User talk:Keith-264

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

User talk:Keith-264/Archive 1

I'll reply to your message here.




Who you looking at?

September 2016[edit]

Mentioned the edit war on ANI [2]. -- Director (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no edit warKeith-264 (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of France. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Muffled Pocketed 16:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no edit war but you seem to be trying to impute one, I suggest you take it to the talk page.Keith-264 (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016[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) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

National varieties of English[edit]

Information icon In a recent edit to the page Martin Baltimore, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually that was a mistake and I'll happily revert it if you haven't, apologies. Keith-264 (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
No worries. Already reverted. - BilCat (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I realise now that I'd taken the Briteng banner and the edit label off but forgot the bit in the middle. need any favours? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on my point in the bullet point proposals[edit]

When there is some nuance in what is clearly a victory, for instance whether BoF is decisive or not or whether the Battle of Crete is pyrrhic or not, it seems like you try to accommodate that nuance in the infobox by choosing the "See Aftermath" option. I think that's just as much of a mistake as inserting bullet points. That's the point I was trying to make. I just didn't want to say it explicitly in the Module Talk because the discussion there is about bullet points, not about "See Aftermath". Hope your nerves are keeping free and untrapped. Regards. FactotEm (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough ;o)) I took it that See Aftermath and nothing at all were the ways put there to evade the straitjacket of the three criteria. I also took it that it was there to resolve disputes but if that was so, it's failed miserably. All I seem to have achieved is to attract every little Hitler and NLP freak on Wiki.... My neck is feeling much better thanks but I've decided to alleviate the symptoms a bit more by resigning from the BofF article and that's helping already. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I can only imagine how frustrating it must have been to believe that you were making the effort to compromise only to have everyone dig their heels in, but I think the "See Aftermath" option is there for when there's no consensus in the sources, not when there's no consensus amongst Wikipedia editors. And I think that we're not supposed to evade the straitjacket; it's restrictive on purpose. At least that's how I understand it from my reading of the discussion when the current wording was being proposed. I tend to agree with that, even to the extent that if I had my way I would remove the "decisive" option. Whether it's a fist fight or a campaign measured in decades, there's a winner, or it's inconclusive, and that's all the infobox needs to concern itself with. The details get covered in the article. But what do I know? Enjoy the peace. Regards. FactotEm (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the five choices have equal merit but that nothing and See Aftermath are for disputes about the other three. Little did I know.... To an extent, having scholarly aspirations is inconsistent with wiki policy and the academic development of some of the other editors but that's the risk we take. Keith-264 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi Keith, sorry to revert you but, whilst I do understand the point you're making, I strongly believe that the sentence cannot stand as it is if you remove that second comma. At a pinch it might work if you take out the previous one too, so that it has no commas rather than my suggested two, but in this context that single comma sets it up wrongly and gives us something which reads incorrectly. We could take this to the article talk page if you would like to give it a wider airing. I'm not up for a big fight here anyway but I honestly honestly believe that the single-comma form is the most wrong (er, wrongest??) of all three possibilities. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

That last one nailed it, thanks. DBaK (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"Retrograde edits"[edit]

You clearly have one hell of a WP:OWN problem, but don't ever call my work here "retrograde edits".

You broke the linkage from cites to refs. You had used the wrong publication years for both refs. You invented new "a" and "b" identifiers for two works which might be described as parts 1 & 2, but are almost always known under distinct titles instead.

And you have the damned cheek to call someone else's work "retrograde"! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Your edits were those of an ignoramus and your complaint is that of a fool. it is commonplace for publications of the same year, same author to be separated by a signifier. If you want to be constructive FIND THE PAGES!Keith-264 (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I've untangled your retrograde edits, which refer to two books, one a first and the other a second edition, both 1993 (you can see by the orig-year criterion). What's so bad about that?Keith-264 (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Ovillers-la-Boisselle in World War I[edit]

Hi Keith, the village of La Boisselle seems very full of WW1 history, much more than can be found in the article on Ovillers-la-Boisselle at the moment. To mend that problem and to make things as transparent as possible to non-specialists, I'd like to create a "Ovillers-la-Boisselle in World War I" article by relocating (not deleting) the content that covers the "pre-1914 to 1916" period from the Capture of La Boisselle and Capture of Ovillers articles there, which would shorten your two articles considerably and confine them to the actual capture in 1916. What is your view on such a project? Kind regards and happy late Halloween ;-) - ViennaUK (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't because those sections are the background and the articles are stylistically similar to the other tactical incidents. Why don't you just copy the sections into your new article? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your fast reply. I can definitely see your point (and the fact that they are all stylistically similar to the other tactical incidents is definitely a point of strength!). What I will do is this: I will create the article "Ovillers-la-Boisselle in World War I" and leave yours untouched; maybe we can later see whether Capture of La Boisselle and Capture of Ovillers may/could/should be shortened. Seems the safest way to go. Thanks again and best wishes ViennaUK (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I think that's a good starting point but you never know, I might nick your material for the Somme articles....;o)) Sometimes a direct copy of part of one article is justified for articles with a similar theme. The German defensive preparations sections are almost identical in the 11 Somme battles and 20-odd tactical incidents I've done. My Wikimojo was quite dim early in the year, what with various potions off the doctor putting me into a purple haze but I'm feeling much more awake these days. I'm trying to clear the backlog in my sandboxes and not start new ones, ahem! Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

L'îlot de La Boisselle[edit]

Hi Keith, I'm still working on details in L'îlot de La Boisselle, but you may want to start adding links to existing articles already. Best wishes, a tired ViennaUK (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You've been awfully busy, hope you're enjoying it. ;o))Keith-264 (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016[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) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Ovillers-la-Boisselle package[edit]

May I report that I've completed the "Ovillers-la-Boisselle package" around the new Ovillers-la-Boisselle in World War I article. I've also updated the "History" section in Ovillers-la-Boisselle, the introductions to Capture of La Boisselle and Capture of Ovillers and finished the article on L'îlot de La Boisselle. I hope this finds you well and the health is improving, ViennaUK (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw you'd been busy, well done. My neck's still sore but my morale is much better thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

History of the Great War[edit]

Hi, I hadn't seen the History of the Great War article before today. It's a seriously good piece of work. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, its getting a bit bigger than I thought....Keith-264 (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


Please meet the brand-new Y Sap mine. I've streamlined Lochnagar mine as well so that it is focused on what went on at each site. Best wishes! ViennaUK (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Nice work, I moved the unused references to Further reading but if you use them it will be easy to swap them back. If you've got more of this in mind, you might consider setting up a page like this User:Keith-264/common.js (if you already haven't) and adding some of the editing tools like the ones which shows up duplicate wikilinks and unused references. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm DuncanHill. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Battle of Passchendaele that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you revert the provocation as well as the retort? If not, why not?Keith-264 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see, judge and jury in your own cause. Keith-264 (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The "provocation" was your own. As you always do, once you met resistance, you immediately began pouting. And as happens when you pout, you start lashing out. In three replies consisting of five sentences (or fragments thereof), you have called editors ignorant, asked one if he was mad, implied that documents from government historical war museums are "pop history", derided the fact that you know you will fail to achieve consensus as being the result of a "beauty contest", and in a breathtaking display of both irony and a lack of self-awareness, demanded that we have a "grown up discussion" after you made all of these comments. You're behaving this way because you fail to understand that in a consensus-based project, your POV does not get to automatically rule. And certainly in this case, you've largely only brought one argument: "lets rename the article because I want to". Resolute 21:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
You are mistaken and you jump to self-serving conclusions. Would you like to go through the exchanges word by word to find out why? Keith-264 (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Passchendaele, ANI notice[edit]

I have opened a thread at ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Move_discussion_going_nowhere_quickly about a discussion in which you have been involved. You are welcome to contribute to the thread at ANI, DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I converted the discussion thread into a Requested Move. Please see my change at Talk:Battle of Passchendaele#Move suggestion which added a Requested Move header. You can revert my change if you disagree. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hawthorn Ridge Redoubt[edit]

Good morning Keith-264, I'm at (rather "underneath") it again :-) Please find a brand new map of the Hawthorn Ridge Redoubt mine (it actually is a dream come true that we've finally got one). Speaking of the Hawthorn Ridge Redoubt article, I think that the introduction is too long. I shall have a play with it now, could you please have a look at it later in the afternoon? Best wishes ViennaUK (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Is that the one with H3 on it? Good find. Keith-264 (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's H3, courtesy of 252nd Tunnelling Company.
A trim of the lead won't hurt either. ;o))Keith-264 (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Because the article has so much detail, we can afford the luxury of having a concise lead aimed at quick glancers and school kids. The specialists and battle buffs may always scroll down and enjoy the full monty in the main body of the article... ViennaUK (talk)

The Bluff & St Eloi[edit]

All I can say is "hats off" - truly awesome work on/in those two locations!!! The most amazing aspect is that I can watch both articles grow and grow every day these days. Much, much more than I ever hoped to create when I first started the location articles. Keep up the good work! Best wishes from beneath the surface :-) ViennaUK (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Eythenkew! I had hoped to find a bit more about mining but sadly not. I've got a bit more to add from the 17th Division history then I think we can get a B. I'll get stuck into St Eloi next and then I'm toying with Operation Schleswig-Holstein to complete the set. I assumed you were off this weekend having a life. ;o)) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Exactly - creating that Hawthorn Ridge mine plan wore me out a bit, so this weekend I spent more time outside (looking at hills that reminded me of Ypres) rather than in front of the PC... ViennaUK (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


Just realized that paragraphs from the WW1 mining articles and some photos made it into a mining journal. Great to see when the stuff we write leaves Wikipedia for a life outside the encyclopedia... I hope this finds you well! ViennaUK (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Wahey! I'm feeling much better thanks. Do you have a link? I hope to get going on St Eloi which is nearly done. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Good to hear. As for one article, it's here [3] Look especially at chapters "The battle begins" and "Eyewitness accounts". You'll probably recognize some sentences of yours as well. Congrats to you too! ViennaUK (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016[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) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)