User talk:EnigmaMcmxc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Godfather puppetmaster.jpg This user is part of an evil Cabal intent on the subversive destruction of truth ... by using underhanded information. Bow down before us! Muah ha hahahaha!!!
Home Talk Contribs Operation Normandy Menu Archivebox Quicklinks
User:EnigmaMcmxc User talk:EnigmaMcmxc Special:Contributions/EnigmaMcmxc Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force/Operation Normandy User:EnigmaMcmxc/Linkbox User:EnigmaMcmxc/Archivebox User:EnigmaMcmxc/QuickRefBox

January 2016[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Treaty of Versailles, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. In this edit you removed a block of text added by another editor. In addition, you fragmented the remainder of his text by inserting your replies in multiple places. Don't do that; it's not normal practice on Wikipedia. You may also benefit from a thorough reading of WP:TPG RexxS (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Treaty of Versailles, you may be blocked from editing. Class455fan1 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Class455fan1:: Hold on a minute, I admit I fragmented his wall of text to provide a point by point rebuttal based off my experience of how review talk pages work, since I was unaware of the above policy. However, I take issue with the claim I deleted text. The only text of his I deleted, was yesterday and it was an attack (leaving the legitimate text alone).
Not to mention, the warning is a little OTT considering policy was not brought up until after it all happened, and he complelty removed my post! I do hope warnings go both ways. Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Amiens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"Rodion Malinovsky" edits[edit]

I've reverted two of your recent edits on Rodion Malinovsky. Please cite your sources (esp. since you mentioned multiple sources in your edit description) if you want to make those edits again. cherkash (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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) 04:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Revert frenzy[edit]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Why than you, my good sir! I was hoping the anon would stop and talk at least, oh well.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division[edit]

The article 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:38th (Welsh) Infantry Division 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) 02:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Welsh military[edit]

Hi, that's enormously helpful, thankyou. Can you do me a favour and sort out the history/military section in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon/Core articles. Feel free to work rearrange the entries into the military, embolden ones you consider the real core ones, including of those you suggested, and add any more articles to it you think are important for Welsh military/history. You're very welcome to join and help improve content as part of this, there's a good chance if it's a successful this will continue even if without prizes. Can I add 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division to the main articles board? It's a great article!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You sure can. I will add a few more articles to the list, and make a few small changes to the list. However, I will not really be able to work on many of the articles. The 53rd is kinda on my list, but way down it at the moment. I am hoping that the list gets the ball rolling on improving these articles though.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, try to make it a round figure (like 50 or 100 if you can). I don't know if you can think of any more worthy entries for the general history section either that might have 30 new ones to top it back to 200. If not no worries though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
If I find any, I will. I will try and keep it a round figure.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
That's great, a couple of Welsh generals or commanders welcome too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I think I have a few names, just need to make sure they are Welsh and not just chaps in charge of Welsh formations.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Contalmaison[edit]

I did Contalmaison the other week which reminded me of the Battle of Albert article and the Mametz Wood article, doing a copy-edit of the 38th Division brought it all back, thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yorkshire Hussars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 61st 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

38th_(Welsh)_Infantry_Division[edit]

Hello EnigmaMcmxc: I am in the midst of your requested c/e of the article 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division. I cam across this sentence in the section "Initial Actions and the Battle of the Somme":

"Philipps was relieved since despite the "most adequately bombard[ment]" of the wood, the division "never entered" having suffered "under 150" casualties and despite "a few bold men [who had] entered the Wood [who] found little opposition."

Perhaps it's just me, but this sentence makes no sense. I will not edit it, but will leave it to you to clarify.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's another from the "Raiding and Reorganisation" section (last sentence): "The divisional history places the success of the numerous raids carried out on the "control of No Man's Land", which the division's patrol had gained. This allowed "thorough previous reconnaissance", in addition to the sniping that made it "possible to move about unmolested in exposed trenches or even in the open" in front of the German lines."[83]
I put a " . " after "gained" but the meaning of the rest is unclear to me. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits so car. I will attempt to look over the above, and the sources, later today. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello: The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of this article has been completed. I will leave it to you to make whatever changes you feel are required to the two issues I have pointed out. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Twofingered Typist:: Thank you very much for the work that you put into the article, it is very much appreciated. I have attempted a rewording of the two above sentences. Your input, would again be appreciated. In addition, based off a review of another article, I have added a note and made slight changes to a paragraph you have already edited (keeping the changes you made). Can you look over that, as part of the article's ce (belated, I know)? Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@EnigmaMcmxc:: I have made minor changes to your changes and I think that between us we have done it. Cheers Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, thank you very much. You help in getting the article into shape has been very much appreciated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yo Enigma, I'm super short on time these days but if this article hasn't gotten many more reviews in a week from now, please ping me and I'll jump in. Would be great to see this run on the main page on 10 July. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Epsom Tractable[edit]

The recent editor has been in touch re incorporating his new source Operation Epsom Talk page. He seems inexperienced rather than malicious or foolish.Keith-264 (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Oz-class rview[edit]

I thought it was funny ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ... although I felt like a naughty schoolkid hence why i reverted myself!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I suspected lager frenzyKeith-264 (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 61st Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 61st Infantry Division (United Kingdom) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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) 16:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 61st Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

The article 61st Infantry Division (United Kingdom) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:61st Infantry 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) 01:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wittmann[edit]

I'm curious as to what you may think about jointly bringing Michael Wittmann to GA? The article is currently at B class and is stable. I think it would be nice to have a GA article on a WWII personality with the cult stature of Wittmann. I'm not that well versed on the battles in Normandy, while I've seen from your editing that you have a lot of knowledge in this area. For example, I really appreciated the help your provided with Reid.

Would you be interested? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. I have very few sources that discuss Wittman. My previous edits to the article were largely transposing info from the villers-bocage article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I did not mean to suggest that the article needs expanding. It would be mostly for answering questions if a reviewer had any. I believe the article is already comprehensive, and could be nominated as is. What do you think? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Dorset County Division Insignia[edit]

Your request has been completed. If satisfied please place a resolve tag on your request entry here, so we may close it. - FOX 52 (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Three years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
peace treaty
... you were recipient
no. 539 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

... an evil cabal, bzzt, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

An old ... "joke"? That little homemade icon stems from when I was frustrated with certain trolls constantly complaining about every little edit. They are no longer here, I suppose I should get rid of it one of these days.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I meant QAI being known as the cabal of the outcasts. However, with one of the members now Wikipedian of the Year, we need to reconsider ;) - The other WotY 2016 is Precious #1, - If Jimbo Wales keeps following my suggestions, your turn will be in 539 years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah! In which case I will have plenty of time to write my acceptance speech! EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award[edit]

Wiki-stripe2.svg Military history reviewers' award
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for reviewing a total of 4 Milhist articles during the period March to June 2016. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Civility warning[edit]

You are advised to refrain from such comments in the future [1]. Calling editors "obtuse" and "asses" is a major breach of decorum. If this continues you will be reported. Athenean (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, considering it was quite clear what the other editor was saying and you were being purposefully difficult the use of obtuse was quite appropriate. Perhaps, @Athenean:, you should take a look in the mirror?
As for the ass comment, your buddy's comments kinda warrant it when he was purposefully ignoring information despite repeated attempts at assuming good faith.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Just be aware that all incivil diffs are stored, and will be used against you at the appropriate time. Save your self-righteous "justifications" for WP:AE. You'll need them there. But I doubt they will do you much good. Athenean (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Athenean: Stop the threats, and go report me already.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Not threats, just a warning. I won't report you now obviously, but if you continue I will. Or you could adopt a more civil tone in the talkpage, which would make it better for everyone involved. Athenean (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Athenean:: Maybe, instead of making fun of someones spelling, you could actually engage the point being made. You know, when Uspzor question you, and you replied with a mocking message; that was being purposefully obtuse. So a civility warning from someone who mocks editor's posts ... that is interesting, kind of ironic too.
To top that off you throw a "Who do you think you are?" out there. That isn't exactly civil now, is it? All because the source was requested to support the proposed reworded lede? You claim you provided the source, however the only mention of this comes from a source Dr K provided ... which has already been question - by numerous editors - as being too weak for the subject.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) "All incivil diffs are stored, and will be used against you at the appropriate time" is not the message I would send if I were striving for consensus and mutual civility :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Enigma: The only one being obtuse was Uspzor, who obtusely asked for a link to a source that I had just posted in my previous post. The "Who do you think you are" was directed at him. If someone is too lazy to follow a thread, he has no business commenting there. Athenean (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think we're drifting off the point, England scored 589-8d against Pakistan yesterday so anyone listening to Test Match Special would have ended the day mentally exhausted and in no fit state to think. Perhaps when we've all had a night's sleep we can divert our energies towards finding a form of words for the lead, we can all live with? My sources are Anglocentric so tend to describe events in Greece and Albania as peripheral matters but Playfair I has some detail on the effect of the war in Albania dragging on, both sides made sacrifices elsewhere and both sides were finding that the strain was undermining their armies and economies.Keith-264 (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Photos[edit]

  • [2] (Normandy 1947) It's in French though. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Ill take a look. 1947 photos of the French countryside? Interesting, should be reasonably close to what everything looked like in 44 I suppose.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

RX request[edit]

I can access the other pages that you requested on RX for the UK Divisions. It might take me awhile though. Please let me know if you want me to get them for you. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333:: Yes, it would be very much appreciated!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@EnigmaMcmxc: Currently working on them. I'll send them either today or tomorrow. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
@EnigmaMcmxc: Got most of it done. Send me an email, and I'll forward what I've got done. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@EnigmaMcmxc: Sent on August 12th. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I have received the email and the scans. I have not been on top of the world at the moment, so was not able to response sooner or act on the info just yet.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@EnigmaMcmxc: Sent the remaining pages of Oxfordshire. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the additional material. I have received the documents, and will go through them in the next few days to try and further improve the two county division articles. Using the material you already sent, I was able to flesh one of them out to a more complete state and have put it for peer review with the intention of getting it through a GA review before the end of the year.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@EnigmaMcmxc: Awesome! I also sent the extra pages of the Fourth, Buckinghamshire and Seventieth divisions as well from the Oxfordshire vol.2 book. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again, I will check them out shortly.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme[edit]

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Battle of France redux[edit]

FYI Battle of France and terminological inexactitude on the milhist page might be of interest. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Keith, just got an outline of what is going on. I will give it a good look over and get back to you on the BOF talkpage (hopefully tonight). A lack of AGF and block warnings seems the norm lately from everyone, sigh :( EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, RL got very R...so I may be delayed a little further in weighing in.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)