This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Keith,

My copies of the Med and ME series are locked up at the moment, but when I get them I should be able to finish fleshing out the UK and ME sections of the article. Do you still have the Far East series? If so, any help on expanding the article would be appreciated. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I Woodburn-Kirby I found a reference to a Dalforce but that's all in those short-lived commanders. I'll delve more. Keith-264 ( talk) 07:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Keith. I tried the Gazette, as I thought it was suppose to record these kind of things, but came empty re the commanders. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 15:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have expanded the article up to the Battle of Singapore. I know you have plenty on your plate at the moment. But when you have a moment, could you see if there is any detail in Woodburn-Kirby re the 53rd Brigade during the Battle of Muar, and likewise for the 5th and 6th Royal Norfolk Regiment as well as the 2nd Cambridgeshire Regiment? Especially casualty info.

I have used the Oz OH as the main source, so it does not give that much info on the activities of these three battalions (although more than I had imagined). I don't know if their historian had an axe to grind or was being completely honest, but it seems like most of these chaps were in over their heads. Hoping the British OH can either balance or confirm.

Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 16:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll have a butcher's. Keith-264 ( talk) 17:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Good show! EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 17:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The 18th Division, 4th & 5th R Norfolks & 2nd Cambs are in the Index, I'll delve a bit more tomorrow as I'm having a Velvet Underground 'n' Stella Artois frenzy at the mo'. ;o) Keith-264 ( talk) 19:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Enjoy, and thanks :) EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Drafting a narrative for the final battle atm. Other terms I would kindly request you look up are: Tomforce/Tom Force and Massy Force. Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 19:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

My good sir: I have expanded the article to cover up until the division was captured. Will be researching the various battalions to see if I can get additional detail, and then try and find some historians take on the division to balance out the ending of the article. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been working on my Infantry tank article and forgot to look. I'll have a go tomorrow. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 23:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Its okay Keith, I know you are busy. When you get the time, it will be much appreciated :) EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 00:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Keith, thanks for the edits to the article. Do you have any additional material that you may be able to add? If not, please let me know, and I will get the review process rolling to get the article looked at and promoted. Thanks again for the help! :) EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 22:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

There's a bit more but I've been blown off course again, I'll try again tomorrow. Keith-264 ( talk) 23:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

As always, thanks Keith.

I have attempted to dig up some analysis of the division, but alas it seems most sources are resigned to the division being in the wrong place at the wrong time and focus on Percival's actions. I cant even confirm if the deserters in Singapore City, getting drunk apparently and some trying to hijack ships out of there (cant blame them!), included members of the division. It seems most sources want to trash the Aussies, and one or two point out that some men from the 18th also wore bush hats so would look like the Aussies. In some respects, this division is even harder to figure out than some of the lower establishment/reserve units! EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 00:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Howdy! The article is currently going through a peer review, and the reviewer pointed out the following:

I will check the Aus OH and see if I can address it, but I admit that I found the whole issue confusing. Does the Brit OH clear things up? EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 22:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that's an inconsistency between Woodburn Kirby and the AusOH; I remember being a bit puzzled. I'll have a look tomorrow, now that I've got me FLT licence. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 23:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Congrats on getting the licence Keith! As for the issue, I think I have been able to clear it up based off the Aus OH:

I have thrown in a quick line into the article. I hope it jives better now with both accounts? EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 16:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, I'll do some more reading tonight. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 17:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Howdy, was you able to dig up any additional info? If not, its okay, and I will go ahead and ask the Guild of Copyeditors to give the article the once over. Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 18:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I keep meaning to get round to it but I've been bogged down by distractions for weeks; I'll have another try. Regards. Keith-264 ( talk) 20:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

LOL, I know that feeling! As always, thank you. I will hold off with the copyedit for now, then. :) EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Keith, I am hoping you would be able to address this particular issue brought up during the GA-Review, i: "was this the battalion commander (i.e. CO), or a company commander (i.e. OC)?"

Regards, EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 01:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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 Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography Timeline: This month in World War I

So, I followed-up on your suggestion and registered an account (as stated earlier, shared IP so malicious edits are being made by others and I would like to avoid my own coming under editor-scrutiny for the wrong reasons). I tried creating a script page like you suggest, see Thetweaker2017/common.js, but I do not think I have done it correctly as duplicate links are not showing. Any advice? Thetweaker2017 ( talk) 15:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Scratch that, I have figured out what I did wrong and the above incorrect page will be getting deleted shortly. With the correct page, the duplicate link option now appears. Thetweaker2017 ( talk) 16:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Keith, You have attributed the quote to the wrong man. I think it is extremely valuable to refer to two eyewitness accounts, and for them to appear in the notes. In order to do this, I see no alternative to Cite Book template, however. If you have an alternative means of getting the quotes to appear in the footnotes, please do let me know. Keith H99 ( talk) 18:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Apols for the misunderstanding, it shall be done. Keith-264 ( talk) 18:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am a bit busy at present, but will make some changes in the next few hours. If what I do can be improved, please do let me know. Bye for now Keith H99 ( talk) 18:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

'Tis done. {{efn|content plus sfn citation}} is available on the page if you want to include context outside the narrative sections. Regards and thanks for the additions. Keith-264 ( talk) 18:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Keith, thanks for this. I have now made some material additions. The devil is in the detail, but as long as this appears as footnotes. This should add to the article in terms of when the volunteers request was made, how many men were required, and accounts of how secretive thing were. If I have made any howlers with the templates, please amend. Regards Keith H99 ( talk) 20:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

We Keiths stand together on the edge of dawn and we take no prisoners. ;O) Keith-264 ( talk) 06:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Since the main discussion seems to rapidly sidetrack, a quick question: why not expand the "Second Army" section to include the details from the other Normandy articles? EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Enigma, you OK? It might be worth try but I want to get the battle section done to avoid another marathon edit frenzy. I'm fairly sure that it should be re-written at the operational level and the leads from other articles I parachuted in mostly edited out but I'm going to have to wait a bit. I added three links to situation maps on the talk page for those who are assembling a Ger oob to be going on with. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 08:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Doing good Keith, thanks; hope the same can be said about you.

I like what you say. Perhaps we should ask everyone to hold a recess on the talkpage bickering for a while to allow further article development ... then resume arguing? :) EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 15:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice but I fear it's impossible. Keith-264 ( talk) 15:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I have given it a shot, hopefully everyone will agree allowing development without distraction for a short while. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 15:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

SNAFU, it would appear. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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 and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

Perhaps you'd care to explain how any part of this is incivil, to you or anyone, considering every part of it was concerned with the content of the page or aspects of unclrarity on it. Or do you take that personally, because they're your edits? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

See my reply on the talk page. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 15:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Keith, have I copy-edited your work before? I'm pretty certain I have (I know that you have helped me). If so, you will know how I work and would like to go through the Malta convoys. I don't want to step on your toes. Let me know (ping me here). Regards Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I was prompted by an edit to have a look at the article 'cos it's on my watchlist and ended up adding a few bits. I'm trying to clear my sandboxes of half-finished articles (again) so won't be making a big push on it for a while but any attention to it is welcome. I hope to do a bit here and there, when I'm having a rest from the sandbox purge. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 09:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I will wait until the dust settles a bit. There is too much activity ATM and edit conflicts are a pain. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks babe but these are the only rewards I'm bothered about. ;o)

Keith-264 ( talk) 10:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. 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 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

G'day Keith, hope you are well. I've been doing a little tidying on the Battle of St Quentin Canal article since it appeared on the Main Page. In doing so, I notice that the casualty figures are missing for the British and Germans, while the US figures may potentially be for a much longer time period than just the attack described in the article. I was wondering if you might have any refs that could clear these issues up? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 21:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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 and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

I've noticed that a newer member of Wikipedia has nominated the March of the Iron Will article for GA status, though a look at the the revision history shows that they've made no edits to it. There are some noticeable though correctable problems with this article (missing cites, reliance on Time magazine articles, some relevant info missing). Perhaps we could lend a hand and do some cleanup to prepare it for review? We can move some material over from the Second Italo-Ethiopian War article over to it. - Indy beetle ( talk) 03:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to help but I'm on a training course for the next three weeks so I'll only be able to do drive-by edits. If there's anything specific pls let me know and I'll check my sources. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 14:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Keith
I notice you reverted an edit I made here a few days ago, which puzzled me; the edit summary says “Its a title not a quotation”. I added the quote marks because I assumed Falcon Feathers was a translation, or a nickname, in the style of the Frecce Tricolori ( literally "Tricolour Arrows"), or the 101st Airborne Division ("Screaming Eagles") (Though now I'm looking at it again, I can see my “add quote marks” comment could be misleading...) Anyway, it's up to you.
Also, I notice you added the Italian name for Italian East Africa to the infobox and linked it (which is fair enough); but as the link merely redirects to IEA, which is the article title, do you think it's necessary? Xyl 54 ( talk) 12:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the message. I think that putting a translation into quotes is a US usage and this article is in BritEng. I got quite fond of the Italian version of titles which didn't seem too challenging for English speakers but if you prefer it your way, I don't mind. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 15:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner: I just wanted to round things off here. On the Italian name in the infobox, it was mainly the link that was superfluous (I've un-linked it now); having the Italian version of titles is OK by me. And, putting translations into quotes is an American usage... Blimey! I've been getting it wrong all these years! Oh well, live and learn! … Regards, Xyl 54 ( talk) 23:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That's OK, I've been busy too. I've been creep-checking old articles and found quite a few grammatical and syntactic solecisms too. Still, I mustn't grumble I need to use the energy to get Infantry tank finished. When I've got a mo', I want to finish a rewrite of Agordat and then crack on with the Southern Front operations, 1940-1941. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 07:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

-- Woogie10w ( talk) 17:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

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 Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

Thanks for catching and correcting my dumb edit on the infantry tank page. I'm absolutely aghast that I could inadvertently add bad content to an article, especially when it was my intention to only remove content. It reinforces my need to check changes before submitting edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Going mobile ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh that's all right; the other day I managed to put a duplicate copy of an article into the middle of the article...;O) Keith-264 ( talk) 18:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Keith, I'm an avid reader and occasional (unregistered) contributor on the English Wikipedia. Also being a native German speaker I stumbled over this sentence in the section Hindenburg Programme of the article Hindenburg Line:

" Ernst von Wrisberg, Abteilungschef of the kaiserlicher Oberst und Landsknechtsführer (head of the Prussian Ministry of War section responsible for raising new units), had grave doubts about the wisdom of the increase in the expansion of the army but was over-ruled by Ludendorff."

I looked into the article's history and found that you were the original contributor in May 2016. Instead of directly editing and giving my reasons on that article's talk page, I choose this way of telling you. Seems less disruptive and the article appears to be your brainchild to a certain degree, anyway.

Two issues here:

[*] Your direct quote from German does not fit into your statement. It's what made me stop in the first place. A literal translation back into English would be: "Ernst von Wrisberg, head of department of the imperial colonel and lansquenet-leader had grave doubts..."

[*] You go on to translate this as "head of the War Ministry". The English wiki has a listing of all Prussian war ministers with pictures. Mr. von Wrisberg is not in it. The German wiki states he was "Direktor des Allgemeinen Kriegs-Departements" at this time (end of 1916). Looking at the War Ministry article again, it states that the Allgemeines Kriegs-Departement was a subdivision of the war ministry, so you could call him a deputy minister.

Please leave a comment here or on the article's talk page wether you will change anything in the article yourself. Thank you for your contributions, I saw many in the article's history. 92.201.16.7 ( talk) 11:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, 92, thank you for taking the trouble, I sometimes resort to an online translator when I write a German word, phrase or title. The results are usually good enough but sometimes a German speaker corrects them, which you're doing now. I see that my source is Foley, who I think is a high quality one but evidently somewhat lacking this time. I've edited the passage, is it an improvement? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 14:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You got half of it right, this time. But still it's "Ernst von W., of the colonel and [antiquated part of title, Landsknechts weren't around since about 1700, right?], of the War Ministry ([his position at the time]) had grave doubts..."'

You can't do 'Ernst of the colonel of the ministry', grammatically. See my recent edit of Hindenburg Line and keep it, if you think it's ok.

By the way, you're way better than that non-German speaking dude who wanted to tell me (and the world by way of Wikipedia) years ago that the word Wehrmacht comes from "war" and "make" [1]. Keep up your good work. 92.201.16.7 ( talk) 05:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much, you're not so bad yourself. ;O) I made a small alteration to avoid an apostrophe, hope that's OK. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 09:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

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 Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello!

i saw that you undo my changes in Battle of Gazala i have request from you. In allies side there are total 843 tanks and in down below the losses of tanks from allies side is 1,188 tanks damaged or destroyed.

How is that Possible!!!

Please change it

Thank you!

Not all the tanks knocked out were new vehicles, both sides were good at the recovery and repair of damaged ones. If you want to change the infobox totals you'll need a citation to a reliable source. Have you read the Casualties section? It enlarges on the tank casuaalties. Template:Infobox military conflict

Result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

The result criterion has been changed recently to limit arguments; discursive forms of words are out. Hope this helps and makes your editing more enjoyable. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

it's Really helpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian From Hazarajat ( talk • contribs) 10:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 23:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

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 looks at tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 198.84.253.202 ( talk) 03:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Keith. Thanks for your input on the Yeomanry->Yeomanry Cavalry page move request. It's clear that this was an inappropriate move and I've withdrawn the request. I do, however, believe that separate articles are justified and, following a discussion with one of the other contributors to the page move discussion, have begun a discussion about reverting the Yeomanry article to its original state, and splitting off the work I have done into a separate Yeomanry Cavalry article. I would welcome your opinion on this. Factotem ( talk) 23:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I noticed this edit (and I agree!), but was wondering if it might be sensible to link in some way to either a category or list of films (as opposed to mentioning them directly in the article). The films that had a genuine critical and cultural impact would still get mentioned in the main article. I was reminded of this when I ended up at All the King's Men (1999 film) via Frank Beck (British Army officer). Anyway, what do you think of the films in Category:Films about the Gallipoli Campaign (I removed one and added a couple)? Not sure where Break of Day (film) should go. I ended up looking through Category:World War I films and List of World War I films. Quite a lot there. Tell England (film) is interesting as an early example of the genre. I wonder if the title of the film refers to the appropriation in the post-war year of the Ladysmith epitaph? Actually, I should have looked at the article on the book: Tell England, which confirms it. Hmm. The Corbets (brothers?) mentioned there in the book dedication are a bit of a mystery. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to like to material already on Wiki and it will reduce squabbles about what goes in See also. I didn't know about the origin of Tell England; I have the book but haven't read it yet. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

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 Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello Keith
I notice you reverted the corrections I made to some weight conversions here. The problem was that the conversion values were confusing (and wrong); I brought it up here, and a remedy was suggested, so I have applied that to the SoT page ([ viz) I trust you are OK with that. Regards, Xyl 54 ( talk) 02:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Xyl, Apols I should have asked you why first. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 08:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, no worries! I wasn't sure how long the fix would last anyway, given the enthusiasm for using templates that's around. But the people responding on the template talkpage came up with a way to tweak it, so it's all good. Regards, Xyl 54 ( talk) 23:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I remember when I found out about them and began to worry that the t was the same as the LT but discovering why is a great help, |0| Keith-264 ( talk) 23:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Keith. Do you have a copy of Military Operations France and Belgium, 1915: Winter 1915: Battle of Neuve Chapelle: Battles of Ypres by Edmonds and Wynne in your possession? I'm looking for a source for the statement "The first higher territorial command to see action was the Northumberland Brigade, which suffered over 1,940 casualties on 26 April 1915 during the Second Battle of Ypres." A similar statement is sourced to this publication in the Second Battle of Ypres article, but to the page range 256–268, and I'm hoping to narrow that down to a specific page. I have sources that state the Brigade was the first territorial command to see action in the battle, and just need a source for the specific date and the number of casualties. Appreciate any help you might be able to give. Cheers. Factotem ( talk) 13:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure, 'tis done. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 14:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Magic. I actually wanted the info for Territorial Force, but I just copied all that I needed from your edit. Thanks for your help. Much appreciated. Factotem ( talk) 15:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Alright mate, check out my edit at German casualties in World War II [2] -- Woogie10w ( talk) 13:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, see what you mean. Hope you're chortling about the pathetic bleats from here about a couple of inches of snow. ;O) Keith-264 ( talk) 15:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You've reverted me twice and twice labelled me a vandal for this article Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II for a perfectly proper and one would think innocuous use of the 'redirect' template . Could you please give an actual explanation? Doprendek ( talk) 15:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I reverted you once and the nature of the redirect is explanation enough; it's irrelevant to the article and those redirected to. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 15:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

1) You reverted me twice. And twice called me a vandal, which you are very casual and unapologetic about. That is a serious charge based on no evidence whatsoever. 2) My addition has no relevance to the main article--well, no kidding. That is because it is for people who are searching for the article "African Theatre" and come to Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II by mistake. That is the whole point of the 'redirect' template. If you've got a problem with something, then it should be with the redirect to this article from "African Theater", almost an exact spelling. To reiterate: My use was exactly to the point of the 'redirect' template. Doprendek ( talk) 17:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

No, someone else reverted you the first time. I suggest that you take this to the talk page. [Moved to article talk page] Keith-264 ( talk) 17:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Keith, A 1928 book based on official BRITISH documents is not much good for stuff about what the GERMANS were up to. A better citation for the reorganisation of the German air service would be - Gray and Thetford 1961, p. xxxix: but nothing there about reduced air activity (although I'm sure I've read somewhere that there was something of the kind while they were in an administrative muddle - makes sense. But it would have been in September or October 1916 NOT May). The reference to reduced activity in Jackson doesn't link up with the rest of the sentence - I can't see anything at all in Jackson about the reorganisation at all. Anyway - we really want something that links the halves of the sentence - it's really only one statement. I'll find something - although the gray and thetford would be an improvement in the meantime. Marco — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWIReferences ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A blanket rejection of a RS is a mistake, we don't reject Magna Carta because it's old, especially when it's used for description, rather than for explanation; the compilers could talk to people who were there and refer to German sources lin the Reichsarchiv, much of which was destroyed in the war; Hoeppner was there as well, do you reject him too? I think you risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater but if you have other sources I'm interested in what they contain. Jackson, who he? PS if you look here History of the Great War section The War in the Air, you'll find a link so you can see for yourself. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 12:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Didn't see your answer here before for some reason - still finding the whole Wiki set up most confusing! But I would have thought it was very obvious indeed that I wasn't "rejecting" Jackson, Hoeppner or any other old source (in fact I own copies of both of them (!) for what that is worth). Hoeppner is a very good source indeed, but like most personal memoirs is to be taken with a pinch of the saline stuff in places. Jackson is also very good, although being "contemporary" some things are a bit fishy. In any case, their views on what the OTHER SIDE were up to is inherently less useful than what they say about their own side. But reading Jackson, he was not a good reference at this point because he simply doesn't support the point made! The best source in the world is worth nothing, surely, if we misquote him! I also wanted them dated correctly, because a casual reader, who probably doesn't know who Hoeppner was, or Jackson for that matter, might think we were referring to up-to-date assessments rather than what amount to primary sources. Never mind - all water under the bridge by now?-- WWIReferences ( talk) 02:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A recent set of edits on the article for Australia were "edit summaried" as "Corrected Grammar", or words to that effect - but this was obviously spurious as there were no apparent discernible changes at all, most certainly not to the grammar. I was "bold" and reloaded the version of the article before that set of changes, but I am just a little confused if I did the right thing? -- WWIReferences ( talk) 01:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Why did you judge them spurious? WP:BRD might support what you did but it might help if you make a comment on the talk page and ping the other editor to discuss the edits {{ping|WWIReferences}} like so. In my experience grammatical corrections are either uncontentious or the subject of hurt feelings; your revert might go unnoticed or be the beginning of a saga. These days I don't put a comma after brackets and a lot of editors avoid brackets and use commas instead. I tend to use brackets sparingly except in certain contexts and I never put a comma next to a conjunction. Hope this helps. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 09:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for answering so quickly - still trying to get the hang of this site properly. The point was that there WAS no "grammatical correction" correct or otherwise - in fact no "grammatical" difference. The "spurious" bit was the non-existent relationship between the edit s and the edit summaries! Take you point they may have been talking about punctuation, but there was no apparent punctuation difference either. Still have a feeling that the edits concerned were probably "experiments", and that going back to the article as it was didn't do any harm, even if wasn't strictly necessary. Edit summaries need to be accurate above all - is there a policy page on this one? Thanks again, anyway. WWIReferences ( talk) 13:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If you go to the page and click history along the top of the screen, you can compare your edit with the other one using (cur | prev). The edits show in red, trouble is, a red comma is easy to miss. There's one after a (bracket)[,] in your or the other blokes's edit. I'm happy to help with anything; several editors did the same for me so I'm repaying the favour. This Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history is a good page to have on watch and User:Keith-264/sandbox has lots of aides memoires for good wikimojo. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 14:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Love the trick of making multiple sandboxes - may end up using that one for things I want to keep for a while. Also found the links from the helpful people at the talk page for the article very useful, using the tool they recommended in future. Rather than rely on the standard "compare". I'm getting there, I think. WWIReferences ( talk) 20:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure; the trouble with multiple sandboxes is that you get multiple unfinished articles. ;O) Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 21:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

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 looks at a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Help improve the article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you very much. 27.68.20.150 ( talk) 09:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

April fool! ;o) Keith-264 ( talk) 10:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

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 looks at the bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron Timeline: This month in World War I

This request has been declined by the committee. Several on the committee appear to have considered it a content dispute that should be resolved by other means.

For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing ( talk) 14:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I put a North Sea map in the infobox with a location point. The infobox is supposed to convey the main point os the article at a glance. The image is currently an unlabeled map of the North Sea so to the casual glancer, the Battle could have occurred at any point between the Netherlands and the Orkney Islands.

Adding the map (simply by using |Map_type=North Sea and |Map_relief=Yes) was the main point of my edit. So as not to have two maps, I filled the space the previous one occupied with an image that I spent all of 10 seconds selecting. You are absolutely 100% correct that it's a melodramatic, trivial propaganda picture, but I figured it portrayed the most significant event that occurred and so was roughly representative of the Battle. Though on reflection, I see that the picture's triumphalist tone might affect neutrality, and another one may have been better.

Anyway, I firmly believe I made the article better overall. So I thought I'd explain my reasoning before making any other changes.. Catsmeat ( talk) 08:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

[edit conf] Hello Catsmeat, thank you for explaining; I was rather puzzled at the edit label because it was a ship not a map; I thought you might have put the wrong link in. The North Sea WWI articles mostly have that North Sea map in them, which does what it says, showing what and where the North Sea is. A loc map of the scene of the action further down the infobox is a good idea, which I've used a lot elsewhere but I don't know how to do sea ones. I'd like both maps, the N Sea one as the general and a loc map for the specific. I've just tried |Map_type=North Sea and |Map_relief=Yes but didn't see anything on show preview. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 08:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "Battle of Hébuterne"? Gog the Mild ( talk)

Thanks yes, I was at a birthday party last night.... Keith-264 ( talk) 16:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Keith
Thanks for your note on the talk page there; nice work on the article! Sorry for not replying sooner; real life intruding!
If you don't mind there are a couple of things I'd like to amend: AFAIK Operation FB only covered the outbound 13 ships to Murmansk at the beginning if November; the 23 Soviet ships inbound to Iceland were a separate operation over a three month period, as were the 6 ships that sailed in January. I only added them originally to round out the (unusual) story of swapping convoy for patrol & independent sailing, so I'm minded to clarify that a bit. I've also got their names, if you think that's relevant.
Also, the bit about SS Chulmleigh seems to have undue weight in an article on the whole operation; maybe we should do a ship page for her and move it there?
Anyway, good to hear from you; Xyl 54 ( talk) 21:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point, I only added it when I was struggling to find anything. I did a version for Operation Fritham too, where it really belongs; a "see also" might be enough. I bow to your greater knowledge of the convoys, as you can see from the citations, I was pretty limited in sources. I'd go for the Soviet ships' names but I might put them in a note depending on what effect the amendments have on the balance of the article. Thanks for your interest and I hope that real life stops intruding, it's most awkward. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 22:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Keith, please see here for advice on the correct use of semi-colons. Also please have a look at the Wikipedia policies around good-faith edits and rv-warring. Dan100 ( Talk) 21:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's impossible to make a one-sided allegation of rv warring when you're a participant. If it helps, I learned to write English in the 1970s, things were different then, I also happen to favour the semi-colon. I took the article of watch because life's too short; I don't know if you did 3rr after I reverted your revert of my revert but I've bowed out gracefully. Keith-264 ( talk) 06:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

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 looks at coalitions and logistics in World War II, and Nick-D at Australia's frontier wars Timeline: This month in World War I

Thanks Sasuke but the only reward that I'm really bothered about is a bottle with Cotes du Rhone written on it. ;O) Keith-264 ( talk) 07:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

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 Op-ed: TomStar81 on a supergun of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi Keith-264. First of all, thanks for keeping up your hard work on Wikipedia. I had to remove your recent additions to the Battle of the Espero Convoy article. Frankly, even if important in the context of the Mediterranean war, the antisubmarine and torpedo bomber actions you added to the page fail WP:TOPIC. Feel free to restore it if you think the info is relevant to the battle itself, but you must note that similar articles (Suda, Matapan, Sirte) usually avoid to mention secondary operations or subsequent engagements if these are not a direct consequence (or part) of the battle. The sections I deleted may find a more suitable place in articles related to the individual units. Best regards. Darius ( talk) 21:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

P/S: What about merging the submarines' info (in a shortened form) into the "Background" section? A summarized paragraph about the torpedo bombers' attack could be also added to the "Aftermath". Let me know your opinion. Darius ( talk) 22:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Keith. I see that the military history project recommends including alternate names for battles, which is sensible. It's still not clear to me why this particular name warrants inclusion, though: "Schlacht von Cambrai" is just a direct German translation of "Battle of Cambrai," not exactly the same territory as the Battle of the Bulge vs. the Ardennes Offensive vs. Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein. - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 18:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It's the German term and we shouldn't discriminate. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 19:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

A quick look at other battles of WWI shows that we generally don't include this particular kind of name. - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 15:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Not everyone has sources which give French and German versions of the same event (if they exist). The Attack at Fromelles (French pronunciation: ​[fʁɔmɛl] Battle of Fromelles, Battle of Fleurbaix or Schlacht von Fromelles) is what a comprehensive lead contains. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 15:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, all right, but it still seems a little silly that the ideal state for many articles is going to be "The Battle of X (French: Battaille de X, German: Schlacht bei X)...." - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 18:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes non-English writers use the English name - I went through a few French books on the Somme and they used the same names and dates. I've got a way in to the FOH now so I hope it's a little more forthcoming. Keith-264 ( talk) 16:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)