User talk:Keith-264

User talk:Keith-264/Archive 1

I'll reply to your message here.

If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.
Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sandbox

Sandbox2

[[1]]

Who you looking at?

Proper nouns

Plurality (or not) has no effect on capitalization for proper nouns. You still capitalize England, Scotland and Wales in a list of the constituencies of Great Britain, don't you. Same thing with a list of regiments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. it. does.Keith-264 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Says who? 'Cause I think that you're all alone in your (mis)understanding of proper grammar here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sturmvogel asked me to comment. I agree with him that these are proper nouns, and need to be capitalized. You can find the relevant MILHIST style guideline at MOS:MILTERMS -- Diannaa (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but the proper bits are already in capitals. Keith-264 (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If you refer to something which has a title such as a Chevrolet then it has a capital letter but if you refer to a group of things then one of the words will be a plural. We don't refer to a Chevrolets do we? If there is a list of things which have names which are proper nouns then the listing word, armies, brigades isn't part of the proper noun. Mind you, this comes from my 1978-vintage O Level and such niceties are rarer than they were.Keith-264 (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I'd use capitals here also, although I admit I cannot point to any authority to back up my position other than that it seems logical to me given they are both proper nouns. That said there has in the past been a few editors that have disagreed with me about this (all in good faith I'll add - I think Keith might recall a discussion myself and Rupert had with one of our Canadian editors about this a few months back that was along similar lines). Anotherclown (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking into a little further - as near as I can tell when you combine proper nouns the rule is to not capitalize "descriptive" words after a proper noun. As such (hypothetically) the question is are we describing the "2nd & 3rd" regiments as infantry regiments or are the words "Infantry Regiment" still part of the proper noun? In this example, assuming that each is officially titled the "2nd Infantry Regiment" and the "3rd Infantry Regiment" respectively (and not the "2nd Regiment" and the "3rd Regiment" which just happen to be of infantry) then I'd say the latter is the case and that it would be more correct to use capitals. That said given my starting assumption was to do this anyway I've really only confirmed (in my mind) what I thought all along so perhaps I missed something in my reasoning. Anotherclown (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Or is it an WP:ENGVAR issue, i.e. is it different b/n British English and other variations? Anotherclown (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Because I write on Wiki I question my usage all the time and change my mind sometimes. This is one of the things where it seemed simple, there's no such thing as a Regiments; regiments is an adjective. I think Engvar is interesting but I suspect it's also Agevar and I come from a time when English was still taught as a language (except to English Lit undergrads, obviously). It says here Proper noun that there is a common noun for classes of entities.Keith-264 (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Mind if I butt in?

I'm afraid Trekphiler made a bit of a bugger of his joke there. Spoilt it, rather, Trekkers. Hard luck, old boy.

Anyway, Sturmvogel 66's example is nonsense. I can't imagine why he thinks it has any relevance. Engvar? Well, as we know, in American English anything can happen, but not on this occasion. I'm reluctant to contradict Keith, but it will be a cold day when "regiments" is an adjective. Let's put it this way:- if I were to launch an attack on, say, a small town in Wales with the intention of neutralising one of its particularly irritating residents, I would use four tank battalions: 1st and 2nd Battalion to the north, and the other two battalions (perhaps 5th and 6th Battalion) to the south. Pity we can no longer ask Phil everly for his view. Maybe Ron isley or one of his Brothers can help. Hengistmate (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It must be an adjective when used in that sense, it says so in Wikipedia. The Isley Brothers is a title ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me explain. The King's African Rifles are a splendid body of men. They acquired the title of Rifles because they carried rifles. Unfortunately, some time later a careless quartermaster in Aldershot distributed the king's African rifles, which are very shoddily made and unreliable, so much so that many of the men carry a spare. In fact, all of the 2nd Rifles carry second rifles. It's an absolutely regiments idea, if you ask me. Hengistmate (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Fnar!Keith-264 (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I have no idea what any of you are talking about (I fear you lost me at "butt"). I'm assuming its some kind of series of double entendres and I'm sure it is all quite evolved and intelligent but it went right over my head (which of cse says more about me than it does anyone else I'm willing to concede from the outset - hopefully only that I'm not English but maybe something more serious?). Anyway is there a consensus here? And if so what is it (are you guys agreeing to caps or no caps?) Or is there no agreement? Or are we saying that it should be caps but I should drop the "s" at the end of my example because it shouldn't be plural (i.e. it should be the "2nd and 3rd Infantry Regiment", not the "2nd and 3rd Infantry Regiments")? I'm serious, I really didn't understand a word of this. When framing your response to me pls remember that this is English Wikipedia (not English Wikipedia), also its not just our readers that sometimes only comprehend at the level of a 12-year-old but some of our editors as well... Better yet is there someone out there that's able to interpret into Australian? Anotherclown (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd go for the status quo in the absence of consensus about change. Keith-264 (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

FFS. It's nothing to do with plurals. It's whether something is a proper or common noun. The Marx Brothers were brothers. The Cheshire Regiment is a regiment. The 17th, 18th and 19th divisions (i.e. the 17th Division, 18th Division and 19th Division) are divisions. Hengistmate (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

There, copy edited it for accuracy; happy now?Keith-264 (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

A proper noun is modified into a common noun, it's not difficult to grasp surely? It was Sturmvogel's edits which brought us here anyway, not mine.Keith-264 (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

That's just it. It remains a proper noun. Divisions was never a proper noun to begin with. Attach a name or a number to it and it becomes a proper noun and keeps that status regardless if it's plural or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, not again, it's the other way round.Keith-264 (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Unpack that, I don't understand your point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Chevrolet is a generic name, 1st and 2nd somthings aren't since they're different, one's a 1st and the other's a 2nd.Keith-264 (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to explain that Keith has altered one of my posts here so that it misrepresents my intended meaning, to the extent of saying exactly the opposite. This might have caused some confusion. The line in question is: "The 17th, 18th and 19th Divisions (i.e. the 17th Division, 18th Division and 19th Division) are divisions." Keith changed it to: "The 17th, 18th and 19th divisions (i.e. the 17th Division, 18th Division and 19th Division) are divisions," and might well do so again. I am disappointed by this, and my respect for him has diminished considerably. Still, it's the least of Wikipedia's problems. Hengistmate (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you have assumed bad faith, when the edit was an obvious satirical riposte. Didn't you notice that the Oxford commas had been blammed too? If something like this is going to diminish your respect, I don't want it, manners will do.Keith-264 (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, did you see [There, copy edited it for accuracy; happy now?] this underneath my Director's Cut?Keith-264 (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a time and a place for humour on Wikipedia. See Andy Dingley for terms and conditions. P.S. You're wrong. Now can I get back to the cricket? Hengistmate (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't advise the cricket man, it'll be bad for your blood pressure.Keith-264 (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Mind your manners or get off my page.Keith-264 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Trekphiler is barredKeith-264 (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Capture of Wurst Farm GAN

I'm not sure what's going on with the nominator, but I'm inquiring if you'd like to help him in responding to the review at Talk:Capture of Wurst Farm/GA1 since you worked extensively on the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a butcher'sKeith-264 (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That's OK it was just a quickie, is there anything else?Keith-264 (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors

Hi Keith, I noticed some list defined reference errors have crept into the Blitzkrieg article after the major edits. It’s because they are no longer being used, so either need removing or commenting out. A bit difficult for me to work out which are which though - sorry. CV9933 (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I saw one for Corum et al. before I left for work so I'll try to sort it out.Keith-264 (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

BRD

As an editor I see as valued and experienced, I'm sure you're familiar with BRD, but maybe a reminder seems is in order based on this. Reverting a revert is the source of starting an edit war. Per BRD, could you please self-revert and start a discussion on the page instead? --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I put my opinion in the edit title.Keith-264 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't agree, so I'm supposed to revert you and comment in the edit summary? That's the definition of an edit war, and exactly why we have BRD, right? But okay, I'll start the BRD on talk for you. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg

Hello Keith

Can you provide some context to the question? i.e what sort of info and the year I put for publishing? cheers (and sorry to be immediately unhelpful, I've run out of memory space). Dapi89 (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Greetings it was Taylor 1974 but I think I cut or blanked it as it had been an open question for so long.Keith-264 (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you still want it? Dapi89 (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'll check.Keith-264 (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I scanned the article and it's gone so I'll have cut it. Do you want it put back?Keith-264 (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really. I think it was something to do with Taylor (he didn't write the chapter on Poland) describing it as the first instance of the said subject. The article has moved on now anyhow. Dapi89 (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Somme casualties

I have a copy the entire Military Casualties–World War–Estimated," Statistics Branch, General Staff, U.S. War Department, 25 February 1924. They list the following total casualties for the Somme at: UK 430,301 and France 194,452. As for Germany the British estimated 538,000 total casualties, German official statistics list 597,000 for the entire Western front including the Somme. The German source listed in the Battle of Le Transloy article Wendt, H. L. (1931). Verdun 1916: Die Angriffe Falkenhayns is at the NY Public Library, I can verify the stats posted on the page. Have you consulted the History of the Great War?--Woogie10w (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I used Wendt for monthly totals but wondered if you had anything more detailed than the OH, which I'm using. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Second Schleswig War Interview: Featured picture participants Op-ed: TomStar81 on Indian nationalism during World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 11:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Le Transloy

As I was scanning your Battle of Le Transloy article I noticed and fixed some typos in the Aftermath-Analysis section. In the 2nd paragraph under Analysis there is a typo in the corps number which I cannot fix. Since you are in the process of writing, I will make no more edits. BTW: The article is a good example of your usual very thorough history writing. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I was rushing a bit, listening to the test match and didn't notice the litter of typos. The capitals key is next to the pipe key on my laptop and I've been catching both when using a capital letter. Thanks for the compliment, you're not so bad yourself ;O). I'm leaving it alone for a while as I'm going square-eyed so copy-edit to your heart's content. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Biggles

Must admit to being a little perplexed by the extent of your "word reduction" editing here - some of this borders on obscurity, where it is no longer quite clear whether "he" or "him" refers to Johns or Biggles. (Complaints that this was the case did in fact influence the precise wording of this section.) One or two merged paragraphs are also a little strange. I am too tired to do much tonight, and just recovering from 'flu - but this is to serve notice that I'm going to have a proper look at this one fairly soon, with the intent of restoring any meaning lost/obscured. You might even be kind enough to have another look yourself, and put any words back where (and if) you can see what I am talking about. Save a poor old codger the bother, and all that! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, perhaps there are some style matters to conciliate. I don't like short paragraphs because they make the narrative look like a list. If you think my edits reduced meaning, I'll be quite happy to go through them one at a time until we're satisfied. Hope you feel better soon. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A paragraph can be any length, from one short sentence to several pages. The important thing is that it embodies a single thought. I'll get onto the matter in hand at a suitable juncture - thanks for your sensible reply. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A thought or several if they conform to the theme of the header. Articles aren't lists and paragraphs aren't chapters. I had another look at my edits and am satisfied that they add to the article, particularly the removal of pleonasm. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

mine plans

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mine_plans_(Battle_of_Messines_1917)

I've put the first set of mine plans of the Battle of Messines online. Enjoy! ViennaUK (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice one, your project is shaping up very well.Keith-264 (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Messines Ridge is now completely undermined (= all mine plans online)... ViennaUK (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but if it isn't red and held in by a cork, I'd rather not bother.Keith-264 (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors, coordinator elections have begun Articles: Abbasids to a Yugoslav monitor Book reviews: Economics of warfare, Japan, and light horse Op-ed: We can (not) advance Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

WWI

You should be participating in the Flickr Commons Library of Congress project. They are crowdsourcing context for images from the Bain Collection and are in a tranche from 1917 right now. The link is here for this Friday's batch. We add useful tags and links and try and find the article that matched the image in a published paper. Some of the images are dated, but we know this tranche is 1917 and are in chronological order, with a few misfiled out of date inserted once in a while. You may recognize the ordnance and the obscure people not labeled. Don't restrict yourself to movieng forward in the batch, the are tens of thousands of previous posts. It is one of my best sources for finding people to write about. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but I prefer to keep my distance from the US government.Keith-264 (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Operation Ariel

Will do. I'm back next week. Dapi89 (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I will be in a position to do that and Calais from the beginning of next week, Dapi89 (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, nice to hear from you. 1940 The Last Act: The Story of the British Forces in France after Dunkirk, Karslake, Basil is on the way so I hope it sheds more light on the French and Germans. Keith-264 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Calais the Franks is now there. I will also dig out Corum's biography of W. Von Richthofen as well as some others specifically on the Ju 87 for more info. Dapi89 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks babe, hope I got the other ones right. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I only really specialise in the air. Dapi89 (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Richthofen should be added to the command box. Dapi89 (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Soissons, 1918.

You know, it strikes me as odd that so little attention is paid to this battle, which was seen by senior military and political leaders in all the major combatant nations as the true turning point of the War. There is, AFAICT, a global shortage of scholarly accounts of this battle, even French ones. The principal work seems to be an American book which, perhaps not surprisingly, is written in such a way as to give the impression that the French were not present, so much so that until recently the Wikipedia article, apparently based entirely on the book, described it as a battle between the German and American armies. Even by the standards of US works on the War, that is impressive. The misapprehension has been transferred to German Wikipedia, where there isn't even an article, just a mistaken, Americocentric disambiguation. And the French Wikipedia appears to be a straight lift of the English version, with all its imperfections, including the nonsense about the 92nd Infantry's involvement.

I have tickled it up a little, but haven't the time to do a great deal about it, what with work, family, checking that Andy Dingley isn't hiding in the hedgerow, and so on. I just wondered if you had had similar thoughts about the action and, perhaps, have an explanation for its low profile. Hengistmate (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not nearly as expert on 1918 as the other years. I've got the 5 OH volumes and thought that if I started, it would be like reading up on another war, the year being so busy; perhaps it's like that for others. I'll have a peek in the OH and look at the article but there's not much more I can offer. Keith-264 (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of that convention, but that leaves an awful lot of Allied divisions with #s instead of words. Why is that? Primergrey (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Divisions aren't armies; I'm not entirely sure but it's usually numbers for divisions, Roman numerals for corps, numbers/words for rival armies. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Battle of France Result

Just a note, regarding the 'Battle of France' - the battle was decisively won. With that logic, no battles in World War 2 were decisive for the Axis. We most provide relevant and quick information in the access bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinNinja (talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, please refer to the article talk page for my response. Keith-264 (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note that if it doesn't hide behind a cork and say Cotes du Rhone, Burgundy, Chianti or some such, it isn't a reward that interests me.Keith-264 (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Duly noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinNinja (talk • contribs) 21:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Anotherclown and Sturmvogel 66 on war in the air and at sea Review essay: Auntieruth55 on the French Revolutionary Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the entry of Bulgaria in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Beauman Division

Thanks your note. If you want a good source for Beauman Division, Beauman's autobiography has a lot of detail - and it cross references well with secondary sources, so appears fully reliable. It is also a charmingly readable little book. The actual events of May/June 1940 are slightly difficult to follow - but that is not a function of the telling, more of the chaotic nature of the military situation.

There are some details of the Beauman Division article that need attention - for instance Beauman's role immediately prior to the formation of the division was largely logistics - the extra "military" jobs of base security and guarding airfields were a minor part of the work. I really need to check with some other sources before making any edits, though. (And I have not done much on Wikipedia for a while - got lots of other things I should be doing.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

That's the trouble with retirement, it can be a full-time job. ;O)) I'm cutting and pasting from my rewrite of Operation Cycle so not all of what I've added needs to stay or remain in its current form. I've reached 9 June, which I hope to finish tomorrow and then I've got the fun of describing the retreat towards Cherbourg and Brest. There are so many villages in the area south of the Somme that linking them is a bit of a drag and organising the narrative by area, time or nationality causes as many structural problems as it solves. Keith-264 (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of the Bulge Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the collapse of the Serbian Army in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA

On List of military occupations discussions of Israel, Palestine, and Golan Heights fall under WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. This is just to inform you of them if you already are not aware. If you would like you can either follow the blue link over there and read about it or there's a simplified explanation of them on the talk page of this article that reads in bold "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES".-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't know what you're on about and I don't care, I've had my say.Keith-264 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA are active on that article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I've just seen that, why are you nagging me? Keith-264 (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The intention is to inform not nag. Apologies.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I wondered if you were making an indirect threat.Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No man no threat. There's a template for it somewhere. I can never remember what it is or where it's at. It's specially written to kiss everyone's butt gently. Unlike the template I'm apparently not, lol. Everyone needs to know about them. This isn't any official warning. The template logs it and all. Just telling you. But anyway.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought I'd been quite civil and constructive considering....Keith-264 (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I must

Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The horror! The horror! Keith-264 (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello friend from the Battle of France. I have filled in almost all citation needed tags in the article (except for one, which I will try to find tomorrow). Just a little update on progress.

A nomination would be highly respected! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinNinja (talk • contribs) 22:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

edit: added new citation for polish losses. KevinNinja (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Prelude - Battle of France

Sorry for posting here twice in a day, but I require your further assistance (if possible) with the entitled article. It has come to my attention that the Phoney War section is hugely lacking in information, and needs a massive overhaul--you could call it a 'creation', as there really isn't much there at the moment.

Your grammatical syntax is top of the line, and I need someone like you to help me out on completing this much needed addition. It is hugely appreciated. I will get to work on it shortly, though your additions are welcome at all times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinNinja (talk • contribs) 04:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I had a look at the Phony War page a while back but realised that it hardly appears in my sources. There should be a bit in Tooze describing the industrial and diplomatic preparations for Fall Gelb and perhaps something in Grand Strategy about Franco-British war preparations and strategy though.Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Made some new additions to the prelude, check em' out if you have the time. KevinNinja (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Senussi

No worries, re: comment. I obviously didn't even bother to log in. Milton (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the German retreat from France in 1944 Op-ed: TomStar81 on empires of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Bavarian war memorial :-)

Happy new year Keith - I thought of you when I saw the memorial and pressed the button on my camera earlier today :-) ViennaUK (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you on your travels?Keith-264 (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Battle of the Somme film screenings 2012 and 2016

I have to stop and think very carefully before I express disagreement with yourself, as you seem to be a prominent, experienced and valuable editor of this page. But I can't understand why you took the trouble to move my contribution about the 2012 screenings and the planned 2016 screenings to the Notes section. These screenings are relevant facts, and not in the category of interesting events or quotations such as appear in other of the notes above it, and it as if they have been unjustifiably relegated. I beg you to realise and reconsider, as I would not like to revert without your wise consideration. P0mbal (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm most flattered by your comments but I wasn't sure if part of the sentence crossed over into advertising and thought that it was a hanging sentence so I noted it. If your heart's set on it being in the main text I won't object to you reverting my edit but please consider the aesthetic implications of stray text. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Jefferson Davis; Hawkeye7 on Australia's war in Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses British World War I conscription Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the thanks! Our article on George Bingham, 5th Earl of Lucan lacks anything much on his war service - is that something you could take on? DuncanHill (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, I'm still blushing about the wrong Lucan; good luck though.Keith-264 (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to blush about, and at least I now know something about the Senussi Campaign. DuncanHill (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Battle of france GA review underway!

The Battle of France article is now being reviewed for good article status. I require your help, if possible, to get this review to pass. Much help would be HIGHLY appreciated! KevinNinja (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Albert (1914)

Can you please stay off the page as I just lost a lot of work due to edit conflict. regards Mztourist (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I got an edit conflict too, I thought you'd finished.Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm rather confused, you seem to removed numerous valid non-duplicated xrefs and changed numbered "Armies" to "armies", can you please explain why. Mztourist (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Highlight Duplicate Links shows up duplicates if you have the script installed so I remove them. When armies, corps etc are in a list, the words "armies", "corps" and "divisions" aren't part of a title so aren't capitalised. When something is wikilinked it isn't abbreviated, an abbreviation is bracketed afterwards e.g. British Expeditionary Corps (BEF) and then used in the text. Hope this helps Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think your duplicate highlight works then, for example after your edits Aire, Marquion, Chuignolles, Framerville and 7th and 2nd Armies aren't xreffed at all. In relation to the capital A on armies, I changed it to capital A when specific units are being identified such as "7th and 2nd Armies", becuase this would be the same as saying "7th Army and 2nd Army", I don't believe it is correct to say "7th and 2nd armies" Mztourist (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You aren't the only one but I do; have you ever seen an organisation called the the "2nd Armies"? There can't be specific units because units is a plural and more than one can't be specific, only general. Aire was wiki'd twice and because the second link was a couple of sentences below the first, I saw it, as I did the first mention of Marquion, the link I blammed was the second one. I'll check the script but this is the first time its reliability has been questioned. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No I wouldn't suggest 2nd Armies, but when referring to two different numbered units of the same force I believe e.g. "7th and 2nd Armies" is correct. You are right about Aire and Marquion (which I included after being edit-conflicted here on your talk page), but please check Chuignolles, Framerville and 7th and 2nd Armies. Mztourist (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Also Reims is the correct spelling (Reims and Rheims are variously used on the page) and Eastern Front isn't defined earlier. Mztourist (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just noticed that I wrote Race to the Sea before I knew about the convention about wording Allied and numbering German armies. Thanks for the edits.Keith-264 (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been undecided about Rheims all along but prefer it with the h. Is it Reims the modern usage? I went through the page with open office and added wikilinks for the armies. In future I'll double check before trusting the script. regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I just asked a French colleague who confirmed the spelling of Reims. I believe the Rheims spelling is an English attempt to spell it somewhat as it is pronounced. I will go though the page again now, appreciate it if you could stay off it for the next hour to prevent edit conflicts. Mztourist (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Rheims as Reims (I bet I thought that Reims was a village outside Rheims) and linked the Eastern Front. Sorry for messing you about, I didn't realise that the HDL script was fallible.Keith-264 (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I put Albert through the dupe checker again and several came up, which I double checked with Open Office and were duplicates not rogue results, a couple of army links and Valenciennes. Just in case you're wondering, I've been ploughing such a lonely furrow that your interest in these articles is a breath of fresh air, thank you. I'm a bit jealous of you visiting Verdun though, the last time I could afford to travel, I got mumps instead. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

East Africa

Keith, where do you want me to start, on the main article, or do it chronologically and start with Somaliland? Dapi89 (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it depends on what you've got, if it will go in the OOB page what would be good.Keith-264 (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Excellent stuff D, short, sharp and to the point, thank you very much. It makes a refreshing change for the opposition to get equal attention too. I'd either put the OOB material in the OOB page or add narrative to the East Africa page, rather than the sub-pages because there aren't enough of them yet and this piece of work is going to have to stand over soon, while I try to get the Somme pages done by 1 July. On that note, is there anything you're working on where I can return the favour?Keith-264 (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the inaction, I was ill the week before last, and have been trying to catch up with everything this week. Next week, I'm hoping to help out on the air. Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

That's all right babe, take the time you need to feel better. I'm working on Bazentin Ridge, hope to have it ready by monday. Keith-264 (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I seem to have misplaced Dust Clouds. I'm hunting for it, I think I left it at the office. I will improve the air slightly, but looks like it will be a slow build up. Dapi89 (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I've got Bazentin and Ovillers done so when I've finished Contalmaison, I'll take a break back with East Africa and then do Flers-Courcelette. I'm rather jealous that they let you read history at the office ;O)) Keith-264 (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Action of 8 May 1941

Just saw your large update of this article I had created several years ago, awesome work!XavierGreen (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much; your work gave me a very good start, all I had to do was add to it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

East African Campaign casualties

The losses at Culqualber are mentioned here: http://www.ilcornodafrica.it/st-melecaculqualber.pdf

Is this a published source?Keith-264 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

And for Gondar, the related page gives this source for the casualties: Maravigna, P. (1949). Come abbiamo perduto la guerra in Africa (in Italian). Roma: Tosi., p. 191.

--93.65.1.215 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC) p14 The losses among the Italian troops were of 513 dead and 404 wounded among the approximately 1,580 nazionalii and 490 dead and 400 wounded among the Ascari.

To give an idea of the bloodshed paid for the defense of Culqualber, losses among national and colonial military about 2800 who fought between 13 and 21 November were over 1000 fallen and wounded 800.Keith-264 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the point; these casualties are not counted among those on 16 April 1941 (as they happened later), neither are those at Gondar. They should be added to the numbers in the Infobox.--193.206.177.144 (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes they should but as yet the sources aren't enough for Italian losses. The British Official History gives the number of prisoners at Gondar and Qulquaber but not casualties. Pls note that the infobox has a note explaining that they are incomplete. [2] this source may be accurate but it isn't published so is questionable under WP:RS. Have you got any published sources instead? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The casualties at Gondar (4,000 killed, 8,400 sick and wounded) come from a published source: Maravigna, P. (1949). Come abbiamo perduto la guerra in Africa, Roma, Tosi, p. 191.

Also, I believe the 230,000 POW figure includes all prisoners taken during the entire campaign, Gondar, Wolchefit and Culqualber included.--93.65.1.215 (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added the Maravigna data to Gondar but I need to read through the OH chapter on post-April operations because the data is spread all over it. Might I suggest that we continue the discussion on the article talk page? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• PLS continue on the East Africa talk page.*Keith-264 (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Keith, I contacted the author of that page, who directed me to this other pdf which confirms the number of killed/wounded at Culqualber: http://www.carabinieri.it/Internet/Imagestore/PDF/La%20Battaglia%20di%20CULQUALBER.pdf. Whereas this is not a published source, it is on the official site of the Carabinieri, so I think it can be considered a official figure.--93.71.144.146 (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, another thing about the East Africa page: it is written "On 16 April 1941, the authorities in the AOI signalled to Rome that 426 officers had been killed, 703 wounded and 315 captured, during military operations before the surrender." The surrender of? In East Africa there was not a general mass surrender like in Tunisia, but a series of smaller surrenders when each stronghold fell - Massawa in April 1941, Amba Alagi in May, Gondar in November, as well as smaller garrisons like Assab and Wolchefit in between. Since these datas were issued on 16 April 1941, I guess the surrender of Massawa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.151.198.227 (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably but I'm still busy with the Somme articles (two down, seven to go), East Africa is having to wait.Keith-264 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

CW sovereign status

Hey Keith,

I noted your comments regarding the CW nations. What about the Balfour Declaration of 1926, and the Statute of Westminster 1931? They made the dominions equals to the homeland, and this (in part) resulted in the dominions declaring war separately in 1939 rather than what happened in 1914.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Australia didn't become sovereign until the 80s, Canada in about 1927 but the matter of sovereignty is ambiguous because of Imperial Preference, appeals to the Privy Council etc. The Commonwealth states were clearly different to places like France and the USA. Where there are only British, Commonwealth and Imperial forces operating it seems wrong to call them Allied, compared to British, French (not Free French), USSR, Czechoslovak forces. I've changed my mind several times but the consensus in my sources is that Allied doesn't apply to empire forces.Keith-264 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Decisive

Hello, I saw your edits on Battle of Caporetto. Battle of the Piave River has a similar issue and I suppose the same standards should be used. thanks for your attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irxvini (talk • contribs) 22:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks but to be honest I took it off my watchlist, because the people who like superlatives like decisive aren't interested in the technical, Clausewitzian definition of the term (a battle with political consequences, because it determines the course of the war). For many people it just means big.Keith-264 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Action of 22 September 1914

Hello Keith,
you reverted my edit – I understand your comment. But now I have a problem with understanding the sentence. If one omits the commanding officer, the sentence begins: The cruisers were part of the Southern Force in the flagship Euryalus... – normally I would now assume something like: The cruisers were part of the Southern Force with the flagship Euryalus...
Or is in the flagship an idiom which I'm not aware of?
Would you please help me with this.
Yours --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have paid more attention, how is it now? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem with that.

Your text ist much better than my suggestion. Thanks.

Yours --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

61st Infantry Division/61st Light Division

Hey Keith,

If you still have access to the volumes of War Against Japan, I was wondering if you could look something up for me? The 61st Infantry Division was reorganized in August 1945 as a light division (I have seen reference to it being called the 61st Light Division after this), and it was going to be transferred and used in Asia against Japan. Do any of the latter volumes mention the division and the intended role for it?

Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Checked OH FE but nothing in the index I'm afraid.Keith-264 (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking Keith, regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

File:51st Division, Battle of Pilckem Ridge, 31 July 1917.jpg

Per the A-Class review for the 38th Div, it has been pointed out that the PD tags for this image are incorrect. There are a few options, which I was hoping you would be able to help out with.

From what I could find out, Bewsher died in 1950. As far as you are aware, is this accurate? If so, we cannot use the UK-PD tag. Nikkimari stated that the image could be hosted locally, but for the moment I do not know what he means by that. The other option would be, does The history of the 51st (Highland) Division note if Bewsher was still on active service when he wrote the history? My understanding would be that PD-UKGov could then be used?

Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The copy I use is here [3] so I assumed it came under the published USA pre-1923 rule. I haven't been able to find Bewsher's obit details I'm afraid.Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Anglophone monoglots revisited

Hey Keith. Just a note to say that your valiant effort in last year's battle over "anglophone monoglots" in the Somme article didn't leave me completely untutored. I just found my first reason for using the phrase in anger, which I never would have had I not learned it from you. So thanks for that! :-) On an utterly unrelated topic, but while I'm passing, have you encountered LindyBeige on YouTube? (channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/lindybeige - watch out for a video auto-start on that). I find him really entertaining, but he sounds pretty knowledgeable on some nitty gritty aspects of warfare. Mostly ancient and medieval, but he has some stuff on WW1; e.g. this on why introducing metal helmets increased reported head wounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IQE0uZUMys I'd be interested to hear your expert opinion on how accurate his stuff is. cheers Thomask0 (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Indubitably ;O)) regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

WW1 Casualties

User 213.65.238.165 is OK, he made the edits in good faith. I have to clean up article later--Woogie10w (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks W nice to know.Keith-264 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Caption format

Regarding your reverts [4] and [5]:

• First of all, MOS:CAPTION does say that no special formatting should be used. Your "no relevance to centring" is a quite strange interpretation of what is written there. It would be nice if you provide at least some support of your point of view before enforcing it.

It gave italics as an example, there are a format for the text not its position.

• Second, the <center> HTML tag has been deprecated a long time ago and thus should not be used even if centering is desired.

You're the first person to mention this, I didn't know and will look into it.

• Third, it is a good practice to separate the presentation from the contents, and Wikipedia tries to do that. It renders its pages differently on different devices (large screens, small screens, PDF output) depending on the corresponding styles and user preferences. Moreover, users can define their own styles, so if you want to see the captions centered, you can change your custom CSS, but please do not break the default behavior and do not prevent other user from using their styles.

This goes beyond my knowledge of computers so you'll have to simplify it.

• Fourth, when you revert something, please pay more attention to what exactly you do. The edit that you have reverted was not only about removing the centering.

I'll look into it.

So, if you do not provide valid objections to my edit, I am going to return it. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Try to be civil, you aren't the judge of validity. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

WW1 Casualties

I have initiated a discussion of the source A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire at Talk:World War I casualties. If you get a chance please add your thoughts on this source. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

At Ripleys Belive it or not with friends son will respond in PM--Woogie10w (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

COIN discussion about Vicente S. Santos, Jr.

Hi Keith-264. I pinged you in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Vicente S. Santos, Jr., but am also posting here to let you know as a courtesy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Prelude sections

I see you have used prelude as a main section in other articles as well. Surely it's part of the background? Shire Lord (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The wars that I write about have lots of campaigns and battles so the background covers how things turned out this way and the prelude has the immediate things like preparations and plans. With the Desert War, the background should be about how the campaign got this far and any matters that had developed such as supply and air power and the prelude the local matters like the defences, the preparations and plan. I had intended to expand Akarit using this model but I haven't got round to it, having been slowed down on the Somme articles and various matters of life. The article has quite a few bits missing which would make the division between background and prelude look more sensible. On reflection, if you want to change the headers until I get round to expanding it, I'll withdraw my objection. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Keith, that sounds logical in your assumption; I haven't really come across that style though in wiki. I'll leave it for now, perhaps it might catch on. Shire Lord (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I've ever managed it but I have in mind that the background and prelude sections would be chronological from article to article in a series and each article would be roughly chronological from Lead to Aftermath. The strategic and tactical circumstances would be explicated, the previous battle becoming part of the background of the next one and the subsequent operations section foreshadowing the next article. Having decided to concentrate on moving as many articles as possible to B class instead of fewer articles to A and with limits on the number and quality of sources, it's not really worked as as I'd hoped. Keith-264 (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that

Thanks for catching that.

I've been removing some pointless piping by a different editor and didn't notice I changed the "Kingdom" part, must of been an errant keystroke. Gavbadger (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Been there, done that. ;O)) Keith-264 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Bir Hakeim

Hi I see that You check my changes in Bir Hakeim article, please see that the year indicated for the book of Michele Palermo is mistakingly indicated as 2004 in the note while the year of publishing is 2014. Best. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Good edits, all I do is tidy the language. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks go on! But why you change aircraft with aeroplanes? In aviation history publications the first term is more used.--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Aeroplane is a synonym, it helps to avoid repeating words.Keith-264 (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of World War I

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) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/38th (Welsh) Infantry Division/archive1

Hey, hold off for a bit please, I just lost a lot of work. I'll try to restore it. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, recovered it. Whew. After I'm done, I'll try to restore your changes. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Er, what are you on about? Keith-264 (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

We were editing the same article. Okay, I finished and "I've supported on prose" at FAC. Now I'll try to recover your edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, done. What I did was look at a diff of my large edit to find yours. The only ones I didn't restore were your edits to images; I'm not sure I followed what was going on with this so decided I should leave them alone. Sorry about that. I almost always start an editing session with a quick first edit, but forgot to today. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

No bother, I saw the pic and realised it was one I'd uploaded when I knew even less than now so I redid it as a cropped png and a bit darker. I've just put it back. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

HMS Vanguard edits

If you're gonna replace the ordinary dashes that I've been using in conversion templates for ages, for Ghod's sake, proof the page after you're done. I found three very prominent error messages where you'd taken out the dash, but not replaced it with anything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the oversight; I am under the impression that hyphens are deprecated so took them out using Open Office. I thought I'd done it right. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I've just checked and the mistakes have been remedied, thanks for that. Does this mean that there are lots of templates on ship articles with |-| instead of |–| ? Keith-264 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I've never had the issue come up before, to tell the truth. I don't know offhand if hyphens in conversion templates are subject to the MOS's rule on en-dashes in number ranges, although I don't see why not. OTOH, I've had plenty of FACs pass with hyphens in the templates, so I dunno. So, yeah, there are probably thousands of ship articles that need en-dashes. Knock yourself out, if you want to gnome onwards!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's customary to use hyphens, I've only made things worse by changing them in one article, I thought it was a typo to correct not a common feature. I think prudence requires that I sit this one out. ;O)) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Hush, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zero hour (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) 10:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The Cambridge History of the First World War

Hi Have you seen these volumes? I wonder if they are worth buying. The Cambridge histories are my Bible--Woogie10w (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yesterday I saw them in a wish list and then winced at the prices. I'd have a try at one before deciding, even if money was no option. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Maes–Garreau law

Please check the sources for the law, per the main article. All use the "future technology" formulation. None support your removal of the word future.

And your pedantic change completely misses the point. One can predict the future of a current technology. And one can predict the future of a future technology. Maes was making a point about predictions relating to a future technology, nor a prediction about a current technology. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The law as written is in illiterate American hence the redundant term future in a discussion about prediction. In your pedantic formula predictions relating to a future technology you seem not to have noticed that prediction can only pertain to the future; the future is one and indivisible. I won't revert you again because life is too short but I would suggest that you reflect on the difference between English and American. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Your recent editing history at Greco-Italian War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Athenean (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't take a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, it's overkill. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

PS stop misrepresenting my conduct, I called no-one an impostor.Keith-264 (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I would note (if this should escalate) that Keith has been a very active participant on the talk page discussing this very issue since it cropped up (last year or the year before, I should add; as well as the more recently discussion), and the editor providing this lovely warning has edited against consensus. The original version should stand, which is what Keith has been reverting to, until a new consensus is established (and a single source should not be the overriding factor in changing the infobox).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the support, I won't interfere with the infobox during this dispute, since the flurry has attracted the attention of other editors who are keeping an open mind. Keith-264 (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Greco-Italian War. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr. K. 15:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, come off it, this matter is still under discussion and you jumped the gun. I put your compromise edit on the talk page which is where it belongs and offered some suggestions. You should also refrain from terms like this their preferred version when my conduct is nothing of the sort. I refer you to WP:AGF, suggest that you are giving grounds for WP:GAMING and refer you to Enigma's comments above. Keith-264 (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Keith-264 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Dr. K. 16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

While I will remain civil on the admin board, I have to say this report was s total bullshit and Dr K you know it!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Serre-lès-Puisieux

I was surprised that the place seems to have an article only in Dutch Wiki. Once I'd identified it for certain, a Google search turned up a chilling group of nearby war graves. See also Puisieux, Pas-de-Calais, for some external links to CWGC sites which as yet have no articles. Narky Blert (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Every time I look over a Somme article, I seize on Serre as an unlinked village, then realise that there isn't an article so now I can copy your link, thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

56th Division links

Hello, my name is Justin, i am replying because you left a note on my talk page inbox. i have not bothered to configure because i dont much like talking with geeks who want an argument. Nonetheless you make a remark about finding the long title link to 56th Division of ourse you are right, and i absolutely agree with you. But i have been making the same remarks for over 10 years myself and have innovated many changes to Wikipedia since i was obne of the first to get involved in England.

You will not have heard of me, because no one has. I first met Jimmy of the Wales in USA many years ago. And i have been making contributions ever since. Unfortunately there was a War waged on My Pages: they deleted a lot of my work before the days of protection, and then crashed my computer with a nasty Virus.

Now of course it has gone Corporate Wiki. And i was there in the days of Wikileaks and Mr Assange.

So i hope you will understand why i am little too cynical and world-weary to take too much advice from Folks! I just do what i do! But my interests include the following: 1. Military and Naval History 2. Political History 3. Diplomatic history 4. Politics 5. Business 6. Religion 7. Art and Art History. 8. Royalty 9. genealogy, family and local history 10. European History 11. Poetry.

Jgrantduff|talk) Note: if you have no use for my content script then, i am not offended by voluntary opting-out from responses. No compulsion.

Hello Justin, thanks for the reply, I left a note because I want to avoid wasted effort, which most of your links on the Ginchy page were, since they led to the wrong pages. I thought you were a novice till I read your page then realised you weren't so I hope you don't feel underestimated. I'm too old and world-weary to look for an argument but you're always welcome for a chat. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Mines on the Italian Front

Esteemed Keith-264, tunneling and mining doesn't always have to take place in Flanders mud or Somme chalk - what about mining in ice and snow for a change? I've just comepleted Mines on the Italian Front (World War I)... Best wishes! ViennaUK (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Klaatu earthling, it's been a while ;O)). Do you have anything on the big mine of mid-1917 on the Arras front? Keith-264 (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry, Arras and Vauquois are slightly unknown areas at this time, although there might be some information to help you in the New Zealand Tunnelling Company article. My big ambition remains to write an article on the Tunnelling units of the German engineers in Flanders - whether we'll ever see that materialize remains to be seen... ViennaUK (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I found a bit in this (I Wish They'd Killed You in A Decent Show: The Bloody Fighting for Croisilles, Fontaine-Les-Croisilles and the Hindenburg Line: March 1917 to August 1918 by Colin Taylor) new book and there's something in OH 1917 I. Keith-264 (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

RT (TV network): "Israel–Palestine dispute" versus "Occupation of Palestine"

Hi, there's a discussion at Talk:RT (TV network) which may interest you. Arbor Fici (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)