User talk:Keith-264

I'll reply to your message here.

If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.
Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~)

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Article

Mud, Blood and Wood, B.E.F. Logistics during Third Ypres. Keith-264 (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reverted at Battle of Flers–Courcelette

Hi @Keith-264,

I have seen you have reverted the edit of an ip removing content. Based on this copy patrol report, the content is copyrighted protected from https://kids.kiddle.co/Battle_of_Flers–Courcelette. I have reverted it and requested copyvio revdel. Thought to notify you.

Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bunnypranav: I wrote that based on the official history, perhaps you have a false positive? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264

Please check https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Battle_of_Flers–Courcelette&url=https://kids.kiddle.co/Battle_of_Flers%E2%80%93Courcelette. It has a 99.7% copy vio chances. The content is copyrighted with https://kids.kiddle.co/Battle_of_Flers–Courcelette with a clear indication on their website saying © 2024 Kiddle.co ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bunnypranav: I've already had a look, I wrote most of that article and all of that paragraph in 2015 or 2016 based on the OH (Miles). The other article looks like it has been lifted from this wiki page. I've put a scrutiny request on the milhist page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bunnypranav: If you check the edit history it will show that I'm right. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bunnypranav: this link [1] has this at the bottom on the right CC BY-SA 3.0

unless otherwise noted. Kiddle encyclopedia articles are based on selected content and facts from

Wikipedia, edited or rewritten for children. Powered by

MediaWiki . Kiddle Español About Privacy Contact us

Enciclopedia Kiddle para niños

If there's a copyvio, it is that article ripping Wiki off. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, point noted. Thanks for choosing to inform me. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bunnypranav: I'm glad it has been sorted out. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convoy PQ 14

Hi Keith, you haven't defined "Sharpe 1998", used here. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: Ahem! Sorted it out. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Convoys

Think I've managed to change the merchant ships to the usual format using AWB. One thing which struck me though following on from the flags is that the column in the table is headed flag and then underneath appears flag and country for other nationalities but for UK it shows flag and merchant navy - should it not show flag and United Kingdom? I can change them all quickly using AWB if you agree Lyndaship (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lyndaship: Good morning; yesterday, I thought that some of the other countries didn't have a recognised merchant marine - I had a look through the pages on Panama for eg and only found its equivalent of the navy, nothing merchant. I assumed that national flags were being used in lieu of a merchant marine equivalent. I thought the blue and red flags for Merchant Navy and RFA were there because they existed. If you want to change them back I'll go along with it since you know more than me. ;O) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did this {{ship|Panama|Capira||2}} following the example of the ship template for Soviet naval ships, it looks like I was wrong. Are there any other schoolboy errors I've been making? I'm planning to use Jordan 2006 to check whether any of the merchant ships are MV etc rather than SS but there are several blind spots in his book. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I think you and many others are much more knowledgeable than me. I just like doing layout in articles. I don't know if Panama has a recognised Merchant Marine but certainly Norway and the US do, frequently the civil ensign is the same as the national flag. I'll change the articles so United Kingdom appears alongside the flag Lyndaship (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the existing Soviet articles for merchant ships don't follow the guidelines. Jordan is a good idea, I would have used Miramar but sadly my sub has expired, Lloyds is another idea but would take ages to go through. I suspect the only ships likely to be MVs are the tankers Lyndaship (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lyndaship: Considering the way that you copy edit my convoy article mistakes I beg to differ ;O). Apropos, I eventually decided that "Convoy PQ 8" was a better way to label them than "convoy PQ 8". No-one has objected but I wonder what you think. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally Convoy PQ 8 reads better to me but I know there is always some debate about capitalisation and I'm unaware of what the current convention is. Previously I ensured that the usage was PQ 8 throughout wiki as we had a mix of PQ.8 (as I believe the British used at the time) PQ-8 (American) and PQ 8. Lyndaship (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lyndaship: Considering the work I've put you to, is there anything I can do for you? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No you're fine thanks. Happy to help and playing with AWB is something I enjoy Lyndaship (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert of Bavaria

As far as I can see, Wikipedia is the only place you'll see him called "Robert", it was added to the article about him in 2019, and the IP has seen that and decided to re-write history and linguistics. DuncanHill (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be Rupert in English anyway ;O). Keith-264 (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is! He was Rupert or Rupprecht in English media at the time, I have only ever seen "Robert" on Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]