User talk:Eastfarthingan/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Edit war

Currently you do not respect an edition that takes a while without being formally refuted. He is ignoring that his most recent edition is subject to debate. Avoid the war of editions and make a consensus to legitimize your idea. --Muwatallis II (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The edits are perfectly valid, as it was before you wiped it off 3 months ago when it was never disputed. Since then you have tried to keep vandalizing the articles by removing it. Im trying to restore them as they were and keep other articles in line. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Why have you deleted my editions?

The sources are of the same level as those already used. JamesOredan (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Better check the links of previous users in Edit summaries and you have a good idea as to why they were reverted. Eastfarthingan (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The source contributed in the Battle of Cartagena de Indias says that it is a fiction novel, but the elimination of the source of the Spanish Navy does not put any reason. And Krajoyn I do not know who he is or what he has done, only it is affirmed that he has been expelled, surely for you. JamesOredan (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The aforementioned User has edited using the same sources and same numbers as you have albeit minor similarities. The quote used is from a fictional novel which as a work of Historical fiction and is (obviously) forbidden as use for a source. Hope this helps. Eastfarthingan (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Both sources used (in the article "Spanish Armada" and "Battle of Cartagena de Indias") are fiction?

I'm sorry to be like that.Both sources used (in the article "Spanish Armada" and "Battle of Cartagena de Indias") are fiction?

I'm sorry to be like that, but I think the source of the Spanish Armada was not. JamesOredan (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The source used in Battle of Cartagena de Indias article quotes from a fictional novel - what more proof do you need? The Spanish armada has sources that you used to give a range of numbers (not one) that don't add up. Both articles have had persistent sock puppetry from User:Krajoyn which you are deliberately ignoring. Eastfarthingan (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The source of the Spanish Armada is perfectly valid. (Article full of lies and opinions and without sources, there is literally a whole section without even a source). And the battle was not "Decisive", because it was not a turning point for the war, but your stupid pride and black legend is superior to you.

If you were less nationalistic and more rational maybe you would look more like Favonian.

As always, a pleasure. JamesOredan (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The article has plenty of sources for figures already, if you feel they need to be changed (not using a range of numbers) then use the talk page. In addition since this article has had consensus on issues over many years which have been reached, persistent sock puppetry has been (rightly) corrected. Always pleasure, never a chore. Eastfarthingan (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Why have you deleted my editions? 2

Why you reverted my editions on List of wars involving the United Kingdom regarding the second Afghan War, then changing the content of the Second Afghan War to make it fit with your edit?Mr.User200 (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The sources in the infobox of Second Anglo-Afghan War been manipulated & changed over time by many different (& unregistered) users. The edits I made are totally justified along with the sources given and what they were intended for orginally. The treaty of Gandamack explains what took place. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Your research on Action of 10 August 1780

Working on my dissertation. Just wanted to thank you for including the reference to issue 12110 of the Gazette that includes Williams' letter detailing the engagement. Absolutely fantastic source, blown away by your find. Cheers.

Mpawluk (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I used one source that erroneously said January and never looked at dates after that. Thanks for correcting this. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

250 - 300px

What do you see with the 300px setting? On my laptop the infobox extends beyond the width of the campaignboxes. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

We have had this issue for a while. The infobox is the same regardless of image size. 300 px at least fills image border. Hope this helps.Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

When I set 250, the infobox shrinks back to the same width as the campaignboxes. What browser do you have? Keith-264 (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You need to think outside the box Keith, there are browsers for tablets mobiles as well as desktop & for me all three suit 300px. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No need to gloat; I think it's the browser that makes the difference if all 250px does on your screens is shrink the pic.On mine, 300px has bloated the infobox about half an inch wider than the campaignboxes. The reason I asked is because I have Firefox; do you? Keith-264 (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Just the facts, I use Firefox, Opera & occasionally Safari. It never use to enlargen the infobox, strange as to why it happens now. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The Continental Op agrees, in my Firefox the Infobox spreads its waist at 300px but not at 250px; what's going on?Keith-264 (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Changes in wiki last August, also coincided when AutoEd now longer works with anything. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Auto Ed has been repaired but there's a deafening silence about the effect on the infobox. Keith-264 (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Auto Ed still doesn't work any more ('no difference' with every article if I attempt use it) Is there a link to a talk page on this? Intrigued. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

[1] it's the fifth one down. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Second Anglo-Afghan War

Hey Eastfarthingan, i saw your trouble with an IP warrior at Second Anglo-Afghan War, i asked for page protection (semi). Just to let you know. Take care mate.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks chap, just done the same. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Anglo-Spanish wars template

Hi Eastfarthingan, I've just reverted your latest edit on the template (feel free to re-revert; no edit war in sight). I am actually for the more inclusive criteria (i.e: official interventions and interventions by stealth), this is the reason why I didn't remove the link to "Portuguese Restoration War". I have my doubts, however, on the South American Independence wars, since there was no UK government sponsorship on the British volunteers forces which fought on the side of the rebels, as at the time Spain was an allied of Britain in the Napoleonic wars. British diplomacy, nevertheless, made a decisive move by recognizing the new-borne republics in 1825. I was thinking about and I will not oppose to listing these wars in the template, given the massive contribution of British volunteers. Best regards.---Darius (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Statu quo ante bellum ;) ---Darius (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

My logic was a full state declaration of war with the regular army and navy fully funded by government/crown with letters of marque. (ie.. not just a legion of volunteers paid by said country within a conflict). Each of the three we have mentioned is different in their own right within legal boundaries & that makes it more complicated as you said. Im happy with current status and noticed you changed it back. Many thanks & it is an interesting discussion. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for re-reverting but...

Sorry Eastfarthigan for re-reverting, but even if no direct mention of "pyhrric", the latest changes in the template are pretty clear in that we should "not introduce non-standard terms"; the only allowed standard terms are "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The parameters "decisive", "tactical", "strategic", et alia are only showed as examples. I am however open to compromise. The current template allows a link to any section of the article where a more elaborated explanaition of the battle outcome could be found. My proposal is to change the name of the section "Aftermath" for "Spanish pyhrric victory" and link it to the entry "result", bellow the main parameter, so we'll can keep the description on the box without breaking the rules. The main parameter should read "Spanish victory" anyway.---Darius (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be an exception with pyrrhic victory and there are still many articles that have the term - Siege of Szigetvár, Battle of Malplaquet, Battle of Guilford Court House etc, and have yet to be changed. I have opened up a discussion here, and if that that warrants change (by consensus) we can agree on that. As for the changes you recommend above, these are sound and can also add by turning the citations which state the result into one 'Note' next to result parameter. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

British logistics in the Normandy Campaign

Hi, The reference you added here looks incorrect. You've referenced the US Army official history of the campaign in Guadalcanal, which won't have covered the topic its being used as a reference for. I suspect that you may have copied and pasted the wrong volume title. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep I thought so too unless it's a mistake by google? Link to page - here. Eastfarthingan (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Found the correct one - will change shortly. Eastfarthingan (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I've added a url to a full text PDF. I suspect that Hawkeye7 would appreciate it if you could also tweak the reference style to be consistent with that used in the rest of the article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I've already done it. If either of you could drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British logistics in the Normandy Campaign/archive1 with a brief review though, it would be greatly appreciated. Logistics is a subject close to my heart, but not a popular topic in the military books section, and the coverage on Wikipedia is the only accessible reference for many. This article was mainly sourced from the Red Books, which are rarer than hens' teeth. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It is a fascinating article, and yes I will write something very postive. Eastfarthingan (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Battle of Cape Passaro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Cardinal, Baltic, George I, John Campbell, Reggio, United Provinces, Duchy of Tuscany and Triple Alliance

History of Naples (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Byng

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Source of Decisive Spanish victory

I have added 2 sources where they claim that the British defeat was decisive. What is really the problem?

If you read the ip users User talk:37.29.197.5 talk page you will see why. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing is irrelevant. The infobox for military conflicts should only ever say 'X victory' or 'inconclusive' and/or 'see aftermath'. It should never say 'decisive' or 'tactical' etc. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Should have included link: Template:Infobox military conflict

So why don't you also eliminate the huge amount of articles where the decisive term is used? It's not fair it's cherrypicking.

Problem with the term Decisive

I have used two different ways to edit by accident and without wanting to, I am not a vandalic multi-account, I will not do it again and edit with my usual medium.

What I don't understand is why you eliminate the decisive word in this article when there are thousands of articles where the decisive term is used in the same context. In addition there is a source that even endorses it.

Im all good for consensus & I have even added a source to said article - but multi account swapping is very suspicious - looks like you have done it before. Why swap IP addresses in Sweden? Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Sweden? I am nothing related to Sweden nor have I exchanged my IP as something Swedish. It is very possible that I have edited in different media in the past, but for comfort and circumstances of the moment.

I think you might want to check that. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Operation Pheasant

I notice you persist in undoing my improvements to the article, especially since there are critical errors like refering to Canadian I Corps to participate in Operation Suitcase. I Canadian Corps was occupied in Italy at the time of Operation Suitcase, therefor physically impossible to participate. It was I British Corps that was part of First Canadian Army as of August 1, 1944. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FdeRijder (talk • contribs) 11:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

See your talk page too. At last we're getting somewhere, looks like a certain webpage I initially looked at got mixed up with I corps Canadian. I will make necessary changes. Thanks for pointing this out. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Eastfarthingan,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you User:Wikaviani. Happy New Year to you too. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

My edits

Sorry. I'm indeed new to the whole editing stuff. And didn't even know of the "Talk page" Understood! May I know why you keep reverting the page though. None of the informations I gave were disproven by any sources whatsoever. I'm actually going out of my way to compile data on french history and anglo-french relations, some of which are pretty inexistent on the english wikipedia pages. I would stop editing the pages if the informations I gave were inaccurate. The Poitou War waged by Louis VIII, the French political, financial and military involvement in the events known as "Rough Wooing" are well documented. (Jules Agathias (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC))

The whole purpose of a list is to be brief. I've also added sources in bibliography as a guide. The ones you've added are in different languages - this is English wiki. If you want to add more then please bear in mind the list here. Rough Wooing isn't considered as a Anglo-French war but under consesus we could add it but also means we should add Glyndŵr Rising or the Jacobite rising of 1715, Dummer's War & Father Le Loutre's War. Also I would imply to look at the French, German Italian language version of wiki to see the general trend. Good day. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Fishguard

Hi! Good evening Eastfarthingan,
I would have thought that you might approve of my edit here. Any comment? Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Im afraid not. Majority of infobox results are done with the * way. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay. My way does look * Vanessa Shanessa "Nessa" Jenkins (Ruth Jones) "tidy" − Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

What's occurring? Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Good news maybe Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Ohhh crackin. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Second Anglo Afghan war.

The edit war is just insane on this page with user using multiple IPs.

I also submitted request to http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iseefire1001 HaughtonBrit (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep just seen. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Spanish invasion of Portugal (1762)

Hello, Eastfarthingan

I agree with you that a simpler box is better (and more aesthetic, by the way) than the former one. However, we must not sacrifice information to simplicity. To say that the Bourbons were “thrice defeated” says nothing about how it happened. In a “normal” article, we could say that if someone needs more information he or she should read the entire page, but this one is huge and most of the people will read just the box and/or the head, with luck. Thus in this box it is more useful to prioritize information. This war was dubbed “Fantastic” and some people go to the point of saying that how could you win a war without winning (formal) battles? That´s why it is necessary to describe the Bourbon defeat even in the box itself. They were defeated because: 1) they withdraw before an enemy much inferior in numbers but with a brilliant strategy, 2) the relics of their armies were chased into Spain not only by the British-Portuguese army but also by the peasant guerrillas, 3) they lost all their conquests in Portugal, including their headquarters full with men, and finally they lost 30, 000 men according to the British ambassador, of whom 12, 000 dead (not counting the prisoners and deserters) as reported by two diferente diplomats of Spain´s amicable countries as i will publish soon. The footnotes were selected precisely to demonstrate each one of this 3 points. That´s why i will revert your last edition. Because in this specific case, information is more importante than aesthetic or simplicity. You have already simplified the box by turning so many footnotes in two Notes: A and B. I thank you for all your help and contributions.

Hispanicultur (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

If you read the wiki Template:Infobox military conflict guide you will see that over descriptive result is not really permitted. I will wait for a consensus to build before changing back again. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you tell me, Eastfarthingan, if your legalism goes to the point of changing the "decisive victory" in the article "Battle of Waterloo" for just "victory"? Is it so harmful to let it go? When on 7 september of 2014, in this article “Spanish Invasion of Portugal, 1762”, you replaced my picture of General Burgoyne (that showing the surrender of the British on the battle of Saratoga, remember?) for another of your choice, i could have reverted it because there wasn´t a valid reason for doing that (nationalism). But i respected you. You know, above the "law" there is good sense. For you, it´s just a question of changing a box, but for me, who made 99% of the text and research it means much more. So I appreciate that in the future, before making major changes to this article, you have the good sense to discuss them first. But yes, i recognize that the rules are by your side. So if you insist doing it, go ahead, but pay attention! It will not be enough to just revert my last edition, because note C is not "working" and note B (which describes the "Destruction of the Franco-Spanish army") is in the wrong place, that is, it is associated with "Invasion thrice defeated ".

Hispanicultur (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Good point, indebted to you. I fully respect what you have done. The result of decisive victory is not in question, just to condense the bullet points underneath. However Im looking out for you as that will come into question one day. Hope you understand? Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Eastfarthingan

First of all, i would like to tell you that i came to the conclusion that you are right and i am wrong. I wouldn't blame you for thinking I'm crazy. But in addition to the rules your prophecy is right: sooner or later somebody will say and do the same you did. One shouldn´t try to stop the wind with a machine gun. In a certain way you antecipated it. Thus, I ask you to go ahead with the changes in the box, please. I would also like to say that I see nothing wrong with nationalism (not in the political sense) because I myself love my country to the same degree that you love yours. Last but not least i want to ask you what do you eat at breakfast to give you such energy in the WIkipedia? I wish i have more time to do the same but my free time is used in writting articles about Portuguese military history for Historical magazines and institutes, besides studying with my sons. So God save your Queen and our countries.

Hispanicultur (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Firstly thank you for your kind words, I'm happy to leave it for now and will see what happens. You asked what I eat for breakfast? Well I do like my Sharpham Park Cherry and Berry Spelt Flakes. lol. What do you like that gives you so much energy on here?

Long live the Anglo Portuguese alliance. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Your hapiness is my hapiness too. A controled experiment. Just soy milk with normal corn cereals. You know, it's the oldest alliance in the world ... This is historian Malyn Newitt: «On 27 September 1810 Marshal Andreé Masseéna, commanding the French army invading Portugal, decided to attack the position held by the British and Portuguese forces [50, 000 men, 50% of each] on the ridge of Busaco [you know the battle, right?] outside Coimbra. This position could have been easily outflanked but Masseéna had been persuaded that the Portuguese brigades were only an "army of peasants" and could be as easily defeated as their Spanish counterparts had been on so many previous occasions. However, the Portuguese not only held firm but repulsed the French attack. (...) The performance of the Portuguese was such as to alter the whole balance of forces in the Iberian Peninsula, for a Portuguese Army that eventually numbered around 60, 000 men enabled Britain to overcome the lack of manpower that had hindered its military operations and to go on the offensivo.» Wellington declared that he considered the Portuguese revolt against Napoleon more fantastic than the Spanish, because the Portuguese lacked everything: When the Portuguese court withdrew to Brazil, it took 15,000 people (the entire political-military and social elite) plus the national treasure; and The French sent the entire Portuguese army (the Portuguese Legion) to fight alongside the Napoleonic armies in Austria and Russia (Napoleon would claim that the Portuguese soldiers were among the best in the world), together with all the guns, powder, equipments and materials from warehouses, besides a brutal contribution in money. of the 300, 000 deads suffered by the french in the Iberic Península, most of them were killed by the irregular forces or famine caused by the Scorched earth strategy in portugal. Later, Napoleon would recognize that the "Spanish Ulcer" [at the time, it was customary to call Spain the Iberian Peninsula] the ultimate origin of his defeat. The starting point of the rush that took the Anglo-Portuguese army from Lisbon, in the Atlantic, to the conquest and occupation of the South of France, liberating Madrid and all of Spain, along the way, was the defeat of the 3rd invasion of Portugal (led by Massena) on the Torres Vedras lines, which covered the Portuguese capital. And the French didn´t learn with history. Listen to historian Charles Esdaile: «The brief war that took place between Spain and Portugal in 1762 is one of the least known episodes in the latter´s military history, whereas, thanks to Wellington´s construction of the Lines of Torres Vedras, the French invasion of 1810-11 is right at the other end of the spectrum. Yet, the two episodes are closely linked to one another. At the very least, they are uncannily reminiscent in terms of their details - in both cases substantial foreign armies were vanquished through a combination of irregular resistance, scorched-earth tactics and the clever use of field fortifications- and the article therefore ["The Peninsular war guerrilla and its antecedents: humiliation forgotten, disaster prefigured: the Guerra Fantástica of 1762"] argues that Wellington based the Plan that defeated the forces of Marshal Massena on the strategy used by the Portuguese half a century earlier». Even in economic terms, Spain and France didn´t get it from the Spanish invasion of 1762. Historian Glyndur Williams wrote that «even the campaign against Portugal´s weak and poorly – armed forces was mishandled, and ended in a miserable fiasco when British forces reached the scene. Nor was the attempt to anticipate Napoleon´s Continental System of half a century later any more effective. So far from preventing British goods from entering other countries in Europe, the Spanish government proved unable to keep them out of Spain itself.». Tell me Easthfarthingan, do you know for exemple that the Portuguese saved Admiral Nelson from dying in the battle of São Vicente (1797)? Portugal declared neutrality in the conflict oposing the UK to France and Spain. But you see, the Portuguese couldn´t resist helping the British. Yes, the Franco-Spaniards were right! So, when the Portuguese frigate Tristão saw the Spanish fleet in the Cape of São Vicente, it promptly informed the British armada of their presence, their position and their numbers … and during that battle, the Portuguese Tristão, Seeing that Nelson's ship [called “Captain”]was seriously damaged and in danger of sinking, he stepped forward and managed to tow and rescue it. At the Museu da Marinha in Lisbon, there are 3 oil paintings illustrating the episode. The Malta´s naval siege was sustained most of the time by a Portuguese armada commanded by the Marquis of Niza in cooperation with some English ships. when the French were talking about surrender because of famine, Nelson - who had asked the Portuguese to postpone the return of the fleet, after its decisive intervention in the defeat of the French at Naples- replaced (in the last moment) the Portuguese ships by British ones in order to give that honour to the British. Nobody writes or mentions this facts. The words of Napoleon were understandable about the “neutral” Portugal: « The time will come when the Portuguese nation will pay with tears of blood all the harm it has done to the French republic!» The prophecy was fulfilled, as you know. There´s a lot more to say. We should talk by e-mail, if you want. Greetings.

Hispanicultur (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Francis Drake's Circumnavigation

Several short citations don't match the long citations. Either there's an issue with the years, or there are missing full citations. Could you fix those please?

You can install Svick's script per these instructions to easily see which citations are problematic. Or you can go through

• Coote 2005
• Marley 1998
• Thrower 2009
• Bawlf 1984
• Bicheno 2013
• Crompton & Goetzmann 2009
• Benson 2012
• Thrower 2009
• Perry 1990

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Done; many thanks for pointing these out. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually now there's Coote 2003 and Bawlf 2004 that have issues. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Similar to above

The following have citation issues.

1. Action of 25 February 1781
2. Battle of Mahé
3. Battle of São Vicente
4. Cutting out of the Hermione
5. Francis Drake's Circumnavigation
6. Levant Crisis
7. Montreal Campaign
8. Siege of Quebec (1760)
9. Treaty of Madrid (1667)
10. Watts' West Indies and Virginia expedition

Installing Svick's script per these instructions will show which citations are problematic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thank you that's a really helpful too! Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Note that if you use Trappist the monk's version, you don't need Svick's. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know if there are other edit tools? Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, Wikipedia:Citation expander and WP:UPSD are pretty useful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

That's excellent.. many thanks again. 👍 Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Great, you might want to check a few like Levant Crisis to fully convert them to {{sfn}}-style refs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes lot's of work for those articles. regards Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Disrupting posts of others

I have reverted your deletion of a link in my last post at Talk:American Revolutionary War - "ARW timeline to end-of-war". Do not do it again, or I will seek redress.

My post refers to the Antilles War as featured on Wikipedia, a part of the Anglo-French War. The article is rated B-class by the WikiProject Military History, and B-high importance by the Wikiproject France and the Wikiproject United Kingdom. @Eastfarthingan and Gwillhickers: posted- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a wikipedia article started from various sock puppets. I need clarification from sources please. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If I may just make a general comment: As much as I resent sock puppets used to deceive others, any article created or edited by such an editor doesn't automatically make that article any less credible than other articles if the information is backed by reliable sources. Any challenges to the text and terminology used should be based on facts as presented by reliable sources, keeping in mind that terms and titles, and esp opinions, can vary among the sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That's the problem, there is a serious lack of sources regarding the Anglo-French war 1778-83. I've asked for it to be merged with France in the American War of Independence. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Anglo-French wars

TheVirginiaHistorian, Eastfarthingan — The Anglo-French Wars in general go back centuries, and continued after the ARW, and the term Anglo-French is by no means some sort of fringe title or theme. — Sometimes the terms  Anglo-French rivalry  or   Anglo-French conflicts  are used, but the general theme is quite established throughout European history. This theme did not cease to exist during the ARW, so no one should try to sweep this idea under the rug in an attempt to lump any given war under the ARW banner, unless there is a direct and major connection to the conflict in question.

• Kohn, 2006
• The Oxford Companion to British History
• Journals found at JSTOR - 1
• Journals found at JSTOR - 2
• The Historical Journal: Cambridge University Press
• Heritage Foundation
• Heritage History
• Anglo-French
• Journal: The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly
• Timeline of The Anglo-French Wars

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Im well aware of the Anglo-French wars which have been noted in the above links. Im talking about the Anglo-French war 1778-83 which is rarely (if ever) used. It is always known as the global side of the AWR, & there is no escaping that. Regards Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

You have to secure something before it can escape. The Anglo-French wars were primarily fought over trade and shipping issues, between Britain and France, which occurred many years before the ARW, and thereafter through the Napoleonic era. This is not to say that some engagements were peripheral or remotely connected to the fight for/against American independence. The conflicts in question overall were for trade and shipping rights, not American independence. This on going calamity did not disappear when the ARW came along. In terms of due-weight, the term Anglo-French Wars is far more appropriate for the simple reason that the conflicts primarily involved Britain and France over trading and shipping concerns, as they always have. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The main issue here is the balance of power in Europe which mattered in all Anglo French Wars. Although all powers kept an eye out it was never an issue in the AWR this being the only war where balance of Power in Europe was not in play. B. Simms' Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire, 1714-1783 is a big testament to this. In fact the balance of power in Europe only mattered when the Comte de Vergennes discovered a Russian desire to annex the Crimea in 1782 that would bring Austria, Ottoman empire as well Russia & a possible all out war in Europe. Vegennes needed peace with Britain to help diffuse this & this was another reason for the AWR to end so that war a major war Europe would not take place. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The primary, and in this case, the immediate, concern during the Anglo-French conflicts was over trade, and in this case, sugar. No doubt there were other concerns involved, but we still haven't connected this particular battle directly to the ARW. This battle has more to do with the ongoing Anglo-French wars than anything else. I've no objections, however, in covering any peripheral aspects involved here, but for purposes of due weight we need to focus on what this battle was connected with, foremost. Any connection to the ARW, as compared to the ongoing Anglo-French wars, pales in comparison. Like Gibraltar, the focus of that campaign was over control of Gibraltar. Likewise, this battle was one in a greater effort for control of the sugar trade. Any fringe benefits a given belligerent may have gotten out of that, e.g.during the negotiations, if it indeed factored in at all, hardly connects it to the actual struggle over American independence. This is not even a minor episode in the ARW -- it is, however, a major episode in the Anglo-French War. We need to be clear on that while also observing due weight. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What battle are you taliking about here? Who says that the Gibraltar seige is part of the Anglo-French war?? We've already been through this. It sounds like your coming up with a theory that has not been discussed before because historians have not given due weight on this. Eastfarthingan (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

A simple comparison is being made. The Gibraltar campaign was primarily over its control -- between Britain and Spain+France. Likewise, the Battle of Mono Passage was primarily over control of the sugar trade -- between Britain and France, i.e.Anglo-French. -- That's all. Again, Mono Passage was much more significant to the Anglo-French Wars than it was to the ARW. I've been checking some sources, including Morris' The Peacemakers, The Great Powers & American Independence, a dedicated work on the Treaty of Paris. Mono Passage is not mentioned, nor is Jamaica. Again, to have the info-box banner indicate "part of" the ARW, while ignoring the Anglo-French wars, poses a serious due weight issue, as this battle fits right in with the trade wars that have characterized the Anglo-French wars all along. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Well sorry to disappoint but Jamaica is mentioned many times on the relevant pages - 392, 394, 395 and 400. Battle of the Saintes is mentioned on page 276 (Mona Passage is the conclusion of that). Gibraltar is mentioned also on many pages. As you can see there is no hiding from it. Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently you have the actual book in hand, as do I. Jamaica and Saintes doesn't occur in the index, per due weight. Yes these words are mentioned, but even so, you've not explained the connection to the ARW, even with the book at your disposal. I've seen nothing that associates the Battle of Mono Passage with the ARW that would diminish any association to the Anglo-French wars. — We have the same basic debate going on in two different pages, so let's concentrate the discussion on the Mono Passage Talk page, if for anything, the sake of other readers that may happen along. If there are any further points you'd like to make from this discussion, let's carry it over to the Mono Passage talk page. Yes? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes let's carry the dicscuion over on that talk page. Mona Passage, as I have said is the conclusion of the Saintes battle, that is clearly obvious in itself so why do you keep asking the question about the Anglo French war? Surely you should ask that on the Battle of the Saintes talk page where these is clear evidence of that battles' link to the ARW. You tell me that the book in question The Peacemakers, The Great Powers & American Independence doesn't mention any of the above events when it clearly does. That is all. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit warning

You're starting an edit war.

Please keep the status of the page and open a thread on Talk to discuss the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.83.202.7 (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You are also in an edit war with the addition of the fact that you are a multiple IP user. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Read the dates

The Anglo-Spanish War broke out in 1585, so don’t include it in pre-1585 battles/sieges, m0ron. Hellencole (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edits were not done with an explanation, please do this when making them in the future. Also use the relevant article's talk page for further discussion. I'll also let you know a previous user did this and it turned out to be a well known sock puppet. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Francis Drake's circumnavigation

Please fix (or get help to fix) at least these obvious glitches in the article:

• The Queen invested in 1,000 crowns to the venture
• but no soon as they left bad weather threatened
• and thee Portuguese caravels.
• They came across back plants which
• a cargo of Sarsaparilla which he bought along to a creek behind the island.
• the English did capture two valuable rutters namely the Manilla-Acapulco route which
• The Portuguese pilot Nuno da Silva was also released here as this far North as he had gone beyond his usefulness having little to no knowledge beyond the Magellan straits.
• he was tortured and interrogated by the Spanish who had the desired effect of confusing them even more.
• By navigating well beyond where Cabrillo had asserted Spanish claim the Pacific Northwest,
• then stayed for a time to labour the two ships.
• it's volcanic peak
• They were also able repair the ship
• "a cargo of Sarsaparilla" then Sarasphila  ??

Shenme (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)