This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Keith-264 (talk | contribs) at 17:45, 27 February 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:45, 27 February 2009 by Keith-264 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!
|
Editing pattern
Hi! Your editing pattern is somewhat unusual for a new editor; you appear to make extensive modifications to articles, marked as minor edits without a summary. If you have previously contributed to Misplaced Pages (or continue to do so) under a different name or anonymously, would you mind describing the nature of that contribution? Thanks! EdC 21:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK, not that new. Would you perhaps take the time to read Misplaced Pages:Edit summary, Misplaced Pages:Minor edit and Misplaced Pages:Etiquette, to get your editing more into line with how we editors tend to prefer to work together? EdC 21:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Jack the Ripper Article
Very impressed with your 'minor' edit! Addhoc 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't! Far from minor, too. Guy Hatton 22:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Have to agree with Guy here, those edits made the article much harder to read and in places didn't make sense. 172.145.151.79 20:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Minor edits
Please stop making extensive edits and marking them as minor. It disrupts the editing process and makes it difficult to respond to changes to the article. EdC 03:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Jacob Neusner
Given your ability in copy editing, would you consider having a look at the Jacob Neusner article? Addhoc 16:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Unhelpful edits
You need to stop editing or you need to consult a style manual before doing so. You take out commas for no reason and you don't understand how to use a semicolon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.10.240.6 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 28 August 2006
Stop
No more editing until you gain some experience in editing, please! FWIW Bzuk 19:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC).
- Take a look at your edits on the last few submissions you have made. When you make what you describe as "minor" edits and they alter or change meanings or context then these edits have to be considered major revisions. Read more about editing and make small changes until you gain confidence in making what are unchallenged and inconsequential edits. I do not see any major information or referencing that you employ and consequently, your edits fall into stylistic commentary which unless it furthers the main thrust of the article, is often left in place but when the edits do not do more than "nit-picking" then the potential for constant reversions will arise. There are already a number of editors and admins that are observing your "MOA" so this comment is meant to be a gentle but well-meaning admonision to observe first, follow the carpenter's motto of "measuring twice before cutting once" and you will find the Misplaced Pages experience much more gratifying and fun. Cheers Bzuk 20:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC).
Your edit summaries
It is usual to put some "useful" text in the edit summary box, rather than just the name of the article or ~~~~ (which is your signature for use on talk pages themselves, not edit summaries). If you use the edit summary box correctly, it will be of great assistance to your fellow editors. Thanks. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (spelling)
You shouldn't change Canadian spelling of words to American spelling nor should someone change American spelling to Canadian spelling . Please stop that, thank you. Green Squares (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Er what is Canadian spelling? Examples please.Keith-264 (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
edit Green Squares (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Industrial war
Thanks for the note. You're right, it's another interesting subject, though I have to admit I know little about Falkenhayn (other than as the architect Verdun of course!). I'm kind of bogged down with Clausewitz at the moment, which is an interesting coincidence as he's often regarded as the father of industrial war (and by extension, WWI)... though I'm not sure how fair that is. I didn't quite understand your other comment though - are you agreeing or disagreeing that Epsom was the turning point in Normandy, and the Valentine was the best British tank of WWII? (personally I'd go for the Matilda or the Comet, though I suppose it depends what 'best means; the Firefly might qualify too) EyeSerene 16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that interesting analysis. I have to admit I'm mostly pro-Monty as well ;) It's perfectly justifiable to argue that, broadly, Overlord went to plan. I don't think anyone would dispute that he always intended a battle of attrition, and that there was little chance of manoeuvre warfare given the strength of the German forces in the Brit/Can sector and their decision to defend so far forwards. Of course, without Monty it may never have happened at all, as he was the one who turned the invasion into a feasible operation, and in my book he deserves great credit for giving no credence to the 'bomber baron' line that Germany could be defeated without taking on its land forces. Some of the politicking that went on at SHAEF was shocking, and although it was perhaps naive of him, I don't blame him in the least for keeping people like Tedder at arm's length. Trouble was, it only worked as long as he was seen to be winning. If attriting the enemy was all he intended from each offensive, he could have spared himself a lot of grief by letting his superiors in on the plan ;) I believe this was his only real fault though; given the gulf in quality between German and Allied armour and the extraordinary ability of German units to maintain a cohesive defence in the face of heavy losses and gaps in the command structure, it's hard to see how else things could have been done. Of course, Hitler played his cards unintelligently, with his insistence on suicidally optimistic counterattacks and 'last man, last bullet' stands - and given the losses the Germans sustained when attacking, maybe a more defensive strategy would have kept Allied losses down... but that's easy to say in hindsight, and at the very least, the British and Canadian offensives kept German attention away from the US sector, and ensured that reinforcements were committed to danger points in the line pretty much as soon as they arrived, so nothing could be built up in reserve. Personally I think that if we'd had a proper 'breakthrough' tank, we might have cracked the nut faster, but as you note with Epsom, given how costly attacking prepared positions defended with AT guns proved to both sides, who knows? EyeSerene 14:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Searching
I think what you're after is in your prefs settings. If you click 'my preferences' (at the top of the page), and open the 'Search' tab, there should be a tickbox for 'Disable AJAX suggestions' on the left side of the page. Click to insert a tick, click the 'save' button at the bottom of the page... and job done - search suggestions will no longer show up when typing in the search box.
Hope this helps; if I've misunderstood your question or haven't been clear, feel free to drop me a note ;) All the best, EyeSerene 09:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hastings
Yes, he really did write "belatedly thrown into battle" (direct quote), referring to the 9th & 10th SS Pz. I get the impression from his book that he was determined not to give credit to (almost) any commander at divisional level or above, either on the Allied or German side, and he spends most of the book describing how unprepared the Allies were to face the German soldier. IIRC he makes the assertion, at one point, that there was no occasion when Allied troops met German ones on anything like equal terms that the Allies prevailed! He's so strongly of the opinion that Epsom was a breakout attempt that (my personal opinion) he 'forgets' about the ULTRA intercepts, and thus doesn't need to paint the forestalling of II SS Pz Corps' offensive as anything but a happy accident. That said, he's no more partisan than other writers on the Normandy Campaign, and the book is a damn good pop-history read ;) EyeSerene 13:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Epsom
Am just re-reading through the conversations regarding the outcome of Epsom, i have noted you stated:
Buckley et al point out that if the British were so bad then why were their results better than the Germans? German armoured attacks foundered even more comprehensively than Allied ones for the same reasons
Sourced from British Armour in the Normandy Campaign. Do you have a more of a direct quote? On a sidenote, do you know if the paperback version (20 quid) is just as good as the hardback (80 quid)?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I have just posted this on EyeSerene talk page but wouldnt mind your feedback as well:
Hi there I was bored in work earlier on and have wrote up a conclusion for the Epsom article. It is currently in the talk page awaiting comments. It has included the move of information from the planning section, includes amended information from what was in the last section of the article and has pulled information from all the quotes to assess the operation. Do you have any comments on it? --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Africa WW1
Please see my recent edits--Woogie10w (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
UK casualty figures
UK official casualty figures for 1914-18 lack credibility. An analysis of the 1922 War Office report on casualties and current CWGC figures revealed the following
1- The total figures for British Empire war dead were given as 908,371. The detailed tables in the report do not support this figure. The authors of the report did not provide any backup for the often quoted figure of 908,371 war dead. The figures on supporting schedules are poorly organized and do not tie out to a final total. There is no reconciliation of the figure for missing in action
2- The schedule that lists the figure of 908,371 British Empire war dead refers only to ‘soldiers’. The implication is that the RN, the RAF and the Merchant Navy are not included.
3- The 1931 official Medical History figures on total Army casualties give us statistics on page 12 that add down to 876,084 Army war dead and missing. If you add the RN war dead figure of 32,287 from the 1922 report you arrive at 908,371.
4- The RAF casualty figures in the 1922 report are not summarized
5- The 1931 official Medical History figures on total Army casualties do not include Dominion losses in the Dardanelles campaign.
6- The CWWC figures for 1914-18 war dead are 1,114,914. This is an increase of 206,543 compared to the 1922 figures. The CWGC does not give us an explanation for the increase.
7- The names of the dead posted to the CWGC website add down to 1,057,648 not 1,114,914.
8- The number of civilian deaths on the CWGC website is given as 459, however the 1922 War Office report on casualties lists 1,260 UK civilians killed in air raids. Perhaps the newspapers from that era will give us the identity of the victims.
--Woogie10w (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- A chap named Samuel Butler from the CWGC got back to me recently regarding their statistics. I have made updates to the WW1 & WW2 casualties pages to include his information. The figures they have for civilians is for WW 2 only, not including WW 1. The WW 2 data is for those civilians under "Crown Protection" only, that would exclude civilians interned by the Japanese. Have you ever seen figures for these losses in the Far East? I continue to listen to your parliamentary debates on the BBC World Service. I was pleased to hear that your PM is planning to save the world.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Survivors Re-Imagining
I've added a reference to the wording "re-imagining". Please don't remove it again without discussion. --Deadly∀ssassin 00:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
My edits
If you have issue with them, then be specific on the relevent Talk page. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Psychopathy
As far as I can tell the article is a mess, not least because somebody had a point to make and usedthe article to try and make it, but more because nobody saw fit to remark and prevent it. Regards, WB --90.216.176.11 (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Text of CWGC Reply
This is what they sent me--Woogie10w (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
THE COMMONWEALTH WAR GRAVES COMMISSION
The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is charged by Royal Charter to mark and maintain Graves and Memorials to the Missing, and to maintain records of COMMONWEALTH WAR DEAD of the 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 World Wars.
The statistics tabulated in our Annual Report are representative of the number of names commemorated for all servicemen/women of the Armed Forces of the Commonwealth and former U.K. Dependencies, whose death was attributable to their war service. Some auxilliary and civilian organisations are also accorded war grave status if death occurred under certain specified conditions.
COMMONWEALTH WAR DEAD STATISTICS :
The statistics represent :
1. THOSE WITH A NAMED BURIAL, inclusive of those cremated.
2. THOSE NAMED ON MEMORIALS, WHO HAVE NO KNOWN OR MAINTAINABLE GRAVE
.
1 and 2 are definative of the amount of names recorded on the Casualty Database as Commonwealth War Dead compiled from information provided by the appropriate authorities.
3. UNIDENTIFIED WAR GRAVES IN THE CARE OF C.W.G.C. : these have no bearing on the number of persons who died.
4. CIVLIAN WAR DEAD 1939-1945 : C.W.G.C. is charged by Royal Charter to compile and
maintain a ROLL OF HONOUR of those civilians under Crown Protection who died as a result of enemy actions, in the Second World War only.
THIS IS THE BASIS FOR THE COMPILATION OF C.W.G.C. ANNUAL REPORT STATISTICS : THERE IS NO CLAIM TO COMPARISON WITH ANY OTHER SOURCE OF STATISTICS.
ADDITIONAL STATISTICS LISTED IN THE C.W.G.C. ANNUAL REPORT :
CWGC maintain a level of Non World War burials and Non Commonwealth burials as an agency service on behalf of MoD and other governments or authorities. These are not complete lists of all Non Commonwealth Foreign National / Non World War Dead graves, only those the Commission maintain on behalf of the appropriate Government or Agency, where they lie within or close to a Commission Site. There are many non military civilians within the Non World War records, mainly dependants of Servicemen or Ministry employed civilians etc.
NATIONALITY
The Nationality quoted is that of the Member Government responsible for the maintenance
proportion, not the nationality of the individual War Dead. In practice, these are the totals for the military formations claimed by each member as their responsibility.
MEMBER GOVERNMENTS : AUSTRALIA, CANADA, INDIA, NEW ZEALAND, SOUTH AFRICA AND UNITED KINGDOM
COMMONWEALTH WAR DEAD / NON WORLD WAR DEAD
For the purposes of C.W.G.C. the dates of inclusion for Commonwealth War Dead are
WW 1 : 04/08/1914 to 31/08/1921
WW 2 : 03/09/1939 to 31/12/1947
Outside of these dates are classified as NON WORLD WAR DEAD and appear within our records only where the graves are maintained on behalf of M.O.D. A level of burials within the above dates may also be classified as Non World War due to qualification status requirements of some non military or volunteer formations.
Perch
I have exhausted my sources and can find no casualty information for Perch (roughly D-Day/7th June till 14th ish); is there any additional sources you have, which holds this information?
Copp
Howdy
What book(s) by Copp was you aluring to in the Cobra discussion?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Fields of Fire: The Canadians in Normandy by Terry Copp. He has some terse things to say about people who don't look at the terrain before they sound off about 'caution' and 'doctrine'. Careful though because Amazon UK only has a copy @ £20!Keith-264 (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)