although using google translate, I was never any good at French at school :p )EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not home at the moment, but when I get back next week I will have a look. The only books I have left on the subject are Copp's and Ellis', I would dare to say there is bound to be a map in one of them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been avoiding SFN's like the plague, I guess I will have to learn it since that's the way everything is heading.
As for Randel, that would be 'A short history of 30 Corps in the European Campaign 1944–1945'. See the Operation Market Garden article for the full book cite.
I have checked the following sources without success for a map: Beevor, Club Route, Daglish, Ellis, Reynolds (maps are crap in his work at any rate), Trew.
Macro version: http://imgur.com/Lwttv2W , not yet cropped. Place names are more clear, however the map on the reverse page shows through and I cant rotate the image (only have access to either MS Paint or the online tool Pixlr) and thus unable to line the image up to get rid of the lines (ive tried several times, this is as close to "straight" I can get lol). I suppose I cut just crop the top part of the page off and leave the entire map intact?
When I have more time, I will see about a clearer picture and painting out the map on the other side. Perhaps there is someone who can make a fancy map out of this akin to the ones of the VB article?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Keith, the map was taken down. However, I have asked here for a free map to be created based off the one that was uploaded.
For reasons of nostalgia I had a browse of our old Normandy articles, after finally finding a cheap copy of the Daglish book on Bluecoat and found myself writing a bit on the page. I'm also waiting on a cheap copy of the XXX Corps history, so I might have a go at bringing the page up to B class.
The review is coming along pretty good, I just need to find the time to do a little more research to fill a few points that Nick highlighted and I think this review will be done.
Iirc, there are two histories on XXX Corps: Club Route and 'A short history'. It has been a while since I looked in either, but I do remember being particularly unimpressed after the detail thrown into the 8 Corps history. Have you tried Naval and Military Press? If I recall, that is where I was able to get my copies pretty cheap a few years back.
I am pretty sure I still have them sitting on my shelf at home, so if you have particular questions until you get a hold of either I can try to help. Although I wont be home till next week and then start a new job, so I may be a bit delayed in getting back to you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's Club Route, fantastic maps but limited narrative, with Ellis it will have to do. Well done with the review, it's taken lots of hard thoughtful work to get it done. Good luck with the new job. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Keith, on both counts.
I have to agree with you, I remember the maps being pretty damn good. Despite being a reprint, they came in colour: something, from w;hat I have read, is usually left to the 1st editions with these kind of histories.
If you have access you may want to see what the Germans have to say about the operation. There Official History has finally caught up with the last few years of the war. I believe the relevant volume is 'Germany and the Second World War: Volume VII: The Strategic Air War in Europe and the War in the West and East Asia, 1943-1944/5'. I have looked on Google Books, albeit with only snippet view available, and I was unable to find mention of Bluecoat (or Perch, V-B, Charnwood, or Bluecoat), but it is possible that snippet view will not pick up all mentions and it may have some info from the German pov. Intriguing, despite the claim of "meticulous research" they place tank losses for Goodwood at the discredited 500.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got that part of DRZW on loan a few years ago and was disappointed, historiographically it is stuck in the 1970s yah boo about Monty. I've got the Army Group B reports from Stackpole and the books we used on Goodwood etc to look at next. To my surprise, Club Route is a 1st edition, only eight quid. LatersKeith-264 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a damn good deal, I do believe the reprints are more than that!
I remember hearing about the German OH several years ago and how it was suppose to be an up-to-date take on the war. Considering my own nitpick above and your comments, it feels like it does not live up to the hype.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Keith, although it seems there will be quite some work to do to get it to FA considering the disagreements on the talkpage with what was discussed during the review. Oh well, it shall all be ironed out in th eend.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just got a cheapo copy of Bennett, R. (1979). Ultra in the West: The Normandy Campaign 1944–1945 (Faber Finds 2009 ed.). London: Hutchinson. ISBN 978-0-571-25374-6 and added a snipped to Villers-Bocage over what was known and when.Keith-264 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Market Garden was an British conceived and planned operation. There were other troops involved, but the decisions were made purely by the British, and you know it. The articles here try to blame lower ranking officers - like Gavin for failures made by his superiors, in particular Montgomery. I find this quite sickening, and completely false. Wallie (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Market Garden, as a concept, was the brainchild of the staff of 21st Army Group yes. It was conceived after Ike, the US commander in charge of all Allied forces (SHAEF) ordered 21st Army Group to secure a bridgehead over the Rhine.
However, after that actual planning was conducted by other units. The RAF and USSAF planned the fly in routes and the drop zones, this in turn effected the ground planning of the airborne commanders. The divisional commanders were restricted by the aforementioned aerial planners, and the objectives set by the Lewis H. Brereton - commander of First Allied Airborne Army, and an American - and Frederick Browning - the airborne corps commander, and a Brit who constantly interfered. Historians have criticized the American and British divisional commanders for not fighting harder than they did in regards to what their objectives were and where they would land.
So, am sorry but your rants are ill-aimed. It wasn't all Montgomery's fault, it wasn't all Gavin's fault, and it wasn't all the fault of the British. The operation, like Overlord or the Italian campaign, was an Allied affair with planning and ideas coming from on high all the way down the inter-allied chain of command.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What rants? Can't any of you people be civil and avoid personal attacks? I say again. Gavin is not even listed as a commander in the article. I never said it was "all Montgomery's fault". That is a lie. Brereton and Browning you mentioned, are not Gavin. You mention the divisional commanders. Gavin was a BG (equivalent to an English Brigadier), and thus lower than a divisional commander. You say they were "restricted", so how can you blame them? BG Gavin was a good man and a decent officer. I cannot understand what you have against him. Wallie (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wallie, do you understand irony? You have stated we should avoid personal attacks yet you are claiming I have it in for Gavin!
Gavin was not a mere brigadier, he led the 82nd Airborne during Market Garden, so your comments on his rank has little to do with the discussion (not to mention your continued use of "English" over "British". Currently, there is no "English" military for which you could compare American ranks with) and it is irrelevant if he is not listed in the commander list (you will see a note in there limiting the list to army commanders and over, or are you arguing for a list to include 1x SHAEF, 1x AG leader, 2x Army commanders, 4x Corps commanders, and 12+x divisional commanders? Such a list would in breech of wiki guidelines aimed a limiting these lists.)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
British includes Scottish. I am refering to the English. Even Nelson said "England expects...". As for personal attacks, suggesting you "have it in" for Gavin (your words) is not what I said. That is misquoting me. I said "I cannot understand what you have against him." That is not a personal attack. It is merely asking you for your rationale. If I said that you were "ranting" as you said about me, then that would be a personal attack. I do not attack people personally, and I hope you won't. Wallie (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who gives a crap what Nelson said. Brits include anyone of British nationality. The British military, was and is, comprised of more people than just the English and Scots. You will note that the two most senior British commanders, in N-W Europe, were Anglo-Irish.
You can twist my words all you want, the simple fact is you come here throwing accusations around such as I am a liar. That articles that suggest it was not all Monty's fault make you sick, and you believe any criticism not aimed at Monty is "completely false". On top of which, rather than asking why I had reverted you, instead you claim "I cannot understand what you have against [Gavin]" as if I have made personal attacks about the man, failing to notice that it was a historian who made the comments not me.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to twist your words, and have never said you are a liar, or even remotely thought it. I have noticed that some people think I am personally attacking them, when I am merely trying to clarify something. I never said that any criticism not leveled at Monty is completely false either. I just don't like the particular criticism of Gavin made by some English junior officer. Again, never take it personally if I am discussing your viewpoint. You can always disagree with my views, and I would never take it personally. Wallie (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What remark are you referring to on the Battle of Arnhem talk page. If you mean any personal attack on me, not related to the article, I will always respond immediately. I never initiate personal attacks. Wallie (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to this unhelpful comment. Drawing battle lines is not the way forward and does not help your case. Neither does comments like this one (which I missed earlier). Basically saying everyone is out to get you and the Poles is not helpful. I suggest you strike your comments and attempt to address the point being raised in your direction so that issue can come to a resolution. Just because people are arriving to comment has nothing to do with Steve being "popular", nor - as far as I can tell from reading the article - imply that they are lying either.
I highly suggest you re-read over the section in question, the extended quotes provided on the talkpage, and the numerous comments and questions left for you. Hopefully, this can all be worked out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Ranger usually comments about the article and then adds a personal snipe at me. I do not operate like this. However, when attacked, I will certainly respond. I have never initiated attacks. It is always Steve Ranger. He seems to be beloved by you guys, and certainly cuts down anyone he considers weak or inferior. As I pointed out, he continually reverted me, and then put in the exact same thing I did. I find that sneaky and underhanded. Wallie (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Epsom map.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I fear I caused this by using it as an example on the Graphics workshop page. Would it be too difficult to just do it as an svg?Keith-264 (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I guess this will be another one we will have to get redesigned at the Graphics workshop. I will make a request later.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen: Monty's Men: The British Army and the Liberation of Europe by John Buckley? It's looking like the book Beevor should have written.Keith-264 (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
when I realized his work came out, I went to drop you a line to see if you had read it yet. I haven't had the chance, the price put me off for the moment. I was under the impression that it was going to be like his Normandy book: a reevaluation dropping all that 80s crap down the toilet. Your comments ts and a few reviews I have seen so far seem a little disappointing. I'll probably still read it though whenever I can get my hands on it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got a copy for under a tenner off Abe. Perhaps I wasn't clear about what I meant, it's shaping up to be the book Beevor should have written if he weren't a hack. It's reading like a synthesis of all of the stuff we put into the Normandy pages. He's just given Hitler Hastings and d'Este a colossal crack a la S.A. Hart but he also sniffs at Greenline and Pomegranate. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
well I certainly misunderstood you! Although some of the reviews I read, non acedemic from amazon.com, did seem to be giving his work hell for not being able to support his argument. I'll check out he website you mention. Last time I looked I was going to be like 100 bucks to get a hardback copy. Don't think the paperback and s out yet.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"That is a hack of a lot of footnotes! Now that I am not on my cell and on the laptop, I can clearly see what you said the first time around lol. I notice that the reviews on .co.uk vary significantly to .com. see here.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
currently on my cell, so forgive me if I have missed something. My first impression is to agree with your doubts. 2nd odon doesn't seem to focus on marmot, so express seems out of place.
It's not too much detail for Wikipedia, but if you think it's too much for that article, then just create Operation Vado and link to it. In any case, you cited O'Hara but forgot to add him to the bibliography.
Sorry for the slew of edits, but there was an edit conflict and I want to make sure I didn't delete anything you added. Srnec (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the catch, I will try and add the book later or tomorrow. Not to worry about all the edits :) Other than what I put into the article, I haven't seen any further detail (as of yet) on the French action (or the Italian defense) to warrant its own article. For now, ill just try not to go overboard on the additional naval incidents although from my reading thus far, they are minor in comparison.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doing real good thanks Keith :) I hope the same can be said about yourself. As for the map guys, here they are: Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. I have just put my own request in, although so far no takers. Hopefully someone will pick up my request, although there are 68 other requests and mine involves a bunch of work and a low-rez scan! EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm pretty good, I've been filling in short articles, while I have a rest from the big ones. I've put my request in so we'll see if it goes better than the last time.Keith-264 (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
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
Thanks for the recommendation. I have just looked at the various reviews in the product description section of amazon, sounds interesting. The history of the invasoon does kind of sideline the Canadians post-D-Day, thier efforts largely overlooked due to Perch and Epsom, finally making a reappearance at the end of the month for Charnwood. Although I was surprised that they apparently have a bad reputation! Another thing that has got me, the author states "was actually the most powerful Allied formation to land on D-Day, with a full armored brigade and nearly 300 artillery and antitank guns under command." Didn't all the assault divisions have and arm bed under command and what of the 50th with its extra infantry brigade and commandos?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was a little surprised at that too, unless fewer parts of the 50th Division landed on D Day. I had hoped for a look inside at the bibliography, to see what he had made of Copp but it wasn't to be. Keith-264 (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Desert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I have been falsely accused of "war editing". Like with the New York Times article reporting a German colonel praising the Italian role during Operation Brevity, I have used British or American newspapers to relay in English what the Italian high command at the time had to say about the defeat of four Greek divisions and two elite Evzones regiments near Vjosa River towards the end of the Greco-Italian War. If we can have the German version of events of the role of the 8th Bersaglieri Regiment at Halfaya Pass, why can't we have the Italian high command's version of events of the role of the Italian 9th Army near Vjosa River? I hope you can help me in improving the Wikipedia page to do with the Greco-Italian War without some hawk censuring everything I do on this page.--100menonmars (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only have two books that cover that period. Playfair does not mention any codename. However, i believe Michael Carver's Dilemmas of the Desert War gives the answer. "Concealing his intention from his superiors, Rommel struck on 21 January and immediately threw 1st Armoured Division into a state of confusion" (p. 56). Carver, it seems, does not come back to the subject. I would conclude, based of this little evidence, that Rommel ordered an impromptu (albeit based on intercepted communications that the British were in administrative difficulty and not dispositioned well in the forward area) counterattack as soon as reinforcements and replacements arrived from Tripoli (Playfair mentions the arrival of such just prior to the attack). I note that Google Books has a lot of hits that say roughly the same thing, so i am inclined (until otherwise informed) that there was no codename. I hope that helps?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. THat would have come from another user who got hold of a lot of Times articles relevant to the Army; there would be a long-ago thread on WT:MILHIST, which would be your best place to figure out who that user was. If the article had mentioned an exact formation date, I feel sure I would have added it; I've got nothing better than what's there in the article, unfortunately. Regards Buckshot06(talk)03:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, EnigmaMcmxc. You have new messages at Kirrages's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Need a hand, let me know. I am currently working on the 70th Div article, which should allow some material to be crossed over into several other articles.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know that feelin'. With the Western Desert Campaign page having summaries and the events of the pursuit having quite a few really good articles, I wonder what purpose that section serves. The Beda Fomm section is bigger than the BF page ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Symes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Greetings Enigma, I took out a load of redundant prose from the infobox but can't find a source for casualties. I don't suppose you've got a source do you? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only book I have left covering the period is the OH. I won't be able to check today, but I will route through it in the coming days. Am sure there is a little mention on losses. Should the skirmishes along the wire, prior to the Italian advance, be included?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. For the record, if you have an account at amazon.com you can see many pages of "Fortitude" and page numbers of some you can't read. Zerotalk08:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, could I please make a couple of minor suggestions? Did the OB in Jerusalem/Palestine match the final OB at the bottom (for which there is no date)? And second, could we have a little more detail on the operations in Palestine, and less about Monty? Many thanks - I really do appreciate your expansion of this article. Buckshot06(talk)05:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much Buckshot. I have made some amendments to the article, per your comments, although information on the 7th in Palestine is hard to come by. Hopefully, the changes will suffice.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello from the team at Featured article review!
We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.
Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.
Most, if not all, of the anons - I am fairly positive - are the recently blocked AnnalesSchool despite the claim of ignorance. Its the same MO. The rest, all individuals as far as I can tell. Its pretty fun, isn't it! :) I have some ideas for the opening section, I will review and comment later.
BTW, would you mind giving the 78th Div (the latest one I have started working on) article a quick looksy? Do you agree with the contextual background section?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British deception formations in World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Windsor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
For completing a review during April–June 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Military history reviewers' award. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Recent BritEng changes
Be advised that the "Second World War" is not a phrase particular to British English. Plenty of American books use it as well. So devote your time and effort to something a little more rewarding.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 48th (South Midland) Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 76th Infantry Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Example -- Example (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
; see Talk:80th Infantry (Reserve) Division (United Kingdom) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
