User:EnigmaMcmxc/archive4

Hill 262 map

Hi Enigma - favour to ask of you :) I've been working on some maps for the Hill 262 article, but none of the ones I can find have topographical data. I think it ought to be included to make sense of the Dives valley/Mont Ormel ridge. The two pics you uploaded to photobucket had this info, but the links are now dead. Would there be any chance you could re-up them? Cheers, EyeSerene^talk 17:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's most accommodating of you (I think it was only the one that had contour lines IIRC) :) Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 10:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Enigma, they should do fine. EyeSerene^talk 07:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sword Beach

I took a quick look at Sword Beach. Your edits are good. I could add something about the German planning, if you like. Also, you might want to add a mention of what the British did to overcome the anti-tank ditches and the mine fields, and that was Hobart's Funnies. These were specially designed tanks, outfitted with a roller up front, like a rolling pin, that whipped around heavy chains and set off the mines. And other tanks were outfitted with 'bridges' that could be unfolded and placed over ditches, and up against sea wall. I know they were employed on Sword Beach.Malke2010 17:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at WW2 Casualties re Overmans

Please take a look at my new thread at talk WW2 Casualties--Woogie10w (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

goodwood

this statement was deleted by you " Unscathed defenders with well-entrenched anti-tank guns halted them and knocked out 60 tanks.", can i ask why? Blablaaa (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

you replaced it with "Attempts to advance further was met by heavy German resistance" Blablaaa (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Because i havent finished yet ...

Aaah looked like you replaced it Blablaaa (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Charnwood (again)

Hi

I have put some more sources into the talk page at Charnwood.

I think that they ofer more light on the subject and wondered if you feel they should be included. It may mean that some more material would be added to the article or that they can be used as refs. I am not sure as to which of those it should be though.

I will also point this out to Eyeserene and RangerSteve. (Blaaa is already aware so I don't need to point it out to him)

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

May not be much help but the British MOD claims Charnwood achieved its objective. page 16 here [1]

On the morning of 9 July, Allied forces fought their way painfully through the rubble morass that had once been Caen, their progress slowed by German snipers, booby traps and mines. By 1800 hours, the spearheads had advanced through the city to the River Orne, where they halted. The bridges over the river were all destroyed, blocked by rubble, or else covered by resolute enemy defensive fire. Charnwood had achieved its objective.

Good luck with the stalking. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup - I already used that one in one of my early attempts to point out it was considered a success by achieving its objectives lol - it was one of the group that got me those rude comments :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Chaosdruid and Jim, think we may finally be making some solid progress!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa RfC/U

At the behest of a number of editors, as the next stage in the dispute resolution process I'm currently preparing an request for comment on user conduct regarding Blablaaa's editing. The draft is here. I'm being very careful about contacting editors at this stage as I want to avoid any impression of canvassing, but since you, more than any other editor I'm aware of, have been heavily involved with Blablaaa since his first appearance on WP late last year, are mentioned on the page, and are likely to figure prominently in his responses, I'd like to give you the opportunity to look over the RfC while it's still in its draft stage. If you have any corrections for the "Statement of the dispute" section, please just go ahead and make them. If you want to contribute a statement it would probably be best in the "Inside view" section, but there's no rush on this as the RfC isn't live yet. Best, EyeSerene^talk 08:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder that you might want endorse your own statement on the RfC ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Am numpty sometimes! Cheers EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

:) EyeSerene^talk 17:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Enigma, as a suggestion, I'd recommend that you not argue point by point with Blablaaa in the RfC as you are doing in this edit as it will make it harder for external editors to review what's been going on. The weight of the statements from the other involved and uninvolved editors speak for themselves really... Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do Nick, consider it dropped :) Do you think i should revert and remove those comments/strike through them so not to clutter for the uninvoled or just leave them?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be best to just leave them Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

honest question. nick are you afraid is points get vunerable ? Blablaaa (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Reynolds

I started reading reynolds book "men of steel". He has a pretty clear opinion regarding the statement that the 12 SS was reduced to a infantry battalion sized formation. You remember me claimg at verriers ridge that this is utter nonsense and impossible? All this comments evolved of meiers statement and his reports to his superiors. You own this book and you know this. While there were numerous discussions which included this statements, you never showed interessted in giving the valuable informations of reynolds. Why? You maybe should start consider to search compromise.Blablaaa (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean were we did search for compromise and had a lengthly discussion, which included scanning Reynold's works for information, that led to a positive outcome that you agreed with?

Yes were my concerns were called nonsense and you finally "found" something. But i mean several other articles which include the wrong statement, we also argued at charnwood about it. There you showed no intention to explain all people that you exactly know the statement is refuted by reynoldsBlablaaa (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific, considering the huge walls of text that are now on quite a few talkpages and which part of your book you are referring to: i have not read the entire book cover to cover and it as been quite some time since the V-ridge discussions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Reynolds explains multiple times that meyers comments about the strenthg of 12 SS are nonsense. But this statements are in various articles , we talked about during charnwood where the article claims "recuded" to infantry battalion size, while reynolds claims they had 60 ? tanks and men power of 14000 ?Blablaaa (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

also calles reynolds epsom and perch heavy failures. Dont see this covered in the articlesBlablaaa (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you provided page numbers so i could see what it is you are talking about on both points (in regards to Epsom, his work on II SS Panzer Corps was consulted and has been used in the Epsom article).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you re-look at the Perch article, Reynolds has been consulted quite a few times in the analysis section.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have the german translation ( i would have a appreciate the english version ) so my pages maybe differ from yours. I see that reynolds is used, normally when he is not the only who says something when he becomes a special view he is missing Blablaaa (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

At my version he says multiple times the "failure of perch"Blablaaa (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa please take your conspricay theroies elsewhere, if you want to help to improve articles then please contuine replying here. Per my edit on the Perch article one has to read the context in what Reynolds is stating this - in the majority of the first few times he is specifically talking about V-B hence not using it. Reconsulting the chapter earlier today, following your edit, he speaks specifically about the wide range of fighting of the operation as a whole and its failure hence the page change.

Regardless if you have the German version, a page number would be appreicated as it seems to be in the same general area so i could at least attempt to find what you are referring to.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

first of all i have to clear the primary issue before iam able to work properly. The issue is that you maybe sometimes accidently overread some points which can be seen as "progerman". I would even go so far and claim that you maybe didnt use this points because you maybe thought this would be overweight of one source. No way around this issueBlablaaa (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC) he says" the failure of perch" , and later: "there are no excuses this was a serious defeat"Blablaaa (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea am not seeing the problem, his opinion is mixed with others in the article and his opinion was added into the infobox (although as the anyalsis section notes historians differ on the outcome hence the previous use of inconclusive).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

is there any historian saying "inconclusvive" ? i didnt see in analysis section, reynolds called it a failure and no light failure. He says many bloddy battles followed and they only had to be fought because perch failed. From my pov is he is undisputable correct, allied went into a attrition war against a inferior enemy. Blablaaa (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read the article, we have gone into very POV available to describe the failure of the operation sourced from a wide array of historians. Although noted, that line from Reynolds could be added in to further reinforce the section.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

so why inconclusive in the box?Blablaaa (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you causing an argument for the sake of it? The article states the overwelminb opinion is that the operation failed, today that has been changed and not opposed yet you are still harping on about it? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

[[2]] --->[[3]] , epsom is also called operational failure by reynolds. No mention in the box. Didnt read more than this at the moment. You got my point now? Blablaaa (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes Bla am quite aware you made the change, its been accepted (not to mention the main body of the article stated so anyway) so why are you still harping on about it?

Again i ask you for what page or chapter Reynolds calls Epsom a failure, we have used his other book that deals with the operation in some detail and i do not recall it being mentioned as a failure.

Are you suggesting we scrub 6+ sources used in the Epsom infobox to support one view?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

marlet is also said to have failed and the article calls it allied tactical victory. Regarding epsom i see no source which deals with the operational outcome. I see tactical and strategic outcome. Blablaaa (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

and i didnt want to show you which edit i did i wanted to show you that you added inconclusiveBlablaaa (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest bringing that up on the Martlet talkpage with page numbers; i have only made minor edits to the article. Without having read Reynolds' opinion on the operation i could only assume that he refers to its failure as in the divisions inability to seize its objectives in time which led to problems with the early stages of Epsom; however by the end of the battle both operations had gone over to the defensive and fought off the German counterattacks so i can understand why the editors have chosen the outcome as a tactical victory.

In regads to Epsom, go take a look through the archive; we did discuss it but looks like we got sidetracked.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

why are the canadians not mentioned at perch ? 12 SS primarly fought against them ? they are not in the order of battle nor in the infobox Blablaaa (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As you will have no doubt noticed when reading the article, the Canadians were in the centre with I Corps, and Perch was initially a flanking by XXX Corps latter expanded to include I Corps 51st Infantry. Elements of the 12th SS were engaged in some of the fighting with XXX Corps.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

the casualties section give 12 ss casualties for a relativ big time frame, some casualties were by the candians why they are not mentioned in return to give more valuable informations. THe article doesnt cover that the 12 foughst against the canadians while divisions is listed as full panzer division during perch. I think i was worth to mention.Blablaaa (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

canadian official histories says its clear that the canadian attack was connected to XXX corps attack. Think it should be mentioned some whereBlablaaa (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

i dont want to sound to casualties fixed but canadians suffere ~2800 casualties during the first 6 days. 2000 of them occured while perch against german units which were listed as tanking part in perch. suggestion ? Blablaaa (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Am sure you will have noted the various discussions on Perch; the casualty section was added as a compromose to give some indication of how many people on both sides were lost during the fighting.

Enough sources are provided that outline what Perch originally was and what its expanded version was, do you have the specific page you are referring to from the Canadian OH?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Page 139. if you want to give the reader neutral indication i see no reason to exclude the canadians. they did damage and they recived damaged. And what the plan for perch was is not necessarily if canadians joined them laterBlablaaa (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

and they are part of the I corps Blablaaa (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

can you check the casualties of 7th and 12th, i guess u mixed them accidently? reynolds gives 1149 for the 12th. Sounds bit to coincidentelyBlablaaa (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Canadians, along with 3rd Infanty were in the centre and yes were part of I Corps however they had their own operations to conduct nothing to do with the double envelopment; i will check out page mentioned to see if we can include any further information about how what they did helped XXX Corps etc

Can you elaborate what casualties you are referring to?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: the Can attack the following article deal with it directly Battle of Le Mesnil-Patry. While the OH does not link the attack directly with Perch it does note it was launched to support the eastern most elements of the 50th; i dont see why we cant add a link in about that.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

the 12 SS was mainly engaged with canadians and perch did not even mention this and then gives casualties for 12 without mention this meanwhile the 50 divisions is not even mentioned so is the 3rd canadian. Did you check the 1.149 ? Do you know which parts of the 12SS were directly used for perch ? which regiment? Because i have numbers for each regiment so this would be more correct.Blablaaa (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

do you know which regiments of 12th were positioned against XXX?' Blablaaa (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You may want to note the Perch talkpage, i have started a section to establish concensus if we should keep or remove the casualty section.

Re elements of the 12th SS, you will have to wait while i reconsult my sources - i dont have time at the mo.

Replies

Hi

I have put it on hold for the moment - I was waiting for the results of the RfC.

I also had a lot of work to do on the Robotics project and after 8,000 pages of it I then had to get back into the Copyedit backlog drive - and there was RL lol ! At the moment I am going through some Norfolk articles I had to look at - especially the History of Norfolk which was going to be a collaboration with a newish editor - I have had to leave him to it for the most part but things seem under control there now :¬)

I got some emails from the bloke runs the website with the books typed out and he recommended looking into the Canadian archives he sent me a link to. I suppose I could go through those this evening and get something hashed together by late evening/tomorrow morning.

At the end of the day Charnwood does seem to have been vital as the first part of the Caen capture (North) which was pivotal in preventing the German bridgeheads access to the roads on the north side of the Orne - that is clear from SCAEF report - and that in itself cannot be ignored so eyeserene's statement about "tactical/strategic" "success/defeat" is a little off I think. It is alos true that Montgomery's plan revolved around pivoting the front from Caen and sweeping in from the west via St Lo. This too is mentioned in that SCAEF report where it also says that the battle for Caen did ease things on the Western flank by prevent the flow of troops.

I need to finish off a few things here and go to the shop so will get onto the research in a little while and I'll get back to you a little later on then or tomorrow if you want an early night ??

I would normally do this off main article pages/main talk pages and in a sandbox but with all this scrutiny I don't know if that will be possible Chaosdruid (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that I agree with the idea that summarising as "tactical success/strategic defeat" is an oversimplification - I meant to mention it but forgot. I've amended my RfC reply to clarify it :P I'm afraid I think of these things as I'm typing, then they go out of my mind by the time I've got to the appropriate part of my post... EyeSerene^talk 16:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you both (above and below) that we should prehaps hold off until more urgent wiki matters have been addressed (not to mention RL lol); it just keeps getting picked at like a sore spot.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a tricky one, as are most of these articles :P We seem to have a majority view that the battle was a tactical success with a minority view that there were nevertheless problems with combined arms cooperation, and a majority view that the wider strategic/operational objectives weren't realised with a minority view that some level at least of strategic success was achieved. I really don't have a solution - I quite like the infobox result because I think it provides a useful at-a-glance summation for readers, but it does seem to cause more trouble than its worth sometimes. EyeSerene^talk 10:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I got a bit carried away last night researching lol - uploaded some pics to commons for a link in Op Charnwood to a "Charnwood gallery" from the Canadian archive - a lot of the pics have descriptions that include "its capture" and are from the 10th and 11th so at least it seems the Canadians thought the city had been captured fby the 9th/10th July

There are only 4 there at them moment and it seems only 1 of the pics already on the page has the Operation Charnwood category ?

I am awatiing an email at the moment with some orders in it - don't know if that will be totally relevent but will post once ntlworld fixes the email system - its been down for most of today :¬(

Chaosdruid (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No joy - email is fixed but nothing came from the Military college at Sandhurst,so will have to ring them tomorrow, but I did get an acknowledgment of my query from the Canadian archive.

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Still no joy from Sandhurst - I think I may be ringing a tthe wrong times or something ! The email failed to show and after trying last week at least twice a day I am going to try this week and if still no luck will move to other options :¬(

Chaosdruid (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I had forgot about this, am bogged down with study for an assignment i have to write next month. When i get some time this week i will reconsult my Normandy sources and type up what i have.

Cheers for the update, i dont think i have contacted sandhurst before but when ive emailed the regimental historians in the past they have gotten back preety sharpish - good luck!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re your latest

[4]: I think this is worth returning to as a project once the current unpleasantness is over. We've had a number of discussions about infoboxes over the years and as far as I recall nothing's really been resolved, so perhaps it's about time we made the effort :) EyeSerene^talk 16:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Chaosdruid's post above jogged my memory - I haven't forgotten about the Goodwood copyedit (in fact, I'm looking forward to it), but I'm holding off until everything's over for what are probably obvious reasons. I hope that's okay ;) EyeSerene^talk 16:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No probs there, per my abve comments you (and CDruid) are probably right that we should hold off until everything is done and dusted; then we can move on concentrating on the task at hand.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Rather than copy and paste it here, I thought I'd just let you know that I've posted a comment at EyeSerene's talk-page that mentions your name... Ranger Steve (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Although... whilst browsing, I saw this again. I don't mean any offence, but it's best to stay above board in these situations. You lose nothing by signing, but risk retaliation if you don't and it may reflect poorly on you with other users. Just a thought (and nothing personal, just trying to keep equal - although I'm sure this'll get used against me...). Ranger Steve (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me in the know. Dont worry i havent taken any offense in regards to your second set of comments :)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Just after re-reading the above I thought I should clarify; I didn't expect that you would be using it against me! Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for arbitration regarding Blablaaa

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Blablaaa and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you remember me mentioning something about Desert War tactics a while back? I've found it, it's The Sand Model, chapter 13 of Fire Power by Graham and Bidwell, pp. 221-247.Keith-264 (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Cirillo? Oh that one, nice one. I ordered Playfair Vol IV today.Keith-264 (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Just read the conculsion of Cirillo's thesis. Very interesting.Keith-264 (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Market-Garden-Campaign-Operational-Northwest/dp/B001P9BNWY/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282162513&sr=1-9

P.90? This one, 'While tactical opportunities may have been lost, the overall operational success needed to expand the lodgement to the depth and width theorized by Morgan was never possible with the limited forces....'? Pretty good stuff. Usually the arrival of the 21st Pz and another infantry div is given for not bagging Caen. Saying it was never on means he's not hedging his bets. I like that. Some of his comments reflect secondary and tertiary sources we've found wanting though. He seems to follow the deliberate shortage by Churchill line Hart refuted.Keith-264 (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Template removal

Sorry, why did you remove the {{World War II}} in Allied war crimes during World War II? Navbox and Portal have different functions. If you felt the navbox was too large, now I added {{World War II|state=collapsed}} to set the navbox collapsed by default. Thank you.--Tomchen1989 (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Check in

Hi Enigma :) Just an update on Goodwood - I'm off work next week so I should get some time to finish the copyedit. Hope all's well with you, EyeSerene^talk 08:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey E, everythings going as smooth as can be; finished off a bunch of exams and essays so i should hopefully find some more time to finish the article off! The work you have done thus far looks pretty damn good as usual!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, though there's still some way to go (plus I intend to have a go at redrafting the map). Hope the exams etc went well! EyeSerene^talk 09:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Does the tone of these edits seem familiar to you? EyeSerene^talk 09:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Whatever our many differences, BlaBlaaa did seem to have a sense of honour - I can't really imagine him socking. WP:BRD it is then :) EyeSerene^talk 13:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to jump in (as a talk page stalker), while the edits have a similar style, the IP address geolocates to Australia and BlaBlaaa's IP addresses were in Germany. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think of that... Cheers Nick :) EyeSerene^talk 09:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

http://militarymaps.org.ua/eur_oper_e.html#jul44 looks interesting. You need a plug in to see the maps though but it's easy to download.Keith-264 (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy 10th

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

G'd afternoon

Hello mon ami - I'm just catching up with a couple of editors I haven't seen around recently. Happy new year and all that, and I hope your studies are going well. Best, EyeSerene^talk 13:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Howdy dos! Happy new year to yourself too. Everything is coming along fine, i hope! Just not allowed the free time like i once had, sucks :P --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, sorry to hear that. It'll be worth it in the end though :) EyeSerene^talk 12:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Seen this?

http://web.mit.edu/ssp/people/posen/Breakthroughs-book.pdf It's a little outdated historiographically but the attempted quantitative analyses are interesting attempts to elucidate events.Keith-264 (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Battle of France

I disagree. The war was not yet global, US forces had zero imput, so American 'english' is invalid. My major concern is he has also dumped a lot of the notes. Those were put there because of edit warring over reliable sources re casualties. Readers can see who and what was reliable by seeing what primary sources they have used. They are no longer there. It won't be long before it creates an issue. Dapi89 (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes of "World War II" to "Second World War"

First, I think you should stop unilaterally moving several pages without any discussion. It appears that these pages have been at these titles for over five years, so your changes most certainly need consensus before they are implimented. I will be reverting these changes for procedural reasons, and because our article on the war in question is at "World War II".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest you read the article regarding English variation. Concensus has already been reached in setting up guidelines. These articles dealing with the United Kingdom are using an American version of the spelling, i am moving the articles to their respected British variant. New concensus is not needed.

Yes. A consensus is needed because you are unilaterally changing several pages that have been at those particular titles since (in one case) 2006. I will be bringing up this issue at WT:MOS to see if your assertion is correct, or if keeping the internal consistency (all pages use "World War II" in the title) is more important.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Am sorry but you have reverted numerous constructive edits supported by the variation guide to the wiki. the fact you have just removed justification off your talkpage AFTER you issued a "warning" and reverted changes without justification amounts to nothing but trolling!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I am telling you that I am working on a section on the manual of style's talk page to address this. One of the pages you moved was at that location for 8 years. And also, I have a message on the top of my talk page as well as in the edit notice at the top of the screen that asks that you respond to me here rather than repeatedly respond to me on my talk page. That is why I am reverting your comments there. Now, please let me finish composing a question to be written at WT:MOS so we can determine if "the Second World War" should be used in these page titles, merely because they have been there for ages and because every other page on the second World War refers to it as "World War II" (the American standard) rather than the "Second World War" (the Commonwealth standard).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The English variant guide states it is perfectly acceptable to have British articles wrote in British English, discussion with MILHISt colleagues also stated this fact months ago. I hope you sit and put back in place these constructive edits when this is pointed out to you because you have just wasted precious time over such a trivial matter!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You will actually find numerous editors changing the text within articles to British English, titles should also be included and has never met any trival opposition in the past.

This is an issue with inter-article consistency and the fact that it appears that "World War II" and "Second World War" are interchangeable. Also, I see no discussion at WT:MILHIST about the use of "Second World War" over "World War II" that you participated in recently. And the EngVar guidelines concern color/colour and theater/theatre variations. Not when two different nations have two separate proper nouns for the same item. Nothing should be changed back. If you wish to contribute to a discussion on this, please see WT:MOS#ENGVAR_and_internal_consistency. This is not a trivial matter like changing date formatting or the use of the U or RE. All of the articles on the war are at "World War II" and your moves do not have any clear consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite amusingling, you are wrong; i would suggest you search further. The policy is quite clearly in place that states local variant is allowed furthermore MILHIST colleagues gave their blessing to these kind of edits a long time ago. Furthermore i would suggest you start searching articles where the text within them are having the same changes made to them on a daily basis. This is making a mountain out of a molehill for no reason!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Local variance is one aspect. Inter-article consistency is another. And this is not the change of one English variation to another in prose. You are unilaterally changing the titles of several pages on this project without any discussion and for which there is someone who opposes wherein you begin to discuss the solution, rather than just saying "You are wrong, change it all back."

And this discussion should no longer be taking place on two pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but that is the position you started with, that the British variant is unacceptable and labelled it "controversial". You immediately sought higher help before even discussing the issue so please do not attempt to "take the higher road". It is these kinds of actions that make editing the wiki so tedious!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that it was "unacceptable". I said that you were doing things without consensus, or a nebulous consensus at that. Please calm down. It's just two characters in the titles of these pages. The fact that I went to WT:MOS should mean nothing. I am just asking other people what should be done rather than kowtow to your preferences. And please, focus all discussion on this at the other page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you please allow for someone else to take a look at the issue before continuing to berate me with your assertion that WP:ENGVAR covers proper nouns like "World War II"/"Second World War"?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well lets see how you feel when you get a bunch of constructive edits reverted on you without even a curtsoy note before hand, your actions labelled controversial and you are told you are wrong full stop ;) Considering you slapped the label on it, you should have at least expected somesort of counter point including evidence showing that it is a regional variant to have cropped up to your accusation of it being unacceptable and controverisal.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A year ago

Hi

I got told off a year or so ago for violating ENGVAR.

I changed Meter to Metre on an article about a French topic!

Sometimes Wikiworld is just like a cheap amusement ride...round and round, up and down, round and round, faster and faster, up and down, puke on your own shoes...and I paid for that! Chaosdruid (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Greetings

I saw you'd been ill, hope you get well quickly. Regards,Keith.Keith-264 (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pegasusflash.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pegasusflash.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)