| Revision as of 15:25, 29 April 2021 editKeith-264 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users145,481 edits →Spring Offensive: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:32, 3 May 2021 edit undoSMcCandlish (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors201,744 edits →Second personal attacks/battlegrounding warning, and discretionary sanctions notice: new sectionTag: contentious topics alertNext edit → | ||
| Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
| ::I found it, it's at ]. There are now nearly a thousand links pointing ultimately to the disambiguation page (see . I've fixed a few but I am increasingly pissed off with people making these moves and then doing bugger all to clear up after themselves. I also dislike the piecemeal way it's being done - no opportunity for a centralised discussion on the whole issue. Even if I supported the moves I think I would struggle to accept the way it's being done. ] (]) 15:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC) | ::I found it, it's at ]. There are now nearly a thousand links pointing ultimately to the disambiguation page (see . I've fixed a few but I am increasingly pissed off with people making these moves and then doing bugger all to clear up after themselves. I also dislike the piecemeal way it's being done - no opportunity for a centralised discussion on the whole issue. Even if I supported the moves I think I would struggle to accept the way it's being done. ] (]) 15:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC) | ||
| ::It's a dreadful bore but now that I have so little time for editing, I'm content that they leave most of my writing alone, mostly. ] (]) 15:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC) | ::It's a dreadful bore but now that I have so little time for editing, I'm content that they leave most of my writing alone, mostly. ] (]) 15:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC) | ||
| == Second personal attacks/battlegrounding warning, and discretionary sanctions notice == | |||
| ] Please do not ] other editors. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> | |||
| {{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.'' | |||
| You have shown interest in the English Misplaced Pages ] and ]. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called ] is in effect. Any administrator may impose ] on editors who do not strictly follow ], or the ], when making edits related to the topic. | |||
| For additional information, please see the ] and the ] decision ]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. | |||
| }}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> | |||
| Referring to fellow editors as ignorant wankers (whether you fudge the spelling or not) in style disputes is going to lead quickly to nowhere good. See also ] policy: "Comment on {{em|content}}, not on the {{em|contributor}}". Personal attacks like "learn to write" are going to curtail your editing career here pretty quickly, too. So will accusing other editors of being tasteless because they don't agree with your subjective preferences . You were warned against this behavior already , then doubled-down on your ] behavior anyway . I am thus leaving you a formal level-2 warning, and a notice about the discretionary sanctions that pertain to style discussions in particular. In short, if there is a recurrence of this behavior, it can be reported to ], where you may be summarily blocked or topic-banned. Tolerance for uncivil and disruptive disputation over style trivia is at an all-time low. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 07:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:32, 3 May 2021
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. |
]
"War against Japan" series
Hope all is well Keith. I was wondering if you still had access to the books of this series? If so, do any of them mention why the 2nd Infantry Division was dispatched to India in 1942? From what I have read so far, it seems the div dispatched to India and buggered around for the year before they got sent into Burma. If you have anything that could add context, it would be greatly appreciated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not bad thanks, I'll have a look. Keith-264 (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- @EnigmaMcmxc: It seems as though the 2nd Infantry Division was earmarked for Operation Anakim which kept being postponed. the division was in the Indian strategic reserve then the Indian Expeditionary Force. I can provide page numbers etc if you want. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- If you dont mind thank you. Two follow-up questions: was Anakim a precursor to Dracula? And, does the article reflect (if Kirby elaborates) about the division's role in the strategic reserve (offered up for NA in case of a German breakthrough, and to be marched off to Iran if needed)? I was able to find another source that referenced Kirby for the casualties at Kohima. I believe I have referenced the correct volume, would you be able to double check?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- @EnigmaMcmxc: It seems as though the 2nd Infantry Division was earmarked for Operation Anakim which kept being postponed. the division was in the Indian strategic reserve then the Indian Expeditionary Force. I can provide page numbers etc if you want. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
History of the Second World War United Kingdom Military Series The War Against Japan: India's Most Dangerous Hour (Vol II) 2004 Woodburn-Kirby, S.
The 2nd Division would reach India in June 1942 p. 130; Reinforced by the 70th, 5th and 2nd divisions Wavell rebuilt the strategic reserve at Ranchi, p. 235; Wavell told on 11 July that because of the Russian front, he might have to send divisions to Iraq; 5th and 3nd divisions chosen (in that order) if necessary. Sending the 5th Division and 7th Armoured Brigade forced another postponement of Operation Anakim (see Burma Campaign). Keith-264 (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the extra content and research, much appreciated!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have another research follow-up, if you do not mind? I outlined the basics of the infantry division at List of British divisions in World War II, and during review it was questioned if "'light' establishment adopted for the infantry divisions in Burma late in the war?"
- Joslen does not discuss this (the 2nd and 36th Infantry Divs in Joslen just look like any other; the African divisions are shown having brigade groups then reorganizing to brigades and a change to the "standard divisional establishment" in late 1944, but Joslen does not explain what this is). I found, via Google snippet view, that Kirby's The War Against Japan: The reconquest of Burma may have some sort of answer? On page 25, snippet view shows "the organization of the basic infantry formation in India — the I division - had been adjusted several times , and by early 1944 there were no fewer than five different types in S . E . A . C . : the Indian light division, the Indian standard ( A . & M".
- If you still have access, does this page elaborate and provide some sort of brief overview of how the British divisions in Burma differed from the establishment of those in Europe?
- As always, thanks for any assistance and kind regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
|
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) 15:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021
|
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) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Alberich
I've always thought you were above such things. I'm sorry, but I firmly believe that miles is more appropriate than mi. But the comma is necessary. It's a different clause. You're not saying that "fewer German divisions were needed for line holding and Allied plans"; you're saying "fewer German divisions were needed for line holding, and Allied plans . . ." Hengistmate (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- If you want to commit that solecism, you shouldn't be copy editing. You shouldn't start a sentence with "But" either. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- How now? Keith-264 (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
It's as if Andy Dingley hasn't really gone away. I like fish and chips are an ideal accompaniment.
- I didn't know he'd left, was it something I said? ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Andy_Dingley All of a sudden. Probably expecting to return in triumph by popular demand, but for the moment confining himself to Facebook. The brouhaha must have triggered something in his interesting personality.
By the way, I've told three people about this, so, at least, three people have been told and at least three people have been told.
- Well done, that bloke. Keith-264 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
oclc
Hi Keith, may I ask (for information – I'm not objecting!) why you removed the oclc parameter here? Because it's redundant to the ISBN? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Good morning, I did it because it seems pointless to duplicate an identifier and because the isbn is the better one. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Makes sense – thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you; sfns can be combined to avoid lots of numbers at the end of a sentence. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- So I see – I'd not seen {{sfnm}} before. Very nice! I seem to have got into "tidying up articles with harv/sfn references" recently and that will come in handy. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you; sfns can be combined to avoid lots of numbers at the end of a sentence. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Makes sense – thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I found out about sfnm recently too. I'm a shift worker now so editing and re-editing is about all I have time for. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- If there's anything I can to to help, please ask. Keith-264 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank-you! I will do. Wham2001 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
"titles"?
Keith, in this revert you recapitalized a number of things, including Siege of * and Fortified Position of *, with summary "They're titles (albeit translated)". Based on this edit of yours, I assume it's about the Fortified Position articles. But it's not clear what you mean by "title". In WP, I know about capitalization in article titles and composition titles (WP:NCCAPS adn MOS:CT), but it doesn't appear that you mean either of those. I don't find these capped in sources: , . Let me know if you see a reason I shouldn't lowercase these. Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Greetings, thanks for asking; I took my lead from the sources I used. I don't have much faith in engrams they are a quantitative measure of a qualitative phenomenon. To me the "Fortified Position of..." is the name (title) given to a fortified place by the people who built it, rather than a description of what it is, which I would put in lower case. Keith-264 (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Can you say what sources cap these? All the books I looked at use lowercase. See and . I don't see any sources you've added, so it's hard to guess what you're looking at. Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'll have a go but it could be a bit of a wait, I'm on nights. Are you looking at the article bibliography? Keith-264 (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Looking, but there's not much online visibility there. I ordered a copy of Kaufmann for cheap. I can order Dunstand and Donnell for a bit more, but costs add up, so I was hoping you'd check and tell me. I'd be surprised if these books cap it, given that all the book that I can see use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'll go ahead and fix it per sources again. But do let me know if you find sources that cap these things. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I won't finish nights until Friday. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Keith, re your recent "Action" reverts, please join the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Over-capped_"Action_of" and say if you think some are proper names, and why. Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021
|
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) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Direct links in templates
Hi Keith, thanks for the thanks, I've checked and fixed all of Category:World War I campaignbox templates. This won't include all the templates affected by moves of the Campaign -> campaign and Offensive -> offensive (and vice versa) merry-go-round, but it's a start. Hope you're well, DuncanHill (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm very well but hampered somewhat by a full-time job. As for Campaign/campaign and En Grams, I think someone has an idée fixe and doesn't ant to admit that since Gore Vidal's death, the US has become the land that literacy forgot. Keith-264 (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Comma before but
Sorry, I didn't know British English suggests not using a comma before but connecting clauses. I can't find a source about that. Please help educate me if you know of one. Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Opinion varies in England too but stylistic usage in a Wiki article is supposed to follow the originator unless a consensus is reached to change it. I don't look at style guides, they're too commercial. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- In that case I reject as unfounded that this is a British English thing. It's just poor grammar to not use those commas between long independent clauses. Dicklyon (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- You don't have a choice, this is elementary, I learned it at school. Keith-264 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know what sources your school used, but all the ones I can find say you need those commas. Dicklyon (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- You don't have a choice, this is elementary, I learned it at school. Keith-264 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- In that case I reject as unfounded that this is a British English thing. It's just poor grammar to not use those commas between long independent clauses. Dicklyon (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Stop wasting my time. Keith-264 (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Spring Offensive
Hi Keith, did you see a move discussion for Spring Offensive anywhere? DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- No, I assumed it's the zealots trying to remove capital letters. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I found it, it's at Talk:German spring offensive#Requested move 20 April 2021. There are now nearly a thousand links pointing ultimately to the disambiguation page (see here. I've fixed a few but I am increasingly pissed off with people making these moves and then doing bugger all to clear up after themselves. I also dislike the piecemeal way it's being done - no opportunity for a centralised discussion on the whole issue. Even if I supported the moves I think I would struggle to accept the way it's being done. DuncanHill (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's a dreadful bore but now that I have so little time for editing, I'm content that they leave most of my writing alone, mostly. Keith-264 (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Second personal attacks/battlegrounding warning, and discretionary sanctions notice
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Referring to fellow editors as ignorant wankers (whether you fudge the spelling or not) in style disputes is going to lead quickly to nowhere good. See also WP:CONCON policy: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Personal attacks like "learn to write" are going to curtail your editing career here pretty quickly, too. So will accusing other editors of being tasteless because they don't agree with your subjective preferences . You were warned against this behavior already , then doubled-down on your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior anyway . I am thus leaving you a formal level-2 warning, and a notice about the discretionary sanctions that pertain to style discussions in particular. In short, if there is a recurrence of this behavior, it can be reported to WP:AE, where you may be summarily blocked or topic-banned. Tolerance for uncivil and disruptive disputation over style trivia is at an all-time low. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)