Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:39, 27 July 2017

User talk:Keith-264/Archive 1

Archives

Index Archive 1

]

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other 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 military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Foster mounting

Just in case you are interested...

I have a rewrite of the article on the Foster mounting nearing completion in my sandbox - https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Soundofmusicals/sandbox which may or may not be of interest. In common with other articles I have worked on from (more or less) scratch like this I am basically writing the text first and will be adding the verifiability/links etc. later - appreciate if you could add any comments you might have, including any possible outright errors you might notice, either to my talk page or the one to my sandbox. Most welcome help of all would be usable references, anything you think I should read etc.

Thanks (and Hi!) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello it's been a while. I'e had a shufti and it looks pretty good to me. I altered a blue link and left a note, hope you don't mind. Would you like me too have a look for sources? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

As you will notice, I've done some more tweaking myself - including that "monster" wikilink (don't know quite what happened there!) Yes please - any sources you can find would be really welcome, although I already have a few of the obvious ones, including Woodman. The lack of references in the draft of the "new" article is actually by design at this stage - I plan to insert them all in one king hit when the shape of the article is clearer, using the system I used for the synchronisation and Fokker scare articles. In the meantime... Thanks for your interest! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Good for you; I got quite excited once I got over mixing up the Foster with the Scarff Ring. ;O)) Keith-264 (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Lol! my cat's regards to yours! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

WW1 Casualties

I will review @ Western Front and leave my observations on the talk page. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

RT

@Burnley, pls stop phlegmming on my talk page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

I'm very disappointed by this comment. I'm going to have to ask you to step up the constructive engagement and lay off of the acknowledged retaliation before things end up at WP:ANI or WP:AE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason for your disappointment and notice another possible generic management manoeuvre. Have you offered the same complaint to Burnley and Marek? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

My disappointment is borne from my assessment that you're the primary cause of the nastiness at Talk:RT (TV network) and that when two editors asked you to change your attitude you basically doubled down and indicated that you saw nothing wrong with it. That doesn't lead to anything good. Admin action aside, you're not exactly building consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You have things back to front; I support your amendments to the article and I deplore your comments on the talk page. The Mote and the Beam. Keith-264 (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point completely. From time to time you get into disputes with people over content. So you go to the talk page. The purpose of the talk page is to build a consensus supporting your proposed consensus. It's hard to do that when you use the talk page to make snarky, dismissive comments instead of describing what you want in the article and why. This phenomenon occurs regardless of whether you and I agree or disagree on content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't make things worse, I have told you that I retaliated to insults to a limited extent. Are you making the same points to Burnley and Marek?Keith-264 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Why did you retaliate, and how did it advance Misplaced Pages's goals? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

See my explanation on the RT talk page. I have had a look at your talk page and saw that your response to Burnley's bragging was different to what you've dished out to me. The complaints about your editing littering the rest of the page did not make good reading and led me to conclude that I overestimated you. While you remain free to comment on my talk page I will respond no further. I remain available for dialogue on the RT talk page. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice. Well, you have been warned. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to add that I grant you the last word. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017

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 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

-- WV ● ✉ ✓  03:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I know what is going on and I am defending myself. I hope that you bear this in mind and make the same comments to Beyond.... rather than being one sided, since that would be fair. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Three separate talk page comments with personal attacks in all three. I see nothing of the sort at the article talk page from BMK toward you. Yours were not any kind of defense, just offense. I note you were warned about similar behavior just a few days ago, different editor, different case. Seems to becoming a habit. Please don't revisit that behavior. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you looked at his edit comments as well? I have taken it to talk, gained dialogue with him but failed to reach consensus due to his obduracy and willingness to resort to insults; I have retaliated. Your intervention is one-sided and unfair; I suggest you look again rather than reiterate a mistaken impression. Notice also that you are overlooking my warnings about his conduct. I doubt I'm the first and sadly won't be the last. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

PS I suggest that you be more cautious about removing messages from your talk page, your motives may be questioned. Keith-264 (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Keith, I'm not sure where you get the idea that non-administrators have any duty to be even-handed when addressing disputes. No offense, but it seems to be a way to deflect the conversation away from the topic at hand. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Sophistry: in a bizarre twist of fate, Winkelvi has just been barred for three months for edit warring. Keith-264 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)-->

Capture of Assab

Hi, could you specify an e-mail address for me to send the pages about the fall of Assab? Or if there is any other way to send them - they are photos.--Olonia (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Try squeeth@outlook.com regardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Done.--Olonia (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Lupinacci, Pier Filippo; Cocchia, Aldo (1961). La Marina italiana nella seconda guerra mondiale: Le operazioni in Africa Orientale (in Italian). Vol. X. Rome: Ufficio Storico della Marina Militare Italiana. pp. 187–197. OCLC 955801310. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)Keith-264 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Siege of Saïo

Hello there again Keith. I once mentioned to you that I wanted to raise the Siege of Saïo to GA status. Well, I'm happy to report that it is currently undergoing review. If you'd be able to clear up some of the reviewer's comments over the material you've contributed to the article it would be much appreciated. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Delighted to, regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Giuseppe Arimondi

G'day, I want to publicly thank you for your work on that page. Since my effort is mainly a selective translation from the corresponding Italian Misplaced Pages article, your copyedits are more than welcome (my english is not so fluent). I'm trying to push the article at least to B-class, so I really appreciate any suggestions. Best regards, Lord Ics (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't much like reviewing so I try to make up for it with cheeky little copy edits, that add to the article. I thought it was a translation so was able to help with the syntax and a few typos. You're welcome to ask me for a look at your writing. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

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 air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Northeast

Hello Keith- Regarding your revert of my spelling change: What is your basis for keeping the hyphen in "north-east"? Misplaced Pages articles (Points_of_the_compass#Compass_point_names, Cardinal_direction#Additional_points) and at least one dictionary seem to disagree with you. Eric 12:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Eric, there's a Wiki on it somewhere, I'll try to find it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

By "Wiki", do you mean you've seen guidance on the English Misplaced Pages promoting hyphenation of the adjectival forms of compass directions? I'd be interested to see that. Eric 13:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes.Keith-264 (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, let me know when you find it, okay? Eric 14:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You can help if you want.Keith-264 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There's this but it isn't what I'm looking for.Keith-264 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ignore the above, it's a national variation "Notice that compound compass points are usually joined in American English, for example northwest, while in British English they are sometimes written as separate words or hyphenated, as in north-west." Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I was just about to send you that same link, plus this one: Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#Compass_points. The hyphen looks quaint and archaic to this Yank, in spite of my familiarity with British English, but it ain't no big deal neither. A note re wikilinks (forgive me if you already know): You can simply put everything in the url beyond "...wiki/" in double brackets to avoid generating what looks like an external link. Eric 16:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Compass_points Thanks for that, I didn't know, I've only just learned the difference between http and https. I prefer the hyphen because I think that the contraction of these two words looks like an abbreviation too far. If you have a page like User:Keith-264/common.js this, with importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js'); you can click a button on the article page and get hyphens where you'd never expect. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yikes, that looks like copy-editing WMD! Eric 21:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264 the edit i did in page Battle of Messines (1917) was adding flagicon image not on no of troops — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijay rath (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies babe, I wasn't looking properly. Keith-264 (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

i can also keep on editing the pages again again Vijay rath (talk 10:20 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, I have mentioned you Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Nuisance_edits here. Keith-264 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Hill 60

Hi Keith,

First of all, let me bow down to your knowledge of the theme, which seems to be much bigger than mine :) With this in mind, I have not reverted your edits on the page Battle of Hill 60 (Western Front). However, I'm curious as to why exactly they were necessary. In (almost?) all other pages, there IS a mention of a German Army and in first view, it seems like there may have been divisions that were mostly recruited from one area (as they were in GB) - but I couldn't find references of a real 'Saxon army'. Also: it seems that the Saxon contingents were at least led by commanders from Baden and Württemberg - which would seem to further disprove the 'Saxon army' bit. Assuming your good faith and superior knowledge, can I ask you to look into these questions and clarify them in the text please? I'm looking forward to learning more about this!

Kind regards, Cuoregr (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your generosity, you aren't so bad yourself ;o).there is a division among editors about the nature of the German army in WWI, which boils down to me wanting the national contingents to be treated like the Canadian and Australian corps, part of an army but having a distinct identity within it. Most of the others want German national contingents to be treated as indistinguishable elements of a German Imperial army. I was rather pleased to see that Sheldon (2017) had added some citable information about the autonomy of the 26th Reserve Division on the Somme in 1916, which tends to support my view. I'm adding more info on the Hill 60 page from Lucas and Schmieschek (2015) which I got in March but haven't finished amending articles with information from it. I'm concentrating on getting the 3rd Ypres pages ready for the centenary so only looked at the 1917 section until today. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, if there's division among editors, it might be more advisable to *mention* the Saxon heritage of the divisions rather than claiming that "it was a myth there was such a thing as one Imperial Army"? I'm feeling that might be a bit like inviting quarrels in, but that might be just me :) Also, if you find the time, I would suggest you could write an article about these 'state armies' within the German army? It sounds very interesting (I really hadn't heard of that so far), and it would give you and other contributors the chance to use that into articles like Hill 60 and many others? No offence meant - just a suggestion! Kind regards from not too far from Hill 60, Cuoregr (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

No-one has questioned it until now ;o) and you seem satisfied. Lucas and Schmieschek have an exposition of the status of the royal armies but it isn't enough for an article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I'm not really satisfied, but I'm rather uncomfortable in removing something an expert feels so strongly about. Again, if you say that there is division among editors, at least the part about the 'myth' should be removed IMHO. Regarding the claim of a 'Saxon army' itself, I'm also not convinced (as the commanders are said to be not Saxon etc) - but again, also not convinced enough that it is NOT true to remove it by myself against your will. I'm still eager to learn more about this, but it seems hard to find verifiable information about this online. Still hoping to reach a solution with which we would both be happy though :) Cuoregr (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I can add something from Lucas and Schmieschek about the Saxon Army; by the end of the war, it had 19 divisions. Keith-264 (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That would be very welcome. I'll try to find information to read about this on my summer holidays so I can add to that in the future :) Cuoregr (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You might have to learn German....Keith-264 (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Harvard citation

Personally, I prefer sfn over harvnb, but it was easier for me to do everything with harvnb, cause sfn won't work when we have <ref name="something"> in an article. I don't mind if someone would replace harvnb with sfn. -- Bojan  Talk  20:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; I didn't realise that you were trying to preserve some of the earlier citations. I'm even more crap with the ref /ref multi cite method than harvnb. I added another comment to your page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know for the script. Perssonaly, for my eyes it is unpleasant to see various citation styles in articles. Regards. -- Bojan  Talk  20:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to revise the citations of an article, I suggest you add a ] and install importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');, so you can see warning messages for errors. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought that my actions would be seen as mere cosmetical. I hoped when someone click on referece that doesn't point anywhere, he or she will add ref=harv in cite book templates and/or missing years of publication in harvnb templates. I will help in fixing articles where Harv error: link from... emerged-- Bojan  Talk  22:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I suggest that you leave a note on the talk page when you edit the references so that your intentions are clear. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Turn into reference?

Hi User:Keith-264, could you tell me how you would turn this link into a reference on an article please? 👍--Theo Mandela (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC) * {{cite book |title= |last= |first= |authorlink= |year= |publisher= |location= |edition= |isbn=}} I'd fit the details into this template. Template:Cite book has more details such as |language=Italian. world cat can give you bibliographical details and will give you hyphenated isbns. Call back if you have any more questions. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Keith-264.--Theo Mandela (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Any time babe. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this right?

"In early 1915, Churchill campaigned for an amphibious assault on the Belgian coast in 1914, which was opposed by Lord Kitchener at the War Office and Sir John French commanding the British Expeditionary Force." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/Winston_Churchill_in_politics:_1900%E2%80%9339#Dardanelles_Campaign )

This doesn't ring a bell. Does it with you? Is it Antwerp and Operation Hush mistakenly rolled into one, or did this actually happen? And did it involve time travel? Hengistmate (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure; there's an entry in the Third Ypres page but Churchill's involvement is more Paul Turtle's field. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

OH 1917 II has him lobbying for a Flanders gig on 7 December 1914. p. 1Keith-264 (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, well.

"Churchill even suggested an amphibious landing at Zeebrugge." Anglo-French Relations and Strategy 0n the Western Front - W.J. Philpott.

"What Churchill had in mind was an amphibious assault on the German coast through Schleswig-Holstein, with a preliminary operation to seize the island of Borkum as a base for theses operations." The British Army and the First World War - Beckett, Bowman, Connelly.

Or an Anglo-Russian amphipious landing in the Baltic, and then on to Berlin - Churchill: An Unruly Life, Norman Rose

So something clearly went on, although the details conflict somewhat. One lives and learns. Ta. MfG Hengistmate (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

rm bogus claim

Third Ypres

Thank you for your comment. I resisted the temptation to mock the bully. The Australian official history treats 9 and 12 October as Passchendaele I and II see https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/RCDIG1069753/ Chapters XXI and XXII. However, the British Official History title page uses Third Ypres (Passchendaele) which I would find acceptable. For another time. Anthony Staunton (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

London Gazette

Please can you provide an example page of an edit that has given a warning, because the few I have reviewed since I saw you posting to my talk page (such as Dave Glaser), do not seem to generate such a warning, so I suspect it is something else in that specific edit. -- PBS (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I have traced it! I presume you are talking about articles like Operation Compass (history)). The edit I made to the page does not affect the ref message if you look at the article before my edit you will see the same messages 13:01, 21 April 2017‎ by Chewings72.

The message appears because you have turned on: importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); or something similar. It is cause by an alteration to the {{London Gazette}} template that now by default set the ref to "Gazette issue" so that it works with short citations. In the case of Operation Compass it is flagging an error that in the references section there is a source that is not cited. The Gazette sources either need to be cited or move into further reading. If you would just like the message to go away all that you need to do (and this is true for many such templates eg {{Acad}}) or {{citation}}) is to add |ref=none. -- PBS (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. After some weeks of discussion, the new code for {{London Gazette}} was copied from the sandbox into the template today, and neither the author of the changes or myself remembered to update the text at the top of that hidden category (sorry for that). As you can see I have also fixed the parameters to template:London Gazette on the Operation Compass page (thanks for the thanks, but it was the least I could do for forgetting to update the documentation).

The changes we have introduced should be the last for some time. What has been done (and I do it for a lot of template), is to make {{London Gazette}} a wrapper around one of the standard templates in this case {{cite magazine}},

• it simplifies the code makes it much easier to maintain
• it means that new parameters can be added quickly (for example an editor wanted a quote parameter added to the template. Once it was converted that took minutes to add. I initially did the conversion to add in ref= parameter, again once the conversion was done it took less than a minute to add it.
• testing is easier because once the parameter content is passed through to the standard template, it needs no further testing because it has been tested in the standard template.
• WP:LUA citation module error messages are thrown in for free (that won't be turned on with the Gazette template until the next release).
• If an editor knows how to add one of the standard templates like {{cite book}} then using one of these wrapper templates is easier, because the parameters are familiar. Ie page= and pages= are well known, while startpage= and endpage= are not, so if an editor only occasionally adds a Gazette entry, they are more likely to remember to use page= than startpage=.
• It also makes AWB/bot maintenance easier.

-- PBS (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed it after doing a bit of spring cleaning; the Gazette references have always been a bit recondite for me so I'm glad that someone knows what he's doing. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack based on editor's ethnicity or nationality

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity is a euphemism for race, it's clearly wrong here but now you've reverted for a valid reason. Keith-264 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017

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 Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Token of appreciation

Thanks babe but the only tokens I like have Cotes du Rhone labels on them. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Stalingrad

Hi, next time you fix refs please double check you did not break any. A few were broken on Battle of Stalingrad but I fixed them. thanks --Jennica✿ / 17:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Apols, the harvnb style is harder than I thought.Keith-264 (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on Battle of France

Hello, Keith-264, I noticed you seem to watch the Battle of France article. I've noticed some problems with the article and I wondered if you'd be willing to discuss them. (Yes I could just make the changes myself, but due to my long experience with other editor's prejudice against IP editors, I am loath to make lots of changes if someone is simply going to revert them). I realize you may be too busy to make time to discuss this, but the article could use some corrections. Looking forward to your reply...

BYW, what do you think about the correct translation of German General ranks? __209.179.48.225 (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about translating ranks so I tend to follow the precedent of the article. I think that the article has a long way to go so if you have any ideas please share. Note though that I'm avoiding but commitments until I get the last of the Third Ypres articles finished. There are 240 page watchers so you won't go short. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that on the article's Talk page someday soon. One last question: where would you recommend starting a discussion to find consensus (yeah sure!) on the correct translation of the German General ranks? Much obliged. __209.179.48.225 (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history here is a good place to start, there have probably been discussions that someone will link to. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

When you find it I will join you. A number of ranks are historically translated, in my personal opinion, poorly; also, as you know, there were a number of equivalent full General ranks ; General der Infanterie, Panzertruppen, Artillerie, etc., which are often shortened and ideally should not be.--Anthony Bradbury 21:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Greetings I'm back from a little local difficulty; Category:Military ranks of Germany might be helpful. Do articles in English naturally need the full detail of title which are equivalent ranks? Keith-264 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Keith-264 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Roem ruled against me before I addressed his question (9:20) about 1RR. My response at (9:26) was about Fleischmann's accusations. Roem jumped the gun (unless there is a deadline for replies that I missed). Keith-264 (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Philip Cross also reverted twice but has not been blocked, the rule is being enforced inconsistently I ceased editing the page as soon as the posse arrived and so the block is pointless as well as discriminatory.Keith-264 (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Technical close, as block has already expired. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You've provided no grounds to believe the arbitration enforcement was handled incorrectly, so there's really nothing to copy over. If you'd like to modify your request and specifically point out why you did not violate 1RR, that then could be copied over. --Yamla (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Did this, no reply. Keith-264 (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

In response to your email -- yes, the block is now expired, so you're free to edit. Please be wary of the 1RR rule for the Arab-Israeli conflict going forward, whether it's an article solely about the subject or a subsection about it on an unrelated article. Thank you, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks babe, please don't use ideological and inaccurate terms like Arab-Israeli conflict and please take more care not to be co-opted by editor caucuses. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Still blocked. Keith-264 (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Keith-264 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Keith-264". The reason given for Keith-264's block is: "Arbitration enforcement: for violating 1RR in

• Blocking administrator: Lord Roem (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: Autoblock cleared Yamla (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

{{unblock | reason=Block said to have expired (see above) is still in force ] (]) 10:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)}}

Anyone?Keith-264 (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that the least I should be able to expect is that people who block me will make as much effort to act on an unblocking decision as they did to punish me in the first place. Keith-264 (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any grounds for believing that the people you refer to have seen your unblock requests here? Is there evidence that they have looked at this page since you posted them? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not block you but did lift your autoblock, above. You should be able to edit now. --Yamla (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I know and I'm grateful that you stepped in on Roem's behalf. I can get back to work now. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Siege of Tobruk

Keith, as far as I'm aware WP:MOS doesn't preclude bulleted/numbered lists, but I appreciate that some people dislike them. The format was less of an issue for me than the text that you reverted to, which I have just had another crack at (minus bullets).

I assume this edit was unintentional in some way? I mean it was an "Allied victory" – even the infobox lists Australia, United Kingdom, India, Poland, Czechoslovakia as combatants. And the term "Allies" was in use as a collective term before the US got involved – as this excellent poster from mid-1941 shows. Cheers.

Grant | Talk 13:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

See Tobruk talk page for replies. Keith-264 (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Thanks for the suggestions about editing at the other talk page. I would point out, though, that I've been editing Misplaced Pages for 14 years and an administrator for 10, although of course I make errors (often) and am always willing to take advice.

Likewise, for your own convenience as well as that of other editors, I feel that need to make observations about three major aspects of editing under Misplaced Pages policy.

Fixing a problem & using "Undo"

I urge you strongly to read (or re-read) WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and Misplaced Pages:Reverting, especially this bit: "If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good faith effort to reword instead of reverting it ." That is, the "Undo" tool exists mainly to address obvious vandalism and not for blanket/wholesale reversions of good faith contributions. And on that note...

Citations

These are obviously a good thing, although you need to bear in mind that any copy-editing, rewording or newly-added text may be covered by previously-existing citations. They are also not always essential – otherwise every sentence on Misplaced Pages would have one, or a "citation needed" tag. In future please use maintenance tags such as "citation needed". Also, the absence of a citation is not an excuse to revert – see the paragraph above.

Neutral language & avoiding personal biases

One of my history professors used to say "bias is a good thing", i.e. it's normal and is the basis of a good academic argument, but as you know we have to abide by a different set of rules here.

An insistence on a particular wording or term, especially in infoboxes, that is either narrow/exclusive or ambiguous (e.g. "British" can be both), over broader and more inclusive terms (e.g. "Allied" or "Allies") is a possible breach of: Misplaced Pages:NPOV and Misplaced Pages:Systemic bias. An appeal to "common usage" or an appeal to authority are circular arguments and especially fallacious here, because both popular culture and reliable sources are also biased (e.g. by nationality) and countered by reference to a different common usage or a different reliable source.

To be specific: arguments to the effect (as you have said) that one side in a particular campaign was "under British command" or "mostly from the UK" (etc) are not an excuse, because (as reference to reductio ad absurdum tells us) that would mean that many major battles of the First World War involving UK forces were "French victories", or Operation Overlord was a "United States victory" and so on. Many people, because they do not personally have strong ties to the UK, find references to a specific individual or group (such as an entire military unit) that has originated outside the UK as "British" to be offensive and/or provocative. The term "British", to use your words, "excludes the emigres" (by which, in the context of Tobruk, I assume you mean the Czechoslovakian and Polish units). "British" also excludes people from former British colonies, because with the passage of time, "British" has come to = "UK".

The same applies to "British Empire" in contexts after 1926 and even more so after the Statute of Westminster 1931, which removed the last vestiges of British (i.e. UK) control over the Dominions in terms of foreign and defence policy. I believe King George VI tended to use "British Commonwealth" and "British Empire" interchangeably. Even Churchill, as Anglocentric as he was, felt obliged to use the cumbersome formulation "British Commonwealth and Empire"

Grant | Talk 08:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not making excuses, I think that's a straw man based on inference but will take seriously any RS you can offer that British victory is not accurate, unless you want Commonwealth victory which I will compromise on. As you point out, British sovereignty over dominions changed in 1931 but did not end as Gough Whitlam found out in the 1970s, which invalidates your (perhaps inadvertent) appeal to authority. Dominion forces fought under British command with a right of appeal to the home government; this did not make Australia a British ally. Whether people like this or not is for them to decide but retrospective nationalism in terminology really has to give way to facts, especially if that's what is in the RS. As for my reverts, see WP:BRD, which is what I thought we were doing. I'm happy to start from scratch with you over the article and always look forward to constructive criticism. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability if you feel that I jumped the gun with

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

you only have to say, which you have. If I may ask, what are your intentions with the article? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

We need to read separate policies in conjunction with each other. I need to underline that my points above are general in nature and not about any article in particular.

In regard to disputes over content, WP:BRD does not override the other policies that I've cited. And as the passage you have quoted from Misplaced Pages:Verifiability says: "editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references", i.e. remove outright vandalism, but remember that unilateral reversion of good faith editing breaches WP:CIVILITY. The passage your cite also says "you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it". As per WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, "consider" is pivotal here and not an empty word.

And as I have said previously, some matters cannot be resolved by any number of reliable sources, because of conflict among them, fundamentally differing usages and perspectives from one country to another, and the problem of systemic bias. Apart from clumsy formulations like "W, X, Y & Z victory", the only possible answer is the use of broad, historically accurate terms. Such as "Allies" or "Allied" and I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would object strongly to such words, or how they could possibly attempt to justify such an objection (especially in contexts in which UK forces represented a numerical minority).

To be specific, the context of many major operations of WW2, I don't see "British Commonwealth victory" or "Commonwealth victory" as acceptable, because they exclude, as I have pointed out, what you call the "emigres". Moreover, units officially made up of "emigres", as you call them, were technically under the control of governments-in-exile.

The UK government's "sovereignty over dominions" was terminated in stages: partly when each became a Dominion; partly, with the a series of changes in 1907, which "implicitly introduced the idea of the Dominion as ... self-governing ... mandated that meetings take place regularly to consult Dominions in ... foreign affairs..." (Colonial Conference of 1907), and New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland joined Canada and Australia as official Dominions.

From 1907, UK commanders of formations that including Dominion forces technically had only temporary and conditional operational control of them. Dominion governments had ultimate responsibility for their recruitment, pay, organisation, equipment, training, deployment, administration, supply, repatriation, demobilisation, discharge, rehabilitation, pensions etc. Dominion governments retained a veto on and could withdraw from any or all operations. For example, Towards the end of the First World War, for instance, the New Zealand government began to withdraw individual units from operations and transfer home and discharge personnel deemed to have given sufficient service – overriding protests from the Imperial General Staff. In 1917, the Australian people rejected, at a referendum, the introduction of conscription. And so, even before 1931, it is a misconception that "Dominion forces" only had "a right of appeal" to Dominion governments.

In 1931, the UK parliament's control of the foreign and military policies of the Dominions was definitively severed (not merely "changed"). (Regarding Westminster's residual powers over the Dominions: in the case with which I am most familiar, namely Australia, only some laws of individual states and territories required a rubber stamp from Westminster. And not those of the federal government in Canberra. Furthermore: "In practice ... this power was almost never exercised. For example, in a referendum on secession in Western Australia in April 1933, 68% of voters favoured seceding from Australia and becoming a separate Dominion. The state government sent a delegation to Westminster to request that this result be enacted into law, but the British government refused to intervene on the grounds that this was a matter for the Australian government. As a result of this decision in London, no action was taken in Canberra or Perth ." In regard to Westminster, the example of Whitlam's government is utterly irrelevant, although you wouldn't be the first to misconstrue it in some way or another. That is, in Dominions/Commonwealth Realms, the respective constitutions have always assigned the power to dismiss cabinet, dissolve parliament etc not to the monarch , but to each respective Governor-General. Who by convention is appointed on the advice of the PM. This is shown by the fact that Whitlam was sacked by Sir John Kerr – whom the Queen had appointed Governor-General at Whitlam's request. Any PM who has an inkling that he/she is about to be dismissed by a Governor-General could pre-empt: simply phone the monarch and have the G-G's commission withdrawn. Earlier in 1975 Whitlam actually did this to the commission as Lieutenant-Governor , of Sir Colin Nicholls.) On the point of Dominion independence Here is a reliable and pertinent source:

"n 24 September the Australian Government promoted Blamey to full general. A few days later the first brigade of the 9th Division was relieved .

The final showdown between Blamey and Auchinleck had taken place in a meeting about two weeks earlier. Auchinleck began by stating that Tobruk could not be relieved. ‘Gentlemen’, said Blamey, ‘I think you don’t understand the position. If I were a French or an American commander making this demand what would you say about it?’ ‘But you’re not’, replied Auchinleck.
'That is where you are wrong’, said Blamey, ‘Australia is an independent nation. She came into this war under certain definite agreements. Now, gentlemen, in the name of my Government, I demand the relief of these troops.’
Auchinleck shrugged and said, ‘Well, if that is the way you put it, we have no alternative.’ Blamey added later that he was now ‘the most hated man in the Middle East’.
A month later the British War Office suggested that an Australian division be sent to garrison Cyprus. Auchinleck quickly reminded London that it could not be done without the consent of the Australian government."

(—David Horner, 2005, "Australia and Coalition Warfare in the Second World War", in Peter Dennis & Jeffrey Grey (eds), Entangling Alliances: coalition warfare in the twentieth century; the 2005 Chief of Army military history conference, Canberra, Australian History Military Publications, pp. 107–8.)

From 1931, even a declaration of war by the UK did not automatically apply to the Dominions, which is what made each of country a member of the Allies in its own right – and meant that membership had nothing whatsoever to do with the UK.

The only significant "intention" I have in editing any Misplaced Pages article is its improvement. Grant | Talk 08:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

We can do this forever but I have had limited interest in the niceties; I went through it over attempts by editors to dictate retrospective nationalism in some of the Great War articles a few years ago. The legal status of dominion was not terminated by the 1931 statute so I think it is an insufficient criterion on which to base conclusions about sovereignty; beyond that I don't care, it's not as if it made any difference to their rightful owners. What do you want in the lead? British or Commonweath? If its neither, I suggest we take it to the Milhist board or rfc to solicit opinion. My question about the article was specific; are you going to "improve" it with some small edits which you've already disclosed or do you intend something ambitious like a re-write? I ask because I want to know if we are debating a few small but significant points of editing or all the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If it still isn't clear, my problem is not so much with a particular article, but with some general aspects of your approach towards editing and other editors, as suggested by this enigmatic comment: "I think it is an insufficient criterion on which to base conclusions about sovereignty; beyond that I don't care, it's not as if it made any difference to their rightful owners." Care to elaborate? Then there is the allusion to having "limited interest in the niceties". And the blatant lack of good faith demonstrated by the sweeping, baseless ad hominem, now made twice, of "retrospective nationalism". Not to mention a deficiency of irony, since it is you (Keith) that is arguing for a country-specific name, while I am arguing for a broader, more inclusive name that clearly was used at the time, by the people concerned. So free to start an RFC on your approaches to editing and other editors.Grant | Talk 16:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Whether I care or not is beside the point, when it's a matter of describing the RS. "Retrospective nationalism" is a description and your unilateral decision to define it as lacking good faith and ad hominem is I suggest self-serving, straw man and taking offence and trying to use it as a pretext to lay blame on me. Britain isn't a country it's a multi-national entity and I take offence at you implying that I'm an English nationalist, I'm a little more grown up than that. Let is refer to the RS apropos the siege of Tobruk, perhaps between us we can assemble sufficient to be going on with.Keith-264 (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

And once again: what is the problem with saying that any particular battle, won by a multinational Allied force, was an Allied victory? What is your problem with the word "Allied"? Apart from simply not liking the words for some reason?Grant | Talk 16:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• See above.Keith-264 (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I also have to ask what reliable sources you have for your position on the changes caused by the 1907 Colonial Conference and 1931 Statute of Westminster? And what would actually change your mind about them? Especially since your position flies in the face of mainstream scholarship about such things. Were you to put such views forward in an article they would be regarded as WP:FRINGE. In particular, you clearly haven't taken on board what Dominion (as opposed to colony) status actually meant (either in 1907–1931 or after 1931). Although you're accidentally correct in your assertion that the "legal status of dominion was not terminated by the 1931 statute": indeed, the independence of the Dominions was massively enhanced in 1931.Grant | Talk 16:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Independence is a vector quantity there is no more or less. You can flog this WP:DEADHORSE as much as you want but I'd really rather you took it and your "Coatrack" elsewhere. Keith-264 (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

With respect to the Tobruk article: I've already said that "British" and "Commonwealth won't cut it. The answer to your last question is: "I don't know". Grant | Talk 16:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to resolve a grudge against me, stop hiding behind WP:Weasel like "some general aspects of your approach towards editing and other editors" and own it. I reserve the right to ignore any more of your edits on this page that are not practical suggestions for editing the Siege of Tobruk. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems that you expect me to address your specific concerns, without extending me the same courtesy.

I thought that titling this section "Friendly advice" would mean that it was evidently not about an individual article. As I said at the outset, I am more concerned with your awareness of the major policies I have listed above.

I hope that the UK Parliament is a "Reliable Source" in this instance? Regarding the changes in 1931:

In 1931 Parliament developed a new relationship with the Dominions – a term first used in 1907 to describe the self-governing colonies - through the Statute of Westminster.
This Act repealed the Colonial Laws Validity Act and renounced the Westminster Parliament's right to legislate for the Dominions unless at their explicit request.

It marked the effective legislative independence of the Dominions from Britain and their equal status as nation states. (— Parliament, 2011 The settler colonies: Legislative independence.)

I have contributed to a lot of Misplaced Pages articles on the Second World War and some editors have occasionally insisted on portraying dependent states like the Empire of India and Commonwealth of the Philippines as making meaningful declarations of war, treaties etc, separate from the relevant colonial power. That kind of misconception is the opposite of your misconception: "independence is a vector quantity there is no more or less". I haven't looked at your editing record, but this kind of misconception suggests that you haven't studied or read about politics, international affairs, world history etc in great depth. Perhaps you are only interested in military history. However, broader historical contexts (especically politics) do frequently intrude upon and become relevant to military history. Even if you cannot conceive of degrees of independence, you may admit that independence is granted in one matter or area and not another.

That you think "Britain isn't a country" speaks volumes. Perhaps someone should tell all the British nationals out there. Britain has officially been a country since the Acts of Union in 1707, created "One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain". It is, in fact, a country that includes several smaller countries.

Since you seem to prefer "either/or" scenarios:

(i) Is "Allied victory" accurate? Yes or no.

(ii) Did Czechoslovakia and Poland have some form of government in exile during 1939–45? Yes or no.

(iii) Did the governments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have ultimate control of their military units and personnel during 1939–45? Yes or no.

Grant | Talk 06:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Friendly advice followed by threats and innuendo. "Although the United Kingdom, as a sovereign state, is a country, England, Scotland, Wales and, to a lesser degree, Northern Ireland, are also regarded as countries". WP:DTS Keith-264 (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

And therefore WP:DTS supports my point.

There are no "threats" and "innuendo" is in the eye of the beholder. If you really think that I have made any "threats", I suggest that you take it up with the relevant authorities.

And you, Keith, remind me of this bit from Lewis Carroll: "When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is,” said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."⟨⟩

Grant | Talk 07:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you would depart in the manner suggested in Arkell vs Pressdram (1971). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a case I'm familiar with, sorry. Feel free to explain it to me in your usual stilted and archaic prose.

I've wasted enough time on this and you; continue on your merry way and I'm sure you eventually realise the value of the advice above. Grant | Talk 07:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Happy centenary from the Tunnellers!

Only a few hours now until it will be exactly a 100 years that the mines in the Battle of Messines were fired. What a night to remember! I hope this finds you well, esteemed Keith-264. Best wishes, ViennaUK (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I hope the earth moves for you too. ;O)) Keith-264 (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017

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 the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Operation Flipper

Now not to make a big thing of this, but I carefully only undid the part of your edit that I found problematic rather than a knee-jerk undo of the whole thing. You could at least do me the courtesy of the same when reverting me. SpinningSpark 16:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

See subsequent edits. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. SpinningSpark 18:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Apols for being inefficient. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

SFN References

Hi Keith - you recently performed an edit on the Operation Barbarossa page and stated, "with sfn's biblio is in single column". This is not correct. SFN references work fine with the Bibliography in multiple rows. For articles with enormous Bibliography pages like the one in reference, a single Bibliographic column is absurdly long and visually unpleasing. Please refrain from making this a single column. Thanks.--Obenritter (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no see here putting an alphabetical list in several columns negates the point of alphabetical listing. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kierzek:@Diannaa:@K.e.coffman: Kieth -- you're wrong. Most Bibliography page listings of any length are in columns, not as you've adjusted it into a single column. When columns are used, the alphabetization starts in the next column. If the page is short and not many sources are used (which is the case for a lot of articles) one column is preferable. However, when there are several dozen sources or more, columns make more sense. There are hundreds of examples out there. I have reverted your edit again. Please do not alter the page again without taking it to the Talk section of the article.--Obenritter (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

do your job.Keith-264 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Obenritter is correct in that general consensus has been that multiple rows make a better presentation for readers and eliminates "white space". Kierzek (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If it isn't general, it isn't consensus. Have you read ? I think that more than one column looks crap, the wiki is clear and I want the surname of the author on each line, which is what alphabetical lists are for. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

PS have you tried counting the number of lines in both forms and comparing them? Keith-264 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but your subjective reasoning, "I think that more than one column looks crap" does not suffice to change the reality that there is a consensus (as @Kierzek: informed you) among numerous Wiki-editors on this issue. Your additional statement, "If it isn't general, it isn't consensus" is patently incorrect as well. What you read on one Wiki-page does not constitute a "law" on the site as it is ever-evolving. We're all here to make Misplaced Pages a better reference source, not to fight. Look around at numerous pages with a couple dozen or more sources, and you'll notice that most of them use multiple columns.--Obenritter (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

My "subjective reasoning" is beside the point, this isn't. As for consensus, look it up in a dictionary, it exists or it doesn't, there aren't degrees of it, "general consensus" is pleonasm. I suggest that you put your straw men back in the stable and hang up your gloves. Oh and have you tried counting the number of lines in both forms for comparison? Keith-264 (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You're obviously not here to build an encyclopedia by working constructively with other editors. We're done. --Obenritter (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest (with the greatest respect) that you are being a hypocrite; have you tried counting the number of lines in both forms for comparison? Keith-264 (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

For the final time - it is not about the total number of lines, the use of columns has to do with readability and consensus among Wiki-editors.--Obenritter (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You can squirm all you like but the Wiki is unambiguous and you don't have a leg to stand on, admit it. Multi-columns is unreadable and negates the point of an alphabetical list. I suggest that you are confusing editing with ownership and rejecting a fresh pair of eyes. This isn't wiki or consensual. Do you want the last word? Keith-264 (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Guys, enough. The fact is Keith, guidelines are just that; and all the GA ranked articles I have worked on have been vetted and consensus was and is for multiple columns for citations and many have multiple columns for the Bibliography (the latter being the bone of contention here); that may not be the case for ones you work on and certainly for articles that only have a smaller amount of references there is no reason not to have one column, but that is not the case with this particular article. You can seek a change, as can anyone, whether it happens, is another story that cannot be foretold. Kierzek (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact is that there should be only one column in the Bibliography and all the comments against it are spurious. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Villers-Bocage edit question

Hi there,

I noticed that we are editing the article at the same time. May I ask why you removed the below? It seemed quite the appropriate description (with the exception of Beevor writing in the 21st Century):

"Commentators of the late twentieth-century revisionist school found Wittmann's actions impressive"

Thanks - 66.77.160.179 (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It's OR rather than description. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you for your time.66.77.160.179 (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

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 planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Commas before conjunctions

You are quite right to suggest that in the case of a standard "list", as in "A wombat eats roots, shoots and leaves", or "I bought butter, eggs and a pound of cheese", it is usual to have no comma before the "and" that precedes the last item in the list; but many publishing houses and journalistic organisations do in fact insist on the comma here (the so-called "Oxford comma"). Let's go with the flow and accept that the Oxford comma is an affectation. We also don't need a comma between two "alternative" or "conjoined" items - such as "tea or coffee are available" or "Bows and arrows are the essential tools of the archer: traditionally the trades of the bowyer and the fletcher made and maintained these tools".

On the other hand, a comma is actually required, in fact a sentence can be rendered ambiguous or meaningless without it, when a pair of commas fulfills a parenthetical function: replacing a pair of brackets (...). Thus this sentence (with parentheses) might be rendered as "This sentence, without parentheses, etc.." No "and" here, of course, but what about - "When she says (and I fear she DOES say) that men are the bane of womankind"? Take away either "bracket replacement comma" and at best this would read very strangely: sensible punctuation of the clause without the brackets requires "When she says, and I fear she DOES say, that men etc.".

There are so many exceptions to any simplistic "rule" saying: "no comma before a conjunction" that this is really not the sort of thing a BOT should be asked to decide on, it requires a fluent and literate writer of English. A misplaced comma "feels" wrong - a missing comma at best "feels" even worse than wrong, and can, as I have pointed out elsewhere, actually distort, obscure or change the meaning of a sentence.

I am sorry if stating the whole case like this seems "unnecessary" of me, and I am sure we both have more pressing business to get on with rather than argue this at length. In this spirit I have not reverted your recent edit to The Fokker scourge article removing a comma before "or". I remain disturbed, however, about rules of grammar, spelling or punctuation being applied in an inappropriately literal way, ignoring the exceptions that many such "rules" have. It doesn't make for good, understandable prose; and I am more than ready for further discussion, either here, or on my talk page. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Oxford be damned, punctuation next to a conjunction is never justified; if it seems necessary that means that the syntax is wrong. Keith-264 (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't like Ozford commas either, as I actually made clear (as I thought) very early in the above screed. I only mentioned it to make it clear that was not what I was talking about. If you really believe that - then you ought to recast the sentence concerned in "correct" syntax - since presumably this remains just as wrong with the comma cut as it already was. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I have jumped the gun a bit and requested arbitration - as you know as well as me, we are BOTH opinionated and stubborn and probably unlike to come to a conclusion on this one without a third opinion or two by ourselves. We have done some very good work together in the past on several articles and I would like to avoid souring our working relationship if at all possible. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It's quite simple, you are wrong; it doesn't matter how much you write about it here or on talk pages or what sophistries you employ. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

What does "wrong" mean? If you mean, "I, Keith-264, renounce the Oxford Comma and all its works" then that's fine as an opinion, but it's just one voice in many. If you mean "The Oxford Comma is invalid, is not used, and should never be used" then there is nothing to support that viewpoint: there are a great many sources (although clearly, not a majority) that it is usable. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't pollute my talk page with insulting comments, it isn't nice. Do it again and I will revert your comments. Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Insulting? You're at liberty to revert your talk page all you like, but this was neither insulting nor intended to be. I'm sorry you found it so. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You aren't judge and jury in your own cause, You should apologise.Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

RFAR

A request for arbitration in which you were a named party has been declined as premature. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank youKeith-264 (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

DRN

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the ongoing debate on how best to develop the Battle for Caen article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk: Battle for Caen".The discussion is about the topic Battle for Caen. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Fokker Scourge

Hello, Keith-264 – I see you've made more copy-edits to Fokker Scourge; good work. I'm just curious as to why you removed the no-break space template between "1" and "July" in this edit. I routinely add that template between the day and month so that the "1" does not end up alone at the end of a line.  – Corinne (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen it before, I assumed that it was another of Soundof's eccentric edits. Apols, I'll put them back. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Great! Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I was just looking at your recent edits to the article. In this edit, you changed:

• The number of aircraft operating over the Western Front in 1914 and 1915 was small compared to later in the war and air warfare was in its infancy but the German Oberste Heeresleitung (OHL, army high command) had already ordered the development of machine-gun-armed aircraft to counter the armed aircraft of the Allies. (emphasis added to show the word that was removed)

to:

• The number of aircraft operating over the Western Front in 1914 and 1915 was small compared to later in the war; air warfare was in its infancy but the German Oberste Heeresleitung (OHL, army high command) had already ordered the development of machine-gun-armed aircraft to counter the armed aircraft of the Allies.

I don't know the reason for the change, but I think the sentence still reads awkwardly. Would you consider something like this? --

• As air warfare was in its infancy, the number of aircraft operating over the Western Front in 1914 and 1915 was small compared to later in the war, but the German...

If you don't like this wording, I wonder whether "air warfare was in its infancy" is even needed here. Or perhaps:

• In 1914 and 1915 air warfare was still in its infancy, so the number of aircraft operating over the Western Front was small compared to later in the war, but the German...

Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that your suggestion won't please Soundof or me ;o)

In 1914 and 1915 the number of aircraft operating over the Western Front was small compared to later in the war and air warfare was still in its infancy. The German...Keith-264 (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this what you are suggesting? Because it is exactly the same as the way it was before you edited it except that you removed "but" and started a new sentence. I think this version is somewhat better than the way you left it after your edit because it keeps the two related clauses together ("number of aircraft...was small" and "air warfare was...in its infancy") instead of separating them with a semi-colon. However, in this version, there is nothing to indicate the relationship between the German OHL having already ordered the development of machine-gun-armed aircraft and these earlier statements, which "but" kind of supplied. Perhaps this is a candidate for an "Although" construction:

• Although in 1914 and 1915 air warfare was still in its infancy, and the number of aircraft operating over the Western Front was small compared to later in the war, the German OHL had already ordered...

Otherwise there is no point to using the past perfect tense ("had already ordered").  – Corinne (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

In a rare burst of agreement, Soundof removed infancy and I agreed with it. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Great! :)  – Corinne (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Seriously

I'm sorry if my comment in Fokker Scourge didn't sit well with you. But I actually don't understand your reply. Am I missing something? --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Mockery is no help to anyone.Keith-264 (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still confused. I intended no mockery. What, specifically? --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=3dz0m2ubQw1KSnb_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_8fiCxxFkalnvPXD&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Misplaced Pages that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)