User talk:Kirrages/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Kirrages. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Arthur Holworthy

{{adminhelp}}. I have created this page and moved the content of the incorrectly named Alan Holworthy to it as well as the corresponding talk page contents. Idealy the histories should be merged but I don't know how this is done. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 00:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Next time just use the move function and tag the desired location with WP:G6, as history merges are quite tricky. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Inglis?

Thanks for your swift response to the Black Sunday issue. I was wondering whether you might help me with a query, as this period/topic seems to be within your area of expertise: in A Year of Battle, Alan Moorehead is discussing a number of journalists at the Cripps conference in New Delhi and mentions "Inglis, of the London Times, who knew more than anyone else". This isn't Brian Inglis, I don't think; would you have any idea whom he means? Regards, Ericoides (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help although I agree it doesn't look like Brian Inglis. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 11:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. Ericoides (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just started a page on Alexander Clifford. Any input from you would be much appreciated. Ericoides (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I own a book by him but that's about all I'm afraid. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 00:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks anyway, Ericoides (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein

Why did you remove my comment from this talk page? It was entirely appropriate under the circumstances. Please see WP:TPO: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Rees11 (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I snapped at you. You're doing a fantastic job on this article. Keep up the good work. Rees11 (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Tunisian casualties

Am just looking for an outside opinion here, previously we have had the total losses displayed with the breakdown of casualties within a note in several articles. Per the Casualties article it clearly states that total casualties include captured. I have used this same appraoch with the Tunisian casualties stating the losses of the Axis forces was in the 300,000 men area; the note showing the breakdown and the various captured claims.

However a dispruptive anon keeps changing it. Any ideas?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Am sorry to respond to such silly comments on your userpage Kirrages however the above anon user does not appear to aware of the numerous articles that provide total casualties in a round figure with the breakdown in the notes.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be no established convention in Wikipedia (e.g. in the MilHist style guide or the infobox user guide) and there doesn't even seem to be much consistency between the various North Africa Campaign articles. I'm afraid that although I totally accept the definition of casualties (to include prisoners) and I hate to seem to agree with someone masquerading under an anonymous IP address and showing poor manners, I prefer to see prisoners and missing (usually also prisoners) separate, particularly where it is a very large figure on one side. I take the point that if it's all explained in a footnote then it doesn't really matter, so I'm not going to the mat on this, but it's just a preference. However, being very pedantic, you shouldn't have "casualties xxxxx + prisoners xxxx" because prisoners are by definition casualties....it should be "killed and wounded xxxxx + prisoners xxxxx". Probably not very helpful. I'm off to bed now. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 01:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. I have deleted the unsigned comments and am banning unsigned edits on my talk page. I will delete any future such additions.Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 01:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Kirrages.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Auchinleck

Sorry about that. I thought he was only at the Wavell level. Mkpumphrey (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:AuthorMask doc

Hi, I undid your edit to Template:AuthorMask doc, because in fact, the author mask isn't created by an em dash but <del> tag. Also, it doesn't make sense to talk about the length of an em dash, because it always has the lenght of 1 em. Svick (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It still needs clarification so I have tried again with a new wording. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 00:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, your version is more clear, but it's still incorrect – the parameter doesn't create a dash. I think this should be corrected, but I don't know how to express it, so that it is understandable, so the best option might be to leave it as it is. Svick (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's not a dash (—), what is it? It looks like a dash. I'd be happy to see 'dash' corrected if the character used is something else (I'm not programmer enough to understand the underlying code - which, judging from your user page, you are). But in the meantime "...if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck"! Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 09:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a Em space (HTML entity &emsp;) enclosed in a <del> tag, that strikes through any text, e.g. <del>some text</del> produces ~~some text~~ and the author mask is produced by <del>&emsp;</del> (in the case of authormask=1) that produces , which can look exactly as em dash —, but is something different. Svick (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm....very fascinating....but incomprehensible to the layman! I'm afraid that it's just going to confuse people if we insist on disclosing the fact that the template actually deletes something (em space, most people have never heard of this) that can't be seen to produce something that looks exactly like a dash (which they have). As I say, if it looks like a duck etc. etc. most people won't care that it isn't, they're only interested in the effect. Still, it's a challenge to come up with something simple and understandable to the man in the street which is also not at variance with the underlying programming. Alternatively you can think of evolution. I read somewhere that the eye has evolved independently more than once. It's still called an eye regardless of the evolutionary route. I'd like to think you can produce a dash several different ways - but it's still a dash! Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 17:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you say, and I still would like to have that description technically correct, but you are right that it's more important to have it understandable. So I think the best option is probably to leave it as you wrote it. Thanks that you tried to understand me. Svick (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Western Front

Hello, I was the one that deleted the casualty figures in the article Western front (World war II). Sorry for not using my name or for not explaining. I have raised the issue about the casualty figures for a month ago in the discussion page, but without any responce. The figures are not comparable and they are very inaccurate (the Axis figure is far from complete and it is very uncertain if the figures cited covers all those campaigns and battles linked to the "Western front" as the term is used by the article). They simply do not provide the kind of useful information that one can require from an infobox. I therefore removed the casualty section, but I moved down the relatively accurate figure for Allied losses to the section "The 1944-45 campaign in hindsight" in order to save the information. Best regards /Erik EriFr (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Monte Cassino

As you've been heavily involved with editing the article on the Battle of Monte Cassino, I was wondering what you thought of this edit to the article on the monastery itself. It's from the same editor who's been removing information for the article on the battle over the past few days. As you're more familiar with the subject than I am, I was hoping you might be able to check whether the change is accurate or not. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith by this editor but he / she does appear to be a bit Polish POV and lacking in justification / references for edits! I've modified the edit you highlighted. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 18:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The edits seemed a bit POV, but with no sources in the article either before or after the edit I was a bit unsure what to do. Nev1 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

4th Indian Division

Did you actually read all my edits? 5th Indian Infantry Brigade, 7th Indian Infantry Brigade, and 11th Indian Infantry Brigade all have their own articles. Before yesterday the brigade's own articles didn't have their brigade commanders names for World War II listed. I moved them there. I also said in my edit summaries that I was moving them there. I think that's a much more appropriate place for the brigade commanders names than in the division article. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

29th

Hello,
you were right to correct my edit, I knew something did not match with the Indian Brigade. Yet the link is still wrong, the correct one has to be: 29th Infantry Brigade--Askedonty (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite right! I've changed it! Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 14:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Reginald Laurence Scoones

Hello! Your submission of Reginald Laurence Scoones at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see additional note on DYK talk page. Yoninah (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So could you suggest another hook? Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Support

Stephen, I have submitted 6th Armoured Division (South Africa) for peer review. One of the comments forthcoming from the review was prior to going for an A class review or a GAN I'd suggest having someone take a look through the article and give it a copy edit. I didn't find anything glaring, but it can't hurt; - the comment (and the overall peer review comments) can be seen here. I am still busy working on some of the issues - you will see their status in the peer review comments section.

If you have the time, please give the article a good "once over." Thanks. Farawayman (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Stephen - please take a look at the Talk Section of the 6 S Afr Armd Div again; specifically the section here. Need your opinion once more! Thx. Farawayman (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Reginald Laurence Scoones

On 22 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Reginald Laurence Scoones, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note. Nothing out of sorts at all; admins making normal content edits have no special status compared to every other editor changing content. Plus, that was a mistake, pure and simple - the IP had incorrectly reversed dates elsewhere and I for some reason thought they had similarly changed this from BrEng to AmEng. Thanks for catching it. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 10:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance

I thought its time to say thanks to all the editors who have assisted me in the articles I have been working on; so I took a look at toolserver.org and it shows that you have done 11,966 edits and 4 years service. I think you not only deserve, but are entitled to the below award in accordance with the award criteria. I know that one is supposed to award this medal to yourself, but we never do, so I am doing it on behalf of you! Thanks for all your help. Farawayman (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, cool! I'll put a copy on my User page! Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 17:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This editor is a
**Senior Editor**
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

Aha, I see it's 4 years AND xxxx edits, I took the higher of years or edits! Farawayman (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

not constructive

ive been contributing to wikipedia since it was created, so please dont send me messages like this when I only gave my opinion on a talkpage. Jimmysales7 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No offence intended. I interpreted the substitution of a curly bracket (}) by a square bracket (causing the Auto archiving notice template to stop functioning) in combination with a fairly newly-registered id (Jimmysales7 was created in December 2010 it seems) as a subtle, if rather unusual, piece of vandalism. In my outrage I totally missed the legitimate comment below which makes it obvious that your bracket substitution was merely a typing error. Please accept my apologies. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 00:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct–Dec 2010

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

Operation Market Garden

Dear co-user, I was amazed to read that you think I had committed 'vandalism'. I'm sure you're willing to reconsider... vandalism is certainly not my thing. And while you're at it: OMG did fail and was huge - the largest airborne ops in WWII - was it not? So following Wiki-guidelines we might agree on summarizing the operation and its outcome in the initial phrase. Also, I'm doing some interesting research (I think) on the oversight of the large Luftwaffe command centre and airfield in Schaarsbergen near Arnhem (the large airfield and gigantic bunker are still there, resp. 'Deelen' and 'Diogenes', 60 x 15 meters) that made it possible for the Germans to quickly establish how and what was happening, and quickly organize their defences. Also, have a look at our site [www.fpmedia.tk], where we follow WWII five days a week. We're not vandals - enthusiasts, maybe... 83.87.231.167 (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No offence intended. It just seemed to me that the information you had added were repetitions of what already appears in the Lead section: the second sentence establishes the size of the operation, the second paragraph establishes the objectives and the third paragraph discusses the result. I should have used the "Undo" button not the "Vandalism" button. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 12:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cite book/doc

In view of your contributions, would you mind looking over my changes to Template:Cite book/doc. Also, I posted a question at Template_talk:Cite_book#Translation_parameters. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It all looks a bit obscure - I'm not really familiar with the relationship between cite book and Citation core. However, I'm happy with how the doc page stood at around 17.30 on 23 Feb. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 00:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We're working things out on the doc talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian Campaign

Hi Kirrages. I really like the clean-up operation you've just carried out on the casualties list over at Norwegian Campaign. It made things look much better.

On feldgrau.com, however, I've received feedback over at WP:RS that when there are other sources, then those should be preferred over feldgrau. Not being a reliable source, feldgrau is really only good as an external link. Would you mind awfully if I dived into my library and dug up reliable sources on the air and naval casualties of the Germans, replacing and removing feldgrau? Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Too kind! I worked out how best to tidy it up but didn't have the time (or let's face it the energy) to find alternate citations for feldgrau. I'm absolutely onboard for replacing feldgrau - it actually does quite good work but I have to admit that it leaves me uncomfortable when you see something like "..As a result, numerous sources were checked and double checked to gather this information, and although some of the numbers seem to work out correctly, others do not." at the bottom of the page (see [1]). It makes you wonder how much interpretation has taken place. Not that I mind interpretation but I like to see the rationale and explanation of such. On balance feldgrau is fine but I'd rather see something that is in a printed publication of from an original source. So as far as I'm concerned, go for it! Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 16:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm on it. First part done. Going to refurbish the article, at the speed which time permits. Manxruler (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

DSO

Hi can you check the Croft you have added to the DSO page as the link goes to one who died in 1727.Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 23:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing "Battle of Keren" 08:14, August 6, 2011

Dear Editor, Thank you for your good guidance. Since the battle day, (rather, the night) is one of the most important events in the war, it needs the detailed chronicling. All the inclusion was based on the reference already quoted in the article. If possible, would somebody edit the article correctly, including the names of the heroes and their deeds?

Regards,

Your friendly,

- Sampatsamshodhak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampatsamshodhak (talk • contribs) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

italian

Dang. I missed the Italian part. Thanks for fixing. --RichardMills65 (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Keren losses

I understood what you said about the sources, but it doesn'it seem you strange that British and Indian troops (attacking troops, in unfavourable position) in so a long battle, with hard fightings, could have had 550 casualties against 12500 casualties (1/22)? I think it could be better to open a discussion on English Portal talk:World War II and Italian it:Discussioni portale:Seconda guerra mondiale (or it:Discussioni progetto:Guerra). --Olonia (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the difference in casualty figures on each side is not credible. However, my point is that the British & Commonwealth figure at 28% of the total force of 12,500 (of which around 5% deaths) is "typical" for a battle with "heavy" casualties - particulary since the battle was spread over a number of days. On D-Day total casualties were about 12,500 and by the end of the day 156,000 troops had been landed by air and sea - less than 10% or 16% if you assume that there were on average 78,000 troops ashore during the day. Of these casualties, something over 4,000 were deaths (5% of 78,000). My problem therefore is with the Italian figure. I do not have access to the cited sources but I find 12,437 deaths out of a total force of 23,000 is quite unbelievable. It seems more credible as a death figure for the whole campaign (even then it seems high). Total casualties of over 34,000 looks strange against a total force of 23,000. Something is wrong here! Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 12:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I think that the fact could be that the forces employed in battle were bigger: in the Italian page about the battle of Keren, the Italian and Ascari forces employed are listed as 40.000 and not 23.000, while the exact number of British and Indian troops is not given.--Olonia (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the 40,000 figure is not referenced while the 23,000 figure is (albeit from a British book). In principle I won't replace a referenced fact with a non-referenced one. Do you have a decent Italian source with an Italian order of battle for Keren including troop numbers? Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 14:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I haven't. For this reason I proposed to move the question to the English and Italian WWII talks: maybe someone has further information.--Olonia (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Italian Campaign (World War II), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syracuse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Sixth United States Army Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maquis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Allied invasion of Italy

I'm not sure why you found it confusing to place Hewitt first in the list of Allied commanders. I listed Hewitt first because under "joint agreements of the U.S. Army and Navy", in amphibious operations the naval commander commanded until the commanding general of the land forces had established his command post ashore.Thewellman (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's true in all the WWII amphibious operations but nowhere is the naval commander listed first. It's probably unfair to say the naval commander was just the bus driver but the article is mainly about the fighting on land the planning and execution of which was the army's responsibility. I thought military rank would be more appropriate as the criterion for ordering and Alexander and Montgomery were full generals. There's an argument for including the theatre commander, Eisenhower. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 08:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I certainly see the rationale for ordering by rank rather than chronologically. The perception about the navy's transportation role is widely held; but Allied reliance on artillery during land battles gave the naval commander a unique significance until the army commander established his indigenous artillery ashore. As you may be aware, naval artillery had some significantly different characteristics from conventional army artillery. Naval guns typically had longer barrels and higher velocity to emphasize range, while army howitzers and mortars had shorter barrels to emphasize portability. The higher trajectory of lower velocity army artillery other than anti-tank guns was an advantage firing over hills. Naval guns were very accurate in deflection, but fall of shot was significantly dispersed along the axis of fire. It was generally unsafe for flat trajectory naval artillery to engage targets either between the ship and army observers or, as was more often the case in amphibious landings, beyond the friendly troops on the beach. Conventional naval warships were typically stationed at either end of the invasion beach to maximize offset angles. The rocket launching amphibious craft were specifically developed to provide a high trajectory capability where safe offset could not be achieved. Army commanders frequently requested naval gunfire support assuming the naval gun characteristics were more like the army guns they were familiar with; so the United States felt it necessary to keep a naval officer in command as long as naval artillery was essential to mission success.Thewellman (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. When you recently edited Allied invasion of Italy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Cunningham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Gothic Line order of battle

Hi, I've just been wading through the Wp page "Gothic Line order of battle" and noted your generous offer to split it into two more readable pages. If A) you are still active, B) interested and C) no one has objected, I think it would be a big improvement on the existing page. Scartboy (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

What I did at the time was to create a separate OOB for the Spring '45 offensive (see Operation Grapeshot order of battle) which started in April '45 but I never got round to cutting down the existing OOB to limit it it to changes up to year end when the fighting petered out for the winter. Since you put it so nicely I'll get onto it! Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 17:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

~~Waste of time. If I decide to I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.250.82 (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)~~ I don't accept anonymous edits on my talk page. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 23:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

FYI Cheers (and thanks), --Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No Feedback Yet

Hi Kirrages, Well its been a few weeks yet there has been no further feedback on your suggestion. I'll give it more time before condensing to ~ two paragraphs and starting the new article. Sincerely, Romaioi (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited India Command, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Far East Command and North West Frontier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Deprecated cite tag parameters

Your user page is appearing in the Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters maintenance category because it uses deprecated cite template parameters. Would it be possible to update your user page to remove them? Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've got them all but the page still appears in the category?! Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 08:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Tobruk

It's weird, but when I did my edits, the campaign box went 100% across the main content area instead of being confined to the column width of the infobox. So when I was looking at the article, the introduction was "below the fold" (i.e., I had to scroll down to see it). I guess that was a rendering glitch or something. —howcheng {chat} 09:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ad. Operation Overlord

Hi,

I think you have forgotten to mention the Norwegian contribution and effort during WWII and Operation Overlord.

Norwegian Navy and Merchant Navy involved in the Operation Overlord: 47 Merchant vessels 7 Navy Fighting warships: - Destroyer: «Svenner», «Stord» og «Glaisdale». - Frigates: «Acanthus», «Eglantine», «Rose» - Escort ship "Nordkapp"

Fighter Squadrons

331- og 332 squadrons

All Norwegian Forces were under British command.

Due to this important contribution the Norwegian flag is one of 6 flags at the Main Memorial at Normandy.

Kind regards, Wivesoll

In the context of the 2,000,000 Allied combatants involved in Overlord (which covered the period 4 June to end August), the Norwegian involvement was nugatory and therefore no mention in the infobox is appropriate. In the context of the actual landings on D-Day, the Norwegian involvement was relatively more significant and so you will see that Norway is included on the Normandy Landings page. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 12:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Percy Scott

Whilst I respect the amount of work you're putting in to the Scott article, his memoirs are, to put it mildly, self-serving. And it comes across rather alot in the article as it now stands, the formula being "Scott did this, but everyone else said that" etc. It doesn't help that Peter Padfield's biography is just a rather poor re-hash of the memoirs and basically rubber stamps everything Scott writes. Andrew Lambert's Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry is far more even-handed, but still fails on a detail level in places. All I would suggest is don't go overboard using his memoirs when sooner or later many of his contentions will be directly contradicted. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I don't dispute much of this but I think it's more appropriate to discuss it on the article's talk page. I'll copy this thread across and take it up there. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 10:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I did wonder where to comment, but I thought it could be considered slightly disrespectful if I posted on the talk page rather than on your talk page (although I suppose my entire message could be considered disrespectful). Will move over to the Scott talk page. Cheers, —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 11:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 12:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

London Gazette linkeddate parameter

Hi, Kirrages. Just a heads-up. On your userpage, some of your London Gazette citations use the "linkeddate" parameter. That parameter is deprecated causing your userpage to apply in this maintenance category: Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 09:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Claude Auchinleck

Hi - I am trying to improve the MILHIST assessment on Claude Auchinleck. I notice you have added back the unsourced army career summary. It is very difficult to improve the assessment of such an article with a large unsourced list in it. I think I have now worked all the individual appointments into the main text. Are you OK for me to remove it? Secondly I have completely re-drafted the main text to incorporate all Auchinleck's promotions so the main prose is complete. To leave the promotions list in would be repetitive and would not accord with other articles that have been assessed as GA, A or B. e.g. Michael Walker, Baron Walker of Aldringham. I feel less strongly about this second point but are you OK for me to remove the promotions list as well? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No probs. I've taken the career summary out. You're doing a great job but I see you've reformatted the notes so that the note text appears after the citations and the refs associated associated with the notes appear in the body text not the note taxt. I think this is an error. The notes now appear as a series of unreferenced assertions. It is more normal in my experience for notes to appear before citations and for associated citations to appear in the note text not the body text (although you may have found something in the labyrinthine WP style pages that suggests it should be otherwise). Would you mind if I changed this? Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 22:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi - Many thanks for your kind words of encouragement. I have now also removed the promotions list as all promotions are included in the main text and are properly now referenced using the London Gazette template. Please go ahead and the make the changes you mentioned regarding notes etc - you clearly know what you are doing! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quinan the Terror

I know I read about the nickname in a newspaper story or obituary (paper copy not internet) but I will have to try and find it again if it wasn't the Times. Dabbler (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. Definitely not the Times.Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 12:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frederick Joseph Loftus-Tottenham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North West Frontier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The East African Campaign (World War II) and the Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II

Could you please give me assistance in add more info about The East African Campaign (World War II) in the Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II? I would greatly appreciate your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcidSnow (talk • contribs) 23:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It already looks fairly comprehensive! In fact, by normal Wikipedia standards it is too long and consideration should be given how to shorten the article into a summary / overview by taking some of the detail out and putting it in subsidiary articles. Some subsidiary articles already exist like the Italian conquest of British Somaliland and the Battle of Keren but more could be done. I draw your attention to the Aftermath section (which I know you have been working on). This should be short with links to other articles for further reading. The sub sections on Eritrea and Ethiopia give a perfect model while the subsections on Somalia and French Somaliland are way too long and detailed - the detail has no relevance to the East African Campaign (often referring to events over 40 years later!) and should be confined to the relevant Somali / Somaliland articles. Happy editing! Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 08:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Medal and bars

The articles that you are creating have no point. They need all to be turned into redirects to the medals themselves or just deleted. People searching for Foo Medal and Two Bars will find Foo Medal anyway without these articles. Fiddle Faddle 17:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It has a very clear point as discussed in the postnominals template talk page. Since the officially correct display of postnominals does not reflect multiple awards(i.e. MC* or MC and Bar is incorrect usage), what I have done means that the existence of any individual's multiple awards can be held in the template and will be revealed in the pop up when hovering over the link in the displayed postnominals. The reader can then navigate onwards to the Foo medal page if they wish. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 17:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Please STOP duplicating articles with non-articles. It just wastes the time of admins who have to delete them for you. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Barney Barney Barney, whatever happened to WP:CIVILITY and WP:GOODFAITH? It may be you have a point, I can't say I'm an expert although I would argue that I was only continuing in a direction that had already been started. There were already many "and bar" etc pages before I started. They were mostly redirects which meant that for the uninformed finding out what "and bar" means would involve a further search (it's not always easy to find in the underlying medal article). So changing to a non-redirect with a short but clear explanation about bars and a link to the underlying medal page seemed reasonable. The new pages I created merely filled in some gaps. However, your behaviour seems to me to be abrupt, peremptory, borderline rude and made no attempt to understand what I was doing or help with a genuine attempt to improve the reader experience with the above stated objectives. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 18:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel I'm being uncivil, but I'm trying not to be. However, it's a bit difficult trying to deal with well intentioned but ridiculously silly edits. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There you go again: "Ridiculously silly"....so I guess I have to add arrogant to the list above. Now the picture you have on your user page...that's what I call ridiculously silly. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 18:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're trying to make this personal, but please explain why these are encyclopaedic articles that do not duplicate existing content. I posit this is an impossibility, but you can try your best. Otherwise they will have to be dealt with appropriately. Your understanding of this matter is greatly appreciated. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the "making this personal" shipped sailed when you called me ridiculously silly! However, I should be bigger than that so let's let this pass. Having short articles of the form XX and bar with links to XX within them seems to me to be little different in principle to having an article about a military campaign and a subsidiary article about a battle in that campaign. There is duplication but it helps the reader depending on what they are looking for and is accepted practice. In this case the usage of bar, although correct, is arcane and unfamiliar to many people. Having a direct link to an explanation is very useful and precise. On the other hand having a link to the underlying article means the explanation of the usage of bar won't appear in the pop-up and may require distracting navigation before explanation of the usage of bar can be found. When reading an article and coming across a link to say the Battle of Gazala, one doesn't want to be directed the umbrella North African Campaign article and then scramble around that article to find Gazala - although at least it will have its own section (whereas references to bars rarely do). One can perhaps take the comparison too far but I hope you get my point. Frankly if you say I'm breaking the rules doing this then I think in this instance WP:IAR could certainly apply.

I'm trying to solve a problem for the reader not create problems for admins. How would you suggest we solve this? Here is the issue: it is desirable that multiple awards should somehow be visible from the postnominals without changing the singular display. It is clearly desirable because practice in WP to date prior to the creation of the postnom template has been generally to include "and bar" in the postnom listing but this usage has now been objected to because it contravenes official practice (for instance in the London Gazette - see the link above to the postnom template talk page). So, one point of view says the post noms should be listed in the singular and multiple awards handle by clever usage of links (which you don't like), the other view is to reflect multiple awards in the postnom listing after a person's name (bars etc) which I'm told contravenes official practice and so is unacceptable. Rock and a hard place. So rather than going on a Request for Speedy Deletion binge how about some help with solving the problem?!Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 19:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. To answer your question, the standard approach would be to list the post nominal letters in a standard format (either (and Bar) or *), and include details of both awards in the text. That's a nice straightforward simple way of dealing with it that doesn't involve creating duplicate articles. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with that (see my first entry at Template talk:Post-nominals/GBR) but when I originally tried it it didn't work with the "it's unacceptable to have * or bar in the pn listing because it contravenes official (not WP) practice" view. How do I argue (over and above those already made at the pn template talk page) to include in a template something that is "officially wrong" in formal usage but has grown up as almost universal WP practice over the last 8 years? Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 20:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Distinguished Service Cross and Bar (United KIngdom)

Hello Kirrages,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Distinguished Service Cross and Bar (United KIngdom) for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[:{{{article}}}]].

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Military Medal and two Bars

Hello Kirrages,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Military Medal and two Bars for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[:{{{article}}}]].

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Military Cross and Bar

Hello Kirrages,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Military Cross and Bar for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[:{{{article}}}]].

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Military Cross and two Bars

Hello Kirrages,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Military Cross and two Bars for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[:{{{article}}}]].

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have converted "Foo Award and Bar" into redirects. Providing anything for larger numbers of bars is unnecessary overkill. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In any case you text was incorrect: "formal description of someone who has been awarded the … twice". No it isn't! It is the description of their decoration, not of the person. Sure you can say "John Snooks is a DFC and Bar" but that is colloquial not formal. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I would like to say I stand corrected. However, Snooks is not a DFC and Bar: he is a person who is the recipient of a DFC and Bar! Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 21:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Charles Keightley may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.