Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Hi, the user Pompey1939 has introduced a reference to canonesa.uk in various articles related to submarine warfare. Do you know if the website is reliable? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterBee1966: I've never heard of it, sorry. Keith-264 (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay, should it be removed, or questioned? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterBee1966: questioned certainly, I'll ask at milhist. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Stop making untrue allegations. Keith-264 (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and stop adding comments to my talk page, you're still barred. Keith-264 (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Keith-264,

Reaching out here to open good-faith communication over any of the WW1 pages. Happy to talk if there's any clash. Wahreit (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wahreit: Greetings, Ive reverted some of your edits because it is not for us to arbitrate between RS, only to describe what they have to say. If one source cites 3 casualties and another 30,000 we have to write 3−30,000 in the infobox and explain why in the casualties section o the article. I sugges that you look Template:Infobox military conflict here for advice. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264

the issue with the Verdun and Somme pages is that the initial figures in the infoboxes are uncited and do not reflect scholarly work. in addition, these initial figures were not reflected in the casualties section for the page, with only one exception for Anthony Clayton's work claiming the 143,000 dead Germans figure.

it's not really an RS issue because my sources come from mosier, meyer, and originate from internal accounts from the french military and reichsarchiv, which were used to replace the wikipedia figures with no sources at all.

also, given the chippy attitude of some editors who get pedantic over numbers (I have had to deal with quite a few of them before), it would be best if we do leave citations in the infobox. i've seen some "debates" get ugly in my editing experience.

one quick thing, when you reverted my edits that also undid their respective elaborations in the casualty sections (and some spelling edits). in the future, it would be much appreciated if you could just contest the areas of clash, e.g. move things around in the infobox and not revert the whole article with all my edits.

thanks. Wahreit (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wahreit: Mosier is not far off a fringe historian, good for pop history consumption but not convincing toother historians and it isn't for us to arbitrate between them, only to put them in a casualties section according to a criterion like date of their publications. I reverted your edits because they were wrong. As I mentioned, skeptical is an American spelling of sceptical in an article written in BritEng. The infobos only contained summaries of the main article, hence the material is already cited. I really think you ought to read Template:Infobox military conflict instead of banging your head against a wall of more experienced Wiki editors. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264

John Mosier being "fringe" is an opinion. Claiming my edits are "wrong" because they don't line up with a traditional source is not a valid argument. These are not "claims" or "controversial", they are figures directly from the German Reichsarchiv. G.J. Meyer judged them appropriate as a historian himself. Maybe we can compromise and put all the figures in the infobox with relevant elaborations because a lot of other pages do the same, but removing all mentions of 237k losses wholesale is not appropriate per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.

To your last part, I've been respectful to you this entire time, so don't take that tone and tell me what to do. It would be nice to finish this in good faith, but you need to reciprocate. Wahreit (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|Wahreit]] have you read Template:Infobox military conflict and Wikipedia:No original research? If you insist on making threats, I will terminate your presence on my talk page. Keith-264 (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You don't get to decide what other editors do or what sources they can use. This is Wikipedia, not Reddit. If you so choose to contest my edits, do so maturely. Because for an "experienced Wiki editor", you don't seem capable of accepting other opinions or communicating like an adult.

And just so you know, I was willing to be cordial about this. Wahreit (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wahreit: Have you read them? Keith-264 (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw a revert you made on Battle of France. I left a note for you on the article talk page: Talk:Battle_of_France#MOS:LEAD. Let's discuss there. Thanks. CUA 27 (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking an interest in my article Swedish 4-pounder cannon and doing an extensive edit. I have no issue with many of your edits. However, I would like to comment on three things. (1) order=flip. I appreciate that you are probably trying to be consistent with putting English units first. The reason that I led with metric units was because the source gave the units in metric. Ditto if the source gave English units. (2) Combining three Chandler citations into one. I really don't like this. If someone wanted to look up specific pages, they would be in difficulties. I plan to put the combined citation back the way it was. (3) I saw that links to bronze and muzzleloading in the introduction were removed. Another editor fussed at me for not including those links in a different artillery article that I wrote! Djmaschek (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Djmaschek: Ha! damned if you do, damned if you don't. ;O) When I do cheeky little drive-by edits it's to chip in with reviews of articles submitted for assessment, all suggestive. I'm surprised that you don't like combined edits but each to his own. I flipped the metric unit because the system didn't exist until the late C18th and because there were more cvts in imperial but that was another suggestive edit. I unlinked bronze and muzzle loading because there's a WP about juxtaposing links and it looked excessive since the two I unlinked were obvious. Thanks for mentioning this and I look forward to seeing the article develop. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]