| Revision as of 16:14, 3 February 2009 editEnigmaMcmxc (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers21,933 edits →Perch: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:04, 19 December 2024 edit undoDYKUpdateBot (talk | contribs)Bots, Administrators249,657 edits Giving DYK credit for HMS Unruffled on behalf of Crisco 1492 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiCat topicon}} | |||
| ==Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!== | |||
| {{NoACEMM}} | |||
| {| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px" width="100%" | |||
| <div style="margin-bottom: 3.25em; position: absolute; bottom: -5em; right: 1em; "><div style="font-style: roman; background-color:Gainsboro; font-weight:bold; border: 1px DarkSlateGray solid; color:steelblue; padding:5px 5px">I'll reply to your message ''here''.</div></div> | |||
| |class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #084080; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top;color:#000000;font-size: 85%"| | |||
| <div class="plainlinks nounderlines" style="border: 1px silver solid; padding: 1px; background: white; margin-bottom: 1em; "><div style="border: 1px solid blue; padding: 2em; background: white; text-align: center; color:blue">'''''If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.<br />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. <br /> Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes <nowiki>(~~~~)</nowiki>'''''</div></div> | |||
| {| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA" | |||
| ! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#CEF2E0; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #084080; text-align:left; color:#082840; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;"> Hello <font color=#0000FF>{{PAGENAME}}</font>! ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]. If you decide that you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place '''<code>{{helpme}}</code>''' on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to ] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ] 15:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC) </div> | |||
| |} | |||
| {| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px" width="100%" | |||
| |class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"| | |||
| {| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA" | |||
| ! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting Started</div> | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="color:#000"| | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| |- | |||
| ! <div style="margin: 0; background:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #cef2e0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting your info out there</div> | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="color:#000"| | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| |- | |||
| ! <div style="margin: 0; background:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #cef2e0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting more Misplaced Pages rules</div> | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="color:#000"| | |||
| * ] | |||
| |- | |||
| |} | |||
| |class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"| | |||
| {| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA" | |||
| ! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting Help</div> | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="color:#000"| | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| |- | |||
| ! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #cef2e0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting along</div> | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="color:#000"| | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| |- | |||
| ! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #cef2e0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting technical</div> | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="color:#000"| | |||
| ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| |- | |||
| |} | |||
| |} | |||
| |} | |||
| {{Archives|auto=long|search=yes|bot=ClueBot III}} | |||
| == Editing pattern == | |||
| <!--2160/24=90 days--> | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| | age=2160 | |||
| | archiveprefix=User talk:Keith-264/Archives/ | |||
| | numberstart=4 | |||
| | maxarchsize=75000 | |||
| | header={{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| | minkeepthreads=5 | |||
| | minarchthreads=1 | |||
| | format= %%i | |||
| }} | |||
| ] | |||
| ==Article== | |||
| Hi! Your editing pattern is somewhat unusual for a new editor; you appear to make extensive modifications to articles, marked as minor edits without a summary. If you have previously contributed to Misplaced Pages (or continue to do so) under a different name or anonymously, would you mind describing the nature of that contribution? Thanks! ] 21:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Mud, Blood and Wood, B.E.F. Logistics during Third Ypres. ] (]) 22:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : OK, not ''that'' new. Would you perhaps take the time to read ], ] and ], to get your editing more into line with how we editors tend to prefer to work together? ] 21:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit reverted at Battle of Flers–Courcelette == | |||
| == Jack the Ripper Article == | |||
| Hi @], | |||
| Very impressed with your 'minor' edit! ] 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have seen you have ] the edit of an ip removing content. Based on copy patrol report, the content is copyrighted protected from https://kids.kiddle.co/Battle_of_Flers%E2%80%93Courcelette. I have reverted it and requested copyvio revdel. Thought to notify you. | |||
| Sorry, I wasn't! Far from minor, too. ] 22:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks! <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:<]></span> 16:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Have to agree with Guy here, those edits made the article much harder to read and in places didn't make sense. ] 20:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Bunnypranav}} I wrote that based on the official history, perhaps you have a false positive? Regards ] (]) 16:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] | |||
| :::Please check https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Battle_of_Flers%E2%80%93Courcelette&url=https://kids.kiddle.co/Battle_of_Flers%25E2%2580%2593Courcelette. It has a 99.7% copy vio chances. The content is copyrighted with https://kids.kiddle.co/Battle_of_Flers%E2%80%93Courcelette with a clear indication on their website saying ''© 2024 Kiddle.co'' <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:<]></span> 16:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Bunnypranav}} I've already had a look, I wrote most of that article and all of that paragraph in 2015 or 2016 based on the OH (Miles). The other article looks like it has been lifted from this wiki page. I've put a scrutiny request on the milhist page. Regards ] (]) 16:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} {{ping|Bunnypranav}} If you check the edit history it will show that I'm right. Regards ] (]) 16:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Bunnypranav}} this link has this at the bottom on the right CC BY-SA 3.0 | |||
| unless otherwise noted. Kiddle encyclopedia articles are based on selected content and facts from | |||
| == Minor edits == | |||
| Misplaced Pages, edited or rewritten for children. Powered by | |||
| '''Please stop''' making extensive edits and marking them as minor. It disrupts the editing process and makes it difficult to respond to changes to the article. ] 03:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| MediaWiki . Kiddle Español About Privacy Contact us | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Enciclopedia Kiddle para niños | |||
| Given your ability in copy editing, would you consider having a look at the ] article? ] 16:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| © 2024 Kiddle.co | |||
| == Unhelpful edits == | |||
| If there's a copyvio, it is that article ripping Wiki off. Regards ] (]) 16:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| You need to stop editing or you need to consult a style manual before doing so. You take out commas for no reason and you don't understand how to use a semicolon. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:41, 28 August 2006</small><!-- Template:Unsigned2 --> | |||
| :Fair enough, point noted. Thanks for choosing to inform me. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:<]></span> 12:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Stop== | |||
| ::{{ping|Bunnypranav}} I'm glad it has been sorted out. Regards ] (]) 12:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| No more editing until you gain some experience in editing, please! FWIW ] 19:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC). | |||
| ::Take a look at your edits on the last few submissions you have made. When you make what you describe as "minor" edits and they alter or change meanings or context then these edits have to be considered major revisions. Read more about editing and make small changes until you gain confidence in making what are unchallenged and inconsequential edits. I do not see any major information or referencing that you employ and consequently, your edits fall into stylistic commentary which unless it furthers the main thrust of the article, is often left in place but when the edits do not do more than "nit-picking" then the potential for constant reversions will arise. There are already a number of editors and admins that are observing your "MOA" so this comment is meant to be a gentle but well-meaning admonision to observe first, follow the carpenter's motto of "measuring twice before cutting once" and you will find the Misplaced Pages experience much more gratifying and fun. Cheers ] 20:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC). | |||
| == Convoy PQ 14 == | |||
| ==Your edit summaries== | |||
| It is usual to put some "useful" text in the ] box, rather than just the name of the article or <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> (which is your signature for use on talk pages themselves, not edit summaries). If you use the edit summary box correctly, it will be of great assistance to your fellow editors. Thanks. -- ] (]) 20:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Keith, you haven't defined "Sharpe 1998", used . ] (]) 21:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| :{{ping|DuncanHill}} Ahem! Sorted it out. ;O) ] (]) 00:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Arctic Convoys == | |||
| You shouldn't change nor should someone change American spelling to Canadian spelling . Please stop that, thank you. ] (]) 09:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Think I've managed to change the merchant ships to the usual format using AWB. One thing which struck me though following on from the flags is that the column in the table is headed flag and then underneath appears flag and country for other nationalities but for UK it shows flag and merchant navy - should it not show flag and United Kingdom? I can change them all quickly using AWB if you agree ] (]) 09:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Er what is Canadian spelling? Examples please.] (]) 21:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Lyndaship}} Good morning; yesterday, I thought that some of the other countries didn't have a recognised merchant marine - I had a look through the pages on Panama for eg and only found its equivalent of the navy, nothing merchant. I assumed that national flags were being used in lieu of a merchant marine equivalent. I thought the blue and red flags for Merchant Navy and RFA were there because they existed. If you want to change them back I'll go along with it since you know more than me. ;O) Regards ] (]) 10:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did this <nowiki>{{ship|Panama|Capira||2}}</nowiki> following the example of the ship template for Soviet naval ships, it looks like I was wrong. Are there any other schoolboy errors I've been making? I'm planning to use Jordan 2006 to check whether any of the merchant ships are MV etc rather than SS but there are several blind spots in his book. Regards ] (]) 10:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh I think you and many others are much more knowledgeable than me. I just like doing layout in articles. I don't know if Panama has a recognised Merchant Marine but certainly Norway and the US do, frequently the civil ensign is the same as the national flag. I'll change the articles so United Kingdom appears alongside the flag ] (]) 10:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Some of the existing Soviet articles for merchant ships don't follow the guidelines. Jordan is a good idea, I would have used Miramar but sadly my sub has expired, Lloyds is another idea but would take ages to go through. I suspect the only ships likely to be MVs are the tankers ] (]) 10:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Lyndaship}} Considering the way that you copy edit my convoy article mistakes I beg to differ ;O). Apropos, I eventually decided that "Convoy PQ 8" was a better way to label them than "convoy PQ 8". No-one has objected but I wonder what you think. Regards ] (]) 10:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Personally Convoy PQ 8 reads better to me but I know there is always some debate about capitalisation and I'm unaware of what the current convention is. Previously I ensured that the usage was PQ 8 throughout wiki as we had a mix of PQ.8 (as I believe the British used at the time) PQ-8 (American) and PQ 8. ] (]) 11:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} {{ping|Lyndaship}} Considering the work I've put you to, is there anything I can do for you? Regards ] (]) 13:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:No you're fine thanks. Happy to help and playing with AWB is something I enjoy ] (]) 14:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == Rupert of Bavaria == | |||
| ] (]) 23:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| As far as I can see, Misplaced Pages is the ''only'' place you'll see him called "Robert", it was added to the article about him in 2019, and the IP has seen that and decided to re-write history and linguistics. ] (]) 13:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Industrial war == | |||
| : I thought it would be ''Rupert'' in English anyway ;O). ] (]) 13:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is! He was Rupert or Rupprecht in English media at the time, I have only ever seen "Robert" on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Noticeboard == | |||
| Thanks for the note. You're right, it's another interesting subject, though I have to admit I know little about Falkenhayn (other than as the architect Verdun of course!). I'm kind of bogged down with Clausewitz at the moment, which is an interesting coincidence as he's often regarded as the father of industrial war (and by extension, WWI)... though I'm not sure how fair that is. I didn't quite understand your other comment though - are you agreeing or disagreeing that Epsom was the turning point in Normandy, and the Valentine was the best British tank of WWII? (personally I'd go for the Matilda or the Comet, though I suppose it depends what 'best means; the Firefly might qualify too) ]<sup>]</sup> 16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 15:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for that interesting analysis. I have to admit I'm mostly pro-Monty as well ;) It's perfectly justifiable to argue that, broadly, Overlord went to plan. I don't think anyone would dispute that he always intended a battle of attrition, and that there was little chance of manoeuvre warfare given the strength of the German forces in the Brit/Can sector and their decision to defend so far forwards. Of course, without Monty it may never have happened at all, as he was the one who turned the invasion into a feasible operation, and in my book he deserves great credit for giving no credence to the 'bomber baron' line that Germany could be defeated without taking on its land forces. Some of the politicking that went on at SHAEF was shocking, and although it was perhaps naive of him, I don't blame him in the least for keeping people like Tedder at arm's length. Trouble was, it only worked as long as he was seen to be winning. If attriting the enemy was all he intended from each offensive, he could have spared himself a lot of grief by letting his superiors in on the plan ;) I believe this was his only real fault though; given the gulf in quality between German and Allied armour and the extraordinary ability of German units to maintain a cohesive defence in the face of heavy losses and gaps in the command structure, it's hard to see how else things could have been done. Of course, Hitler played his cards unintelligently, with his insistence on suicidally optimistic counterattacks and 'last man, last bullet' stands - and given the losses the Germans sustained when attacking, maybe a more defensive strategy would have kept Allied losses down... but that's easy to say in hindsight, and at the very least, the British and Canadian offensives kept German attention away from the US sector, and ensured that reinforcements were committed to danger points in the line pretty much as soon as they arrived, so nothing could be built up in reserve. Personally I think that if we'd had a proper 'breakthrough' tank, we might have cracked the nut faster, but as you note with Epsom, given how costly attacking prepared positions defended with AT guns proved to both sides, who knows? ]<sup>]</sup> 14:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Answered ] (]) 15:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just in case you wondered, these ip posts are nothing to do with me. The only editor I have a problem with right now is an administrator who shoots from the hip. As far as I am aware, an admin can find out the ip address from which I normally edit when logged on. This doesn't appear to have been done in this case. ] <sub> ]</sub> 18:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|ThoughtIdRetired}} Thanks for letting me know, I never expected you to disagree using underhand methods and I'm glad that the netstapo were wrong. ;O) ] (]) 18:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Refbegin == | ||
| So explain to me why you like the template ] (]) 21:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I ''think'' what you're after is in your prefs settings. If you click 'my preferences' (at the top of the page), and open the 'Search' tab, there should be a tickbox for 'Disable AJAX suggestions' on the left side of the page. Click to insert a tick, click the 'save' button at the bottom of the page... and job done - search suggestions will no longer show up when typing in the search box. | |||
| :I think that the scholarly apparatus is best when it's unobtrusive, further reading is there for the interested reader. I don't feel bound by a discussion that I wasn't part of. Regards ] (]) 22:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's a take that I've not seen before. Interesting that you prioritize unobtrusiveness over legibility for vision-impaired readers.--] (]) 23:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Are you trying to set up a straw man? Perhaps you could list them? ] (]) 23:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::List what? Of course you're not bound by any discussion that hasn't resulted in a formal policy. That goes without saying. That doesn't mean that you can't make a decision on that topic on your own. To me it seems obvious that usage of refbegin strictly to reduce text size is disadvantageous to vision-impaired readers, regardless of what other advantages that it might offer to the editor. Do you disagree?--] (]) 09:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} That's an assumption, how many people say it obstructs them? ] (]) 09:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I only have the one for sure, but surely the spirit of ], broadly construed, applies regardless?--] (]) 10:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why don't you broach the subject on the message board or rfc? ] (]) 11:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==DYK for HMS Unruffled== | |||
| Hope this helps; if I've misunderstood your question or haven't been clear, feel free to drop me a note ;) All the best, ]<sup>]</sup> 09:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{ivmbox | |||
| |image = Updated DYK query.svg | |||
| ==Your recent edits== | |||
| |imagesize=40px | |||
| |text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that a cat, Timoshenko, joined the British submarine ''']''' on twenty patrols during the Second World War?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ]. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page <small>(], )</small>, and the hook may be added to ] after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the ]. | |||
| Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should ] by typing four ]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button ] located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!<!-- Template:Tilde --> --] (]) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| }}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK --> — ] (]) 00:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Hastings == | |||
| Yes, he really did write "belatedly thrown into battle" (direct quote), referring to the 9th & 10th SS Pz. I get the impression from his book that he was determined not to give credit to (almost) any commander at divisional level or above, either on the Allied or German side, and he spends most of the book describing how unprepared the Allies were to face the German soldier. IIRC he makes the assertion, at one point, that there was no occasion when Allied troops met German ones on anything like equal terms that the Allies prevailed! He's so strongly of the opinion that Epsom was a breakout attempt that (my personal opinion) he 'forgets' about the ULTRA intercepts, and thus doesn't need to paint the forestalling of II SS Pz Corps' offensive as anything but a happy accident. That said, he's no more partisan than other writers on the Normandy Campaign, and the book is a damn good pop-history read ;) ]<sup>]</sup> 13:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Epsom == | |||
| Am just re-reading through the conversations regarding the outcome of Epsom, i have noted you stated: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| Buckley et al point out that if the British were so bad then why were their results better than the Germans? German armoured attacks foundered even more comprehensively than Allied ones for the same reasons | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Sourced from British Armour in the Normandy Campaign. Do you have a more of a direct quote? On a sidenote, do you know if the paperback version (20 quid) is just as good as the hardback (80 quid)?--] (]) 08:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| I have just posted this on EyeSerene talk page but wouldnt mind your feedback as well: | |||
| Hi there I was bored in work earlier on and have wrote up a conclusion for the Epsom article. It is currently in the talk page awaiting comments. It has included the move of information from the planning section, includes amended information from what was in the last section of the article and has pulled information from all the quotes to assess the operation. Do you have any comments on it? --] (]) 15:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Africa WW1 == | |||
| Please see my recent edits--] (]) 12:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == UK casualty figures == | |||
| UK official casualty figures for 1914-18 lack credibility. An analysis of the 1922 War Office report on casualties and current ] figures revealed the following <br/> | |||
| 1- The total figures for British Empire war dead were given as 908,371. The detailed tables in the report do not support this figure. The authors of the report did not provide any backup for the often quoted figure of 908,371 war dead. The figures on supporting schedules are poorly organized and do not tie out to a final total. There is no reconciliation of the figure for missing in action<br/> | |||
| 2- The schedule that lists the figure of 908,371 British Empire war dead refers only to ‘soldiers’. The implication is that the RN, the RAF and the Merchant Navy are not included.<br/> | |||
| 3- The 1931 official Medical History figures on total Army casualties give us statistics on page 12 that add down to 876,084 Army war dead and missing. If you add the RN war dead figure of 32,287 from the 1922 report you arrive at 908,371. <br/> | |||
| 4- The RAF casualty figures in the 1922 report are not summarized<br/> | |||
| 5- The 1931 official Medical History figures on total Army casualties do not include Dominion losses in the Dardanelles campaign.<br/> | |||
| 6- The CWWC figures for 1914-18 war dead are 1,114,914. This is an increase of 206,543 compared to the 1922 figures. The ] does not give us an explanation for the increase.<br/> | |||
| 7- The names of the dead posted to the ] website add down to 1,057,648 not 1,114,914. <br/> | |||
| 8- The number of civilian deaths on the ] website is given as 459, however the 1922 War Office report on casualties lists 1,260 UK civilians killed in air raids. Perhaps the newspapers from that era will give us the identity of the victims.<br/>--] (]) 12:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::A chap named Samuel Butler from the CWGC got back to me recently regarding their statistics. I have made updates to the WW1 & WW2 casualties pages to include his information. The figures they have for civilians is for WW 2 only, not including WW 1. The WW 2 data is for those civilians under "Crown Protection" only, that would exclude civilians interned by the Japanese. Have you ever seen figures for these losses in the Far East? I continue to listen to your parliamentary debates on the BBC World Service. I was pleased to hear that your PM is planning to save the world.--] (]) 14:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Survivors Re-Imagining == | |||
| I've added a reference to the wording "re-imagining". Please don't remove it again without discussion. --<font color="#FF8C00">]</font> 00:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == My edits == | |||
| If you have issue with them, then be specific on the relevent Talk page. ] (]) 17:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Psychopathy == | |||
| As far as I can tell the article is a mess, not least because somebody had a point to make and usedthe article to try and make it, but more because nobody saw fit to remark and prevent it. Regards, WB --] (]) 22:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Text of CWGC Reply == | |||
| This is what they sent me--] (]) 18:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| THE COMMONWEALTH WAR GRAVES COMMISSION<br/> | |||
| The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is charged by Royal Charter to mark and maintain Graves and Memorials to the Missing, and to maintain records of COMMONWEALTH WAR DEAD of the 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 World Wars.<br/> | |||
| The statistics tabulated in our Annual Report are representative of the number of names commemorated for all servicemen/women of the Armed Forces of the Commonwealth and former U.K. Dependencies, whose death was attributable to their war service. Some auxilliary and civilian organisations are also accorded war grave status if death occurred under certain specified conditions.<br/> | |||
| COMMONWEALTH WAR DEAD STATISTICS :<br/> | |||
| The statistics represent :<br/> | |||
| 1. THOSE WITH A NAMED BURIAL, inclusive of those cremated.<br/> | |||
| 2. THOSE NAMED ON MEMORIALS, WHO HAVE NO KNOWN OR MAINTAINABLE GRAVE<br/>. | |||
| 1 and 2 are definative of the amount of names recorded on the Casualty Database as Commonwealth War Dead compiled from information provided by the appropriate authorities.<br/> | |||
| 3. UNIDENTIFIED WAR GRAVES IN THE CARE OF C.W.G.C. : these have no bearing on the number of persons who died.<br/> | |||
| 4. CIVLIAN WAR DEAD 1939-1945 : C.W.G.C. is charged by Royal Charter to compile and <br/>maintain a ROLL OF HONOUR of those civilians under Crown Protection who died as a result of enemy actions, in the Second World War only.<br/> | |||
| THIS IS THE BASIS FOR THE COMPILATION OF C.W.G.C. ANNUAL REPORT STATISTICS : THERE IS NO CLAIM TO COMPARISON WITH ANY OTHER SOURCE OF STATISTICS.<br/> | |||
| ADDITIONAL STATISTICS LISTED IN THE C.W.G.C. ANNUAL REPORT :<br/> | |||
| CWGC maintain a level of Non World War burials and Non Commonwealth burials as an agency service on behalf of MoD and other governments or authorities. These are not complete lists of all Non Commonwealth Foreign National / Non World War Dead graves, only those the Commission maintain on behalf of the appropriate Government or Agency, where they lie within or close to a Commission Site. There are many non military civilians within the Non World War records, mainly dependants of Servicemen or Ministry employed civilians etc. <br/> | |||
| NATIONALITY<br/> | |||
| The Nationality quoted is that of the Member Government responsible for the maintenance<br/>proportion, not the nationality of the individual War Dead. In practice, these are the totals for the military formations claimed by each member as their responsibility.<br/> | |||
| MEMBER GOVERNMENTS : AUSTRALIA, CANADA, INDIA, NEW ZEALAND, SOUTH AFRICA AND UNITED KINGDOM<br/> | |||
| COMMONWEALTH WAR DEAD / NON WORLD WAR DEAD<br/> | |||
| For the purposes of C.W.G.C. the dates of inclusion for Commonwealth War Dead are <br/> | |||
| WW 1 : 04/08/1914 to 31/08/1921<br/> | |||
| WW 2 : 03/09/1939 to 31/12/1947<br/> | |||
| Outside of these dates are classified as NON WORLD WAR DEAD and appear within our records only where the graves are maintained on behalf of M.O.D. A level of burials within the above dates may also be classified as Non World War due to qualification status requirements of some non military or volunteer formations.<br/> | |||
| == Perch == | |||
| I have exhausted my sources and can find no casualty information for Perch (roughly D-Day/7th June till 14th ish); is there any additional sources you have, which holds this information? | |||
Latest revision as of 00:04, 19 December 2024
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 (~~~~)
 Archives | |
Index
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Article
Mud, Blood and Wood, B.E.F. Logistics during Third Ypres. Keith-264 (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Edit reverted at Battle of Flers–Courcelette
Hi @Keith-264,
I have seen you have reverted the edit of an ip removing content. Based on this copy patrol report, the content is copyrighted protected from https://kids.kiddle.co/Battle_of_Flers%E2%80%93Courcelette. I have reverted it and requested copyvio revdel. Thought to notify you.
Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bunnypranav: I wrote that based on the official history, perhaps you have a false positive? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Keith-264
- Please check https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Battle_of_Flers%E2%80%93Courcelette&url=https://kids.kiddle.co/Battle_of_Flers%25E2%2580%2593Courcelette. It has a 99.7% copy vio chances. The content is copyrighted with https://kids.kiddle.co/Battle_of_Flers%E2%80%93Courcelette with a clear indication on their website saying © 2024 Kiddle.co ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bunnypranav: I've already had a look, I wrote most of that article and all of that paragraph in 2015 or 2016 based on the OH (Miles). The other article looks like it has been lifted from this wiki page. I've put a scrutiny request on the milhist page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bunnypranav: I wrote that based on the official history, perhaps you have a false positive? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@Bunnypranav: If you check the edit history it will show that I'm right. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bunnypranav: this link has this at the bottom on the right CC BY-SA 3.0
unless otherwise noted. Kiddle encyclopedia articles are based on selected content and facts from
Misplaced Pages, edited or rewritten for children. Powered by
MediaWiki . Kiddle Español About Privacy Contact us
Enciclopedia Kiddle para niños
© 2024 Kiddle.co
If there's a copyvio, it is that article ripping Wiki off. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, point noted. Thanks for choosing to inform me. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bunnypranav: I'm glad it has been sorted out. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Convoy PQ 14
Hi Keith, you haven't defined "Sharpe 1998", used here. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- @DuncanHill: Ahem! Sorted it out. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Arctic Convoys
Think I've managed to change the merchant ships to the usual format using AWB. One thing which struck me though following on from the flags is that the column in the table is headed flag and then underneath appears flag and country for other nationalities but for UK it shows flag and merchant navy - should it not show flag and United Kingdom? I can change them all quickly using AWB if you agree Lyndaship (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Lyndaship: Good morning; yesterday, I thought that some of the other countries didn't have a recognised merchant marine - I had a look through the pages on Panama for eg and only found its equivalent of the navy, nothing merchant. I assumed that national flags were being used in lieu of a merchant marine equivalent. I thought the blue and red flags for Merchant Navy and RFA were there because they existed. If you want to change them back I'll go along with it since you know more than me. ;O) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I did this {{ship|Panama|Capira||2}} following the example of the ship template for Soviet naval ships, it looks like I was wrong. Are there any other schoolboy errors I've been making? I'm planning to use Jordan 2006 to check whether any of the merchant ships are MV etc rather than SS but there are several blind spots in his book. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh I think you and many others are much more knowledgeable than me. I just like doing layout in articles. I don't know if Panama has a recognised Merchant Marine but certainly Norway and the US do, frequently the civil ensign is the same as the national flag. I'll change the articles so United Kingdom appears alongside the flag Lyndaship (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Some of the existing Soviet articles for merchant ships don't follow the guidelines. Jordan is a good idea, I would have used Miramar but sadly my sub has expired, Lloyds is another idea but would take ages to go through. I suspect the only ships likely to be MVs are the tankers Lyndaship (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Lyndaship: Considering the way that you copy edit my convoy article mistakes I beg to differ ;O). Apropos, I eventually decided that "Convoy PQ 8" was a better way to label them than "convoy PQ 8". No-one has objected but I wonder what you think. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Personally Convoy PQ 8 reads better to me but I know there is always some debate about capitalisation and I'm unaware of what the current convention is. Previously I ensured that the usage was PQ 8 throughout wiki as we had a mix of PQ.8 (as I believe the British used at the time) PQ-8 (American) and PQ 8. Lyndaship (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
@Lyndaship: Considering the work I've put you to, is there anything I can do for you? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- No you're fine thanks. Happy to help and playing with AWB is something I enjoy Lyndaship (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Rupert of Bavaria
As far as I can see, Misplaced Pages is the only place you'll see him called "Robert", it was added to the article about him in 2019, and the IP has seen that and decided to re-write history and linguistics. DuncanHill (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I thought it would be Rupert in English anyway ;O). Keith-264 (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is! He was Rupert or Rupprecht in English media at the time, I have only ever seen "Robert" on Misplaced Pages. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Noticeboard
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 87.242.222.53 (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Answered Keith-264 (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just in case you wondered, these ip posts are nothing to do with me. The only editor I have a problem with right now is an administrator who shoots from the hip. As far as I am aware, an admin can find out the ip address from which I normally edit when logged on. This doesn't appear to have been done in this case. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 18:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @ThoughtIdRetired: Thanks for letting me know, I never expected you to disagree using underhand methods and I'm glad that the netstapo were wrong. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just in case you wondered, these ip posts are nothing to do with me. The only editor I have a problem with right now is an administrator who shoots from the hip. As far as I am aware, an admin can find out the ip address from which I normally edit when logged on. This doesn't appear to have been done in this case. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 18:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Refbegin
So explain to me why you like the template Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that the scholarly apparatus is best when it's unobtrusive, further reading is there for the interested reader. I don't feel bound by a discussion that I wasn't part of. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's a take that I've not seen before. Interesting that you prioritize unobtrusiveness over legibility for vision-impaired readers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are you trying to set up a straw man? Perhaps you could list them? Keith-264 (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- List what? Of course you're not bound by any discussion that hasn't resulted in a formal policy. That goes without saying. That doesn't mean that you can't make a decision on that topic on your own. To me it seems obvious that usage of refbegin strictly to reduce text size is disadvantageous to vision-impaired readers, regardless of what other advantages that it might offer to the editor. Do you disagree?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are you trying to set up a straw man? Perhaps you could list them? Keith-264 (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's a take that I've not seen before. Interesting that you prioritize unobtrusiveness over legibility for vision-impaired readers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
That's an assumption, how many people say it obstructs them? Keith-264 (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I only have the one for sure, but surely the spirit of MOS:SMALLTEXT, broadly construed, applies regardless?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why don't you broach the subject on the message board or rfc? Keith-264 (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
DYK for HMS Unruffled
On 19 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Unruffled, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a cat, Timoshenko, joined the British submarine HMS Unruffled on twenty patrols during the Second World War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Unruffled. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Unruffled), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.