User talk:Keith-264/Archives/ 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Keith-264. 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. |
The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022
|
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) 12:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023
|
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) 19:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
my edit
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding I provided a source that source is kinda viable but I am sorry if the sources doesn't fit the Wikipedia source but may I have and explanation hope you have a good fortune Ahamed34 i (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit because you edit like someone who as banned for disruptive editing. Keith-264 (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023
|
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) 23:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
At J. R. R. Tolkien, contrary to WP:BRD, when you made a Bold edit and were Reverted, you should immediately have resorted to Discussion rather than beginning an edit-war with a second reversion. An edit comment is not an acceptable discussion when a matter is already known to be disputed. As an experienced editor you should not be approaching a dialogue in this way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023
|
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) 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
March 2023
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Battle of the Mareth Line, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 21:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oops! Didn't notice. Keith-264 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023
|
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) 21:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Battle of Vimy Ridge - Duplicate wikilinks?
'Arthur Currie' may have a duplicate wikilink somewhere in this article, but WHERE IS IT and how can you find it without scanning the ENTIRE TEXT? Any helpful pointers for a technically challenged wikipedian? Spyglasses (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, if you look down the left margin there's a box called tools. You can install a script which adds "Highlight duplicate wikilinks" at the bottom of the box. When you click on, a link with a duplicate has a green dotted line around it and the duplicate a red letterbox. It means that you can add a link then check if it's a dupe; I find it helpful. I can do it for you if you like. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- see here User:Keith-264/common.js Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your helpful information. Currie is a somewhat overlooked hero in Canada because he refused to accept a politically connected officer in his staff and was sidelined after the war in retribution.Spyglasses (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Didn't he have some trouble with getting his fingers caught in the till? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- THAT may have been part of the retribution. The Minister of Defense tried to have a relative posted to Curries' staff but he refused to accept the individual. The Minister made all sorts of trouble for Currie afterwards, likely to include 'looking for evidence' of misappropriation of funds. Spyglasses (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Didn't he have some trouble with getting his fingers caught in the till? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your helpful information. Currie is a somewhat overlooked hero in Canada because he refused to accept a politically connected officer in his staff and was sidelined after the war in retribution.Spyglasses (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- see here User:Keith-264/common.js Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Battle of Vimy Ridge
In the article Battle of Vimy Ridge, this is described with the term "British Empire victory". How did this description become applied here? Tennisedu (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Look at the extensive discussion on the talk page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023
|
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) 11:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023
|
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) 18:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Oops!
Sorry about that! I was going to say, you sound like Greg House ([1]) , but maybe I should have kept quiet! Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- ;O) He's taller than me and a lot posher. :O) I prefer him in Jeeves and Wooster but watched a fair few series of House but that was more to do with Lisa Edelstein....Keith-264 (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Mmm! -- Lisa Edelstein... Xyl 54 (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- ;O) He's taller than me and a lot posher. :O) I prefer him in Jeeves and Wooster but watched a fair few series of House but that was more to do with Lisa Edelstein....Keith-264 (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023
|
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) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Howdy. Just wanted to make sure you were aware that additions edits took place after your last revision, just in case my edit (to clean up the source formatting) somehow removed the alert for you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Typos
Hey! I've done a spot check of some of your recent edits and many of them contain pretty significant factual, grammatical, or typographical errors despite edit summaries saying that you're correcting these things. If you're using a script, I think something is wrong. They all look like they're good faith edits, though, so I would just encourage you to go back over some of your recent contributions to ensure no unintended mistakes were inserted. I've started correcting some of these issues, too. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- I suggest that you stop unilaterally reverting my edits and discuss them individually (apart from sis, which was a typo) as you appear to have difficulty parsing a sentence. Could it be that you write in American rather than English? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Deeply uncivil comment. Please consider this a formal warning to that effect. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Judge and jury in your own cause? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_and_the_Beam not a good look. Keith-264 (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure the reason for the immense hostility. I merely pointed out there were a number of typos in your recent edits and wanted to ensure that there wasn't something wrong with a script. Please refrain from engaging in antagonistic messaging. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Judge and jury in your own cause? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_and_the_Beam not a good look. Keith-264 (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Deeply uncivil comment. Please consider this a formal warning to that effect. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
You infer "immense hostility" where none exists. Keith-264 (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023
|
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) 08:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023
|
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) 11:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023
|
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) 21:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023
|
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) 19:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
History of military logistics
Could you do me a favour and have a look over the World War I section of History of military logistics, which is up for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/History of military logistics? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023
|
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) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Image issues
Hey Keith - on these two edits, why did you make the map smaller? It's fairly hard to see at 200 px. I don't see the benefit of making it smaller. And as for the second image, I know you prefer to have the top of the image lined up with the text, which I don't much care about, but do you not see that the image screws with the header below when it's left aligned? Parsecboy (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- The map isn't detailed and the smaller size fits the style of the article; on my laptop the left alignment didn't impinge on the next header. Rather than right align it, I'd rather put it elsewhere or get rid. At least someone read the bugger ;o) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's difficult to make images fit for different display sizes (and smartphones are an entirely different layout too), but I think it's generally better to defer to larger monitors (or at least reasonable desktop sizes - I don't think we need to get carried away there) since smaller ones will generally not have issues with layouts that work better on larger screens.
- And I get what you mean - very few read the vast majority of the articles I write! Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- I have a laptop, about 14" by 9" and my placement looked OK but we can't predict how it will render for other people. There's the | upright = function but I need to look at it again, I've been using it for size alterations but there might be more. If it's any consolation, I like your articles. Some of my prides and joys get about four views a week and Sunday afternoon knock-offs get 150,000....Grrrr. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
HX convoys
Do the number of ships and number of losses include escorts? If so, I think this should be mentioned specifically. If not, are the numbers available, especially for losses since some escorts would not have been with the convoys for their entire journeys? Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I see this has been reviewed while I was writing this. I am repeating it on the article talk page since other questions were also added there by Djmaschek. Donner60 (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Part of The Burma campaign
Just to make sure we're on the same page:
- You see that the subheading in the infobox says "Part of The Burma campaign" because that's how the | partof = section of the template is rendered ...
- and you understand that "The" should not be capitalised because "the" is not a part of a title of a work?
Yue🌙 00:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Look at two of the articles you edited recently, where "the" is capitalised in neither article:
- Battle of Liège: "Part of the Western Front of the First World War"
- Operation Bowery: "Part of the Battle of the Mediterranean of the Second World War"
- Yue🌙 00:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Yue: Not everyone does it but when in for a B class review it's usually recommended; I am working on Bowery to get it to B class standard and haven't finished. You might enquire at the Milhist talk page here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history in case this had changed. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Keith-264: Can you link the project recommendation or discussion / consensus so I can understand why this apparent contradiction of MOS:CAPS is B-class standard? Yue🌙 00:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Yue: Not everyone does it but when in for a B class review it's usually recommended; I am working on Bowery to get it to B class standard and haven't finished. You might enquire at the Milhist talk page here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history in case this had changed. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Yue: I'm afraid not. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Operation Albumen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axis.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Rohwer
I don't count a "special assistance" as a co-author. I imagine that that's somebody who provided a lot of data, etc., but didn't actually write anything. Otherwise they'd be listed as a co-author, n'est-ce pas? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: My 2005 copy has special assistance on the title page and shared copyright on the biblio page, that's enough for me. regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Worldcat has all three contributors listed as authors.[2] Keith-264 (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think that we'll have to agree to disagree on this. So long as we respect existing cites and don't try to change one to another, we should be good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Worldcat has all three contributors listed as authors.[2] Keith-264 (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough, regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I reverted your earlier page move to "Action at Point 175", as it was undiscussed and the article itself still calls it "Battle of Point 175". I assume you still want it changed, so in that case would you open a WP:RM discussion for it? Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
German Capture of Moresnet moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to German Capture of Moresnet. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Arnhem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Lord.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Clarification of talk page comment
Hi, in this diff you have marked my comment with an asterisk and then added a line below to say the question is not honest. Was this just a typo or do you have an issue with my question? From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @From Hill To Shore: Of course I do the way you formed the question was not honest. Keith-264 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- You asked for assistance on the Military History project and, while I don't know about the specific guidance page you asked for, I checked to see if I had the same issues being discussed. To aid the discussion, I reported that I did experience a similar issue. I received a reply asking if my issue is important enough to be considered. I replied to say that while I can accept if the consensus decides not to take any action, I'd at least hope my issue is considered (surely that is a minimum expectation for any reported problem? That someone actually thinks about whether to take action). I then received a reply that making a list of commanders in the infobox readable for mobile users is "trivial," and I am genuinely stumped. Is this a comment that the information in the infobox being trivial or that the experience of mobile users in trying to read the information is trivial? I honestly have no idea, so I asked a question to better understand User:Mztourist's point.
- I didn't expect an accusation of dishonesty from the person who summoned uninvolved parties to the discussion.
- At the end of the day, I don't have a strong view here. I simply reported that I had a similar issue to what was already discussed and tried to understand why the editor responding to me was being unusually dismissive. I'll withdraw from the discussion now as I only got involved as a favour to a fellow editor. Good luck in finding a resolution. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @From Hill To Shore: Have I confused you with one of the other editors? Are you the one who asked a question posing two negative reasons? Keith-264 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think that I confused you with MylowattsIAm but in all fairness your question was disingenuous. Keith-264 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- While an accusation of being disingenuous is a slight improvement on an accusation of being dishonest, you are still accusing me of acting in bad faith here. Even if this is a case of mistaken identity, you should really know better than to throw incendiary terms into a discussion. At no point have you assumed that I was confused by Mztourist's replies or accepted my explanation of my confusion (honestly, I still have no idea what the editor meant, but it is rather redundant now). Instead you have questioned my honesty and sincerity.
- I am content to chalk this up to you making an initial mistake and then digging yourself in deeper. To defuse the situation, I think I will give you a wide berth for a while. Good luck with your editing. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think that I confused you with MylowattsIAm but in all fairness your question was disingenuous. Keith-264 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @From Hill To Shore: Have I confused you with one of the other editors? Are you the one who asked a question posing two negative reasons? Keith-264 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore: I mistook your identity but don't resile from pointing out the obvious. Good luck. Keith-264 (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Battle Of Gallipoli
Hi Keith, How are you doing? I just wanted you to explain why you undid my edits on the Battle Of Gallipoli. Thanks. 174.61.40.97 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not bad thanks, how you? Were they the ones putting Asquith and the other one into the infobox? Keith-264 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes sir. Can you explain undoing those edits? 174.61.40.97 (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- The infobox is for the military commanders most associated with the article, political leaders are excluded unless also military. Britain was (and is) a de facto republic where the monarch is the nominal head of state and head of the armed forces but takes his orders from the prime minister, the real head of state. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes sir. Can you explain undoing those edits? 174.61.40.97 (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
British Empire
Hi there, just floating through while I work on fixing a list of battles, it was my understanding that the consensus was New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and South Africa were self-governing, while India and the colonies were not. Is there something that says otherwise? Cards84664 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Good afternoon, the Canadian supreme court ruled that Canada was an independent country in 1927, the Australians not until 1948 (and in some legal matters not until the 1990s) the change from Dominion status to sovereignty was one of osmosis rather than a clean break. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Useful template for the convoy articles?
Perhaps {{Cite Arnold Hague Convoy Database}} may be of some use, perhaps not to replace your existing sources, but as a readily accessible one for readers who won't have the relevant books? Example:
- "Convoy PQ.18". Arnold Hague Convoy Database. ConvoyWeb. Retrieved 2024-07-06.
(Hohum @) 16:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Hohum: I use that site where the book version lacks detail but it won't hurt. With the Goldene Zange attacks, watching columns disappear might be enlightening. Just a thought. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)