Hello, Keith H99! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! DarkZorro 21:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Aubrey (producer) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.

The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bmyspace\.com' (link(s): http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=121881073) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Aubrey (producer) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.

The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bmyspace\.com' (link(s): http://www.myspace.com/allenalien) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of Anholt

Please see reply on my talk page Viking1808 (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Keith H99! I admire the work that you are doing on British Royal Marines officers. I am a former (retired) US Marine Corps officer and I am working on the same or similar subject matter.

Is there any way that we might be able to collaborate in order to solve a disambiguation issue between our two respective Wikipedia articles?

The subject of your sketch is the same person as one of the two Royal Marines officers (Colonel Commandant Sir Richard Williams, KCB, Royal Marines 1764-1839) figuring in the article I have just edited....The purpose of my contribution was to help dispell existing confusion between these two Colonel Commandants (Richard Williams and Sir Richard Williams) of the Portsmouth Division of the Royal Marines whose 18th and 19th century careers overlapped. USMarine51 13:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by USMarine51 (talk • contribs)

Hello USMarine51,

Thank you for getting in contact. I likewise admire the fact that you have taken time out to update Wikipedia, and have been diligent in your citing of source material.

I think collaboration is a good idea. Although I had encountered two Captains named Richard Williams as of late, whilst consulting the Navy List, I was not aware of your article. I think it is worth considering scrapping my article, and replacing it with your article, which gives the biographical detail of the two men. Keith H99 (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to do this Keith H99 (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do let me know when Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Richard_Williams_and_Sir_Richard_Williams_(Royal_Marines_officers) is ready to be published. Keith H99 (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh dear! I've corrected the link now, and won't be making that mistake again! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Keith H99 (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will be happy to help, let me know what uniform you want me to draw and i'll start working on it.Jakednb (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You wrote: "I have a question with regard to your edit to the infobox as of 22:07, 20 November 2009 with comment 'Added info. box fact'. I believe there is some confusion with regard to the quantity of "rocket launchers" in use. Please can you advise where you sourced this information." The answer is *Hitsman, J. Mackay; Graves, Donald E. (1999). The Incredible War of 1812. Toronto: Robin Brass Studio. p. 241. ISBN 1-896941-13-3.. It's in the article under "British Moves". HLGallon (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response. I am thinking it is more likely to be 60 munitions rather than 60 launchers. Lieutenant John Lawrence's rocket detachment had a strength of 26 men. Source: HEIDLER (ed)(2004): 'Encyclopedia of the War Of 1812' p24. Essay by David T Zabecki on the Royal Marine Artillery. Keith H99 (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

You added the following text to the article on 23 October 2009:

'Lambert landed ...... four 18-pounders, two 8-inch howitzers, two 6-pounder rockets, three 5 1/2-inch and two 4.4-inch mortars, and a hundred 12-pounder rockets for a siege.'

Please can you advise as to the source of this information. I'm thinking I would enjoy reading the rest of the document :-) Thanks Keith H99 (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I've been making edits to the aforementioned article for a while. The structure did need an overhaul, and there were number of citations which were needed. Given the number of changes which had taken place since the initial review, I made a request for a further review, as it seemed to comply with B Class.

On 19 November, I did set up a header in Talk:Corps_of_Colonial_Marines for suggested improvements, and this is barren. On 21 November, I see you added a Lead tag, suggesting this be discussed on the talk page, and the comment "tags added NOT ready fpr a GA review".

Please can you give some further guidance. From what I can see, an intro of about 4 paragraphs is needed on the general subject of former slaves recruited during two time periods and in two geographic regions. Up to now, the focus has been on the two sub articles themselves. I am keen to elicit responses from several persons, with regard to where the existing article could be improved. I have no experience in this area. Thanks, Keith H99 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Keith, I have started the GA review for Corps of Colonial Marines. It can be found here: Talk:Corps of Colonial Marines/GA1. I have a few concerns and have placed the GA review on hold. As you are one of the article's main contributors, I would greatly appreciate your comments/input during the review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Keith:

I've looked again at the article, and added one new source and five new cites to cover various gaps. As IO've now edited it, it's probably best if someone else reviews it. You've done good work on it, for which you should be proud.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for your perusal, Roger. Funnily enough, when I was in Waterstones yesterday, purchasing the Andrew Lambert book on the War of 1812, I noticed that René Chartrand had published a book on forts! Would you be able to approach some contacts with regard to reviewing the Fort Bowyer article? I am also having trouble getting someone to review the Battle of Pensacola (1814) article; a skirmish involving two forts and a gun battery, all of which were rebuilt after the war. Keith H99 (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best is probably to list the article/s here. They usually get a reasonably fast turnround ;)  Roger Davies ^talk 16:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incidentally, I've just looked at the Battle of Pensacola (1814) article. I've made a couple of minor-ish changes, but also tagged (with ((Citation needed)) the unreferenced statements that probably prevented you from getting a B-class when it was recently reviewed. Easiest way forward now is probably to find sources for the tagged statements, then resubmit for B-class. After that, you could take it to GA, I suppose. Good luck,  Roger Davies ^talk 08:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks, Roger. I will seek a re-assessment shortly. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Keith H99. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Corps of Colonial Marines at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Sorry for the delay—we're backlogged. Miniapolis 21:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for having taken the time to assist. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Keith H98, in your edits you feature the Royal Marines artillery, which you refer to as a brigade. Was that the term they used, or was it battery or battalion? The number of pieces seems too many for a battery but too few for a brigade. Not saying you are wrong, I am just curious. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. That information is all taken from the article, and "brigade" is the author's choice of collective noun. I find these terms have been used without a very specific definition. For instance, the 100 Marines, commanded by Major Adair at New Orleans are referred to as a "battalion". I would imagine that the 100 sailors, similarly engaged at New Orleans, are probably referred to as a "Naval Division".

What I did like about his article was that it mentioned that Thomas Parke (Royal Marines officer) commanded 130 men, and the matériel. It is my understanding this force constituted two conventional artillery companies, and two half-companies of rocketeers. What I did not like about the article is that the inline citations were not there, so it is not apparent as to what source of a given fact has been taken from. My best guess would be the 2 volume publication by Fraser & Carr-Laughton, which I have never read. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Clearly, more than a battery but not enough for a battalion, so a "brigade". And you are correct about the naval "division" at New Orleans, or for that matter at any number of combined operations at the time. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Forward (1805), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berwick (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vz. 52 machine gun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DP. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Keith H99. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BT/AT 52, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FAL. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited M9 rifle grenade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page T34. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited STRIM 65, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armscor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Keith H99. I noticed that you're marking all of your edits as minor, even when they're clearly not. Maybe there's a technical glitch with your account? If not, please consider: when we're adding content or changing the meaning in any way, it can't be a minor edit. Please review Help:Minor edit for guidance, if necessary. Thanks, and hope you have a good weekend. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rivertorch. Up to now, where additions to Wikipedia have not been new articles, rewrites or added paragraphs, I have not considered these to be material. (The fact that the French Army used flamethrowers in WW1 to a greater extent than any English-speaking nation is not a controversy, whereas I deem this omission to be something worthy of being properly documented.) I had considered non-material changes to be minor edits. I had not been aware that 'adding or removing content in an article' does not count as a minor edit, unlike correcting typographic errors, references or layout errors. Thank you for educating me. Keith H99 (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating BT/AT 52, Keith H99!

Wikipedia editor Usernamekiran just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Hi. If possible, kindly add when it was invented/introduced, and the service period. Thanks. :)

To reply, leave a comment on Usernamekiran's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

—usernamekiran(talk) 19:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating Instalaza rifle grenade, Keith H99!

Wikipedia editor Hydronium Hydroxide just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks. For future articles, please include appropriate wikiproject(s) on the talk page and stubsorting tags on the main page. I've moved a couple of pages as article names should be singular. The external links look like they might not meet WP:RS - It's nicer to have them than not, but someone might end up trimming them.

To reply, leave a comment on Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Keith H99. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_3t6KehNZDsi5tHf&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Keith H99. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited XIV Corps (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 23rd Division. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - Please can you insert a citation for the subordinate units you have added. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, now added Keith H99 (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo, Thank you for creating 31st Army Corps (France) . When you create an article like this with a "disambiguated" title, please make sure that the reader can find it from the basic name (ie 31st Army Corps ), by adding or expanding a hatnote, or adding the article to a disambiguation page. This helps the reader to find your article, and also reduces the chance of a future careless editor creating a duplicate article with a slightly different disambiguator. I've fixed this one, by creating a disambiguation page. Thanks, and Happy Editing. PamD 19:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the tip, and for the fix. Best wishes Keith H99 (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tirailleurs malgaches, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diego Suarez.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Keith H99. I refer to your request for additional content about the peacetime presence of zouaves in mainland France, prior to 1914.

On 9 February 1899 legislation was passed providing for the creation of one additional battalion for each of the four zouave regiments historically based in Algeria and Tunisia. These 5é bataillions were to be recruited from the Paris and Lyon Military Districts of mainland France, providing a framework for régiments de marche in the event of general mobilisation.

Jean-Louis Larcade devotes several sections of his two-volume work Zouaves & Tirailleurs. Les régiments de marche et les régiments mixtes (1914-1918) to the role played by the metropolitan conscripts who applied to undertake their compulsory military service in one of the 5é bataillions of zouaves The remaining four battalions of each zouave regiment continued to be based in, and raised from, the 19é Military Region in Algeria/Tunisia.

Larcade focuses on describing and illustrating such details as the training camps maintained in France, and the exotic "oriental" dress worn even for mainland service. However he notes that one incentive for peacetime enlistment in the metropolitan zouaves was the possibility (high after 1907) of transferring to one of the units permanently located in French North Africa. For a young conscript unlikely to have been outside France, there was prestige in seeing active service in Morocco. From the perspective of the French Army any short-falls in recruitment from the European settler communities in Algeria or Tunisia, could be met from mainland sources.

I hope that this is of some interest to you. I have enjoyed reading your carefully sourced and well written military history articles.

Regards. Buistr (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Claude Ernest Vincent Hawkings 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/Claude Ernest Vincent Hawkings 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.

Lettler^{hello • contribs} 21:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am currently working through citations to Royal Naval Biography which is available on Wikisource making links to the relevant article on Wikisource. See:

• "Index" . Royal Naval Biography. 1823–1835.

The first edit you made to the Wikipedia article "Siege of Fort St. Philip (1815)" was Revision as of 20:42, 10 February 2014 the next and adjacent edit was Revision as of 21:08, 10 February 2014

The fist was a minor edit, but the second added a general reference. The problem is that the general reference that you added is to an dictionary of biographies (in multiple volumes and parts) making up a work of about 20 books. You did include an indicator that it was in the 4th part of the supplement, but did you have any particular biographies in mind when you added the Royal Naval Biography, because if not, then I think we should move it down into further reading/external links or remove it entirely. Your thoughts on that proposal? -- PBS (talk)

Hello. Of particular interest is the biography of David Price, which commences on page 31 of volume IV and makes reference to his presence at this engagement, whilst aboard HMS Volcano. Keith H99 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 122nd Infantry Division (France), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Neuville.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sintiki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Achladochori.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article you recently created, Megali Vrysi, Kilkis, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... discospinster _talk 18:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Megali Vrysi, Kilkis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battalions of Light Infantry of Africa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Front.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, would you know of another source for Major "Michell" on Battle of New Orleans? I couldn't find a second WP:RS for that spelling. However, plenty of "Mitchell" sources were easily located. Curious. Lindenfall (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking an interest in HMS Alceste. Do you have a reference for the information you added as the current citation (Winfield) doesn't support it? HMS Alceste (1806) is a featured article and cannot therefore, contain unreferenced material. Thanks --Ykraps (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I have added the source of the article as an inline citation. Keith H99 (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Keith H99: Nice work adding to and improving the War of 1812 ships info, especially the battle articles. The reason I switched longboats back to boats is that generally the longboat or launch was only one of the types of boats deployed. The 74s also each carried a barge, pinnace, and two cutters, and would have deployed them too. Brigs carried a cutter. Both 74s and brigs also carried jolly boats, and they might also have been deployed. Net-net, boats is the more inclusive and hence accurate term. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. A long time ago, an individual who was banned from Wikipedia would write articles, based on what he wanted to report, based on his nationalistic perspective. A lot of what he wrote simply does not reflect secondary sources. It has taken a while to go through the Lake Borgne article and sense-check what is there, adding citations. I am satisfied that the fantasy content has been removed. That said, I am keen to make a clear delineation between the American flotilla, in essence the five gunboats, and the 40 + 2 + 3 small boats used by the British. On this basis, I have been using longboats as a catch-all term, for the sake of clarity. The only thing that surprised me with the banned contributor, and his dollops of fantasy, is that there was not a British aircraft carrier present at the battle. Ships and boats were all the same to him. He wrote about the presence of a US vessel that was scuttled in 1814. There is no mention of this in any sources, and a secondary source advises that it was sold in 1818! This falsehood has been online for twelve years, which is disconcerting. Keith H99 (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acad Ronin, given the scope for confusion, I think it is wise to use some sort of catch-all term to describe these small boats to the layman reading an article about Lake Borgne. I propose the generic term "rowboats", and the types of boat (launch etc) could be inserted in brackets thereafter. How does this sound, as there is scope for confusion with "boat", which could be a brig, sloop or schooner as opposed to a small vessel primarily propelled by oarsmen.Keith H99 (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point. How about ships' boats? That would link the term to its explanation. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is needed is something punchy and easily understood by a neophyte audience. A boat (small vessel) that was rowed. Given that longboat is not acceptable, I cannot presently see a better alternative to rowboat. I want to avoid the whole ship vs boat route, which your proposed term does not facilitate. If you are able to think of an alternative term that meets the aforementioned aims, i.e. easily understood by a lay audience, to collectively describe boats that can be rowed, please do let me know. Keith H99 (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Keith H99: Do your sources identify what the most clasps any individual was awarded, or received? It would be a nice addition to the stat that 16K received only one. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. The "bible" is the privately published medal roll, limited to 500 copies, as compiled by the late Kenneth J. Douglas Morris, Captain, Royal Navy (1919-1993). There are fifty pages of prologue, each having its page number in roman numerals. On the fiftieth page, there is a table which states who got what quantity of clasps. There are not that many with multiple clasps. This is not the case for the many survivors of Wellington's army who received the Military General Service Medal and who had eligibility to a multitude of battles. Colin Message's medal roll has been hosted online by the auction house Dix Noonan Webb. One of the search parameters is "Number of Clasps:" so this may be of interest to you.

https://www.dnw.co.uk/resources/medal-rolls/medal-roll.php?medalroll_id=2

Best of luck. Keith H99 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again, I'm a bit confused, as our friend of the many false articles Az81964444 now redirects to long-banned $1LENCE D00600D. Meaning that the two are one and the same? Lindenfall (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, well spotted, his indefinite ban was related to sockpuppetry, and the bullying & harassment when he got called out. I think I came across two accounts at least that he had. It scares me as to how much other rubbish is out there that has been accepted at face value. He's not the only wiki user to have perpetrated his. Keith H99 (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You said it. I feel I spend at least as much time more or less policing things that I just happen onto as I do editing actual content, really time-consuming (as you, of all people, well know). I agree about one of many, but it does not seem that they get dealt with definitively. (ie: a coatracker, whose work is extensive, has merely been topic-banned. Personally, I would never trust an editor who already demonstrated such extreme disregard for policies while promoting their personal agenda. Just FYI: bit caught up here, as well... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Sustained_WP:COATRACK_behaviour) Lindenfall (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The account associated with $1LENCE D00600D was alternatively labelled as AZ8196. It appears he used more than one account, based on the sockpuppet report. For my part I was looking to improve some articles, such as the Battle of New Orleans which needs a lot more inline citations, but it does seem like improving something is a lower priority than identifying and removing POV fantasy content, in the greater scheme of things.Keith H99 (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AZ8196/Archive]

Wholeheartedly agree on the Battle of New Orleans. I'd seen a lot of valid ones with details of the battle bite the dust there to be replaced with, I'll say, what appears to be regional agendas. I used to leave TALK notes on BONO, but gave up on that, too, with responses few and far between. Picking ones battles, I, too, find the outright fabulists to be worse, so that often ends up draining my attention. Lindenfall (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for identifying and AFDing the numerous pages created by this User. Just one thing to note, if you are the nominator, you don't also !vote on the AFD as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 13 December 1814. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the acknowledgement and the guidance. I don't envisage adding any more to either AfD page. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A reminder of some of the hogwash that was encountered with this individual:

What is particularly interesting is that the talk page acknowledges that there is no scholarly source for this engagement, created with the name Action of 12 October 1950.
Talk:Action of 12 October 1950
Talk:Blockade_of_Wonsan

Likewise, 'Action of DD/MM/YYYY' It is indicative that it is one of his fantasy POV essays. If you read about the "Action of 13th December 1814" that I have nominated for deletion, it tells a tale about how a sailor with superhuman hearing defeated a fleet of 40 British boats at night. If you read Roosevelt's history, there were seven rowboats, and the firefight took place between 1530hrs and 1930hrs. No sneaky night attack whatsoever took place. It is not a battle, is not documented as such by reliable sources, and is one user's fantasy. If the occurrences on April 4, 1918 had indeed been documented by the likes of the US Naval History and Heritage Command as the "Action of 4 April 1918" then I would have expected to see this term in common usage, rather than being used solely by a wikipedia article created by a banned user with a history of unsourced fantasy essays.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Keith H99 (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note to myself a listing of one of his aliases articles Keith H99 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/$1LENCE%20D00600D

I just wanted to let you know that where the combined AfD for the Action of 16 January 1916 and Action of 12 October 1950 were closed as merge to SMS Möwe (1914) and I was wondering if, as the original requestor, you wanted to change the notification on the 12 October 1950 page to a AfD request?Gusfriend (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch about this, I have had some distractions as of late. In essence, what can be merged has been merged in the USS Pirate & Operation Wonsan articles. Given this activity has been done, it should be relisted for deletion, so I have just done this. Keith H99 (talk)

This is where it is archived:
User_talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive_131#Need_your_help_for_revision_to_Lives_of_WWI_ID_Property_Proposal

Can use this link, going forward. Keith H99 (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Thames-class frigate into HMS Thames (1805). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was the first time I came across data elsewhere within en.wikipedia that had pertinence in a new article. In the event that I come across a similar scenario again, I will provide attribution to the original contributors where they can be identified. Keith H99 (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! DanCherek (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Keith, The edit you have made (28 Feb 22) to the citation for WWI reference / LOTFWW template has created a text issue in this paragraph. As I'm not familiar with the correct formatting for this type of citation could you have a look at it and correct it. Many thanks. RR424 (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @RR424, hope this resolves the issue. Keith H99 (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Italian Campaign of 1813-1814, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 07:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of New Orleans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Travelogue.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Keith H99. You add a reference for "Duncan 1872" to D Battery Royal Horse Artillery, but no such work is defined in the article. Could you add the required cite to the Bibliography section, or let me know what work this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested, thanks for letting me know. This has now been remedied. Keith H99 (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Keith H99. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again Keith H99. You've added a reference for "Jouineau 2009" to French Army in World War I, but that's undefined. There is "Jouineau 2009a" - 'Officiers et soldats de l'armée française Tome 1: 1915-1918' and "Jouineau 2009b" - 'Officiers et soldats de l'armée française Tome 2: 1915-1918', could you confirm which one is correct?
Also if you're going to be working with short form refs can I suggest you turn on the associated error messages. The details of how to do so are here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors, if you have any questions just drop me a note. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Keith H99. As requested in your message on my talk page, I have added four source references to the passage I contributed to the "Other campaigns" section of this article. I hope that these are of some help in the extensive tidy-up exercise that you are carrying out. I should of course have provided source references back in 2012 but I guess standards (at least mine) were slacker then. The passage on training deployments was provided by another editor and I have left it untouched. I have made slight amendments to the section on North African/Colonial involvement. The books (some published after 2012) that I have list units but do not specify the proportion of metropolitan and overseas troops in any given regiment/brigade. Certainly by 1915 some were definitely mixtes. Let me know if there is anything else I can assist with. Cheers 01:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Buistr (talk)

Hello again Keith H99. Re your follow-up email of today's date asking for specific page references re metropolitan and overseas troops in the African/Balkan/Middle Eastern campaigns:

- for the Dardanelles campaign (which I think is one of your specialities) it would be page 78 of L'historie des Troupes de Maine au travers de l'uniforms 1622-2020. This recently published Histoire & Collections book records the presence of two division (metropolitan plus colonial brigades). Each of the latter consisted of one European and two Senegalais infantry battalions. Additional details provided cover mixed regiments of colonial infantry, unit numbers and commanding officer names.

- Salonica Front (page 20 of the Osprey book "Armies in the Balkans" MAA 356) lists five metropolitan infantry divisions (including zouaves and North African tirailleurs) plus three Colonial Infantry divisions. The Cavalry Brigade comprised two regiments of Chasseurs d'Afrique and six squadrons of Moroccan Spahis.

- for the Cameroun campaign (Togo and Kamerun) pages 182 to 184 of Les Troupes de Marine contain six photographs of spahis senegalais and tirailleurs senegalais. There is no reference to the use of European troops in this occupation other than cadres, and units are identified only as colonne du .....

- finally page 309 of L'Armee d'Afrique records the Detachment Francis de Palestine-Syrie in 1918 as comprising two battalions of Tirailleurs Algerians, one battalion of the 115e Territorial (elderly metropolitan reservists), the Legion d'Orient (Syrian and Armenian levies, the 1er regiment mixte of spahis and chasseurs d' Afrique. In short all overseas troops except for the territorial infantry, three artillery batteries and an aviation squadron.

• • Hope this is of some help. Cheers 03:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Buistr (talk)

Sorry but I don't think that I can add much to the details given in my separate response above. The sources cited indicate that for the Palestine campaign there was only a single battalion of metropolitan territorials in addition to the colonial and North African units. I do not have much more in the way of detailed source material regarding the Dardanelles campaign but my understanding is that the French were unable to divert significant metropolitan resources from the crucial Western Front. However Jean de Pradel de Lamazedoes (page 302 L'Armee d'Afique) does provide the following break-down of the one infantry division initially committed to the campaign d'Orient in January 1915: 175e regiment d'infanterie (metropolitan), 6e regiment de march colonial d'infanterie (R.M.C.I.) and 1er regiment de Marche d'Afrique (4 battalions of zouaves plus 1 battalion of the Foreign Legion.

In short both campaigns appear to have been the prime responsibility of the Colonial Army plus the XIX Army Corps. 21:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Buistr (talk)