This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Thanks for uploading Image:Indian4DivBadge.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Indian10DivBadge0001.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
OK so I'm a newbie at uploading images. I've gone back and I hope I have fixed things to the satisfaction of the OrphanBot fascist! Stephen Kirrage 15:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I were right. I've reverted the change. Greetings--Giovanni Giove 10:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your message, Kirrages! Regarding details about the Winter Line, I have sadly no idea. I have just taken as a mission to clean up the article Allied invasion of Italy, since the need has been tagged for. I was about to direct you to the map Image:ItalyDefenseLinesSouthofRome1943 4.jpg, but I noticed you are the creator of it! Great work, by the way, the map is exquisite!
I just tried to rewrite the end of the article to make it flow better, and from reading Winter Line, along with your map, I got the impression that the Volturno and Barbara lines were part of the Winter Line, i.e. the Winter Line was a collective name for all those lines. But, I am sure you know much more than I about this, and I call upon you to make changes to Allied invasion of Italy as you see fit. Btw, I'm not sure I understood, did you yourself make the same assumption as me, that all the lines belonged the Winter Line? My Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I completely understand where you're coming from; if you read the edit summary you'll see I was hesitant to remove them. My feeling was that all of these troops were part of the French and British armies, and since no such states as "Algeria," "Morocco," and "India" existed, it was better to leave them out. In any case, the modern flags are anachnronistic and should not be used. My solution would be to keep the Battlebox simple and describe North African and Indian participation in full in the article text. But it's up to you. Albrecht 02:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your corrections to the Battle of San Pietro Infine. Sloppy typing on my part! I wonder if you have any ideas for a "battle box"--one of those infoboxes used on a number of such pages. I'd rather use a pre-existing template rather than invent one, myself. Jeffmatt 06:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
More on Battle of San Pietro Infine war box. It worked out. I modified the one you sent and stuck it in there--although still incomplete while I look for details. Thanks again. Jeffmatt 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I've uploaded a new version of Image:ItalyDefenseLinesSouthofRome1943 4.jpg and although this appears in the history, the image on the page (and through the various links) is not the new one. What have I done wrong?! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 18:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Kirrages. Thank you for your question about East African Campaign and for adding more details. I was trying to expand the very sketchy article on the campaign, but I don't think I can resolve completely the issue of the identity of the Punjabis at Tug Argan. I only have one source at hand with order of battle information--Mockler, who says that it was the 14th Punjabis--and you have two that say the 15th, including an official history. I think you're more likely to be right.
BTW, I'm not finished with the article, and I plan to expand and correct the section in the article on Alan Cunningham's attack on the southern front. From what I know, the attack consisted of brigades, not divisions as the article now states. I'd appreciate your looking at what I add.
Dhanig
The terminology is quite confusing. Basically "Indian Empire" meant areas under direct British rule ("British Raj" ) and princely states which had varying degrees of independence. This equates to present day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. "Empire" in this sense means a collection of various peoples and sub-national states, united in the office of the Viceroy.
Nepal in 1939-45 technically had more greater independence than India (somewhat akin to, e.g. New Zealand) and it declared war separately to the UK. The Gurkhas were essentially a "foreign legion" in the British Indian Army; their recruitment did not imply that the Indian Army was also the army of Nepal.
By the way I have just added two photos to East African Campaign (World War II) and removed the caption of a deleted map, as well as the top map, which was centred on Egypt and did not even show all of the area in question. Cheers Grant | Talk 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Kirrages! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll go with you on this. Mea culpa. Reviewing my source [1] and adjacent pages, it's clear that Pugilist included the initial NZ Corps attack at Tebaga. Also, "left hook" was part of the original plan, see [2] and Supercharge was the subsequent recovery. Sorry, my impression had been that Supercharge referred to all of NZ Corps' activity up to and including Tebaga, and distinct from XXX Corps. Folks at 137 23:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at the article I was trying to clean up before reverting. If it was a bot sorry I will log in to avoid this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.167.255.223 (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
Hello Kirrages.
I had C Squadron in bold, while not on others, because the others are wiki-linked while C Squadron wouldn't be. Being forced to think about it now, it does seem rather odd, probably an old habit from way back. I'll remove the bold. Thanks. Oberiko 17:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi - Why have you reverted my copy-edit of the introductory paragraph of the "Thermodynamic state" article? The original paragraph is very poorly worded, and I think my edit is a great improvement. -Pgan002 22:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report about 79.9.200.60 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Sandstein 10:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for warning the user about vandalising the page. Strangely, however, you failed to actually revert the vandalism, according to the page history. I removed it myself, after the anon blanked the page. I did not warn the vandal, as you warned him/her previously. However, as the edit you showed had further vandalism after it, the user may be warned again, but I'm not sure if that user is supposed to be. What do you think? Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001(T+C+U) 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
people at my school were editing, this is a school computer.
What is wrong with using the word "hot" to describe Jessica Alba and Paul Walker?
Hello. Please don't change what I added on the NF page. (Game Masters-DarkGM)
Hello, this is Snoddy from norwegian wikipedia. In the norwegian wikipedia, we have this competition, kind of like the english wp's Danny's contest. In that competition, I'm competiting with the article no:Slaget om Monte Cassino (the same as the en, wp's Battle of Monte Cassino). There you have uploaded the picture
locally, and I want to ask you if you can upload it on wikipedia commons? Please do so or contact me on my norwegian user talk page any time. 81.167.3.234 07:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Great article. Why don't you give it a shot at DYK? Regards, Anas talk? 18:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Howdy Kirrages.
It's documented on the Wikipedia:Footnotes page. Oberiko 14:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Howdy Kirrages.
I responded to you on my talk page, but we should probably have this discussion on Talk:Italian Campaign (World War II). I would propose that we start off by creating an article structure / hierarchy so that we're all on the same page. Oberiko 01:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
--Carabinieri 00:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
--Carabinieri 10:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
--Andrew c [talk] 17:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:EritreaCampaign1941 2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:EritreaCampaign1941 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Wonderful work is your trademark. You may convert me to using "whilst" yet. Always a pleasure to discover you handi-work. Mkpumphrey 21:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Yup, Grice is right. Thanks! Haukur 16:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I am assuming that many of the improvements to the East African Campaign (World War II) article are your handi-work. I did see where you indicated that you are removing repeated references to NO Italian prisoners being taken (by the Ethiopian irregulars?). I had removed some of this type of material earlier. So I suppose "somebody out there" really wants this information in the article. I imagine that they do not want any information concerning the Italians rounding up Ethiopians, etc. I still look at the claim that 7,000 Italians fought on in a guerilla war as a "needs to be gently removed -- or modified -- some day soon" item. Question: Is Italian guerrilla of Ethiopia new? It is more of the same as whoever wants to say there were 7,000 Italian guerillas. It would appear that whoever added the "Italian guerrilla of Ethiopia" article speaks English as a second language. Somebody also loves this Douhett (?) who is supposed to have been the leader of the Italian guerillas. I read the write-up on him once (a la Commando Supremo) and there is extremely little in it about any guerilla activities. Anyway, very much appreciated the missing brigade commanders and I hope you approve of putting the VCs in one place. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey 14:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You mentioned you were looking for a copy of the chapter on Keren in Eastern Epic by Compton Mackenzie. I can do this for you. Could you give me an email address to send it to? Regards Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 08:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Seen this one yet? Mkpumphrey 18:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you reverted my edits adding the template of Indian national Army to the Punjab Regiment (Pakistan) article. If you looked into the template I added, you would see that there's an article entitled Hindustan Field Force which was derived with substantial numbers of troops from the 14th Punjab regiment who were captured during the Malayan Campaign or at the Fall of Singapore. After the partition, 14th Punjabs passed on to Pakistan, and hence I added this template to the article. I hope I have explained why this was added. I am adding this template back to the article. If you feel this is unjustified, could you please leave a message on my page before you do this. CheersRueben lys 21:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Stephen,
I just got a message saying, "At least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Jeremy Sumpter, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed."
I don't actually know who Jeremy Sumpter is, I'm 99% sure I've never looked him up and I've never edited a page on wikipedia. Do you know what's going on?
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.65.64 (talk) 14:20, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Nice work. Mkpumphrey 12:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, Kirrages! (This message has also been sent to User:Buckboard1). I have noticed that there have been many edits in the article Allied invasion of Italy, and missing information has been filled in. Considering your and User:Buckboard1's edits, I could safely say that you two know much more about the Invasion of Italy than I. Therefore, I ask if either one of you, or both, can assess the article, with hope of removing the "ugly" "need of attention"-tag? My feeling is that this tag is not very urgent anymore, but I personally know too little to be bold enough and remove it. I am sure you two can make a decision. My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 22:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You edited the John Vanderslice article. Wikinews is schedule to do an interview with Vanderslice this Wednesday, September 26. If you have any questions you'd like to ask John or know about John, please leave them on my Talk page. Thanks. --David Shankbone 15:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The odd edits at Italian conquest of British Somaliland have been going on for a few days now. -WarthogDemon 17:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick thank you for improving and expanding the article. LordHarris 12:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again! Your changes made it make sense. Unfortunately I was trying to instill some uniformity between the "Iraqforce" write-up and what is said about Iraqforce in the "Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran" article. If you check the "Invasion" section of that article, you will see the words I am sure you rightly removed from "Iraqforce." If you want to clean up the "Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran" article, I am sure you will do better than I. Otherwise, I will just make it conform to your changes in "Iraqforce." Always good to see your work. Mkpumphrey —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your excellent article on "Turpitz" Tait, which I have expanded a bit. It is too old now, but it would have been an excellent candidate to appear in the "Did you know?" section on the Main Page. Your new or significantly expanded articles can be nominated at Template talk:did you know. -- !! ?? 19:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right Kirrages, my misinterpretation came from a description of "sixty crowflight miles, or more than five hours desert driving, from the battlefield". I'll try to correct that when I get the chance. Oberiko 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
On behalf of the Military History Wikiproject, I hereby present the Military History WikiChevrons to Kirrages for outstanding contributions to the oft overlooked Africa-Mediterranean-Middle East theatre of World War II. Keep up the good work! Oberiko 01:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC) |
No problem. You actually reverted to my version, rolling back the anon vandal. I've had the same problem with Vandal Proof recently, where the edit summary indicates a rollback of the version prior to what is actually being reverted, and then the warning is dropped in the wrong place. Hiberniantears 12:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Just like to say thanks for the recent edits to the Brevity article, clearing bits up and making it consistant with the Battleaxe article. I think between the few of us who have edited the page since August we have created an accuarate account of what happened on those two days plus other related information .... instead of the driffle which had originally been there.
^.^
To the discussion page ! ^.^ ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Battle_of_El_Alamein#Freyburg
I know its a small issue like but its good to share views etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 12:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
"Copyedit from my "talk page"Dieppe Raid I'm not quite sure why you changed all the references. It doesn't seem to have made any difference to the appearance on the page. And if there is no standard, why is there a Wikipedia cite book template? I can't claim any great knowledge here so haven't a clue what MLA or scratch formatting is. Regards Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 14:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)"
Hi Stephen, thanks for your note: As to the reasoning behind the use of bibliographic protocols, Wikipedia is mainly created by the efforts of countless editors worldwide. One of the first concerns was that in order to maintain professional standards in writing and research, assistance had to be provided to editors who did not have a background in academic or research writing. The "templates" were offered as a means of helping non-professionals in complex tasks. Citations in bibliographic format are difficult to cite for most editors in Wikipedia and the templates offer a solution. They are guides not policy and are useful up to a point but even now, there are many errors in their format and the use of templates brings in a question as to which style guide is being followed. As an author and a 30-year+ librarian, I have been exposed to many differing styles and formats. Most publishing style guides utilize the MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style for identifying research sources. The very simple form of this style is the tried and true: "Author. 'Title.' Place of publication: Publisher, Date. ISBN: (optional)." The academic or scientific citation style that you have adopted is not generally used in school, public and other libraries. See the following website (one of countless digital aids available) for a primer on this bibliographic standard: <style guides> Many of the Wiki templates are written in a APA (American Psychological Association) style guide which is a simplified format that often is used in university and scholarly works although it is not as widely accepted as the MLA guide.
This is the reference guide you may wish to use: "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia." MLA style is the most widely accepted style in the world and certainly is accepted in Wikipedia. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloging that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloging is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record from an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."
Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appers once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area is kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In the "Dieppe Raid" article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often prefarble not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.
I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing the "Dieppe Raid" references section which also had problems in the format of providing footnotes along with a bibliography and "further reading" which is still a Wiki anachronism. FWIW Bzuk 15:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC).
Kirrages thanks for not deleting my contributions. I think you deserve this link that proves the Italians proved themeselves on 1 May 1941 and I thank the website www.comandosupremo.com for giving me enough grounds to go ahead and establish this Italian effort as true through the Australian website awm.gov.au. Where there is smoke there is fire so I thank the webmaster of www.comandosupremo.com thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse (talk • contribs) 11:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I've semi-protected North African Campaign, Italian Campaign (World War II), and Allied invasion of Sicily because they're the most targeted. I've left out Western Desert Campaign for the meantime as there hasn't been long term vandalism yet. But I'll still keep those articles watchlisted. I see you've done some copyediting and I would hate for your work to be undermined by a disruptive sock. If you see other pages with similar problems, just tell me. Thanks. Spellcast 20:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kirrages, I've had the above articles watchlisted for a month now in case the sock returned. It seems to have stopped though, so I think it's safe to remove it from my watchlist for now. Needless to say, if the vandalism returns you can obviously drop me a line or go to WP:RFPP, cheers. Spellcast (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kirrages.
The recategorisation is an effort to rationalise and simplify article categorisation within the Military History Project. Please contact the Project coordinator if you have any further questions, including if you disagree with the removal of the categories in this article. If you do not disagree, I would appreciate if you reverted the article to the version that doesn't have these categories. Thank you.--mrg3105mrg3105 22:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is a spelling mistake in the name. However, it is entirely forgivable given the amount of good deeds you have performed for the rest of us ;o)--mrg3105mrg3105 01:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
sorry buddy, this is a public terminal, i wouldnt know who messed with the koala article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.53.231 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't edit that page or any other page for that matter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.228.53 (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Kirrages.
Are you certain that's what it was called in Battleaxe? Raising Churchill's Army: The British Army and the War Against Germany, 1919-1945, pg. 237 states that the AHQWD was created in July, 1941; a few weeks after Battleaxe. Can you source where it was called AHQWD during Battleaxe or that it was formed prior to June 15th? Oberiko (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Question: Did you add the following to Operation Compass (just below the the "Derna" title? "In the meantime the Italian Supreme Command moved quickly to organize the Brigata Corazzato Speciale (BCS) or "Special Armored Brigade", consisting of 50 M-11 tanks, artillery pieces and supported by infantry formations equipped with the latest anti-tank weapons and specializing in the anti-tank role. In hardly more than a month, the Italians dispatched this volunteer force under General Valentino Babini to North Africa." This history for the article implies that this is your work . . . but it does not look anything like anything you have written before. Idendity theft? I was considerring a re-work of this article (I want to add detail to the initial Italian advance) and was giving it a once over when I found the Brigata Corazzato Speciale write-up in the "Derna" section. I do need to get back to that East African Campaign someday and put in the references. BTW, I added a "citation" after this write-up questioning it. You appear to have been around Wikipedia far longer, do you know whether I am allowed to do this? It seemed well worth questioning. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the article on the present day Frontier Force Regiment is good, but as far as I know, the official name since 1956 has been simply "The Frontier Force", or FF for short. I think it should be changed and the old regiments 12 FFR and 13 FFRifles be given their own pages.--58.65.163.248 (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Check this.72.167.98.186 (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll change it back. You'll now see why "try harder" was an unhelpful Edit summary! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
As requested, order of battle and as much information regarding losses as been posted in the Operation Brevity discussion page.
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Indian10DivBadge0001.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 20:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Indian4DivBadge.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Indian8DivWWIIBadge0001.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IndianDivWWIIBadge0002.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
...it sends a message to the next to last editor. See for example M.I.A. (band). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaohoyt (talk • contribs) 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
lol thanks for the catch there about the 15th Panzer ... for some reason i cant help myself, in drafts, notes etc i keep wanting to call them the 14th Panzer for some reason! >.<
Anyhoo cheers--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you please use some inline citation for this article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes go ahead , being a new editor I was now aware of that protocol Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that, it is fixed now.Red4tribe (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
no problem, I can probably take a look at ortona today.
Yeah, you are correct that my sources are fairly Canadian-centric. The Moro River Campaign doesn't get a lot of attention in WWII history (especially the Canadian involvement), so the Canadian-written books I have tend to focus entirely on the Canadian Perspective ("The Canadian Military History Atlas", "the Maple Leaf against the Axis", "Marching as to war, Canada in conflict from 1899 - 1954", even the titles give it away). Feel free to add the non-Canadian stuff afterwards (oh yeah, and add your name to the Maintenance list on the talk-page). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
no problem, I can probably take a look at ortona today.
Yeah, you are correct that my sources are fairly Canadian-centric. The Moro River Campaign doesn't get a lot of attention in WWII history (especially the Canadian involvement), so the Canadian-written books I have tend to focus entirely on the Canadian Perspective ("The Canadian Military History Atlas", "the Maple Leaf against the Axis", "Marching as to war, Canada in conflict from 1899 - 1954", even the titles give it away). Feel free to add the non-Canadian stuff afterwards (oh yeah, and add your name to the Maintenance list on the talk-page). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
On to Ortona. I'm almost done the ACR for Operation Tractable (another two days). When I complete that, I'll be ready to both write the section on Ortona in the MRC, and then get to work on the actual Battle of Ortona article (B-Class by June 30). Cam (Chat) 06:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should use that Osprey book (part of the men at arms series) as a source in that article, particularly for the Coastal Divisions. Sometime last year I tried to sort this out and found great differences between the theoretical organisation of these units given in some sources and the actual organisation on the terrain. From that information I could not piece together the attachments of most of these regiments. The current listing in the article looks good, but is likely to be incorrect, while I like the Osprey books on other time periods I've never found them useful for WWII. Though I haven't read this particular one (I probably have a copy somewhere and will take a look if you think I should).--Caranorn (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you want to chip in your thoughts: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#sock master User:Generalmesse, --noclador (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we must have different copies because it says exactly what yours does, but just on a different page.
I don't know why it doesn't add up. It could be reinforcements as the campaign progressed but that is a good point. I didn't notice that before. Red4tribe (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message on my talkpage. Unfortunately there was an edit war on the pages of the above article, and when the main protagonist was blocked they activated a number of sock/meatpuppets. This resulted in a complaint to WP:AN/I#Generalmesse. To avoid a further edit/sock war I protected the article for a few days, in the hope that such an action will persuade editors to edit consensually when it expires. Was there an edit that you wanted to make? You can request admin assistance on the article talkpage, or let me know. Cheers LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any idea which Italian divisions actually took part in the Italian invasion of Egypt in September of 1940? It does appear that the XXIII Corps, the XXI Corps, and the "Libyan Corps" were involved or at least they were near the border. But the one Italian reference I have only shows the pre-war distribution of the divisions ( ... the Fifth Army is still the bigger of the two and there is no "Libyan Corps" indicated at all). Anyway, I have several conflicting "modern, light-weight" references ... and they all show something different. Do you have a copy of Hunt's book? Does it detail which divisions were in which corps in September? Thought I would ask. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Władysław Anders was important person and leader in last attack in Monte Cassino. If not he and his soulders aliants cant win in Monte Cassino. You dont know history so going read books! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.146.235.1 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stephen
about a month ago there was a sock circus trying to manipulate the various articles about Italy in WWII with glorifying revisionism - sometimes citing sources as Nazi-Radio Berlin or the Italian Army's own bulletins as "proof" how marvellously the fascist Armies performed... I spotted the sock circus and together with User:Justin A Kuntz and User:AlasdairGreen27 had them all blocked see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove From the edits to Military history of Italy during World War II and First Battle of El Alamein I assume that the users User:Bendiksen63 & User:ITALONY are new incarnations of the well known sock circus... especially as the two registered users use Paolo Caccia Dominioni de Sillavengo book Alamein 1933-1962: An Italian Story as source, which by "chance" was a favourite source for Generalmesse & Co. ITALONY and the IP 24.20.169.90 are also pretty obviously the same person: ITALONY edit and the IP addition. BTW: the source he uses is a British Egyptian Philately societies homepage and Edmund Hall (the writer of the material used as a source) an collector of Egyptian stamps! not a historian qualified in any way to judge the WWII events of North Africa... If you are willing to go ahead an clean the articles in question, you have my full backing - but personally I'm for a full revert. --noclador (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Concerning Henry Maitland Wilson, 1st Baron Wilson in the Western Desert Campaign article, I was going to ask that you check Wilson's article. I see that you already corrected it. My main thing with adding the upper commanders to the Western Desert Campaign article was that it seemed odd that Wilson was not mentioned at all (initially) and others just seemed to pop up with no explanation as to who they were. You do great work as always. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The reason I added that template of citation style to the article is to bring it to editors' attention that the three published sources used are not referenced, i.e. there is no way of knowing which works the page number relate to--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that the 21st (UK) Army Group was also under SHEAF command, so with the 12th, 6th and 15th that would make it four AGs (and one Army, the 7th), right?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
When did the rules change so that they should be ordered by number of troops involved?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, do you have any figures on the total involvement of each of the forces ? It would be useful to refer to them. Thanks. --Lysytalk 12:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am one of the admins from the Simple English Wikipedia. Your request for unblock has been accepted, and the range has been unblocked temporarily. It will be reblocked once you have created your account, or after 2 days, whichever comes earlier. If you have any problems, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Cheers, Chenzw Talk 14:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm perfectly aware that they do for me - they don't for anon users though, so it's better to keep them consistent within an article if possible. I was merely undoing a previous user who had chagned two instances of dates, but left all the other ones alone. David Underdown (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I wrote a longish message for your talk page explaining some changes I made to British rule in India, but now I can't find the message. Well, I hadn't left the message, only written it up in the editing page! :( Anyway, let me look for it again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, these are some of the nuances/anomalies that we need to incorporate in the dab page British rule in India. Please take another look at it and see that it makes sense. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Your last edit broke a number of the references - you must have lost a closing tag along the way, I couldn't spot where it was, so I've reverted you. As I recall it was a deliberate decision during the process of reaching FA that led to the references being aggregated in the first place, so it might be better to discuss it before starting to split them up again. David Underdown (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated at Talk:British Raj#What to do about British India. Xn4 (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
|
I'm not deleting a message from any other User talk page. I'm doing it on my own one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.215.68 (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kirrages, I had put a question on Mumia Abu-Jamal, answered by user Behz which seems to be a socketpuppet of a user with bad reputation. Would u please have a look on the edit? I am interested to get an answer, not to be involved in a puppet game. Best regards --Polentario (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to comment here? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
An IP address you recently warned is continuing vandalising The Chrysalids. PatGallacher (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I have just been making a few edits to the Anglo-Iraqi War article and it seems yout added a citation: Mead (2007), p. 419 but have not added the book in. Any chance you could do so and applogies if i have got the wrong guy.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stephen,
Do you remember how one of the socks, generalmesse or brunodam or whoever, was incorrectly citing Sandkovich in his attempt to include battalion level actions the Italian WWII military history page? Well without going into it, sigh, I obtained a copy of the document. It turns out that it is a peer reviewed document published in an historical journal. Sandkovich himself is an academic historian who has written quite a bit - a fair chunk on Balkan history also. If you want to check it out, the reference is: Sandkovich, J.J. (1991) "Of Myths and Men: Rommel and the Italians in North Africa, 1940-1942." The International History Review Vol. XIII No. 2, pp. 284-313.
It was under my nose the entire time as I have access to it through my almer mater university, but thats not how I got hold of it. It is highly critical (extremely critical) but, unlike most texts that are used as sources, it is peer reviewed. As such it cites quite thoroughly and much of what it says is consistent with what I have managed to piece together over the years on the topic. Alternatively, I have a .pdf of the document so if you would like me to get it to you, let me know. It certainly is an interesting read.
At any rate, the sock was not relating the main message(s) of the document.
Regardless, I was always hoping to get back in touch with you regarding that section to run some possible additions by you before including them, but time got away from me (moved house, work busy etc). Now that I have read this, I will give it more consideration. It makes a few points that may be worth including. I was mainly going to include a comparison of numbers captured in various theaters of war. Other than that, the main wikipedia activities I have been doing are mainly been to add references, links and further reading sections to various articles - slow, mundane stuff but among the most important imho.
PS. if you reply, can you please please do so here so that we keep the conversation in one locale?. Cheers, Romaioi (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Howdy,
As you know ive been making a few changes to the Iraqforce article and ive been thinking; I think it should probably be renamed to British Persia and Iraq Command (with or without the British bit infront). Currently the article does show the transition from Iraq force to Persia and Iraq command so is soley not about the former. It would also add a missing British command to the wiki.
What do you think?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Go to the Persia and Iraq Command page. It of course redirects to Iraqforce. But under the page title you will see it says
A start-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Persia and Iraq Command)
Click on Persia and Iraq Command and it will take you to the actual page. To remove the redirect click on edit, delete #REDIRECT [[Iraqforce]] and replace it with normal text. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 18:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is no reference about any knowledgment by the Germans about allied plan on that sector in my former edit.
Anyway, versions apart, do you know, have or know someone who have the english version of a Book Wrote by Maj.Gen. Willis D.Crittenberg about the Campaign of US IV Corps on Nortwest of Italy ? The one I saw was a 1960's Portuguese version "Campanha ao noroeste da Itália". So, if you could help me I'll appreciate. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.176.39 (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that, viz. You beat me to the punch. I tried to fix it at the same time. Romaioi (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kirrages,
Can you please explain about the metadata purposes? I actually had the format I use from a wikipedia editor [[User:Bzuk|Bzuk] who suggested I should use this:
==References== ;Notes
(if columns are warranted)
;Bibliography
* Bowyer, Chaz. Hampden Special. Shepperton, Surrey, UK: Ian Allan Ltd., 1976. ISBN 0-7110-0683-0. * Clayton, Donald C. Handley Page, an Aircraft Album. Shepperton, Surrey, UK: Ian Allan Ltd., 1969. ISBN 0-7110-0094-8. * Donald, David and Lake, Jon., eds. Encyclopedia of World Military Aircraft. London: AIRtime Publishing, 1996. ISBN 1-880588-24-2. * Green, William and Swanborough, Gordon. WW2 Aircraft Fact Files: RAF Bombers, Part 2. London: Jane's Publishing Company Ltd., 1981. ISBN 0-7106-0118-2.
If you see my contributions you might understand why I do not use the wonky reference formats, saves ages of typing.Dirk P Broer (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You shouldn't use
|page=
and|pages=
for anything but identifying the pages you're referring to, because this template uses microformats to make reference details available to other programs (e.g., browser-based tools) and it uses these two parameters in a way that is only appropriate for page numbers, not counts of pages.
Hi Stephen,
Hope you had a good xmas. I'm not sure if you have managed to get a copy of the Sadkovich paper I flagged to you but it would be a copyright violation to upload it to WP. I've started to make some content additions at Military history of Italy during World War II, supported by numerous citations (interestingly, those who try to throw mud do not cite very much), but only a couple of these come from Sadkovich. After a few reads there isn't a tremendous amount of new material in the Sadkovich article (that can't be found with some digging elsewhere, but its very succinct), just a few key bits of information and criticism of Rommel. Seeing that you appear know quite a bit about Rommel I will let you know when I make the relevant additions (which will draw from Sadkovich - might take a while before I get there, as its already occupied ample time). I'm letting you know for two reasons; 1) it would be nice to have someone with a level head read over my additions before the mudslingers get started, and 2) as I imagine the socks might want to embellish on this, you could probably help me keep them at bay.
By the way. There are two Regio Esercito pages; link1, link1. These two combined with Italian Army seam will ultimately result in much duplication. A merge could be justified. What do you think?
PS. do you know how to create your own userbox?
Sincerely, Romaioi (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
Just a note of thanks for your work on the Battle_of_San_Pietro_Infine. I put it up originally about two years ago and did a little on it and then left it alone. I have a 94-year-old American friend and neighbor here in Naples, Italy, who was in that battle (and all the others in Italy!). He inspired me to write the original entry. I've showed him the article as it now stands in Wikipedia and he was moved by the quality of the article (as well as by his own memories of the events, I imagine). It really looks good. Thanks, again. Jeffmatt (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
To avoid splitting the discussion, I've responded at Talk:Western Desert Force. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 11:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Howdy :)
I have started the FAC ball rolling for Brevity: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Brevity
I know you have also done quite a bit of work on the article so thought you should also know :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
[3] Thanks for correcting. I can add good information and get the facts correct, but I should have checked the style results. --KP Botany (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
One word - Bugger!!! Ill double check all the ISBNs on my templates and then go over them again. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your copy edits to the above. To avoid a stupid revert war can you please put your reasons for any such change on to the talk page. I remind you that the matter has some importance in Australia and gets coverage all the time. Thanks for your time. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Copyedit form my home page: Re your recent reversions my my edits to the above article. I would like to point out that the book formatting is entirely consistent with almost all other WWII Military history articles (although some of the citations were still inconsistent, I was going to deal with that later) and the separation of footnotes (ie comments) and citations is also common and useful, making the comments easier to read (few people actually want to read citations so it makes sense to separate them). Putting book references into ((cite book)) templates preserves the book metadata which is used by the wiki programme for various data organisation, search etc purposes. Regards Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Steven, you have discovered my Achilles heel. Most editors merely look at the userid and figure it is "BZ" from the "UK", a notion which still gets me in stitches. I never intended to mask my identity and since I am a prolific author (NOT!), the idea of self-promotion is not far from my ever-waking thoughts. (LOL, all the above, taken with a large dose of tongue in cheek...) FWiW (not much in today market economy, as well, you probably have also guessed what my signoff in Wiky stands for) Bzuk (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC).
Shouldn't it redirect rather to the Battle of Rimini?Xx236 (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing up my orders/decorations/etc. bungles on Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis. I admit that British honours are a bit beyond my expertise. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Kirrages: I will accept your reversion of my removal of a `citation needed' tag in Operation Crusader, but I will mildly protest. It looks to me that the reference to `Operation Crusader order of battle' gives the needed reference, although I have not checked out its references to see if it holds water. As you are the person who supplied the reference, I will defer to your opinion, but I will ask you to reconsider. PKKloeppel (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kirrage,
I have noted that you have made numerous edits on various different orders of battles in the past. I was thinking of attempting to basically standardise as many as possible and well I have came looking for advice.
I have had a brief chat here regarding how best to lay them out but haven’t had much feedback: Wikipedia talk:Accessibility#Order of Battles although what advice that has been given has been good.
So far there seems to be 2 basic lay outs, one which is a continuous line of information such as Operation Epsom order of battle and one where each Corps is a sub section and each division of that Corps is separated from each other ala British Expeditionary Force order of battle (1940).
Personally I find both easy to read but am trying to gain some feedback on what way is the most effective before I start making changes to several ones I have made or heavily edited. Any input?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the Epsom OOB, since presumably on the British side the 2nd Army was subordinate to 22nd Army Group, and VIII Corps to 2nd Army (and similarly on the German side), would it be better to progressively lower the header level to show the subordination, much as you use different levels of bullets for divisions/brigades/battalions? I've given it a quick try and it looks OK to me. David Underdown (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
In the article their is the following paragraph:
Colonel Ouvry Lindfield Roberts, the senior staff officer (GSO1) of 10th Indian Division, was flown in to command the Habbaniya ground forces. Two World War I howitzers that had been decorating the entrance of the officers' mess were put in working order by some British gunners.[1]
Does the ref from Mackenzie cover both Roberts action and the activation of the two howizters? Does Mackenzie also give a date for when the howizters were put into action agaisnt the rebels? Cheers--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
In the A-class review of my article on Albert Kesselring, one of the reviewers had a query about a map. (File:ItalyDefenseLinesSouthofRome1943 4.jpg):
"The diagram captioned "German defensive lines south of Rome" is tagged as GFDL-self but lists no sources. The specific sources used should be clarified, both for attribution and to avoid OR."
Riggggghht. Anyway, if you could have a look for me, it would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
You eliminated a number of paragraphs in your April 11 edit, including this one:
Allies final offensive of the year fails
The Allies started a buildup for another attack, and were ready by late December, 1942. The continued but slow buildup had brought Allied force levels up to a total of 54,000 British, 73,800 American, and 7,000 French troops. A hasty intelligence review showed about 125,000 combat and 70,000 service troops, mostly Italian, in front of them.
On the night of 16-17 December a company of the U.S. 1st Infantry Division, led by Captain Stephen B. Morrissey, made a successful raid on Meknassy, 155 miles (250 km) south of Tunis, and took twenty-one Italian prisoners. The main attack began the afternoon of 22 December, despite rain and insufficient air cover, elements of the U.S. 1st Infantry Division's 18th Regimental Combat team and 2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards of 78th Division's Guards Infantry Brigade made progress up the lower ridges of the 900-foot (270 m) Longstop Hill that controlled the river corridor from Medjez to Tebourba and thence to Tunis. By the morning of 23 December the Coldstreams had driven back the elements of German 10th Panzer Division on the summit were then relieved by 18 RCT and were withdrawn to Mejdez. The Germans regained the hill in a counter-attack and the Coldstreams were ordered back to Longstop. The next day they had regained the peak and with 18 RCT dug in. However, by 25 December, with ammunition running low and Axis forces now holding adjacent high ground, the Longstop position became untenable and the Allies were forced to withdraw to Medjez[32] and by 26 December 1942 the Allies had withdrawn to the line they had set out from two weeks earlier, having suffered 20,743 casualties.
The Allied run for Tunis had been stopped.
I would like to know why you did this, because you have therefore omitted a reference to my father's participation in the raid on Meknassy. I urge you to replaced the excised passages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.254.245 (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
As you may have noticed some annon has just added half the world to the infobox of Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II. Other than the fact a bunch of countries added didnt actually exist at the time, where do we draw the line? With the main allied partipants?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Stephen,
The trans_title parameter allows adding a translated title in case the original is in a foreign language. See for example the documentation for ((cite journal)), ((cite news)) and ((cite web)), where it's already implemented and documented. I tried adding it to ((cite book)) and ((cite press release)), and in both cases I am somewhat unhappy with the results, so I have kept off on officially documenting it there. Although it seems to work, it seems that in both cases the URLs are linked against the unquoted 'title' parameter. On the other hand, the trans_title "prefers" to be formatted as square brackets inside double quotes. So what happens with these problem cases is that the translation ends up inside its own double quotes, separate from the linked foreign title. I am not sure what the MOS recommends for these cases (if anything), and don't want to modify the normal behavior of these templates, so I am still trying to find out the best solution. Your feedback would be more than welcome. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have detailed knowledge of "British English" spelling variations from my native 'merican. Is it ALWAYS ise instead of ize'? I see motorized, for example. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 23:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Stephen, Thanks for the help in Wikipaedi-formatting my additions. Haven't done this before and am complete computer numpty anyway. As well as his Record of Service there are further refs in Anthony Brett-James' 'Ball of Fire'; General Eustace D'Souza's works especially 'A Royal Tribute - a history of the 5th Bn The Maratha Light Infantry 1800-2005'; the 'Tiger' trilogy (The Tiger Strikes, The Tiger Kills, The Tiger Triumphs); 'Teheran to Trieste - the story of the Tenth Indian Division'; and interesting maps / photos in 'The Abyssinian Campaigns - the official story of the conquest of Italian East Africa'. There are also other papers of his which presumably I can't use as they are non verifiable. Best Wishes, Alastair Reid 90.241.185.100 (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
VMT. Will try as soon as pressing family commitments allow. There is a photo of 10th Ind Div HQ Staff (which includes your father) at New Year 1945 in the book 'Teheran to Trieste'. Thanks for your kind help and advice. Alastair Reid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.185.100 (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It was Denys's. Probably not protocol but drop me a line at alastair.reid@fsmail.net and I'll send you the picture. Kind Regards, Alastair Reid 90.241.185.100 (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
(Further to my last - no joy on email - perhaps I am spam)
What, by the way, was the official history of the Abyssinian campaign?
"The Abyssinian Campaigns - the official story of the conquest of Italian East Africa", HMSO, 1942. Issued by the Ministry of Information for the War Office, it has 145 pages, 14 maps and 140 photographs covering: The Shadow behind Suez; The Attack from the North; The Path of the Emperor; The Attack from the South; and The Search for the Scattered Armies.
There are 3 available; contact me for details if no joy with your email. Kind regards, Alastair90.241.185.100 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kirrages - Im certain it was Clarke who withdrew the NZ, Brit and Indian Divisions to create the NZ Corps, not Alexander! Do you have a specific reference which shows it was Alexander? He (Alexander) conceded and approved of the Clarke's decision. Thanks for correcting all the difficult technical things in the article... im still learning about all of those elaborate formats and styles! Farawayman (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)