User talk:Kirrages/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

License tagging for Image:Indian4DivBadge.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Indian4DivBadge.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Indian10DivBadge0001.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Indian10DivBadge0001.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Rookie errors

OK so I'm a newbie at uploading images. I've gone back and I hope I have fixed things to the satisfaction of the OrphanBot fascist! Stephen Kirrage 15:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Montecassino and French troops

I suppose I were right. I've reverted the change. Greetings--Giovanni Giove 10:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Thank you. Stephen Kirrage 10:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

terrific work on this page - thanks so much. DMorpheus 15:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Wallie 21:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again I can't thank you enough. I was going to begin working on that page. You beat me to it and I am glad you did. DMorpheus 11:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Winter Line

Thanks for your message, Kirrages! Regarding details about the Winter Line, I have sadly no idea. I have just taken as a mission to clean up the article Allied invasion of Italy, since the need has been tagged for. I was about to direct you to the map Image:ItalyDefenseLinesSouthofRome1943 4.jpg, but I noticed you are the creator of it! Great work, by the way, the map is exquisite!

I just tried to rewrite the end of the article to make it flow better, and from reading Winter Line, along with your map, I got the impression that the Volturno and Barbara lines were part of the Winter Line, i.e. the Winter Line was a collective name for all those lines. But, I am sure you know much more than I about this, and I call upon you to make changes to Allied invasion of Italy as you see fit. Btw, I'm not sure I understood, did you yourself make the same assumption as me, that all the lines belonged the Winter Line? My Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the Winter Line to include Gustav, Bernhardt/Reinhardt and Adolf Hitler Lines based on some (but not all!) the literature I've read - different authors use varying definitions, so it seems that it's not just me who is confused! I can't say for sure this is 100% right but until I or someone else can find a definitive reference I keep tidying Wikipedia to be consistent with this view. Life would be easier if one could self-reference!! I'll have a go at adjusting the entry, I hope it's OK. Thanks for the compliment on the map - I only did it because I was concerned about copywrite of printed maps and was pretty pissed to discover (from your map in this article) that it is OK to use US military maps because thay are in the public domain! Stephen Kirrage 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I found your rewrite good. And, hey, don't be pissed, your map is probably better than what's otherwise available on the net, and your map is in color. :) But I have a suggestion: upload it to Wikimedia instead (link: Wikimedia); in this way, your image will be available to all Wikis, not just the English one. If you do it, tag your old Wikipedia-image with Template:NowCommons, and request a deletion from the English Wikipedia. If you want help, give me a holler. And as I said don't be pissed for too long - the last image I did was this map of the Moscow Kremlin - based on a previous map in Italian. I worked on it for 8 hours, uploaded, linked to it, and got a message from a Russian wikipedian who told me the map was archaic with 10+ serious errors...and I haven't yet found strength to go at it. My regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 02:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If I upload images to Wikimedia do I have to change the links in the Wikipedia documents? If so what is the syntax to link to a Wikimedia image? Also, I know this sounds dumb, but how do I request a deletion? Stephen Kirrage 13:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the automagical thing is you don't have to change the link syntax in any article - they will immediately be loaded from wikimedia instead. And, regarding tagging for deletion, it should be enough with tagging the image with Template:NowCommons, since it is a "pseudo-request" for deletion. I however usually emphasize this with a proper deletion tag, like inserting {{delbecause|Please delete this image because it now exists in Wikimedia commons.}}. Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 23:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a relief. I'm getting to work on the images while also trying to turn the Gothic Line entry into something worthy of the largest battle of the Italian campaign. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Re Monte Cassino edit

Yeah, I completely understand where you're coming from; if you read the edit summary you'll see I was hesitant to remove them. My feeling was that all of these troops were part of the French and British armies, and since no such states as "Algeria," "Morocco," and "India" existed, it was better to leave them out. In any case, the modern flags are anachnronistic and should not be used. My solution would be to keep the Battlebox simple and describe North African and Indian participation in full in the article text. But it's up to you. Albrecht 02:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

San Pietro

Thanks for your corrections to the Battle of San Pietro Infine. Sloppy typing on my part! I wonder if you have any ideas for a "battle box"--one of those infoboxes used on a number of such pages. I'd rather use a pre-existing template rather than invent one, myself. Jeffmatt 06:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the templates and instructions. As for "...Are you planning to cover any of the other engagements?" I'm not sure. I just did this one because I live in the area (Naples) and have a 93-year-old friend who is a vet of the 36th. He took me up there and I use him for occasional interviews of WW2 Oral History that I maintain on a private webpage. I'll have to give it some thought. I'll have a go at the inforbox and see what happens. Cheers from Naples, thanks again, and Happy New Year. Jeffmatt 15:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

More on Battle of San Pietro Infine war box. It worked out. I modified the one you sent and stuck it in there--although still incomplete while I look for details. Thanks again. Jeffmatt 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Updating Images

I've uploaded a new version of Image:ItalyDefenseLinesSouthofRome1943 4.jpg and although this appears in the history, the image on the page (and through the various links) is not the new one. What have I done wrong?! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Reload page in your browser using CTRL+R, old image is in its cache. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see S.Pietro clearly southwest near Cassino. As I can see it lies on Bernhardt line. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you use FireFox try leftCTRL+leftShift+R instead CTRL+R, it forces full reload of the page. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Which Sikhs in British Somaliland?

Hi, Kirrages. Thank you for your question about East African Campaign and for adding more details. I was trying to expand the very sketchy article on the campaign, but I don't think I can resolve completely the issue of the identity of the Punjabis at Tug Argan. I only have one source at hand with order of battle information--Mockler, who says that it was the 14th Punjabis--and you have two that say the 15th, including an official history. I think you're more likely to be right.

BTW, I'm not finished with the article, and I plan to expand and correct the section in the article on Alan Cunningham's attack on the southern front. From what I know, the attack consisted of brigades, not divisions as the article now states. I'd appreciate your looking at what I add.

Dhanig

India pre-1947/East African Campaign (World War II)

The terminology is quite confusing. Basically "Indian Empire" meant areas under direct British rule ("British Raj" ) and princely states which had varying degrees of independence. This equates to present day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. "Empire" in this sense means a collection of various peoples and sub-national states, united in the office of the Viceroy.

Nepal in 1939-45 technically had more greater independence than India (somewhat akin to, e.g. New Zealand) and it declared war separately to the UK. The Gurkhas were essentially a "foreign legion" in the British Indian Army; their recruitment did not imply that the Indian Army was also the army of Nepal.

By the way I have just added two photos to East African Campaign (World War II) and removed the caption of a deleted map, as well as the top map, which was centred on Egypt and did not even show all of the area in question. Cheers Grant | Talk 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Kirrages! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

List fixed. Prodego ^talk 03:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Pugilist

I'll go with you on this. Mea culpa. Reviewing my source [1] and adjacent pages, it's clear that Pugilist included the initial NZ Corps attack at Tebaga. Also, "left hook" was part of the original plan, see [2] and Supercharge was the subsequent recovery. Sorry, my impression had been that Supercharge referred to all of NZ Corps' activity up to and including Tebaga, and distinct from XXX Corps. Folks at 137 23:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing spam and extremely long captions

Please take a look at the article I was trying to clean up before reverting. If it was a bot sorry I will log in to avoid this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.167.255.223 (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Battleaxe

Hello Kirrages.

I had C Squadron in bold, while not on others, because the others are wiki-linked while C Squadron wouldn't be. Being forced to think about it now, it does seem rather odd, probably an old habit from way back. I'll remove the bold. Thanks. Oberiko 17:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No big deal but I'm happy with that. Thanks. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert to intro of "Thermodynamic state" article

Hi - Why have you reverted my copy-edit of the introductory paragraph of the "Thermodynamic state" article? The original paragraph is very poorly worded, and I think my edit is a great improvement. -Pgan002 22:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Over-enthusiastic. I saw your 'tag' included at the bottom of the article (which should not be there) and assuming someone was playing games reverted the whole lot. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 22:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now logged in so as not to trigger revert-happy behavior. I am reverting to my edit and continuing with copy-editing. -Pgan002 22:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's sad but true. When vandal patroling I only look at non-logged in edits. If you log in....you'll be safe from me at least!! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 22:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your AIV report

Thank you for making a report about 79.9.200.60 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Sandstein 10:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Mary river turtle

Hi. Thanks for warning the user about vandalising the page. Strangely, however, you failed to actually revert the vandalism, according to the page history. I removed it myself, after the anon blanked the page. I did not warn the vandal, as you warned him/her previously. However, as the edit you showed had further vandalism after it, the user may be warned again, but I'm not sure if that user is supposed to be. What do you think? Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001^(T+C+U) 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That's weird that the reversion failed because I am using Vandalproof for anti-vandal activity and it should do it automatically once the revert process has been initiated. People vandalising from anonymous IP addresses don't tend to look at their home pages and so without the corresponding revert it could be argued the first warning was not effected before the subsequent (re)vandalising, so a further warning could be considered harsh (the Wiki comunity tends to err on the side of caution). It probably doesn't matter: either they are serial vandals and will be blocked in due course anyway or they are not and an extra warning will make no difference. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 22:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

k

people at my school were editing, this is a school computer.

What is wrong with using the word "hot" to describe Jessica Alba and Paul Walker?

If you want a reply, please sign your Talk page entries. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 08:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't change what I added on the NF page. (Game Masters-DarkGM)

Image:CassinoSecondPlan.jpg

Hello, this is Snoddy from norwegian wikipedia. In the norwegian wikipedia, we have this competition, kind of like the english wp's Danny's contest. In that competition, I'm competiting with the article no:Slaget om Monte Cassino (the same as the en, wp's Battle of Monte Cassino). There you have uploaded the picture

File:CassinoSecondPlan.jpg

locally, and I want to ask you if you can upload it on wikipedia commons? Please do so or contact me on my norwegian user talk page any time. 81.167.3.234 07:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm happy to do this.....but have lost the original file! Will have a more detailed search when I get the time. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. I found how to transfer it to Commons. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 00:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Kissoué

Great article. Why don't you give it a shot at DYK? Regards, Anas ^talk? 18:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't do that sort of thing! My next target is the Battle of Damascus and also some changes patrolling for vandalism. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind if I nominated the article? —Anas ^talk? 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Stephen. —Anas ^talk? 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

References

Howdy Kirrages.

It's documented on the Wikipedia:Footnotes page. Oberiko 14:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Italian Campaign

Howdy Kirrages.

I responded to you on my talk page, but we should probably have this discussion on Talk:Italian Campaign (World War II). I would propose that we start off by creating an article structure / hierarchy so that we're all on the same page. Oberiko 01:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 6 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Kissoué, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 00:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 7 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Damascus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 10:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

On 12 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Deir ez-Zor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 17:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:EritreaCampaign1941 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:EritreaCampaign1941 2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:EritreaCampaign1941 2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:EritreaCampaign1941 2.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Iraqforce (and Syria-Lebanon Campaign)

Thank you! Wonderful work is your trademark. You may convert me to using "whilst" yet. Always a pleasure to discover you handi-work. Mkpumphrey 21:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Most kind. I had just been gently playing around these subjects (and many other British Indian Army topics) because my late dad had been with 17 Brigade in Paiforce and 8 Indian Div in Italy so was interested. Suddenly there are two or three more involved and the whole thing has taken on a new momentum - which is terrific... except I'm getting an earful from my wife for spending too much time on Wikipedia! Brave (or is it insane) move of the week: your putting link brackets around all those undocumented generals I listed in Iraqforce....curse you! (I mean well done of course, they'll soon get done). Any idea what's up with the London Gazette archive - I sent them a message but haven't heard back yet? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 22:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I give up. Who is "Lieutenant-Colonel A.H. Ferguson"? What else did he ever do? Sorry. I have nothing to add concerning the London Gazette. I have noticed that -- "wilst" adding these officers -- I am bombarded with "commentary" almost from the start. I thought it was great that you listed just about everyone involved in Iraqforce. I do not think that it is all that important to add lots of details for each officer. But it is good (in my opinion) to see the CONNECTIONS. This is exactly what Wikipedia does best. One of my favorite connections is Robert Sturges. He commanded forces invading Iceland AND Madagascar. Mkpumphrey 12:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Grice

Yup, Grice is right. Thanks! Haukur 16:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

East African Campaign

I am assuming that many of the improvements to the East African Campaign (World War II) article are your handi-work. I did see where you indicated that you are removing repeated references to NO Italian prisoners being taken (by the Ethiopian irregulars?). I had removed some of this type of material earlier. So I suppose "somebody out there" really wants this information in the article. I imagine that they do not want any information concerning the Italians rounding up Ethiopians, etc. I still look at the claim that 7,000 Italians fought on in a guerilla war as a "needs to be gently removed -- or modified -- some day soon" item. Question: Is Italian guerrilla of Ethiopia new? It is more of the same as whoever wants to say there were 7,000 Italian guerillas. It would appear that whoever added the "Italian guerrilla of Ethiopia" article speaks English as a second language. Somebody also loves this Douhett (?) who is supposed to have been the leader of the Italian guerillas. I read the write-up on him once (a la Commando Supremo) and there is extremely little in it about any guerilla activities. Anyway, very much appreciated the missing brigade commanders and I hope you approve of putting the VCs in one place. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey 14:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the article again. In writing the above, I remembered that I added something about Graziani being called a butcher. To be fair to both sides, I also added a comment about the Ethiopian patriot forces giving the Italians every reason to fear them. I see my Graziani item is still there, but someone has added "because they often used to take no prisoners" to the "reason to fear them" part. Mkpumphrey 14:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that there is a whole new section of the East African Campaign article related to the "Italian guerrilla of Ethiopia" article. Here is what has been added: "Amedeo Guillett was one of the Italian officers who fought in the Italian guerrilla of Ethiopia. Other Italian officers were Colonel Calderari in western Ethiopia, Colonel Di Marco in Ogaden, "blackshirt centurion" De Varda in Somalia and Captain De Martini in Eritrea. The Italian guerrilla was even waged by civilians, like Dr. Rosa Dainelli, a woman who in August 1942 successfully sabotaged the main British ammunition dump in Addis Ababa." More of the same. Mkpumphrey 15:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I just replied in a very optimistic way on your talk page....but have you seen the professor's talk page - it's ugly: User_talk:Brunodam. Lots of edit wars, paranoia and blocking.... we can only hope and pray!! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 16:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I did take a look at the "ugly" Brunodam talk page. You ARE correct. It is ugly . . . VERY UGLY. I also read a whole lot of "point-counter-point" concerning the M91 Italian rifles back on the East Africa article. However, the reason I am writing at this time (and at your site) is that I am thinking of getting rid of that whole "insights" section. I am not sure what it adds. But, if you feel it is worth keeping, I have no issue. By the way, who got rid of Emporer Sellassie? Orde Windgate was one thing. But, in my opinion, the Emperor of ETHIOPIA probably had a little something to do with the invasion of ETHIOPIA . . . probably more than Charles II had to do with the Restoration. But, if it was you who removed the emperor, I bow to your knowledge concerning this subject matter. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey 19:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that the "insights" section is back and is here to stay ( . . . in duplicate now that the "invasion of British Somaliland" has its own article). I assume that at some point the Italians will have won the campaign. I plan to keep busy with my short bios. Enjoy! Mkpumphrey 14:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I will check on the "Parvati" Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy. 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkpumphrey (talk • contribs)

East African Campaign

Hi. You mentioned you were looking for a copy of the chapter on Keren in Eastern Epic by Compton Mackenzie. I can do this for you. Could you give me an email address to send it to? Regards Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 08:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

that would be really great. ? Thanks in advance. Poppypetty 17:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Now I have to work :p. Poppypetty 19:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Francesco De Martini

Seen this one yet? Mkpumphrey 18:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Indian National Army

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edits adding the template of Indian national Army to the Punjab Regiment (Pakistan) article. If you looked into the template I added, you would see that there's an article entitled Hindustan Field Force which was derived with substantial numbers of troops from the 14th Punjab regiment who were captured during the Malayan Campaign or at the Fall of Singapore. After the partition, 14th Punjabs passed on to Pakistan, and hence I added this template to the article. I hope I have explained why this was added. I am adding this template back to the article. If you feel this is unjustified, could you please leave a message on my page before you do this. CheersRueben lys 21:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, I will add the text that explains the role of 14th Punjab in HFF. (I think this is what you meant). Thank you so much for your cooperation.Rueben lys 22:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just added the details to the main Punjab regiment on the regiment main article (thought I'd sort the main article as well but ook me a while to find the stuff). Have a look and tell me what you think. BTW, do you mean you wish this to be added to the main Indian National Army article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rueben lys (talk • contribs) 23:25, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit message

Hi Stephen,

I just got a message saying, "At least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Jeremy Sumpter, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed."

I don't actually know who Jeremy Sumpter is, I'm 99% sure I've never looked him up and I've never edited a page on wikipedia. Do you know what's going on?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.65.64 (talk) 14:20, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a standard message from a anti vamdal programme like VandalProof. Who signed the message.....and why are you asking me ...and who are you anyway?! (Would appreciate it if you signed your message). Regards Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 15:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Found it! It was me using VP in June (not exactly recent...), here's the link to what I reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Sumpter&diff=136084608&oldid=136084471. The vandalism definitely came from your IP address but it may not have been you on the computer at the time. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 11:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

11th (East Africa) Division

Thank you for the clarification. Nice work. Mkpumphrey 12:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "expert attention" tag on Allied invasion of Italy ?

Hi again, Kirrages! (This message has also been sent to User:Buckboard1). I have noticed that there have been many edits in the article Allied invasion of Italy, and missing information has been filled in. Considering your and User:Buckboard1's edits, I could safely say that you two know much more about the Invasion of Italy than I. Therefore, I ask if either one of you, or both, can assess the article, with hope of removing the "ugly" "need of attention"-tag? My feeling is that this tag is not very urgent anymore, but I personally know too little to be bold enough and remove it. I am sure you two can make a decision. My regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 22:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it, Kirrages! If anyone blames you, you can always blame me... :) Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 00:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews Interview with John Vanderslice

You edited the John Vanderslice article. Wikinews is schedule to do an interview with Vanderslice this Wednesday, September 26. If you have any questions you'd like to ask John or know about John, please leave them on my Talk page. Thanks. --David Shankbone 15:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Do You Know What Is Going On In Somalia?

The odd edits at Italian conquest of British Somaliland have been going on for a few days now. -WarthogDemon 17:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. I'm normally pretty happy having people contributing who aren't the normal WASP profile - gives more balanced perspectives. The problem here seems to be an inability to grasp the basic WP culture of POV, citing sources etc. This time I had a go at copyediting it rather than just rving to see if this created a bit of goodwill and stopped a longer term edit war! We'll see.....Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't look like it... -WarthogDemon 00:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Burma Rifles

WikiThanks

Just a quick thank you for improving and expanding the article. LordHarris 12:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 13:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Iraqforce

Thanks again! Your changes made it make sense. Unfortunately I was trying to instill some uniformity between the "Iraqforce" write-up and what is said about Iraqforce in the "Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran" article. If you check the "Invasion" section of that article, you will see the words I am sure you rightly removed from "Iraqforce." If you want to clean up the "Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran" article, I am sure you will do better than I. Otherwise, I will just make it conform to your changes in "Iraqforce." Always good to see your work. Mkpumphrey —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the Iran article. As I understand it the chronology was 1. 10th Indian Div arrived at Basra -> Anglo-Iraqi War -> Habforce leaves Transjordan and is attached to Iraqforce when it reached Habbaniya -> 8 Indian Div starts to arrive -> Syria-Lebanon campaign -> Arab Legion sent back to Transjordan ->Iran Invasion. I think the texts reflect this now....? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your chronology is correct. However, the Iran article currently indicates: "the British Iraq Command (known as Iraqforce)". Was Iraqforce ever known as the "British Iraq Command"? I do not know. That is what I was attempting to add (albeit poorly) into the "Iraqforce" article. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey

Willie Tait; WP:DYK

Many thanks for your excellent article on "Turpitz" Tait, which I have expanded a bit. It is too old now, but it would have been an excellent candidate to appear in the "Did you know?" section on the Main Page. Your new or significantly expanded articles can be nominated at Template talk:did you know. -- !! ?? 19:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Battleaxe distances

I think you're right Kirrages, my misinterpretation came from a description of "sixty crowflight miles, or more than five hours desert driving, from the battlefield". I'll try to correct that when I get the chance. Oberiko 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiChevrons

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Wikiproject, I hereby present the Military History WikiChevrons to Kirrages for outstanding contributions to the oft overlooked Africa-Mediterranean-Middle East theatre of World War II. Keep up the good work! Oberiko 01:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Awww! Thanks guys, I'm really touched. It's a pleasure! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 07:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Deir ez-Zor Revert

No problem. You actually reverted to my version, rolling back the anon vandal. I've had the same problem with Vandal Proof recently, where the edit summary indicates a rollback of the version prior to what is actually being reverted, and then the warning is dropped in the wrong place. Hiberniantears 12:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Brevity

Just like to say thanks for the recent edits to the Brevity article, clearing bits up and making it consistant with the Battleaxe article. I think between the few of us who have edited the page since August we have created an accuarate account of what happened on those two days plus other related information .... instead of the driffle which had originally been there.

^.^

Freyburg

To the discussion page ! ^.^ ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Battle_of_El_Alamein#Freyburg

I know its a small issue like but its good to share views etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 12:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Bibliographical referencing

"Copyedit from my "talk page"Dieppe Raid I'm not quite sure why you changed all the references. It doesn't seem to have made any difference to the appearance on the page. And if there is no standard, why is there a Wikipedia cite book template? I can't claim any great knowledge here so haven't a clue what MLA or scratch formatting is. Regards Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 14:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)"

Hi Stephen, thanks for your note: As to the reasoning behind the use of bibliographic protocols, Wikipedia is mainly created by the efforts of countless editors worldwide. One of the first concerns was that in order to maintain professional standards in writing and research, assistance had to be provided to editors who did not have a background in academic or research writing. The "templates" were offered as a means of helping non-professionals in complex tasks. Citations in bibliographic format are difficult to cite for most editors in Wikipedia and the templates offer a solution. They are guides not policy and are useful up to a point but even now, there are many errors in their format and the use of templates brings in a question as to which style guide is being followed. As an author and a 30-year+ librarian, I have been exposed to many differing styles and formats. Most publishing style guides utilize the MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style for identifying research sources. The very simple form of this style is the tried and true: "Author. 'Title.' Place of publication: Publisher, Date. ISBN: (optional)." The academic or scientific citation style that you have adopted is not generally used in school, public and other libraries. See the following website (one of countless digital aids available) for a primer on this bibliographic standard: <style guides> Many of the Wiki templates are written in a APA (American Psychological Association) style guide which is a simplified format that often is used in university and scholarly works although it is not as widely accepted as the MLA guide.

This is the reference guide you may wish to use: "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia." MLA style is the most widely accepted style in the world and certainly is accepted in Wikipedia. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloging that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloging is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record from an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."

Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appers once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area is kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In the "Dieppe Raid" article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often prefarble not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.

I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing the "Dieppe Raid" references section which also had problems in the format of providing footnotes along with a bibliography and "further reading" which is still a Wiki anachronism. FWIW Bzuk 15:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

A Btn. of the Italian Trento Div. breaches the Australian defences at Tobruk

Kirrages thanks for not deleting my contributions. I think you deserve this link that proves the Italians proved themeselves on 1 May 1941 and I thank the website www.comandosupremo.com for giving me enough grounds to go ahead and establish this Italian effort as true through the Australian website awm.gov.au. Where there is smoke there is fire so I thank the webmaster of www.comandosupremo.com thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse (talk • contribs) 11:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Allied invasion of Sicily

I've semi-protected North African Campaign, Italian Campaign (World War II), and Allied invasion of Sicily because they're the most targeted. I've left out Western Desert Campaign for the meantime as there hasn't been long term vandalism yet. But I'll still keep those articles watchlisted. I see you've done some copyediting and I would hate for your work to be undermined by a disruptive sock. If you see other pages with similar problems, just tell me. Thanks. Spellcast 20:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Just leave a message if the vandalism returns after the unprotection. Good luck with the articles. Spellcast (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There was vandalism, but it's not persistent enough for protection yet. You can take it to WP:RFPP is you disagree. The sock's last edit was on November 30. But I'll keep the page watchlisted just in case. Spellcast (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected East African Campaign (World War II). Just leave a message if there's more pages or if the vandalism returns after unprotection. Spellcast (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kirrages, I've had the above articles watchlisted for a month now in case the sock returned. It seems to have stopped though, so I think it's safe to remove it from my watchlist for now. Needless to say, if the vandalism returns you can obviously drop me a line or go to WP:RFPP, cheers. Spellcast (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dieppe Raid

Hi Kirrages.

• The first category (Conflicts in 1942) was removed because the raid was not a "conflict" but an Operation. It is listed as such under Battles and operations. UK and Germany were already in a conflict by this stage called WWII.
  
• The second Category was removed because the more specific Category was already there, namely Category:World War II Western European Theatre. The more general Category:Battles and operations of World War II is reserved for those battles and operations which can not be easily categorised in the already existing Theatre categories.
  

The recategorisation is an effort to rationalise and simplify article categorisation within the Military History Project. Please contact the Project coordinator if you have any further questions, including if you disagree with the removal of the categories in this article. If you do not disagree, I would appreciate if you reverted the article to the version that doesn't have these categories. Thank you.--mrg3105mrg3105 22:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Auchinlech's Indo-Burma Despatches Jun - Nov 1943

Yes, there is a spelling mistake in the name. However, it is entirely forgivable given the amount of good deeds you have performed for the rest of us ;o)--mrg3105mrg3105 01:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Koala

sorry buddy, this is a public terminal, i wouldnt know who messed with the koala article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.53.231 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

?

I didn't edit that page or any other page for that matter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.228.53 (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Air HQ Western Desert

Hey Kirrages.

Are you certain that's what it was called in Battleaxe? Raising Churchill's Army: The British Army and the War Against Germany, 1919-1945, pg. 237 states that the AHQWD was created in July, 1941; a few weeks after Battleaxe. Can you source where it was called AHQWD during Battleaxe or that it was formed prior to June 15th? Oberiko (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm an idiot. I had been thinking about Crusader and Alamein 2 and was in late 41 / 42 mode when I saw this discussion and jumped in without a pause. AHQ WD didn't come until October. However, I can understand the sensitivites because the RAAF had units in the desert from late 1940 and SAAF had squadrons in the desert from April 1941 (according to the DAF article) and it is therefore not right to refer to air actions as being generically those of the RAF. I think if a particular activity can be cited as being by the RAF (say a specific bombing raid) then fair enough but I suspect that where authors refer to "nightly bombing" or "supporting fighter bomber attacks" by the RAF they may well have been lazy in identifying the exact origins of the attacking force. What do you think? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries, seems like an easy-to-make mistake (I've made far worse). You seem to be more knowledgable about the Mediterranean / Middle East then myself, so I'll go with your decision on the issue. Here's what I do know:

• The air force contingent that took place in Battleaxe was under Headquarters 204 Group Clive Caldwell, Air Ace, pg. 26
• No. 204 was indeed the predecessor to AHQWD (Raising Churchill's Army, as posted above) and it was part of the RAF.

While other allied service men may have been attached, it was, most accurately IMO, a RAF operation. Oberiko (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Totally take the above points. An interesting question is: before AHQWD what was the chain of command for the Australian and SA air units? Were they reporting to and RAF HQ? Even if they were and therefore it was an RAF operation, national sensitivities have to be catered for. It's a bit like the Italian sensitivity to Rommel's Panzer Army Afrika being referred to as German when there were more Italians than Germans in the Western Desert. It's fine to say German when talking specifically about something being done by one of the Afrika Korps Divisions but one should take care to identify exactly who is involved and use the appropriate "Axis", "German" or "Italian". Or in the present case "Allied air forces" "RAF" "RAAF" etc.. Regards. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 20:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, how about this then? We call it RAF Group 204, link to the Desert Air Force, and add a section, before AHQWD, for Group 204? At that point we can leave the explanation of non-UK pilots / aircraft. Oberiko (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Give it a go. But remember it's 204 Group in RAF parlance not Group 204. The test will be if the Aus and SA audience accept it. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I see Grant65 has made an entry on this subject in the Operation Battleaxe Talk Page. He suggests that the various Commonwealth units were not under unified command before the creation of AHQ WD and therefore using RAF 204 Group as shorthand would by implication be inappropriate (since this would only have covered the RAF squadrons). I think we therefore must only refer to "Allied (or Commonwealth) aircraft" unless a source specifically identifies the squadron(s) (and therefore nation) undertaking a particular operation. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 09:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tobruk 1941: Rommel's Opening Move, pg 26 gives the Order of Battle for Battleaxe as being "202 Group RAF" and "204 Group RAF". It also specifically shows some RAAF and SAAF units as being parts of those groups. Oberiko (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Operation Compass

Question: Did you add the following to Operation Compass (just below the the "Derna" title? "In the meantime the Italian Supreme Command moved quickly to organize the Brigata Corazzato Speciale (BCS) or "Special Armored Brigade", consisting of 50 M-11 tanks, artillery pieces and supported by infantry formations equipped with the latest anti-tank weapons and specializing in the anti-tank role. In hardly more than a month, the Italians dispatched this volunteer force under General Valentino Babini to North Africa." This history for the article implies that this is your work . . . but it does not look anything like anything you have written before. Idendity theft? I was considerring a re-work of this article (I want to add detail to the initial Italian advance) and was giving it a once over when I found the Brigata Corazzato Speciale write-up in the "Derna" section. I do need to get back to that East African Campaign someday and put in the references. BTW, I added a "citation" after this write-up questioning it. You appear to have been around Wikipedia far longer, do you know whether I am allowed to do this? It seemed well worth questioning. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the article on the present day Frontier Force Regiment is good, but as far as I know, the official name since 1956 has been simply "The Frontier Force", or FF for short. I think it should be changed and the old regiments 12 FFR and 13 FFRifles be given their own pages.--58.65.163.248 (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Greco-Italian war

Check this.72.167.98.186 (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll change it back. You'll now see why "try harder" was an unhelpful Edit summary! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 00:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Brevity

As requested, order of battle and as much information regarding losses as been posted in the Operation Brevity discussion page.

Image:Indian10DivBadge0001.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Indian10DivBadge0001.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 20:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Indian4DivBadge.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Indian4DivBadge.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Indian8DivWWIIBadge0001.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Indian8DivWWIIBadge0001.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:IndianDivWWIIBadge0002.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IndianDivWWIIBadge0002.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there may be a bug in your bot...

...it sends a message to the next to last editor. See for example M.I.A. (band). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaohoyt (talk • contribs) 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed a problem and stopped patrolling. Sorry for any inconvenience. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 08:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Brevity

lol thanks for the catch there about the 15th Panzer ... for some reason i cant help myself, in drafts, notes etc i keep wanting to call them the 14th Panzer for some reason! >.<
Anyhoo cheers--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Western Desert Campaign

Can you please use some inline citation for this article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what has provoked this request? It seems to come out of the blue! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 09:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You are the primary contributor to the article and I found it interesting, but without any reference/inline citation. Since you are a regular contributor to the page, I hope your talk page is the right place to request use of inline citation. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Actually, I think you'll find that besides copyediting I've made little or no original contribution to this article. I have however, made considerable contributions to a number of the underlying battle articles where you'll find I am OBSESSIVE about putting in in-line citations! Frankly, where an article, like this one, summarises a number of underlying detailed articles, then it seems overkill to cite content which is already cited in the "Main" article. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 10:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

5th Indian Division

Yes go ahead , being a new editor I was now aware of that protocol Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

East African Campaign

Sorry about that, it is fixed now.Red4tribe (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Moro & Ortona.

no problem, I can probably take a look at ortona today.

Yeah, you are correct that my sources are fairly Canadian-centric. The Moro River Campaign doesn't get a lot of attention in WWII history (especially the Canadian involvement), so the Canadian-written books I have tend to focus entirely on the Canadian Perspective ("The Canadian Military History Atlas", "the Maple Leaf against the Axis", "Marching as to war, Canada in conflict from 1899 - 1954", even the titles give it away). Feel free to add the non-Canadian stuff afterwards (oh yeah, and add your name to the Maintenance list on the talk-page). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Canadian-Centric source?!?! I didn't know such a thing existed! I've got this one "authoritative & excellent summary" of all of World War II that doesn't even mention that Canada was there, much less that it fielded the 3rd biggest navy, 4th biggest airforce, 4th largest army among the allies! Oh well. Hopefully we'll be able to get both Ortona & The Moro to at least B-Class before the end of June. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 01:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for adding that stuff concerning NZ & India to the article. I'll get back to work on The Gully once I finish the FAC I'm in the middle of (although I might do a bit of editing between now & then). Cam (Chat) 07:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No probs. It's coming along nicely. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 13:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Moro & Ortona.

no problem, I can probably take a look at ortona today.

Yeah, you are correct that my sources are fairly Canadian-centric. The Moro River Campaign doesn't get a lot of attention in WWII history (especially the Canadian involvement), so the Canadian-written books I have tend to focus entirely on the Canadian Perspective ("The Canadian Military History Atlas", "the Maple Leaf against the Axis", "Marching as to war, Canada in conflict from 1899 - 1954", even the titles give it away). Feel free to add the non-Canadian stuff afterwards (oh yeah, and add your name to the Maintenance list on the talk-page). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Canadian-Centric source?!?! I didn't know such a thing existed! I've got this one "authoritative & excellent summary" of all of World War II that doesn't even mention that Canada was there, much less that it fielded the 3rd biggest navy, 4th biggest airforce, 4th largest army among the allies! Oh well. Hopefully we'll be able to get both Ortona & The Moro to at least B-Class before the end of June. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 01:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for adding that stuff concerning NZ & India to the article. I'll get back to work on The Gully once I finish the FAC I'm in the middle of (although I might do a bit of editing between now & then). Cam (Chat) 07:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No probs. It's coming along nicely. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 13:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm done all of the sections with the Gully. Feel free to copyedit and/or add non-Canadian stuff to it. Cam (Chat) 03:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

On to Ortona. I'm almost done the ACR for Operation Tractable (another two days). When I complete that, I'll be ready to both write the section on Ortona in the MRC, and then get to work on the actual Battle of Ortona article (B-Class by June 30). Cam (Chat) 06:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, before I nominate The Moro River Campaign for GA, would you be able to do a quick copyedit check. Cam (Chat) 04:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. But I may not be able to do it today! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 08:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Operation Husky order of battle

I'm not sure we should use that Osprey book (part of the men at arms series) as a source in that article, particularly for the Coastal Divisions. Sometime last year I tried to sort this out and found great differences between the theoretical organisation of these units given in some sources and the actual organisation on the terrain. From that information I could not piece together the attachments of most of these regiments. The current listing in the article looks good, but is likely to be incorrect, while I like the Osprey books on other time periods I've never found them useful for WWII. Though I haven't read this particular one (I probably have a copy somewhere and will take a look if you think I should).--Caranorn (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have placed this and a response on the Operation Husky OOB talk page to encourage more participation to improve the quality of the information. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Generalmesse and others: nationalistic pro-Italian POV pushing

Maybe you want to chip in your thoughts: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#sock master User:Generalmesse, --noclador (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

East African Campaign

I think we must have different copies because it says exactly what yours does, but just on a different page.

I don't know why it doesn't add up. It could be reinforcements as the campaign progressed but that is a good point. I didn't notice that before. Red4tribe (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it still has those mistakes. I have seen the 3,100 casualties for the British before, but the Italian casualties were difficult to find. I noticed there is no source for the strength, could that possibly be the answer? Red4tribe (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

re First Battle of El Alamein

Thanks for your message on my talkpage. Unfortunately there was an edit war on the pages of the above article, and when the main protagonist was blocked they activated a number of sock/meatpuppets. This resulted in a complaint to WP:AN/I#Generalmesse. To avoid a further edit/sock war I protected the article for a few days, in the hope that such an action will persuade editors to edit consensually when it expires. Was there an edit that you wanted to make? You can request admin assistance on the article talkpage, or let me know. Cheers LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Italian invasion of Egypt

Do you have any idea which Italian divisions actually took part in the Italian invasion of Egypt in September of 1940? It does appear that the XXIII Corps, the XXI Corps, and the "Libyan Corps" were involved or at least they were near the border. But the one Italian reference I have only shows the pre-war distribution of the divisions ( ... the Fifth Army is still the bigger of the two and there is no "Libyan Corps" indicated at all). Anyway, I have several conflicting "modern, light-weight" references ... and they all show something different. Do you have a copy of Hunt's book? Does it detail which divisions were in which corps in September? Thought I would ask. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Cassino

Władysław Anders was important person and leader in last attack in Monte Cassino. If not he and his soulders aliants cant win in Monte Cassino. You dont know history so going read books! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.146.235.1 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't know who you are because you didn't sign your comment. But I will respond all the same: I would not deny that Anders was an important commander. However, the brave contribution of the Polish Corps should be seen in context. First of all, the article covers four battles during which there were (by my quick count) seven "important" Allied Corps commanders involved. To put all the Corps commanders plus army commanders in the info box would be ridiculous. To try to differentiate as to who was more important of the Corps commanders would be unfair (and POV). To say that the Allies would not have won at Cassino without the Polish contribution is meaningless: their contribution was no more or less than the French Corps (which broke through in the Aurunci Mountains) or XIII Corps (which took the brunt of the German resistance in the Liri valley) etc etc.. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 14:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Military history of Italy during World War II

Hi Stephen
about a month ago there was a sock circus trying to manipulate the various articles about Italy in WWII with glorifying revisionism - sometimes citing sources as Nazi-Radio Berlin or the Italian Army's own bulletins as "proof" how marvellously the fascist Armies performed... I spotted the sock circus and together with User:Justin A Kuntz and User:AlasdairGreen27 had them all blocked see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove From the edits to Military history of Italy during World War II and First Battle of El Alamein I assume that the users User:Bendiksen63 & User:ITALONY are new incarnations of the well known sock circus... especially as the two registered users use Paolo Caccia Dominioni de Sillavengo book Alamein 1933-1962: An Italian Story as source, which by "chance" was a favourite source for Generalmesse & Co. ITALONY and the IP 24.20.169.90 are also pretty obviously the same person: ITALONY edit and the IP addition. BTW: the source he uses is a British Egyptian Philately societies homepage and Edmund Hall (the writer of the material used as a source) an collector of Egyptian stamps! not a historian qualified in any way to judge the WWII events of North Africa... If you are willing to go ahead an clean the articles in question, you have my full backing - but personally I'm for a full revert. --noclador (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I was wondering if they had returned. The stamp site is as good a reference as an unreferenced Wikipedia article - ie you can make up what you like. I agree, take it down. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 14:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading the above, but I need to know what a "sock circus" is. Also, when is somebody going to clean up that ridiculous Italian guerrilla war in Ethiopia article? I see links to it just about EVERYWHERE. As always, Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Try reading Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and sock circus becomes self-evident. the guerrilla war in Ethiopia......I've thought about doing something but everytime I look at it I feel like giving up the will to live so I find something else to do! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 19:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Jumbo Wilson

Concerning Henry Maitland Wilson, 1st Baron Wilson in the Western Desert Campaign article, I was going to ask that you check Wilson's article. I see that you already corrected it. My main thing with adding the upper commanders to the Western Desert Campaign article was that it seemed odd that Wilson was not mentioned at all (initially) and others just seemed to pop up with no explanation as to who they were. You do great work as always. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

6th Armoured Division (United Kingdom)

The reason I added that template of citation style to the article is to bring it to editors' attention that the three published sources used are not referenced, i.e. there is no way of knowing which works the page number relate to--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Western Front (World War II) SHEAF

It seems to me that the 21st (UK) Army Group was also under SHEAF command, so with the 12th, 6th and 15th that would make it four AGs (and one Army, the 7th), right?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No. 15th AG were never under SHAEF. They were under AFHQ whose Supreme Allied Commander was by that time Harold Alexander, who had taken over from Henry Maitland Wilson in late 44. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 09:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

combatant order

When did the rules change so that they should be ordered by number of troops involved?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It never changed. It's just that no-one seems to have read the Usage comments in Template:Infobox Military Conflict which says "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article." I find alpha sort the least helpful way of displaying this information and its only justification is some kind of warped political correctness. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

hands up i never read it and also that i have a warped sence of political correctness :p

Ok fair enough, will abide by that from now on.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Total involvement of forces in all Monte Cassino battles

Hi, do you have any figures on the total involvement of each of the forces ? It would be useful to refer to them. Thanks. --Lysy^talk 12:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A good starting place is Operation Diadem order of battle which covers the 4th battle. This OOB includes elements that weren't at Cassino for Cassino 4 (VI Corps at Anzio and V Corps on the Adriatic while X Corps were relatively passive on the right wing covering the Polish Corps' right flank) but many of the divisions in these units were at Cassino in the earlier battles (Indian 4th Infantry, British 5th Infantry, US 34th and 36th Infantry Divisions). Also missing are the British divisions withdrawn from X Corps after the first battle - 46th and 56th Infantry Divisions. Including the South Africans is marginal since the SA division was forming in Army Reserve at the time of the 4th battle but took no part in the fighting at Cassino - although I believe their artillery were involved and they were involved in the pursuit north of Rome and in the Apennines on the Gothic Line. If you want actual headcount numbers, I don't have them - I've worked out relative sizes by counting divisions / brigades. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 14:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request on Simple English Wikipedia

Hi, I am one of the admins from the Simple English Wikipedia. Your request for unblock has been accepted, and the range has been unblocked temporarily. It will be reblocked once you have created your account, or after 2 days, whichever comes earlier. If you have any problems, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Cheers, Chenzw  Talk  14:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

I'm perfectly aware that they do for me - they don't for anon users though, so it's better to keep them consistent within an article if possible. I was merely undoing a previous user who had chagned two instances of dates, but left all the other ones alone. David Underdown (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi there, I wrote a longish message for your talk page explaining some changes I made to British rule in India, but now I can't find the message. Well, I hadn't left the message, only written it up in the editing page! :( Anyway, let me look for it again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No probs with the edits. The description of British India in particular needs to be very precise, given the very precise historic usage and the current rather sloppy usage. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 10:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me take another stab at it. I made some changes to British rule in India yesterday (or was it the day before?) and realized later on that some of what you had done was not incorrect. I have now tweaked it some more. Here are some of the nuances/anomalies that we need to keep in mind:

• "Direct Rule:" In the literature, the term is applied to "India," not just to "British India." In other words they say, "India was directly governed/ruled from London." However, the term "indirect rule" is also sometimes applied to the "governing" of the princely states. These states were, in principle, ruled by an Indian ruler (a Maharajah or Nawab), but the British government retained control of military affairs, foreign affairs, and communications, and exercised its control through a "Resident" (a Colonial Official) in each of these states. In effect the princely states had very little power to do their own bidding. (I'm going to add this post in parts, in case I lose it again! More coming.)
• "British Crown" We don't want to give it so much prominence that it appears that the constitutional monarch in London was governing India. After 1858, the "India policy" was devised by the British government India Office and its head, the cabinet level Secretary of State for India. These policies were implemented by the Governor-General of India (based in Calcutta and later in Delhi). Here too, the Governor-General had some limited autonomy, especially in emergency situations (although communications between India and London had speeded up by 1858 with the arrival of the telegraph), however, the India Office, which was overseen by the British Parliament was the final arbiter. The Crown was a figurehead that had no choice but to go along with the devised policy.
• "Governor-General" vs. "Viceroy": Although the Governor-General retained his title after 1858 and added the title Viceroy when he represented the Crown in the princely states, in fact, he (and it always was a "him") was never called the "Governor-General," only the "Viceroy" both at the time, and in the literature since. So, our calling him the Governor-General (except in passing) would be going against convention.
• "East India Company" Although it is true that the formal name of the Company was the "Honourable East India Company," it is never referred to as such in the literature, except as in a literary (or sardonic) flourish. Usually, the literature only says, "East India Company," and refers to the other Companies, such as the Dutch East India Company by their national name. I've also seen the English East India Company. So, while the "Honourable East India Company" would be OK in an article title, it would be very quaint (and against convention) in text. I said something about "quirky Wikipedians" in an edit summary; I didn't mean you, but rather the people who devised the title. :)

Anyway, these are some of the nuances/anomalies that we need to incorporate in the dab page British rule in India. Please take another look at it and see that it makes sense. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, but I have yet to find an entry in the LG which appoints a Viceroy. It's always for G-G, unless you can tell me otherwise! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 11:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but Wikipedia is beholden only to the secondary sources. I'm sure there are lots of examples of other titles that have one formal (official) version, but which is hardly ever used, and another version in the literature (secondary sources). Have to run now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Horrocks

Your last edit broke a number of the references - you must have lost a closing tag along the way, I couldn't spot where it was, so I've reverted you. As I recall it was a deliberate decision during the process of reaching FA that led to the references being aggregated in the first place, so it might be better to discuss it before starting to split them up again. David Underdown (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

India again

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:British Raj#What to do about British India. Xn4 (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk message deletion

I'm not deleting a message from any other User talk page. I'm doing it on my own one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.215.68 (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Behz (talk • contribs) 01:47, 13 September 2008

Hi Kirrages, I had put a question on Mumia Abu-Jamal, answered by user Behz which seems to be a socketpuppet of a user with bad reputation. Would u please have a look on the edit? I am interested to get an answer, not to be involved in a puppet game. Best regards --Polentario (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have my suspicions but this case will be investigated by Wikipedia Administrators. Progress will be shown at this page. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 11:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem

Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

• Image:Indian10DivBadge0001.jpg
• Image:Indian4DivBadge.JPG
• Image:Indian8DivWWIIBadge0001.jpg
• Image:IndianDivWWIIBadge0002.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp's comments

Would you like to comment here? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. I said I would have a two year moratorium on India and I'm sticking to it. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 16:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

An IP address you recently warned is continuing vandalising The Chrysalids. PatGallacher (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-Iraq war

Hi,

I have just been making a few edits to the Anglo-Iraqi War article and it seems yout added a citation: Mead (2007), p. 419 but have not added the book in. Any chance you could do so and applogies if i have got the wrong guy.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sankovich

Hi Stephen,

Do you remember how one of the socks, generalmesse or brunodam or whoever, was incorrectly citing Sandkovich in his attempt to include battalion level actions the Italian WWII military history page? Well without going into it, sigh, I obtained a copy of the document. It turns out that it is a peer reviewed document published in an historical journal. Sandkovich himself is an academic historian who has written quite a bit - a fair chunk on Balkan history also. If you want to check it out, the reference is: Sandkovich, J.J. (1991) "Of Myths and Men: Rommel and the Italians in North Africa, 1940-1942." The International History Review Vol. XIII No. 2, pp. 284-313.

It was under my nose the entire time as I have access to it through my almer mater university, but thats not how I got hold of it. It is highly critical (extremely critical) but, unlike most texts that are used as sources, it is peer reviewed. As such it cites quite thoroughly and much of what it says is consistent with what I have managed to piece together over the years on the topic. Alternatively, I have a .pdf of the document so if you would like me to get it to you, let me know. It certainly is an interesting read.

At any rate, the sock was not relating the main message(s) of the document.

Regardless, I was always hoping to get back in touch with you regarding that section to run some possible additions by you before including them, but time got away from me (moved house, work busy etc). Now that I have read this, I will give it more consideration. It makes a few points that may be worth including. I was mainly going to include a comparison of numbers captured in various theaters of war. Other than that, the main wikipedia activities I have been doing are mainly been to add references, links and further reading sections to various articles - slow, mundane stuff but among the most important imho.

PS. if you reply, can you please please do so here so that we keep the conversation in one locale?. Cheers, Romaioi (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done on the detective work! It's so long ago I can't remember the exact circumstances but I seem to recall that my main problem was that he was describing small unit actions in a high level document. I think I was agnostic about Sandkovitch although your suggestion that generalmesse was being very selective rings true. How big is the pdf and what is the copyright status of the document? - perhaps it could be uploaded to Wikisource and reflinked to the Italy page? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 14:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is copyrighted material so I do not think that it can be uploaded (unless you know something that I don't - because I would believe it would be worth uploading). The document is just under 700 kB. If you want to keep an email transfer anonymous you could create a yahoo address and I can transfer it from mddchippo@yahoo.com (an anonymous account I created). Otherwise, if you have access to some form of institutional library you can seek it out using the reference. All I know is that it is not illegal to posses a photocopy of such a document. I will leave it up to you.

Unfortunately, it wasn't that well done on my part. The full story is that it was a curious response to stalking by the sock, or one of the socks, that proved fruitful. You see, since around 2000, I have been using romaioi as my log-in name for all the forums or online communities that I join (half a dozen or so). So the sock presumably googled my username and sent PM's to a few of them (some I hadn't logged into for years so I was surprised to receive notification emails), asking me to email him. So I made up an email address under Yahoo and used that for communication. I was highly skeptical, but once I received it, it was easy to determine the document's credibility. The irony is, given that I was an academic/researcher until two years ago, it would have been very easy for me to have tracked this down through my own available resources if I did a little more detailed sniffing about on the author's name alone. Now the sock has emailed me several times me again, in what I believe is an attempt to motivate me to cite the Axis propaganda articles (which the New York Times printed during the war) that he continually refers to in wikipedia....and otherwise work for his agenda (hence my sigh yesterday) - he/she appears to be aware of some "errors" in the historical record but unfortunately goes about trying to correct them in a skewed way. Irrespective, the Sandkovich article is very relevant to a few topics on Wikipedia and refers to a lot of other sources that, no doubt, should also be relevant. Hopefully I will get a chance to refer to it over the Xmas break. (sorry for the long winded posts) Cheers Romaioi (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC).

British Persia and Iraq Command

Howdy,

As you know ive been making a few changes to the Iraqforce article and ive been thinking; I think it should probably be renamed to British Persia and Iraq Command (with or without the British bit infront). Currently the article does show the transition from Iraq force to Persia and Iraq command so is soley not about the former. It would also add a missing British command to the wiki.

What do you think?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that re-naming it helps much. Three of the OOBs on the page are Iraqforce ones and one is PAIC. The article explains the progression from Iraqforce to Paiforce to Tenth Army to PAIC in the last two paragraphs of text while Paiforce and Persia and Iraq Command both redirect to the Iraqforce page. All that's missing is the PAIC command succession (Wilson left PAIC in Feb 43 succeeded by Henry Pownall and in Sept 43 by Arthur Smith(?!)). What exactly do you propose? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 15:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of this article: Middle East Command.

A summary, why it was established (i might have some info on this - probably would be small mainly dealing with PAIC and breifly mentioning Iraqforce etc), the history of it through the war (i.e. its formation as Iraqforce onwards), then post war, list of CO's and the OOBs tagged on at the bottom.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

On balance, maybe the existing article should be split in two. Up to August 42 (Iraqforce + Paiforce) and after August 42 (Persia and Iraq Command)). Makes sense since the former were combat formations and the latter a static HQ. What do you think? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to do it? Remember that Persia and Iraq Command page already exists. It just needs the redirect removing and text added. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

How do we remove the redirect?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Go to the Persia and Iraq Command page. It of course redirects to Iraqforce. But under the page title you will see it says

A start-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Persia and Iraq Command)

Click on Persia and Iraq Command and it will take you to the actual page. To remove the redirect click on edit, delete #REDIRECT [[Iraqforce]] and replace it with normal text. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Spring 1945 Offensive in Italy

Well, there is no reference about any knowledgment by the Germans about allied plan on that sector in my former edit.

Anyway, versions apart, do you know, have or know someone who have the english version of a Book Wrote by Maj.Gen. Willis D.Crittenberg about the Campaign of US IV Corps on Nortwest of Italy ? The one I saw was a 1960's Portuguese version "Campanha ao noroeste da Itália". So, if you could help me I'll appreciate. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.176.39 (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I was only talking about German knowledge of Allied plans because you were using a German source. German sources tend to be more accurate on German plans and casualties. No, I can't find the Crittenberger book. I did a search at WorldCat but only found Campanha ao Noroeste da Italia. : Narrativa do Q G do IV Corpo comandado pelo Ten Gen. Willis D. Crittenberger listed (originally published 1952). It's a bit of a mystery - I assume there would have been an English language version! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference

Thanks for fixing that, viz. You beat me to the punch. I tried to fix it at the same time. Romaioi (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference format

Hi Kirrages,

Can you please explain about the metadata purposes? I actually had the format I use from a wikipedia editor [[User:Bzuk|Bzuk] who suggested I should use this:

==References==
;Notes

(if columns are warranted)

;Bibliography

* Bowyer, Chaz. Hampden Special. Shepperton, Surrey, UK: Ian Allan Ltd., 1976. ISBN 0-7110-0683-0.
* Clayton, Donald C. Handley Page, an Aircraft Album. Shepperton, Surrey, UK: Ian Allan Ltd., 1969. ISBN 0-7110-0094-8.
* Donald, David and Lake, Jon., eds. Encyclopedia of World Military Aircraft. London: AIRtime Publishing, 1996. ISBN 1-880588-24-2.
* Green, William and Swanborough, Gordon. WW2 Aircraft Fact Files: RAF Bombers, Part 2. London: Jane's Publishing Company Ltd., 1981. ISBN 0-7106-0118-2.

If you see my contributions you might understand why I do not use the wonky reference formats, saves ages of typing.Dirk P Broer (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely understand but here is an extract from the {{Template:Cite book}} discussion page which may help:

You shouldn't use |page= and |pages= for anything but identifying the pages you're referring to, because this template uses microformats to make reference details available to other programs (e.g., browser-based tools) and it uses these two parameters in a way that is only appropriate for page numbers, not counts of pages.

I guess the point is that using free text does not organise the information into microformats. Having said that, using the template is optional so typing the info as text is still considered acceptable in the manual of style. I tend to use the template, especially in complex cases (e.g. where the book is one of several volumes or part of a series) because I can never remember the formatting conventions and the template deals with it! Regards Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 09:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Making Edits On Italian-related Military Topics

Hi Stephen,

Hope you had a good xmas. I'm not sure if you have managed to get a copy of the Sadkovich paper I flagged to you but it would be a copyright violation to upload it to WP. I've started to make some content additions at Military history of Italy during World War II, supported by numerous citations (interestingly, those who try to throw mud do not cite very much), but only a couple of these come from Sadkovich. After a few reads there isn't a tremendous amount of new material in the Sadkovich article (that can't be found with some digging elsewhere, but its very succinct), just a few key bits of information and criticism of Rommel. Seeing that you appear know quite a bit about Rommel I will let you know when I make the relevant additions (which will draw from Sadkovich - might take a while before I get there, as its already occupied ample time). I'm letting you know for two reasons; 1) it would be nice to have someone with a level head read over my additions before the mudslingers get started, and 2) as I imagine the socks might want to embellish on this, you could probably help me keep them at bay.

By the way. There are two Regio Esercito pages; link1, link1. These two combined with Italian Army seam will ultimately result in much duplication. A merge could be justified. What do you think?

PS. do you know how to create your own userbox?

Sincerely, Romaioi (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

1) OK, I'm happy to do some copyedit but I don't expect to be doing much over the holiday season. 2) You're probably right that the Italian Army articles could take some rationalisation but I don't feel connected enough to them to do it myself. 3) Not sure what you mean by a userbox but have you tried using the {{Userbox}} template?. Regards. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 11:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

On 2). I certainly wouldn't ask you to do it yourself. I'd be willing to have a go with some assistance from all who are willing, but was just seeing if you may have felt the same. Before I attempt anything I'm going to have to find what the procedure is (have fired a query off to an EdJohnston). Thanks for pointing me towards the template. Have a good holiday break. Cheers Romaioi (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of San Pietro Infine

Hello,

Just a note of thanks for your work on the Battle_of_San_Pietro_Infine. I put it up originally about two years ago and did a little on it and then left it alone. I have a 94-year-old American friend and neighbor here in Naples, Italy, who was in that battle (and all the others in Italy!). He inspired me to write the original entry. I've showed him the article as it now stands in Wikipedia and he was moved by the quality of the article (as well as by his own memories of the events, I imagine). It really looks good. Thanks, again. Jeffmatt (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 10:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

XIII Corps/WDF

To avoid splitting the discussion, I've responded at Talk:Western Desert Force. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 11:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Brevity

Howdy :)

I have started the FAC ball rolling for Brevity: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Brevity

I know you have also done quite a bit of work on the article so thought you should also know :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd picked this up in my watchlist. Fingers crossed...Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 16:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[3] Thanks for correcting. I can add good information and get the facts correct, but I should have checked the style results. --KP Botany (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Playfair

One word - Bugger!!! Ill double check all the ISBNs on my templates and then go over them again. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed my templates and stared correcting stuff, but ill work through the desert war articles tomorrow.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Top Man! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok i think ive sorted them all out now. As for why i had added some honours but not others - god knows why! Am down with manflu at the moment and thats the excuse am sticking to! :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

lol am going to strangle you! :)

Although if we do that for the Navy guys, do we also do it for the Royal Artillery chaps who have RA after there names?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorted it all now! :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim

I have reverted your copy edits to the above. To avoid a stupid revert war can you please put your reasons for any such change on to the talk page. I remind you that the matter has some importance in Australia and gets coverage all the time. Thanks for your time. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have put in a slab of material from a 2007 essay from a very conservative magazine on this matter in the article talk page. You may care to read it before reverting out of hand. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sir Arthur Harris, 1st Baronet

Copyedit form my home page: Re your recent reversions my my edits to the above article. I would like to point out that the book formatting is entirely consistent with almost all other WWII Military history articles (although some of the citations were still inconsistent, I was going to deal with that later) and the separation of footnotes (ie comments) and citations is also common and useful, making the comments easier to read (few people actually want to read citations so it makes sense to separate them). Putting book references into {{cite book}} templates preserves the book metadata which is used by the wiki programme for various data organisation, search etc purposes. Regards Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stephen Kirrage, it appears that we were both editing the Sir Arthur Harris article at the same time. The resaon for my rather stringent editing was that I found a bevy of tiny errors: lack of full bibliographic records, date inconsistencies and some general POV comments that attracted my attention. I had once worked on this article and with editor David Underdown's help, had moved it along a bit. It has recently received notice by being the object of interest of an editor known for Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, especially in regards to major military figures. As to referencing and bibliographic styles, I tend to rely on traditional style guides that are prevalent in the publishing and even in our Wikywonderland. I hope you can see the benefits of the edits that were made, all entirely to advance the development of the article. Not really a subject of fascination of mine, but nonetheless, I will certainly like to work cooperatively with you or any other editor on this article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

The way you are doing a bibliographic record is one of the main problems. This is an article in need of help and having a practiced and reliable system is what was implemented. Check over the edits, nothing is changed, merely the method of presentation. If you read any footnote/endnote, you will see that it is a combined note; making a separate section is not necessary with the limited notes in this article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

The connection to the Modern Language Association (MLA) guide is already established. The reader goes from Notes to Bibliography to see the connection. There is no real advantage to rewriting the cites or ref notes into templated form. There has been an ongoing discussion about the use of templates since I began WickyWacky world. It centres around the need to have newcomers and those unfamiliar with bibliographic record markups, with a system that can be used as a "drop and drag" template. Unfortunately, the first seers of the project were unable to create a proper template that accommodated the various style guides including MLA, Chicago Style and the most prolific, the APA Style (American Psychological Association) which I personally abhor as it throws out the place of publication and links the author to the date of publication rather than the work. However, I digress, in my 34+ years as a Librarian, I have used or been intimately acquainted with virtually every style guide for publication. What I now use as a writer and editor (yes, there is a life outside Wikipedia) is a "house" guide that is determined by the publisher. My work is predominately historical (I almost wrote hysterical, but that's not far off the mark) and my editing is for a trade journal on aviation (both current and history pieces). FWiW, the Wiki templates extant are an amalgam of two or three style guides, most notably the APA, but it is a hybrid not found in any other source. Bzuk (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

Canajan, I is

Steven, you have discovered my Achilles heel. Most editors merely look at the userid and figure it is "BZ" from the "UK", a notion which still gets me in stitches. I never intended to mask my identity and since I am a prolific author (NOT!), the idea of self-promotion is not far from my ever-waking thoughts. (LOL, all the above, taken with a large dose of tongue in cheek...) FWiW (not much in today market economy, as well, you probably have also guessed what my signoff in Wiky stands for) Bzuk (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

Er I can't claim to have spent long on this. After all, the waving flag and your name in full on your User page was a bit of a giveaway! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 16:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I should also mention that you may wish not to be involved in a peripheral activity with User:Wallie who has confused you with another editor. It may be case of "Letting sleeping dogs lie." FWiW (note the contemporary placement of the period/stop) Bzuk (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

Good advice. Wallie (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Operation Olive

Shouldn't it redirect rather to the Battle of Rimini?Xx236 (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Trouble is that in the English bibliography I don't ever see it referred to as the Battle of Rimini - only on that Italian website. Fair enough but Wikipedia style guidelines say that "An article should generally be placed at the most common name used to refer to the event". Arguably the Gothic Line article should just be a description of the physical entity and the fighting described in other articles. But it isn't. So the current redirects make more sense, particularly since the Battle of Rimini article is currently a stub. Regards. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 19:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Harold Alexander

Thanks for fixing up my orders/decorations/etc. bungles on Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis. I admit that British honours are a bit beyond my expertise. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Operation Crusader citation tag

Hello, Kirrages: I will accept your reversion of my removal of a `citation needed' tag in Operation Crusader, but I will mildly protest. It looks to me that the reference to `Operation Crusader order of battle' gives the needed reference, although I have not checked out its references to see if it holds water. As you are the person who supplied the reference, I will defer to your opinion, but I will ask you to reconsider. PKKloeppel (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The required citation is for the 1,000 planes. I can't find a reference for this - although I have found one for 16 combat squadrons at the time of Alamein (Allied squadrons had nowhere near 60 aircraft per squadron, more like 20 max). Any thoughts? I'll put a note in the tag to clarify this. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 09:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just supplied a bunch of citations to the info box including personnel, tank, plane strengths and personnel casualties. British Official History which was the source i consulted for these figures does not support 1000 planes. However i have not edited the main text with this information and am currently working through my only other source i currently own for Gazala which is the Rommel Papers which so far also does not support said figures.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit: In an editoral comment made by Liddle-Hart within the Rommel Papers on p. 158 he claims the British had close to 1,100 serviceable planes. However unless supported by other evidence that i have yet to see i would not believe such a number based off the figure given by playfair who seems rather crediable when it comes to allied figures as he is quoted quite allot.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I buy that. I would trust the Rommel / Liddel Hart numbers for the Axis strength and casualties more than Playfair numbers which would be based on intelligence estimates I imagine - sometimes pretty good but not always, trust Playfair for Allied strength and casualties for the same but converse reasons. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Playfair had access to all the captured Axis documents, so his figures are not necessarily based on intel estimates, but rather on Axis period documents. 193.128.202.131 (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Order of battles

Hi Kirrage,

I have noted that you have made numerous edits on various different orders of battles in the past. I was thinking of attempting to basically standardise as many as possible and well I have came looking for advice.

I have had a brief chat here regarding how best to lay them out but haven’t had much feedback: Wikipedia talk:Accessibility#Order of Battles although what advice that has been given has been good.

So far there seems to be 2 basic lay outs, one which is a continuous line of information such as Operation Epsom order of battle and one where each Corps is a sub section and each division of that Corps is separated from each other ala British Expeditionary Force order of battle (1940).

Personally I find both easy to read but am trying to gain some feedback on what way is the most effective before I start making changes to several ones I have made or heavily edited. Any input?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I prefer to see some use of sub-headings especially for the bigger orders of battle so that the Contents box gives some idea of the shape of the force and facilitates navigation when one is wanting to look at a particular part of the OOB. Specifically, I think Epsom should be broken up a bit for these reasons. I think the use of bold does not help (nor do caps) in making the commanders' names stand out - it just makes it look too busy. Sub-headings do help to spread the layout and make things more readable in my opinion. Why, by the way, in the Epsom OOB are units in bold and commanders not for the Allied OOB and the other way round for the German one? Awesome work on the citations for Epsom OOB by the way! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 16:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the comments. Ill have a play around with the OOB and try and split it up a bit akin to the BEF one - split like that i think will make the use of bold redundant.

The Epsom one is half done half not - i was using the top half as a bit of a sandbox applying all the suggested changes to it before doing the bottom half, to save one the hassel of extra work if different decissions were made on the accessability talk page.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A bit edit has been made to the order of battle to reflect this discussion, any thoughts on it?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Would be interested in your view here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Crusader_order_of_battle 193.128.202.131 (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's all here and it's not very confusing. Although British brigadiers were not of general rank and US ones bwere, they did thwe same job: commanding brigades! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 14:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

But German Generalmajore did not command brigades, they commanded divisions. So where does that leave us? 193.128.202.131 (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Epsom OOB, since presumably on the British side the 2nd Army was subordinate to 22nd Army Group, and VIII Corps to 2nd Army (and similarly on the German side), would it be better to progressively lower the header level to show the subordination, much as you use different levels of bullets for divisions/brigades/battalions? I've given it a quick try and it looks OK to me. David Underdown (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-Iraqi War question

In the article their is the following paragraph:

Colonel Ouvry Lindfield Roberts, the senior staff officer (GSO1) of 10th Indian Division, was flown in to command the Habbaniya ground forces. Two World War I howitzers that had been decorating the entrance of the officers' mess were put in working order by some British gunners.

Does the ref from Mackenzie cover both Roberts action and the activation of the two howizters? Does Mackenzie also give a date for when the howizters were put into action agaisnt the rebels? Cheers--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Map question

In the A-class review of my article on Albert Kesselring, one of the reviewers had a query about a map. (File:ItalyDefenseLinesSouthofRome1943 4.jpg):

"The diagram captioned "German defensive lines south of Rome" is tagged as GFDL-self but lists no sources. The specific sources used should be clarified, both for attribution and to avoid OR."

Riggggghht. Anyway, if you could have a look for me, it would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

OK done that. Took a bit of time to recall the sources I used in 2006!! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 00:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit on April 11

You eliminated a number of paragraphs in your April 11 edit, including this one:

Allies final offensive of the year fails

The Allies started a buildup for another attack, and were ready by late December, 1942. The continued but slow buildup had brought Allied force levels up to a total of 54,000 British, 73,800 American, and 7,000 French troops. A hasty intelligence review showed about 125,000 combat and 70,000 service troops, mostly Italian, in front of them.

On the night of 16-17 December a company of the U.S. 1st Infantry Division, led by Captain Stephen B. Morrissey, made a successful raid on Meknassy, 155 miles (250 km) south of Tunis, and took twenty-one Italian prisoners. The main attack began the afternoon of 22 December, despite rain and insufficient air cover, elements of the U.S. 1st Infantry Division's 18th Regimental Combat team and 2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards of 78th Division's Guards Infantry Brigade made progress up the lower ridges of the 900-foot (270 m) Longstop Hill that controlled the river corridor from Medjez to Tebourba and thence to Tunis. By the morning of 23 December the Coldstreams had driven back the elements of German 10th Panzer Division on the summit were then relieved by 18 RCT and were withdrawn to Mejdez. The Germans regained the hill in a counter-attack and the Coldstreams were ordered back to Longstop. The next day they had regained the peak and with 18 RCT dug in. However, by 25 December, with ammunition running low and Axis forces now holding adjacent high ground, the Longstop position became untenable and the Allies were forced to withdraw to Medjez[32] and by 26 December 1942 the Allies had withdrawn to the line they had set out from two weeks earlier, having suffered 20,743 casualties.

The Allied run for Tunis had been stopped.

I would like to know why you did this, because you have therefore omitted a reference to my father's participation in the raid on Meknassy. I urge you to replaced the excised passages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.254.245 (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't normally respond to anonymous comments - it seems that you should have the courtesy to sign comments on Talk pages (as laid down in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). However, I'll make an exception here. You'll notice that I made a number of edits to shorten the Run for Tunis section of the Tunisia Campaign article. The Reason was that I had created a subsidiary Run for Tunis article which contains all the detail. The campaign article should therefore only summarise events and so I took out some of the nitty gritty detail. The detail still can be found here. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 19:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

So where do we draw the line on nations?

As you may have noticed some annon has just added half the world to the infobox of Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II. Other than the fact a bunch of countries added didnt actually exist at the time, where do we draw the line? With the main allied partipants?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. This crops up quite a lot and I suppose that there ought to be a policy consensus. Perhaps something that the Milhist Project crowd could address. I'm not really a "joiner" so I'm not a member (my excuse, albeit pretty lame, for ducking this one....!). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 22:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Translated title

Hi Stephen,

The trans_title parameter allows adding a translated title in case the original is in a foreign language. See for example the documentation for {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}} and {{cite web}}, where it's already implemented and documented. I tried adding it to {{cite book}} and {{cite press release}}, and in both cases I am somewhat unhappy with the results, so I have kept off on officially documenting it there. Although it seems to work, it seems that in both cases the URLs are linked against the unquoted 'title' parameter. On the other hand, the trans_title "prefers" to be formatted as square brackets inside double quotes. So what happens with these problem cases is that the translation ends up inside its own double quotes, separate from the linked foreign title. I am not sure what the MOS recommends for these cases (if anything), and don't want to modify the normal behavior of these templates, so I am still trying to find out the best solution. Your feedback would be more than welcome. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that in the current "cite book" template, the chapter title and book title have a different format. The chapter title is formatted inside double quotes, and the translation is then added naturally after the foreign original, in square brackets inside the encompassing double quotes. For example: "Foreign title [Translated title]". The book title, on the other hand, is currently italicized, possibly linked, with no quotes of any kind around it. For clarity, the translation "prefers" to be inside square brackets and inside outer double quotes, and it can't find any here, so if no chapter is provided, a separate entry is created for the translated book title, with square brackets inside double quotes. So the issue is the existing format of the book titles, which I prefer not to modify without a wide consensus. Do you have any solution to this formatting dilemma, ignoring the technical aspects? Crum375 (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what would happen if chapter and title were both enclosed inside separate double quotes? Which one would the translated title "choose" to cuddle up with?! I've lodged a query on the Template talk:Cite book Talk Page asking if anyone knows why the formatting of title varies from template to template. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean if the user added the quotes to the titles when invoking the template? I don't think that would be desirable (unless the title is in itself a quote), and it shouldn't change anything as far as the translated title behavior. If you are asking about a modified version of the templates, then it would depend on the way they are modified. Crum375 (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The user fiddling with the formatting negates a key purpose of a template (to give uniformity). No I meant if the template was adjusted. However, I see someone has already given an explanation why title is in italics - which suggests that getting consensus for such a change would be an uphill struggle. How difficult would it be to alter the coding so that the translated title prefers to be in square brackets next to italic text rather than text enclosed in inverted commas? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem I see, ignoring technical issues, is that a translation in square brackets sitting separate from the original text, with no enclosing quotations, may be confusing. Also, we then need to decide: if the foreign title is linked, should the translation also? And should the translation be italicized too? These are all MOS-type questions, and they need to be settled before implementation, since implementing it effectively dictates a specific style. Crum375 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If the title is to remain in italics but without enclosing quotations then I think the translation in square brackets must be adjacent to the tile, must be in italics and must be linked to the same url as title (if linked). Maybe one could get the template changed to have title in italics AND enclosed in quotes - I see that {{cite newsgroup}} formats this way. That would make the association between the title and translated title more obvious (although I think the translation should still be in italics). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made some changes which may do what you want. There is a new optional user parameter, trans_chapter, for a translated chapter title. All the rest should be the same. See your examples on my talk page. Crum375 (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant!! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 19:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

British English in Erwin Rommel

I don't have detailed knowledge of "British English" spelling variations from my native 'merican. Is it ALWAYS ise instead of ize'? I see motorized, for example. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 23:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Confusingly many people seem to think that the British spelling requires "ise" but if you look up "motorize" in the Concise Oxford Dictionary it is listed as the principal spelling with the side note "(also -ise)". Overenthusiastic editors often believe "-ise" to be the 'British' version and so replace instances of "-ize". In fact either version is acceptable. The main differences occur in words like: "armour", "harbour" etc where the US version has no "u"; "theatre" and "centre" where the US version transposes the "r" and "e"; and "defence" and "licence" where the US uses and "se" rather than "ce" (although, bafflingly the British version uses an "s" in the verb version - so "a licence" but "to license" although I note that the COD gives "licence" as acceptable alternative "license" in the verb version). I hope that's clear now....!! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 09:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

oh yeah, crystal clear...!! I google searched for motorised and found it as a dictionary entry, so it got me wondering. I am, for the most part, just curious. I will leave converting your direction to you folk and (when it bothers me enough, which isn't often), convert our way when it is appropriate. Thanks! (John User:Jwy talk) 17:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Denys Reid

Stephen, Thanks for the help in Wikipaedi-formatting my additions. Haven't done this before and am complete computer numpty anyway. As well as his Record of Service there are further refs in Anthony Brett-James' 'Ball of Fire'; General Eustace D'Souza's works especially 'A Royal Tribute - a history of the 5th Bn The Maratha Light Infantry 1800-2005'; the 'Tiger' trilogy (The Tiger Strikes, The Tiger Kills, The Tiger Triumphs); 'Teheran to Trieste - the story of the Tenth Indian Division'; and interesting maps / photos in 'The Abyssinian Campaigns - the official story of the conquest of Italian East Africa'. There are also other papers of his which presumably I can't use as they are non verifiable. Best Wishes, Alastair Reid 90.241.185.100 (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Terrific work by the way - I'm very keen to see this article developed because my Dad was Reid's AQ at 10th Indian Div. and thought the world of him. However, it's important that all the sources are listed under the References heading - put them in alpha order of author - it's easy to use the {{Cite book}} template to keep the formatting consistent. Just copy an existing entry and overwrite the parameter fields or if you want to know more about this template follow the link in the previous sentence to see detailed instructions how it is used. It's also important to support individual bits of info with "in-line" citations. This is easiest done as you add stuff to the article. So If you add something you found in the Brett-James book, then under the References heading you should have
* {{cite book| first=Antony| last=Brett-James| url=http://ourstory.info/library/4-ww2/Ball/fireTC.html#TC |title=Ball of fire - The Fifth Indian Division in the Second World War| publisher=Gale & Polden| year=1951}}
which renders as
* Brett-James, Antony (1951). Ball of fire - The Fifth Indian Division in the Second World War. Gale & Polden.
You can see that the title of the book is linked to the index page of the on-line version.
You should also have in-line citations by the actual facts included in the form <ref>Brett-James, p. xx.<ref/> which renders a footnote "Brett-James, p. xx." in the Footnotes section because of the {{Reflist}} template placed there. I notice that the online version of Brett-James has no pagination so actually it would be better to have an in-line citation in the form <ref name="Brett10">Brett-James, Chapter X.</ref>. This renders the same footnote as before ("Brett-James, Chapter X.") but if you then have a second piece of info cited from Chapter X you use <ref name="Brett10"/> and the two footnotes are consolidated as one. The name "Brett10" is arbitrary by the way, I made up something that was logical to me.
By the way, if you have an online version of the book, it is very helpful to link each footnote to the appropriate online page. In this case, the first Chapter X footnote would be <ref name="Brett10">Brett-James, [http://ourstory.info/library/4-ww2/Ball/fire06.html#ch10 Chapter X]</ref>. This will turn the words "Chapter X" in the footnote into blue text which when clicked links directly to the url ("http:.....etc) which is the start of Chapter X.
My concern with the article now is that there is a lot of stuff which is unreferenced and I wondered if you would be prepared to give it a go? I'd be happy to keep an eye on it and help out where needed. If you want to know more about the nuts and bolts of citation a a good place to start is WP:CT. If you want to learn more about when to cite sources and citation style you could have a look at WP:CITE.
PS. It's not good practice to enter into a Talk Page discussion such as this when you are logged in as an anonymous IP address (in this case 90.241.185.100) because next time you re-boot your computer you will be assigned a different IP address and lose all track of you Wikipedia history. It's best to register yourself as a Wikipedia user and get yourself a Wikipedia ID. RegardsStephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 10:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

VMT. Will try as soon as pressing family commitments allow. There is a photo of 10th Ind Div HQ Staff (which includes your father) at New Year 1945 in the book 'Teheran to Trieste'. Thanks for your kind help and advice. Alastair Reid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.185.100 (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

OMG I've been looking for a copy of Teheran to Trieste for years. Where did you find yours?! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It was Denys's. Probably not protocol but drop me a line at alastair.reid@fsmail.net and I'll send you the picture. Kind Regards, Alastair Reid 90.241.185.100 (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(Further to my last - no joy on email - perhaps I am spam)

  What, by the way, was the official history of the Abyssinian campaign? 

"The Abyssinian Campaigns - the official story of the conquest of Italian East Africa", HMSO, 1942. Issued by the Ministry of Information for the War Office, it has 145 pages, 14 maps and 140 photographs covering: The Shadow behind Suez; The Attack from the North; The Path of the Emperor; The Attack from the South; and The Search for the Scattered Armies.

There are 3 available; contact me for details if no joy with your email. Kind regards, Alastair90.241.185.100 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

2NZ Div

Hi Kirrages - Im certain it was Clarke who withdrew the NZ, Brit and Indian Divisions to create the NZ Corps, not Alexander! Do you have a specific reference which shows it was Alexander? He (Alexander) conceded and approved of the Clarke's decision. Thanks for correcting all the difficult technical things in the article... im still learning about all of those elaborate formats and styles! Farawayman (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No it's purely the fact that Clark, as 5th Army commander, had no authority over 8th Army formations and was not in a position to issue orders to them until a superior authority had attached them to 5th Army. Can you imagine that Clark told Monty what to do.....I don't think so?!! No, only Alexander had the authority, as Army Group commander, to withdraw formations from 8th Army into Army Group Reserve and then allocate the AG Reserve to 5th Army. By the way, I don't get how Clark could possibly have thought Freyberg could give him orders. Even when the corps was AG Reserve Freyberg had no authority over 5th Army. I think the issue was that Freyberg was old and experienced and Clark feared that Freyberg, although his subordinate, would challenge his plans and orders. This was a common problem during the period after the US joined the war when US commanders had little or no combat experience and felt threatened by their more experienced British colleagues. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 11:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I re-checked the sources - I assumed that the NZ Div was already under 5th Army command. But you are correct - they were moved from 8th Army by Alexander. Farawayman (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)