Tttom

Guideline notes to myself

1. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction): "As the Wikipedia servers are located in the U.S. state of Florida, Wikipedia articles must conform to U.S. copyright laws. It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work, or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation. This may apply irrespective of the way information is presented, in or out of universe, or in some entirely different form such as a quizbook or "encyclopedia galactica". Information about copyrighted fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible". Many works of fiction covered by Wikipedia are protected by copyright. Some works are sufficiently old that their copyright has expired, or the rights may have been released into the public domain."

2."Details of creation, development, etc. relating to a particular fictional element are more helpful if the reader understands the role of that element in the story. This often involves providing plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations. By convention, these synopses should be written in the present tense, as this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed. At any particular point in the story there is a 'past' and a 'future', but whether something is 'past' or 'future' changes as the story progresses. It is simplest to recount the entire description as continuous 'present'."

3a. "Secondary information: The term secondary information describes external information usually taken from and preferably backed up with secondary sources. Please note that publications affiliated with a particular work of fiction (e.g. fan magazines), are mostly not considered suitable secondary sources."

3b. "Definition of secondary sources: In historical scholarship, a secondary source is a study written by a scholar about a topic, and using primary sources and other secondary sources."

4. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules: "The following is policy on the English Wikipedia, and according to Jimbo Wales, it "always has been". Ignore all rules was Wikipedia's first rule to consider. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."Tttom1 18:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

5. Typical instances of tertiary sources are bibliographies, library catalogs, directories, reading lists and survey articles. Encyclopedias and textbooks are examples of materials that typically embrace both secondary and tertiary sources, presenting on the one hand commentary and analysis, while on the other attempting to provide a synoptic overview of the material available on the topic.

6. "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity" ". "The person must have been the subject of published[1] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject".From WP:BIO

• Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Policy shortcuts: WP:BUROWP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community.Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

List of Pyrrhic Victories

• Battle of Chosin Reservoir, Battle of the Imjin River, Battle of Guilford Court House, Battle of Cowan's Ford, Battle of Bunker Hill, Battle of Badajoz (1812), Battle of Grozny (1994–1995), Battle of Prague, Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, Battle of Lützen (1632), Battle of Hab, Battle of Lansdowne, Battle of Modder River, Siege of Sevastopol (1854–1855) - Battle of Yalu River (1904), Battle of Nanshan, Siege of Port Arthur, Battle of Mukden, Battle of Kosovo, Battle of Mount Ortigara, Battle of Gumbinnen, Battle of Loos, Battle of Mars-la-Tour, Battle of Crete,Battle of Petsamo (1939). Tttom1 (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Chains

Thanks for making an edit at Old Rouen tramway to link to chain (length).

I was unsure about whether to measure things in chains; I wrote as such on its talk page shortly after translating it. It's a somewhat unusual measure these days, but is frequently used on British railway lines (not the most modern ones though, I think). Do you think it would be better to put it in miles or yards (whichever is more appropriate for the magnitude of the distance)?

I'd appreciate your opinion. A wholesale change won't be difficult, of course. You might prefer to reply on the article's talk page.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Tttom's Glory; Or, The Stub's Defeat

I think you deserve some plaudits for that heroic sequence of edits to Battle of Cartagena de Indias. Cheers. Albrecht (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Good to hear.Tttom1 (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Got it up to B class.Tttom1 (talk) 05:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Tolkien calendar images

Hi Tom, I just noticed that some of the images you uploaded to Commons were also published in the 2009 Elendilion calendar and maybe elsewhere too. Even though you state in the image licenses that you are the owner, that might not suffice for some of the Wikimedia copyright experts since anyone can create an account here and claim to be Tom Loback. I'd recommend sending an email associated with your name to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org stating that you did in fact upload a list of files named xyz for use on Wikipedia as user TTThom. That way you're on the safe side and the images might not experience a nasty deletion tag one day. The "has been published before" argument would also be a nice cover against the fan-art removals as of today. See also this guideline.

And that said, I really enjoy your art. De728631 (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Melle

The Battle of Fontenoy was great and I had no problem assessing it as B-class. However, the Battle of Melle needs more citations. Please see my notes at the Melle discussion page. After you tweak it, let me know and I'll look at it again. Djmaschek (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Balrog

Hello!

I want to use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GOTHMOG-1.jpg for my record label logo. Are you the owner of this picture? And if yes, do I have your permission to use it?

/Peter Eklund Balrog Records Stockholm, Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiremen (talk • contribs) 17:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am the artist of the original piece as well as the digital image. I would need some additional information about your record label before I can make a decision.Tttom1 (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

advice

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Blitzkrieg. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Heer

I have added tags to Mosier's citations marked dubious. I usually don't question academic sources, and perhaps it is not the source, but how you've worded the paragraph. Mosier's book relating to the suppposed myths of the First World War - effectively arguing the nonsense the Allies would not have won without American support - received very bad reviews by MilHist journals. He generally worships the Germans, at least that is how he comes across. But my question is: 1) How can the German officer corps be labelled a success when it failed? 2) How can German leadership have been superior when it failed at strategy, military intelligence and logistics? 3) The US officer corps was many times larger than any other power. Mosier has got it right that the German officer corps was larger than both France and the US in the FWW, but in the SWW, regarding the US, it is not the case. Can you clarify? PS. I'm having a go at the source, not you. Dapi89 (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Mosier relies on a number of other sources as seen in his footnotes to the concluding chapter: Dupuy, Marshall, many others. He address the accusations of 'idealization' of the Germans as implicitly degrading the performance of their opponents and refers them to Dupuy's work. He argues that the high German officer cadre to soldier ratio meant the leadership was "more than able to compensate for the growing parity" also quotes Dupuy as to the relative merits of American to German leadership, perhaps he only means superior rather than larger for the Americans, he doesn't give the American absolute numbers or the ratio of officers to men. He is measuring 'success' by several standards besides the final result, and not just during the 'happy times', again he relies considerably on Dupuy. But what I wrote seems to be the gist of his conclusions, I may be conflating larger and superior in regards to the Americans - I don't know the ratio and he doesn't say, but 'superior' would be a fair representation - summing up that chapter in a single concise sentence might be an overreach on my part. I did add 'larger' later as he specifically states that in regards to the French. Its an American army and has tons of everything, including officers, not nearly as many as in Viet Nam where there was something like 2 or 3 officers per private- if my friends' reminiscences are correct, a very long tail as they say- but I'm sure plenty. Maybe I'm extrapolating from his deriving this from WWI and the German larger retained cadre - which, presumably, applies to the Americans as well since, I think, its doubtful the Americans retained a large WWI cadre being, as you say, smaller in the first place.Tttom1 (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Zulu overdone firearm sentence

You say there is "nothing wrong with that sentence". While it is apparent that the Zulu had a serious lack of understanding of how to properly handle their guns, a quick read of the rest of the article shows how the sentence you have reverted to is over the top.

Quoting it: "Zulu fire, both from those under the wall and around Oscarberg, began to find its mark. Corporal Schiess was shot in the leg, and then lost his hat to a Zulu shot; Commissary Dalton, leaning over the parapet to shoot a Zulu, was wounded in the shoulder by a bullet and dragged out of the line to have his wound dressed; Keefe, 'B' Company's drummer, suffered a skin wound to the head; Corporal Scammell, of the NNC, was shot in the back, and Private Byrne, attempting to help him, was killed by a shot to the head, as was 'Old King' Cole, another private in 'B' Company (see below at hospital section). The suppressive fire from the mountain only grew worse; Privates Scanlon, Fagan and Chick were slain. Five of the 17 killed, or died of wounds, were struck at the Front wall."

Zulu fire was heavily suppressive and killed Five of the Seventeen slain.

In light of this, the sentence you have re-added, "their marksmanship training was very poor, quality and supply of powder and shot dreadful, maintenance non-existent and the Zulu attitude...etc" is over the top. This is why I shortened it to the more reasonable "However, their marksmanship training was poor and the Zulu attitude...etc".

Overemphasising the lack of Zulu firearm skill and weaponry does not make sense in light of the fact that nearly a third of British deaths came from Zulu firearms.

Do you not agree?Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't. None of those sentences above have citations and the imbalance is in the opinion of that editor characterizing the Zulu fire as 'heavily suppressive'. It is both anachronistic and over the top. Do the Zulus have a concept of 'suppressive fire' ? No, of course they don't. This is an example of the imbalance that permeates this article.

If you want to improve this article start finding citations for statements that don't have them. The parts I added about the Zulus are covered by the citations I gave when I added them. Is the editor who put that in seriously saying that Zulu fire was effective based on 5 casualties? If anything it demonstrates just the opposite, that Zulu fire was pathetically ineffective. How many Zulus are hit by fire, hundreds - how are the British able to do this if the Zulu fire was 'heavily suppressive'? Tttom1 (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

---The difference being that British were firing from fortified positions while the Zulu's were in the open or firing from distance (the hills). Also, it was not '5 casualties' but 5 actual deaths out of the 17 total deaths, how many of the 14 wounded were from firearms I cannot say but if it is similiar to the ratio seen in the deaths then you could likely add another 4 minimum for a total of 9 casualties from 22. Not inconsequential.

I agree that the line 'very suppressive' should be amended as it could also confuse a reader.

I cannot find reference to "supply of powder and shot dreadful, maintenance non-existent" in the ref provided. The ref (South African military society) does however contend that Zulu fire had "considerable nuisance value" and that the majority of Zulus were "mediocre" shots rather than 'very poor'. Also that the Zulus had the large number of (superior British) rifles captured from Isandlwana and put them to use.

Quote: "The firearms which had found their way into Zulu hands were mainly muzzle-loaders of cheap commercial manufacture. Individual Zulus, such as Chief Zibebu, one of Cetshwayo's generals, had become excellent marksmen; most others were mediocre shottists who tended to shoot high or close their eyes when pulling the trigger. However, the large number of rifles captured at Isandlwana were put to good use by the Zulus, and even if their fire was not highly accurate it had considerable nuisance value. Instances of this kind were reported in connection with the defence of Rorke's Drift and the attack on Khambula." end quote.

I am not debating that the Zulus were relatively poor shots and had (in comparison to the British) poor equipment, I am pointing out that the sentence in question will confuse the general reader into thinking that Zulu fire was useless and had no effect.

The fact that nearly a third of British deaths came from Zulu firearms shows that this is not so. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see & use talk page for article for this discussion.Tttom1 (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Rorke's Drift

See the discussion page for my reponse to you points about Henderson's NNH and Stephenson's NNC. Cheers! Catiline63 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion page, some issues of grammar and style! Cheers! Catiline63 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. Much appreciated! Catiline63 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Julian Whybra, England's Sons

http://www.rrw.org.uk/shop/shop.php?action=list&author=Julian+Whybra Published by Gift Ltd. 2004 No ISBN on my copy. Cheers! Catiline63 (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

OK I'll add publisher, but this sounds somewhat obscure work and not widely accessible. I'm not saying don't use it as a source, but it shouldn't be given undue weight over better known and more available material.Tttom1 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Although rather rare, his works' not that inaccessible. No less accessible than an article in the AZWHJ, for example. As for "better" material... well, only Holme approaches him, and if the successor regiment to the 24th Foot deems his worth good enough to sell, then it can't be bad. Might be worth you having a look on the Zulu War forums to see how well-regarded Whybra is, even by other professionals. Enthusiast to enthusiast, I strongly recommend you get a copy: while rather dry reading (lists, basically), it's very useful!! Catiline63 (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, I said 'better known', and that better known material carries more weight therefore in wp. As I say, use it but try not to give it undue weight.Tttom1 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the popularity or availability of a source has no bearing on its "weight" as a reliable source. Journal papers in particular are neither popular nor widely available but generally contain the most up-to-date research on a topic. I'd appreciate direction to the appropriate policy page if I'm wrong on this, though!!

As an aside, England's Sons is used by Snook (How Can Man Die Better p.312) and one of his journal papers is cited by Lock & Quantrill (Zulu Victory p.330), so the quality of his scholarship must be acceptable. After all "the scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse" (part of WP policy on reliable sources). Cheers! Catiline63 (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (The New York Times, Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." While other works by Mr. Whybra may be cited elsewhere Gift Ltd looks like a vanity press to me.Tttom1 (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV "Due and undue weight: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views."Tttom1 (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether you can call the book a vanity publication. I purchased my copy a couple of years ago in Foyles or Borders and I'm pretty certain that bookstores in the UK don't sell vanity publications. Nor does the British Army, whose Royal Regiment of Wales stock it alongside works by Knight, Holme, Jackson, etc etc. I can't see where NPOV applies here, as Whybra's data are not "minority views" but rather the result of the most recent genealogical research. Research that is accepted in the modern literature. Catiline63 (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No ISBN, very obscure publisher. Doesn't show up on Amazon or Google except for the odd ref and the single spot you gave, Whybra has a single mention in Lock for another work back in 1990. But, as I said in the first place, use it, but try not to give it undue weight. If what he says is in fact mainstream , then it should be easy to cite those views from other sources - no?Tttom1 (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Whybra's is not a "single reference" in Lock, but rather a place in the bibliography list. Older editions (the book is updated periodically) went by the title "Roll Call" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Roll-Call-Killed-Survivors-Isandhlwana/dp/1873058101 and http://www.bookfinder.com/author/julian-whybra/) and were by a different publisher. All of his stuff is footnoted, with reference to the relevant official archives (Regimental, Parliamentary, National), as well as to stuff like contemporary reports and accounts. Anyway, I don't forsee us needing him anymore in the article - except perhaps if we bother to query the identity of Adendorff's companion! 8o) Catiline63 (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

GAN for Battle of Cartagena de Indias

I nominated your article Battle of Cartagena de Indias a while ago for GA and it was only just recently reviewed. I thought I would bring your attention to it. You can read the review here Bernstein2291 ^{(Talk • Contributions • Sign Here)} 16:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination, I addressed the suggestions and resubmitted it.Tttom1 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I had never heard of this battle before reading this article, and I learned so much from it. Thank you. Bernstein2291 ^{(Talk • Contributions • Sign Here)} 02:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Spanish War again - Can you help?

Hi Ttom, apparently we are on the verge of another edit war regarding Anglo-Spanish War (1654–1660). User:Foobfairbanks questions the infamous "result" entry of the article, and keeps restoring the "Commonwealth victory" in spite of Military History infobox policies, WP:UNDUE (only one source claims "victory", with the caveat that it was costly) and WP:OR by advancing a position (outright victory) when a majority of sources stressed only a "success", focusing mostly on partial English achievements (I.E.: Jamaica and Dunkirk). Can you help to clarify things?. Thank you in advance.--Darius (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolved, thank you anyway. Cheers.--Darius (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Renomination of Cartagena article...

I'd be very happy to review this the second time around, but someone will need to renominate it a second time (I don't think that I can renominate it and re-review it!). If you'd like to do so, the steps to take are at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, and I'll then restart the reviewing process. Thanks for all the work on the article!Hchc2009 (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks I will do so now.Tttom1 (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Passed and updated - thanks for all the work! If you want to take it further (A class etc.) do let me know. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to critique and review it.Tttom1 (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for this. You know my wrists are still hurting from typing that out? I hope no one finds any more typos, though I wouldn't be surprised. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome - interesting article. Tttom1 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Fort Loudoun

Great job on Siege of Fort Loudoun. I added a few tidbits about the aftermath. Bms4880 (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks nice addition I'll clarify the context.Tttom1 (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Corunna

Dear Tttom, great work on the Battle of Corunna page - you have my admiration. Let's hope this puts paid to any further silliness, eh? Schpinbo (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The goal is to improve an article, not to rewrite it in the info box. I hope this holds up awhile - it didn't the last time. A lot of effort and writing goes into the argument about 2 lines in the info box. That much time and effort could get the article to Good Article status. Tttom1 (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree - what a pity that they're back at it now. Apparently using IP addresses instead of logging in is meant to give the impression of greater numbers. Keep up the good work! Schpinbo (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to second this. Fine work! Mcewan (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. The article is now up to 'B' rating and I have submitted it for Peer review. I hope with constructive efforts of other editors to get it up to 'Good Article' or 'A' status. Tttom1 (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Huon Peninsula campaign

G'day, Tttom. I appreciate your work on this article. Your copy edits look good. I've made a few tweaks this afternoon, but nothing too controversial I hope. Anyway, cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of the Dunes

Hello, Tttom. First of all, let my greet your work in expanding the article. It's much better now. However, I'd like to discuss some points, because, as the article seems based mostly in English narratives, some insights had been lost. There is an analysis of the battle by Antonio Cánovas del Castillo 1 (in Spanish, I don't now if you can deal with it) which uses French, Spanish and English sources and highlights several aspects that aren't in the article: the French-English superior numbers, the role played by the English fleet was decisive, and the lack of artillery by the Spanish, Condé, English Royalist army. Cánovas basically follows Napoleon's comment on the battle 2. He also claims that the Spanish and English Royalist cavalry broke the Cromwellian infantry at the foot of the dune and retook the height, but too late the change the sign of the battle.

Regards. Weymar Horren (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Weymar Horren, thank you for your kind comments. Previously the article was all about the Commonwealth English, a couple years back I added some of the English Royalist information, but it was still very one sided towards the English and lacking neutral POV - the reader was hardly aware that this is generally considered one of Turenne's great victories. I'll take a look at that Spanish version, I don't speak Spanish but managed with various translation programs to get the gist when I did the Battle of Cartagena de Indias some time back. So far, the consensus of English and French historians give the the sides even numbers, more or less, with the Spanish having more infantry and the French more cavalry on the field. I mentioned the role of the fleet, I don't believe its generally considered more decisive than the tide aspect and I covered the the fact that the Spanish out-march their artillery. There doesn't seem to be any practical reason (beyond those of the terrain that Turenne overcame) for them to have not brought artillery with them as Dunkirk is in no danger of falling that day, or the day after - in other words they could have waited for it, or marched up with it the next day.Tttom1 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are interested in check old sources, there is a digitalized Spanish relation on the 1658 campaign 1, and also a French one 2. The Duke of York's memories would also be interesting, given he was present at the battle and are in English, but I don't know if they are on the Internet. Regarding to the numbers, Cánovas claims the French-Cromwellian army was superior in infantry, while the Spanish-Royalist army had the advantage in cavalry, which is also stated in the Spanish relation above. The numer of English warships firing over the Spanish-Royalist troops may have to be included in the infobox. For the rest, the only point we can discuss is wether the Cromwellian infantry was broken or not.

Regards Weymar Horren (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Werner, I have moved this discussion to the article talk page: Talk:Battle of the Dunes (1658). We can continue it there. Thanks for the great information.Tttom1 (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There are Cite errors: <ref> tag defined in <references> has group attribute "" which does not appear in prior text on this page. Hope you can fix them. Thx. --Frze (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Meeting internal copyright

When you created Siege of Dunkirk you copied some text from the Battle of Dunes (Revision from 7 June 2013) including text that you had not added to that article (eg "The French corps of rebels on the left under the command of Condé retreated in good order"). When you copy text from one Wikipedia article to another you must follow the copyright policy and its guideline "Copying within Wikipedia". -- PBS (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Rewrote in own words.Tttom1 (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I meant (and what the guidance says). There was no need to change anything, all you had to do was attribute the copy. I did that for you (see this edit and the comment in the edit history). Just changing the text does not really help, for two reasons. The first is because I only pulled up that sentence as an example there were others. The second is more legalistic because of the licence under which Wikipedia is published. Such copy-left licences demand copyright acknowledgement in derivative works (as you did not delete all of the copied text and the structure remains the same, it is a derivative work). So by far the easiest method is to attribute the copy in the edit history.

There is also a practical editorial reason for the attributions in the edit history. Some time ago I can across an edit which I realised was a copy and a breach of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT (see here) This has led me to realise that a handful or editors about five years ago regularly copied text and short citations between Roman Catholic articles without including the long citations in the References sections. When they made these copies the editors did not mention that they were doing so let alone from where the copied text came. Without the minimum copy information as laid out in the guideline "Copying within Wikipedia", trying to find the entries for the references sections to go with the short citations is very time consuming (see for example Talk:Pope Benedict XV#Citations and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Unacknowledged internal copying and problems with citations).

It also protects you from accusations of deliberate copyright violations. See the history of the Whiggamore Raid, which recently was the subject of a copyright investigation. Because I had clearly placed an attribution in the edit history: "copied from Battle of Mauchline Muir", the copyright violation start was easy to see in the edit history making the job of the investigator easier and so was the fact although my edit inadvertently introduced the copyright violation, I was an innocent victim.

One other point which has nothing to do with the copy. You will notice that in the two articles, I have replaced some of your Google Book links with Internet Archive (IA) ones. This is because Google Books allows people in different counties different levels of access and over time often change the sections or whole books that are accessible. So if the book is available under the internet archive it is easier for everyone to access and many (most?) books that Google has scanned and are copyright expired are available in the IA website. As an added advantage the length of IA urls are much shorter which helps keep the article shorter and is easier to read in edit mode.

Word of warning though, for some time Google did not return the IA website in its searches, but they do at the moment, and generally Google's searches of [ book name site:archive.org ] are better at finding a book than the AI internal searches. -- PBS (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your good work on the article. So, if an editor cites, in the edit summary, a link to the article text is taken from that covers it?Tttom1 (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

short answer: yes. Longer answer: It is the minimum requirement. As the lead in the guidline says "Because of this, copying content from another page within Wikipedia requires supplementary attribution to indicate it. At minimum, this means a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied." -- PBS (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

British artillery at Isandlwana

The British guns at Isandlwana were 7-pounder "mountain guns" on "Kaffrarian" field carriages. These guns were referred to as mountain guns because they were lightweight and more portable than the standard 9-pounder field gun. So why did you revert my edit ? Please see http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol044dh.html and http://www.empressminiatures.com/BritishForces.pdf . Do you have more info about them ? Regards. Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I can only reiterate : The only "7 pounder" in British Army service at this time was the 3-inch mountain gun. Whether it was deployed at Isandlwana on its original mountain gun carriage or improvised "Kaffraria" field carriage is irrelevant, it was still the RML 7-pounder mountain gun, A.K.A. 200-pound Mk IV steel gun, not a field gun. Mountain guns had short light barrels which limited them to short range, whereas true field guns had long heavy barrels which allowed long range. At Isandlwana, deployed correctly, the 7-pounder should have been deadly firing case shot against massed infantry at short range. There are numerous references, including those I gave you, to support that this was the gun at Isandlwana. And it wasn't a "cannon", it was a gun. So I've reverted your revert and added refs. Major Hall is an an authoritative source on wars in South Africa. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with your facts. However, it is an obscure part of this that the RML is converted to what your source says "technically the guns themselves were not field guns, though they were utilized as such" that is what you need to make clear - its not common knowledge and should be explained (probably in a footnote) and ref'd in the body of the article not the lede (see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section ) as it is, at best, incidental info. I have no objection to it being included as I said above - just clarify it approriately. You don't have to 'give me' refs, you have to give the wp reader refs.Tttom1 (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Marne

Greetings, do you have a source for the British casualties so that I can put your edit back please. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

There were 12,733 British casualties, including 1,700 dead. rSource: Sumner, Ian. The First Battle of the Marne 1914: The French 'miracle' halts the Germans, Osprey Pub., 2010, ISBN 9781846035029, p. 89, "...according to the British Official History...Tttom1 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks mate, I've just had a look in the BOH and couldn't find anything.Keith-264 (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I added source with Sumner quote from BOH "according to..." and left the very awkward and suggestive Herwig statement - does that mean the BEF inflicted 67,000 vs 1700? Shouldn't it at least say - compared to 90,000+ Allied casualties. Tried to confirm in BOH from archive PDF available but its too slow, gave up.Tttom1 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, can we keep it here now as I'm getting more cross-mojolated than Austin Powers;O)Keith-264 (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to ask if you have this User:Keith-264/common.js? With this script importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); you get red warnings on the references and citations for mistakes, which is why I edited your edits. I wouldn't footnote items in the infobox (or the lead) except in a stub anyway, since the items in it should already be in the main article.Keith-264 (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, why didn't you just move it to body? Refs like that are common in wp. I'll move it. :)Tttom1 (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, my laptop is u/s and I'm using an old one which keeps cutting out. The citations had red all over them, which is invisible unless you have the script installed.Keith-264 (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm moving as many articles as possible to B class, before getting ambitious. French battles are harder to base on sources, particularly recent ones. The Times encyclopaedia has narratives about French operations, which read like translations of French originals but are nearly 100 years old. Much of the English language writing since then is superficial, derivative and underestimates French achievements, which you can see in the bibliographies of the French gigs I have written on. I can do more on the 1915 pages, because I have the Canadian translation of the GOH, to go with the ancient English language narratives of French doings. While you're on the Marne and the Aisne, I'm in Flanders trying to finish off Armentieres and Messines. Considering how many armies were involved, the Marne will be a rather big article, which is why I've confined myself to drive-by edits in the meantime. I've spent the last month finishing articles languishing in my sandboxes, then I'm thinking of doing the three Ypres battles of 1914 in separate articles to disentangle the main page and put the the "Race to the Sea" pages into context. On the other hand the Battle of the Frontiers (Lorraine and Ardennes) need filling out too, so I may try to get one of them into shape. On the other other hand there are the minor British operations of early 1916 and many of the smaller articles on the Somme campaign to do. I'm spoilt for choice.;o)Keith-264 (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The Marne

Just for the sake of clarity, I supported the latest change by Keith switching the result to 'Allied success,' so there does in fact appear to be consensus -- at least on that point. Also, you may not like the result listed in the article, but please do not remove well-sourced and encyclopedic content from Wikipedia, as you did with your last edit in the First Battle of the Marne. Merci!UBER ^(talk) 22:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your good faith editing efforts. No one disagrees that it is an 'allied victory' - yet that can't be posted as there is no consensus. On the article's talk page I refer to WP MilHist policy that says if no consnsus of result in info box then put a link in the info box to the analysis section in the body of the article and discuss various positions. Please take this discussion to article talk page thanks. Just for the record, I did not remove your cited well-sourced statement - I moved it to the 'Analysis' section where it belongs with the rest of the highly regarded historians well sourced and cited statements on the result of the Battle of the Marne. And I have put it there again because if that statement belongs in the lede - so do all the other reliable historians statements on result. Tttom1 (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I see. So "no one disagrees that it is an allied victory." (sounds like consensus to me) But at the same time, "that can't be posted as there is no consensus." Assuming there's a universe where any of that makes sense, I wanted to mention that I did read the debate in the talk page. It was philosophical to the point of being ridiculous; few other war articles on Wikipedia have been subjected to such excruciating and nail-biting analysis on the definition of 'decisive.' At one point Keith even asks, "Whose definition of decisive are you using?" The humorous thing about this kind of lawyer-heavy argumentation is that we could pick definitions of decisive victories from a dozen notable historians and reach diametrically opposed conclusions on just about every conflict in human history. One could even say Cannae was indecisive; after all, it failed to produce a political collapse and the Romans ultimately won the war.

In the final analysis, the following things are true: 1) The vast majority of all reputable historians regard the Marne as a significant setback for Germany 2) The Chief of the German General Staff lost his job because of the Marne and in the moment described it as a catastrophic defeat 3) There can absolutely be no long-term version of this article that does not list it as an Allied victory (and I emphasize absolutely, just in case you didn't catch it the first time) 4) The mere fact that this debate is happening is hilariously ridiculous.UBER ^(talk) 03:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. You would think that was consensus, but it is apparently not. The argument is whether it can be called 'Allied victory' or 'Decisive Allied victory'. Keith, and I agree with his position, thinks that it should just be 'Allied victory' for others it has to be 'decisive'. As you can see there are numerous citations available for both. This goes on all the time in numerous articles. You mention Cannae have you seen Cannae? : Decisive[1][2] Carthaginian tactical victory, Operationally, strategically and politically inconclusive[2]. LOLOLOL! I managed to put in 'Decisive' with ref back in August. But that's what the Mil Hist policy wants us to avoid saying leave it blank link saying see analysis or aftermath. I think this is a good policy and forces editors to make their case and the other side's case (NPOV) in the body of the article without rewriting the article in the info box. That way the reader can make their own appraisal. So I have stood on policy to avoid edit war and to improve the article. As you see I did not remove your statement just moved it to 'analysis' where the debate about the result should be held and will be happy if you expand on your position there. It does say in the lede that its an 'Allied victory' more than once and the article is more important than what is in the info box. The info box has to very briefly summarize the body of the article.Tttom1 (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful. You think it's an Allied victory, so does Keith, and so do I. That's three against that one person in the talk page, by my count. Getting 75% approval is usually rare in a democracy; 75% on Wikipedia is about as historic as the Marne itself. Just switch the result to 'Allied victory' and let that be the end of it.

I'll leave this discussion with a simple thought: don't conflate consensus with unanimity. You're never going to get every editor to agree on everything in Wikipedia. There's obviously consensus here to indicate that the Marne was some sort of Allied victory. I'm all for not wasting time with adjectives and keeping things simple.UBER ^(talk) 05:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, here goes nuthin'!Tttom1 (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Er, was it something I said? ;O) It seems that none of the writers of historians dispute that the Germans lost the battle but do vary over its significance. In my opinion it was analogous to the German victories during the great retreat - where were the signs of decisiveness like 10s of thousands of German prisoners, hundreds of guns etc? I think that the writers who follow the traditional version of the Schlieffen Plan are faut de mieux forced to exaggerate the effect of the Marne and those whose thinking is influenced by Zuber et al. reduce its significance. I tend to the Zuber camp but at times like this, just list the opinions of the writers and historians in the Analysis section and leave it to the punter. I found that MoS ruling helpful as I hadn't seen it before.Keith-264 (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hope this settles things and lets the article move forward and improve, it had 20,000 views on the 5th for the 100th anniversary compared to its usual 800 or so. Tttom1 (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Isandlwana

Hi, I appreciate your good faith edits here but calling imperialist efforts at extending the British Empire 'imperialist' are not POV, they are just what its said they are - an imperialist scheme- not because Knight said so. You are imposing an anachronistic definition of the Confederation policy later abandoned when Gladstone came in. There's no need to make this PC in 21st cent terms. Please take this to the talk page before making such changes to ref'd statements when there is no consensus to that change thanks.Tttom1 (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And what consensus do YOU have for your opinion that it is POV-neutral? And since when does one have to have consensus to edit Wikipedia? It states clearly that if you don't want to be edited, you should not contribute to Wikipedia. There is no requirement that one obtain a consensus before making an edit, or reverting an edit. If you want a consensus, get one yourself. Mike Hayes (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Take this to article's talk page and try to remain civil, re:Mike hayes (talk | contribs)‎ (verbal diarrhoea)WP:CIVTttom1 (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it to you, I contributed it to history in the "reason for your changes" section. Although I have long since lost interest in the subject, I shall add that Knight is NOT simply stating a fact, he is drawing a conclusion based on his personal judgement. The fact that the Confederation policy was later abandoned does not extinguish the fact that it was under that Act that the colonisation of Canada was instituted in the year that the article states. Take it to the article's talk-page yourself, I have no further interest in the matter. Mike Hayes (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo

this edit you added some information to the Battle of Waterloo. Please could you add the year to your Hamilton-Williams citations and preferably encase them in the {{harvnb}} template. -- PBS (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I have homogenised the two citations taken from the Royal Scots Greys article. It turned out the the Hamilton-Williams citations were taken from a different book from the one already listed in the References section of the Battle of Waterloo article. -- PBS (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia‎

With this edit to the Battle of Waterloo you copied text from the Wikipedia article Royal Scots Greys. Please read the guideline Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia‎ you must not copy text from one Wikipedia article to another one without attributing it. Ie placing a link to the name of the article from which you have copied the text.

Also as specified in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia‎ if you copy a text from one Wikipedia article to another the text includes short citations please make sure to copy the long citation from the References section so that the text in the new article is supported by a full citation. -- PBS (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I see we discussed this last year User talk:Tttom#Meeting internal copyright do these edits make it clear what you need to do in future:

• diff 18:41, 20 November 2014‎ Tttom (→‎Charge of the British heavy cavalry: added info & refs)
• diff 19:35, 20 November 2014‎ PBS (Undid revision 634723092 by Tttom)
• diff 19:37, 20 November 2014‎ PBS (re-did the last edit by user:Tttom which included text copied from the article Royal Scots Greys)

-- PBS (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Noted attribution on Talk:Battle of Waterloo page.Tttom1 (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Waterloo may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• de Lancey, Alten and Cooke.<ref name="Barbero 2006 240">{{Harvnb|Barbero|2006|p=240}}.</ref>}} The situation was now critical and Wellington, trapped in some square and ignorant of events

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Battle of Waterloo page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

harvnb in Battle of Waterloo

Hello Tttom, thanks for your efforts at Battle of Waterloo, just a quick note about reference syntax: Template:harvnb does not have a parameter for free text, you need to close the template structure before adding any additional text information. You currently use <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2011|p=2|additional text}}</ref> - but the correct syntax is <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2011|p=2}} additional text</ref>. I have already fixed some older refs, please check the documentation of Template:harvnb for more information. GermanJoe (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks I was wondering about that.Tttom1 (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 25 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Battle of Waterloo page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Corunna and Oman volume 2

When you made this edit you introduced an error into the citations because there were now two volume with the same author and date in the References section. This means that it was not possible either to tell visually or by the links in the short citations which of the two volume the short citations referred.

There are two fixes:

1. use a custom made ref= parameter such as ref={{harvid|Oman|1902 v. ii}}; the short citation then becomes {{Oman|1902 v. ii|p=172}}.
2. the easier option to append a letter onto the year value so that the year= parameter becomes year=1902a and then the short citation works the same way {{sfn|Oman|1902a|p=172}}. while the other Oman short citations continue to work correctly and there is a visual clue for the reader (Oman 1902,...) and (Oman 1902a,...). This is what I chose to do see here.

On closer examination I realised that you did not have the correct volume name which is "A History of the Peninsular War: Jan. – Sep. 1809" and that was published in 1903. So I have altered the reference to use that volume name and date and included a convenience link to the internet archive, as the date is now 1903 this removes the need for the fancy footwork described above as the Oman volumes now have two different dates.

-- PBS (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo

Back in November 2014 you made this edit but the long citation in the references section include more than one Hamilton-Williams book so please add the year to the citation so it is clear which book is being cited. -- PBS (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Topomapbel.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Topomapbel.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Middle-earth armies and hosts for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Middle-earth armies and hosts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle-earth armies and hosts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)