Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Operation Epsom

2010-01-25T19:26:06Z

85.176.149.211: /* Straw Poll */

{{talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=WAR
|action1date=23:46, 30 September 2008
|action1link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Epsom
|action1result=approved
|action1oldid=242088602

|action2=FAC
|action2date=21:11, 31 October 2008
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Epsom
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=248300747

|currentstatus=FA
|maindate=June 30, 2009
}}
{{WPMILHIST
|class=FA|A-Class=pass
|British-task-force=yes
|German-task-force=yes
|WWII-task-force=yes|portal1-name=Tank
|portal1-link=Featured battle/5
}}
{{Archive box|auto=long}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Operation Epsom/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 |small=yes}}

== first battle of the Odon? ==

Then where's the second? [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 08:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

:In the campaign box, under the title Second Odon; it was a series of operations launched to support Operation Goodwood. Those battles and Epsom were not really related and thus there isnt much on them in this article.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 09:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
:I have never the less made a mention of it in the article.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 09:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

== Dollman ==

In the infobox, there's a referenced "Killed in action" icon. However, in the notes, the various speculations over his cause of death do not seem to indicate KIA. Puzzled. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 12:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
:That has only been added today or yesterday and i agree it does not appear to be warrented. It will be removed.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 12:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

== Kirsten Dunst ==

Is this vandalism? In the Planning section? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jokem|Jokem]] ([[User talk:Jokem|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jokem|contribs]]) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 

== Nomen est ...? ==

Any word on why it was named Operation Epsom? I see Epsom is a town south of London. [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
:Its named after the Epsom horserace, if it doesnt mention that in the article i would imagine its because my sources didnt say so or i missed it. Ill scoot through them again later.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 19:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
::I'm sure Wilmot mentions something about the 'race-meeting' operations (Epsom, Charnwood, Goodwood). [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Windsor and Aintree had cameos too.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
:As far as I am aware at this point in time codenames for operations like this were deliberately chosen to be neutral and not give away any clues on the purpose or type of the operation. So the answer to "why" is because it doesn't particularly mean anything. It is only more recently that some military operations have been named more for the perceived public relations benefit than for military purposes. --[[Special:Contributions/86.148.73.87|86.148.73.87]] ([[User talk:86.148.73.87|talk]]) 17:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
::More modern ones are all stolen from cheesy Steven Segal movies ... everyone knows that :p--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
:::True (well, US ones at least). Epsom went one better though with sub-operations Gout, Goitre, Impetigo and Hangover... planners with a sense of humour indeed. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

== casualties ==

is there an estimation about allied tank losses ? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:HROThomas|HROThomas]] ([[User talk:HROThomas|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HROThomas|contribs]]) 18:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC) 

:I have checked and double checked the sources i have on this operation and their doesnt appear to be any. New information is welcome however.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 17:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

==Straw Poll==

Do you think that this,

"....the clash of two modern armies [is] one huge battle spread over space and time, in which the smaller battles fought by the army corps...[would] form the tactical encounters of traditional battles. These large numbers of battles that would take place far away from one another as the individual corps or groups of corps came into contact with the enemy would be welded together by the commander-in-chief into a 'complete battle'. The individual [smaller] battles would be given significance by the commander-in-chief's plan. Just as a commander of old gave units particular goals on the battlefields of days past, a modern commander-in-chief would give specific goals to his army corps. Each would play a part in the overall plan. 'The success of battle today depends more upon conceptual coherence than on territorial proximity. Thus, one battle might be fought in order to secure victory on another battlefield.'"

is a reasonable description of the course of the Normandy campaign and of Epsom's place in it?[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 20:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

:I believe the opening sentance is possibly spot on; although i think you could make the same connection between the ancient battlefield and the modern depending on how you look at it. I couldnt really comment on the last part though.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 23:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

banal?
this sentence dont fits for allied in normandy. i guess its more for complex and faster operation like barbarossa. the many little operations maybe secured victroy in cean but were not neccesary. he talks about offensive actions with many little actions at the same time with little place for failures...
my opinion...

Talk:Battle of Villers-Bocage

2010-01-25T18:54:27Z

85.176.149.211: /* german tank casualties */

{{talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=WPR
|action1date=14:28, 21 March 2008
|action1link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Villers-Bocage
|action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=199355673

|action2=FAC
|action2date=17:30, 17 October 2009
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Villers-Bocage/archive1
|action2result=not promoted
|action2oldid=320244187

|action3=FAC
|action3date=00:34, 12 December 2009
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Villers-Bocage/archive2‎
|action3result=not promoted
|action3oldid=331131964

|currentstatus=FFAC
}}
{{WPMILHIST
|class=B
|peer-review=
|old-peer-review=yes


|B-Class-1=yes

|B-Class-2=yes

|B-Class-3=yes

|B-Class-4=yes

|B-Class-5=yes

|British-task-force=yes
|German-task-force=yes
|WWII-task-force=yes
}}
{{archive box collapsible|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]]}}

== Copyedit notes ==

Usual form; questions etc below. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 11:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

===Lead===
*I normally leave this until last (and will come back to it later), but given the battle's controversial nature I thought any objections might be worth dealing with now rather than while the article's at FAC :) I've made a tweak to the final paragraph re historical views of the battle... Comments?
*:Would it be better to write 'part' of 7th Armd Div was sent on the flanking move?[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 12:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
*::I think so, though I'll get to that when I ce the lead later (unless you fancy making the tweak?) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 12:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*:::Have altered a few words for clarity but feel free to change if you think it hasn't helped.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 12:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
*::::Looks good :) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 07:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

===Background===
*I've trimmed much of the Perch stuff from the start of this section - I think due to its complexity, it's difficult to summarise adequately and we've got the link to the main article anyway. However, please rv if you disagree ;)
*:Looks alright so far.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 15:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

===Morning fighting===
*<s>The note re the three Stuarts has a reference - ''After the Battle'' magazine - that doesn't seem to be properly listed in the refs section or anywhere else.</s>
*:<s>Ill add that in a mo.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)</s>
*:Just noted that the magazine is already listed: "After the Battle Magazine (2006). Issue 132. After the Battle Magazine. After the Battle."; with no editorial name i have just used the magazine's name so it does display a little funky. So we have "authors surename", the year, title, series title and the publisher displayed.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*::Cool, that should be enough [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 13:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*<s>Not really part of this section, but while I'm thinking of refs, is [http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/gerob/ghqpz/101pzabt.html http://w1.183.telia.com] a [[WP:RS]]?</s>
*:I would argue it is; it appears to be copyrighted by a reliable historian, Zetterling, who has had a number of books released plus all sources used on the website are mentioned.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*::OK, np. I wondered if it was ''the'' Zetterling ;) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 13:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*:::I think it is.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*<s>What rank was Dyas?</s>
*:Am gonner have a busy weekend studying and writing an assingment but when i get a moment i will add it in.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*::It's ok, I ran across it while looking up something else. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 13:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*:::Nice one.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*<s>Who was Charles Pearce? A rank or position would be helpful. Also, is this the same person as the Charles Pierce mentioned later in this section?</s>
*:Likewise, also i dont believe their was another guy out there with a similar name who was so high profile so i think ive made a typo. I will check the spelling too to find out which variant is correct.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*::They seem to be the same Pearce, according to the newsletter, so I'll save you some time and fix it myself.
*:::Chers
*<s>I'm not convinced about the Sharpshooter newsletter as a source - wouldn't the recollections of the troopers qualify as primary source material? It may be ok, as long as we're careful about how we attribute.</s>
*:Yes i believe it would qualify as primary source material due to it being letters/comments etc sent into the regiments newsletter. I think this usage should fall within the guidelines; it has been published (the guidelines not a reliable source i.e. uni press or mainstream newspapers however i think this regmental newsletter should be covered by this too) and has on the whole been used mostly for descriptive purposes - i dont believe it has stepped outside the guidelines and to be used in an analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative manner etc (if i have understood the guidelines correctly).--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*::I believe that's right. Since we're using it to cite what the troopers recollect, I think it should be fine - just wanted to double-check with you ;) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 14:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

===Aftermath===
*<s>I have a feeling that the Propoganda section might sit better at the start of the Analysis section. Can I give this a try?</s>
**Done this - hopefully it works better, but please feel free to change as necessary. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 17:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

===Analysis===
*Major point: the lead claims that recent historiography has looked at the change in German tactics as the reason for the offensive's failure. However, this isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. I'd have thought it belongs in this section, so until we get something in here about that, I'll comment it out in the lead.
*:I have reviewed all changes made thus far and am very happy with what has occured, sorry i havent been around the last few days but life got in the way. I will consult my sources and with Keith on this issue.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 16:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
*::No problem :) Other than the lead and this issue, I'm about done anyway. I'll keep checking back. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 18:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

==Conclusion==
The effect that the German foiling of the British attempt to lever Panzerlehr out of Tilly by doing the V-B gig is decribed in the conclusion but I'm curious about a forestalling of any German opportunity to counter-attack at Tilly with the forces that ended up at V-B. Does anyone know of sources which discuss British defensive arrangements in the area?[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 12:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
:I don't recall reading anything specifically about that. I'm certain (given the offensively-minded nature of the German strategy at that time) that the redeployment of German forces caused by the thrust at Villers-Bocage forestalled something, but ''what'' I've no idea. I'll recheck my sources though. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 07:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Considering the strength of Panzerlehr and the reinforcements approaching I doubt they'd have been content to hold ground if there was an alternative. I like the revisions to the article, particularly the historiographical analysis of the Wittmann propaganda and its exploitation since by both sides. I found it reminiscent of the way the story of the Battle of Jutland was told by the Admiralty soon after it, compared to the use the Germans made of it. That said it shows how far gone the Germans were in the days after D-Day that they could only muster a propaganda victory.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 08:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:I dont recall seeing anything in my sources about this sort of thing however one should look to be aware of this battle as being part of the larger operation. On top of which to me it seems that the Germans did not hold the initative they were reacting to the advances made by the British and Americans; any notion of counterattack came when II SS PanzerCorps arrvied.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

::...and then it remained a notion ;) There was 21st Panzer's post-D-Day attempt to split the British and Canadians, and 12th SS Panzer had a good go when they arrived, but thanks to the Allied pressure I can't recall any 'proper' German offensives that actually went off even remotely as planned between those local efforts and Mortain. The succession of German commanders in Normandy certainly seemed to arrive at a realistic assessment of their position rapidly enough, so who can say how much of the constant planning for counterattacks that never took place was just to appease Berlin? [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 11:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about it more from the British pont of view - the importance to Monty of not allowing the Germans a sniff of an opportunity. I get the impression from the British deployment at Tilly that this was the 'schwehrpunkt' and that the move of part of 7th Armd Div round the flank was not intended to compromise the effort elsewhere, that it was more of an attempt to trigger a German retreat than to bulldoze them. Closing the gap made by the 1st Inf Div also guarded against the Germans going the other way. As it was the fighting around V-B consumed German resources and engaged German reinforcements. As we know (being groovy through hindsight) the encounter battle at V-B and the Brigade Box depleted one of the Germans' most powerful armoured formations (101HSSPzA) as well as distracting some of the 2nd PzDiv and parts of the PZL Div. I also wonder if we underestimate the weather as a factor - it pops up like a deus ex machina rather than being a permanent presence. All that said, with what we know now, could a Brigade Group have done any better?[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 13:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think when we look back on the information available on this battle we can see how the fighting was downplayed and the defeat of the 7th Armoured Division being overplayed. Only recently have we managed to gain new books detailing the battle in a more accurate light (although not perfect) but it seems there has yet to be a look at the battle within the bigger picture, i.e. 7th Armoured Division’s actual objective and how that figured in Perch, what the objective of the German reinforcements was, where the Germans planning a counterattack or was their attitude purely defensive, how much of an impact did this battle really have on both sides and the campaign?

To be honest I think the battle is overrated; we have, for example, accounts from Kurt Meyer detailing how he ambushed and destroyed numerous tanks soon after D-Day etc It appears these sort of things happened on a fairly regular basis so in the end what is really so important about this battle? A loss opportunity to capture Caen? I think this last premise is completely unfounded, the operations goal was to encircle the city and with I Corps advance halted could have a strung out XXX Corps really have achieved that objective when we consider it would be encircling three armoured divisions who were still combat effective?

I think so too. The quick capture of Caen still appeals to many writers as the way to advance in the east without a great attritional battle or as a demonstration of Anglo-Canadian feebleness. Perhaps there's also been a bit of jealousy of the 7th Armd Div as well. Considering that it was equipped with Cromwells I would have thought that it would not be seen as a battering-ram, rather a latter-day cavalry force to exploit a success rather than make one.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 14:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:This is wandering off-topic, but it's an interesting question as to whether or not 7th Armoured (or any Allied armoured division for that matter) was actually equipped to a standard that would let it be used as a battering-ram. I know historians have plenty to say about the relative qualities of German vs Allied tanks, and maybe if something as well-armoured as a Tiger had been available to the Allies they could have pressed home that type of offensive, but I have to confess I'm sceptical. The Soviet heavies were undoubtedly effective, but didn't prevent huge losses (of a type the Brits particularly couldn't have sustained) when attacking on the Eastern front. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 17:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The organisation of westender armies does rather look like they were built to erode German fighting power with artillery while the tanks and infantry manoeuvred under its cover rather than by armoured duelling. The big German tanks look to me to be the 1944 version of the line of 88's that thwarted the Anglo-French attack at Arras in 1940. On the whole the fighting in Europe after 1941 looks more and more like 1916 with knobs on.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 19:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

== FA review ==

Moved the following here for now in an attempt to tighten up and trim the background section. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 18:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

<blockquote>The pincer's eastern arm would consist of I Corps's [[51st (Highland) Infantry Division]] and the [[4th Mechanized Brigade (United Kingdom)|4th Armoured Brigade]]. These formations would strike out of the [[Orne]] bridgehead—the ground gained east of the Orne by the [[6th Airborne Division (United Kingdom)|6th Airborne Division]] during [[Operation Tonga]]—towards [[Cagny, Calvados|Cagny]], {{convert|6|mi|km|adj=off}} to the southeast of Caen. XXX Corps would form the pincer's western arm; the 7th Armoured Division would swing east, crossing the [[Odon River]] to take [[Évrecy]] and the high ground, Hill 112, near the town. refname=Trew22, refname=Pg247 (Ellis, p. 247)</blockquote>

== Agte info ==

<blockquote>
Wittmann's 2nd Company consisted of three platoons. I. Zug (1st platoon) made up of Tigers 211 (Ostuf. Jürgen Wessel), 212 (Uscha. Balthasar Woll), 213 (Hscha. Hans Höflinger) and 214 (Uscha. Karl-Heinz Warmbrunn). II. Zug (2nd platoon) made up of Tigers 221 (Ustuf. Georg Hantusch), 222 (Uscha. Kurt Sowa)), 223 (Oscha. Jürgen Brandt) and 224 (Uscha. Ewald Mölly). III. Zug (3rd platoon) made up of Tigers 231 (St.O.Jk. Heinz Belbe), 232 (Uscha. Kurt Kleber) 233 (Oscha. Georg Lötsch) and 234 (Uscha. Herbert Stief),[68][10] although Lieutenant Wessel in Tiger 211 was sent off to establish contact with the Panzerlehrdivision, and Tiger 233 was suffering from track damage and 234 from mechanical failure.[17]
</blockquote>

<s>Two questions; all other sources point to most of the entire battalion being non-functional and Wittmann having 6 tanks with him at V-B- one of which was sent off to make contact with the panzerlehr; where does these other 6 tanks come from? Edit: to clarify Tigers 212, 213, 214, 224, 231, and 232. No other source places them at V-B; does Agte?

Additionally what do all the abbreivations mean?--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 15:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)</s>

No Agte does not contradict your sources. What triggered me to start expanding this section is the sentence "Wittmann's 2nd Company consisted of..." and that the article stated that two other Tigers were either unserviceable or not present. I felt that the section should state what his authorized strength was, listing all the Tigers and all unserviceable tanks. [[User:MisterBee1966|MisterBee1966]] ([[User talk:MisterBee1966|talk]]) 20:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

:Forgot to say cheers the other day for you addressing the questions raised and sorting out the rank issue.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 10:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

:Ostuf= oberscharführer uscha unterscharfüher hascha = hauptscharführer all SS ranks —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.192.121.123|188.192.121.123]] ([[User talk:188.192.121.123|talk]]) 21:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 

== Hopefully quick C/E ==

I think I'm far enough away from this article to give it a quick c/e and suitably 'accessiblise' it. First question - where were the five battlegroups of 84 corps reserves originally from, and who destroyed them? [[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 20:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

<blockquote>
But the strong German doctrinal instint for such counter-attacks led to attempts on D plus 1 to repeat Battle Group Meyer's attack with the last remaining available LXXXIV Corps reserve, Mobile Brigade 30 (mobile on bicyles), which was liekwise effectively destroyed north of Bayeux. Counting this last attack, three battle groups of 352nd Infantry Division had been smashed by the British from Gold, and a further two by the Americans frm Omaha, producing the brief gaping hole in the German centre on 8 June that became the known as the Caumont Gap.
</blockquote>
Buckley, p. 59

To note, Battle Group Meyer is described on p. 58 as part of LXXXIV Corps reserve; no mention of the parent unit. To me it looks like the text implys that BG Meyer and Mobile Brigade 30 are part of 352nd Div however they dont show up on their OOB: [[352nd Infantry Division (Germany)]].--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 20:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

::Cheers Enigma. I'm guessing there's a village called Caumont somewhere there? PS, where I adjust text, can I ask you and EyeSerene to check that refs match slightly adjusted statements? [[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 20:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

:::That would be [[Caumont-l'Éventé]]; it is a town south of Bayeux and west of Villers-Bocage. Ill double check the refs following your changes and adjust were needed.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 20:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

== german tank casualties ==

*"Michael Reynolds records the loss of six Tigers and two Panzer IVs, that were found knocked out in the town following the battle." 8 tanks which were found. maybe only 8 destroyed????????????????
*"Forty notes that up to six Tigers and three Panzer IVs were knocked out during the fighting" 9 tanks , similar to reynolds.
*Bayerlein reports 6 tigers lost. consense with forty and reynolds
but the infobox says 8-15 , how can this happen? because we start bias modus now
* delaforce says 15 tanks destroyed
* taylor says the british !!!!!CLAIMED!!!!! 14 tanks destroyed.
its obvious for everybody with brain that delaforce high likly means the same claims.
* Immediate claims are nearly always exagrated. the guys are nervous shooting on empty tanks counting them twice, everybody knows this. claims of the troops arent usefull when there are other numbers avaible. they counted 8 tanks . TANKS ARE HUGE MACHIENES THEY CANT MISS THEM
including the immediate claims of british soldiers in the infobox while better numbers are available is absolutly bias. u want a featured article with this shit? unbelievable....

:from the article "He recorded a radio message on the evening of 13 June, describing his role in the morning's fighting and claiming that later counterattacks had destroyed an entire British armoured regiment and infantry battalion" , wittmann claims the destruction of a amoured regiment this must be writte in the infobox like the british claims. or not ENIGMA??? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.176.148.111|85.176.148.111]] ([[User talk:85.176.148.111|talk]]) 02:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC) 

:Considering Delaforce does not make any mention of the words "claimed" or how his figures break down, or what his sources are everything is assumption on your behalf to conclude the figures are basis, made-up, or include over-claimed knocked out tanks.
:If you read the full extract from Taylor's work he states these three regiments claimed x number of tanks knocked out, then concedes that these tanks were in fact hit but most immobilised - he is not suggesting that these are overclaimed figures; it is all in the casualty section. His figure shows a comprehensive look at how many tanks the British disabled. To also note his figure is less than Delaforce's.
:As for Wittmann's claim; its actually disproved by facts on the ground and various sources consulted - there is no need to present the destruction of an entire armoured regiment (~60 tanks) or infantry battalion (7-1,000 men) as an answer when there are no relibable sources suggesting the same.
::Wittmann never claimed this. In the interview which is printed in full in Agte, he stated that he believed to have destroyed 21 amoured vehicles (including tanks), the exact number he doesn't know and needs to be counted. [[User:MisterBee1966|MisterBee1966]] ([[User talk:MisterBee1966|talk]]) 08:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
:In regards to your other concern over German losses; we have a full answer - the range of men lost from the Waffen-SS and KNOW that the Panzer-Lehr and 2.Panzer losses are unknown - again this explained in the casualty section so what is in the infobox is as accurate as possible.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 10:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, has terminological inexactitude reappeared? Plenty of tanks on both sides were 'knocked out' in the sense that they became U/S. some of these were also written off as 'destroyed'; many more are recorded as 'under repair', some were back in action next day and some weren't. It seems far more revealing to look at the number of tanks recorded as 'operational' and compare this to the number just before D-Day to see the fluctuation in the number of tanks available than to engage in sterile numbers games.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 10:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Agte on page 203 goes into great detail listing the losses on the German side. The heavy Panzer battalion lost 6 Tiger tanks and Panzer-Lehr lost 2 of the 10 it deployed. German personnel losses are named in person for the heavy Panzer battalion (differentiating between KIA and wounded). The human losses for Panzer-Lehr are not quantified. If the English sources indicate 15 tanks lost, can we at least add a footnote stating that German records constitute for 8 losses only? [[User:MisterBee1966|MisterBee1966]] ([[User talk:MisterBee1966|talk]]) 14:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Is 'loss' defined?[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 16:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:I would kindly remind you to check out the article; one source states 15 tanks, one sources breaks down the claims by each regiment to 14 and the 7th Armoured Division themselves post war only claimed 9. I have no problem with adding in an additional source and the inital line of the German tank casualty paragrah can easily be changed to also incorparate Agte - Reynolds claims only 8 tanks lost as well.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 16:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

:: Nice job! I like the way the discrepancies are being represented now. [[User:MisterBee1966|MisterBee1966]] ([[User talk:MisterBee1966|talk]]) 10:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

== Panzer Lehr officer name typo ==

A typo has just been noted, in the one paragraph a Major Wenck becomes Major Wenke; the latter was used twice and the former once. I have so far changed Wenck to Wenke but i do not have access to the source: The Desert Rats: 7th Armoured Division, 1940-1945 by Robin Nielands.

I will check this out sometime next week, unless someone else has access to this book; i have checked out google books and onere is no snippet view or preview. Google searches just turn up results for this page or foriegn versions etc--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

:Wenke seems to be the prevailing version in what I could find (though I don't have that specific book either). [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 19:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

::According to the book by Ritgen, Helmut (2004). ''Westfront 1944''. Stuttgart, Germany: Motorbuch Verlag. ISBN 3613024098. his correct rank and title is Major i.G. (im Generalstab—in the general staff) Berend? Werncke. The picture shown [http://www.tank-net.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t21545-100.html here] is also published in the book [[User:MisterBee1966|MisterBee1966]] ([[User talk:MisterBee1966|talk]]) 07:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I will not have access to Neillands' book until next week, possibly tomorrow, but i would suggest throwing in a ref from Ritgen's book and changing the name to the way he spells it; the logic being there both German, there both from the same division Ritgen is most likely going to have it correct.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 16:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

::::Seems i just plain old cocked the name up; Neillands has it as Werncke too.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 12:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

== FA ==

Sorry to see this didn't get promoted guys. I'm unsure of what to suggest, as personally I think it's a solid article. It's hard to balance 'inaccessibility' vs too much detail, but I think this article's got it right. Given that you've managed to dig up a great deal of information, it would be a shame to lose it. I started Copy editing the article, but I think EyeSerene does a far better job so I've stopped now (don't worry, EyeSerene, you didn't edit conflict!), plus the more people who do quick c/e's, the greater the risk of the article's prose suffering. All I can really suggest is a peer review (seeing as the last one was almost 2 years ago) or maybe an A Class review to get the article up a step.

Only other thing I can think of (and I imagine I'll get some light hearted flak for this as I originally suggested it), is that the casualties section is now ''very'' detailed. I only really imagined combining the 4 notes into one section originally and while Enigma's done some brilliant research, the section is now quite complex and perhaps not in the same 'flow' as the rest of the article. Got the flak jacket on...

Cheers, [[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 22:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

:Your last-minute help was greatly appreciated, Steve, thank you very much. I think you're right that prose can sometimes suffer from dip-in copyediting but that's no fault of anyone's, more an effect of the time factor involved when everyone dives in to help try to beat a deadline. Personally I'd much rather have the help than not... we just ran out of time was all :)
:Now the pressure's off, I'm intending to go over the article again in a week or two so I'm coming to it fresh. The PR idea is a good one I think; I suggested something similar to Enigma yesterday. However, if you've got any comments or want to fix bits of the prose you see as unclear, ''please'' do! There's no rush, and Tony's comment about us being too close has some justification. Don't worry about the overall prose flow - I can polish that later if necessary. Thanks again! [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 08:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
::I consider the article quite good. However before I approve this article I would want to add more information pertaining to the German point of view. I find the background on 1st and 2nd company of the heavy Panzer battalion 101 slightly insufficiently covered. Especially since the section on analysis criticizes Wittmann for his actions. While I don't want to challenge this criticism I do feel it appropriate to elaborate a bit more on the situation he was forced into. The area he was in was under constant naval artillery fire, his tanks needed an overhaul, etc. He was not expecting to face the enemy at that point in time and the alley he had positioned his tanks in was chosen for concealment and to do maintenance on them. The article lists one tank as having a mechanical problem, which is true but not to the extend indicated in the article, the engine was prone to overheating, also not mentioned so far is that Villers Bocage was actually occupied by a German first aid/field hospital unit prior to the attack. I then checked the story about Major Werncke whose name was misspelled. All said I want to further investigate and expand the article. [[User:MisterBee1966|MisterBee1966]] ([[User talk:MisterBee1966|talk]]) 11:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe at least one source i have looked at said that the Sani boys had already taken off before the Brits showed up. Other sources including the tankers and Robin Neilands talk of combat troops occupying the town when they turned up i.e. them coming under machine gun and fire fire from second floor buildings. Another source mentions a sniper being killed when the shell fired at the B Squadron firefly missed and hit the building behind it.

There are multiple sources saying there was or there was not a handful of men in the town; we can add a note however...--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 22:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

== analyse ==

nice text about the flaws of the tank commander who destroyed many tanks and equipment

erickson says this: ...."extremly good tactical handling "..."absolut masterpiece of individual tank fighting" —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.176.144.3|85.176.144.3]] ([[User talk:85.176.144.3|talk]]) 05:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 

== German forces stationed in V-B prior to the battle ==

Since this has been brought up;

Off the top of my head Neillands' and the tankers themselves, via the newsletters, make mention of the German troops and possibly some snipers being within the town when they arrvied. Am a little reluctant to use the latter for this due to it being a primary source and i will report back what exactly Neillands does state when i check out his book again - hopefully tomorrow.

The other sources:

#History of the 7th Armoured Division (the divisional history) does not make any note of contact with German forces prior to the ambush bar those encountered by the Hussars.
#Wilmot states only 2 Germans - who fled in a hitlermobile - and French civvies were encountered when the British entered the town.
#D'Este notes only the ambush being the first contact
#Delaforce states the ambush was the first contact and uses two first hand accounts that make no mention of Germans in the town
#Fortin also gives the same account - the ambush being the first contact
#Beevor states the only forces met during the advance and capture of the town was the 8-wheeled scout car; afterwhich the only German forces encountered was the Tiger ambush.
#Forty notes that according to Germans sources two medical companies and the Panzer Lehr's ambulance platoon had established a dressing station and hospital within the town but thats the only mention of them. Other than that he mentions the armoured car that got away and the ambush as the only other German contacts.
#Taylor, as far as i can see, does not make any mention of medical personal or any German troops within the town prior to the ambush.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 17:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just checked out Neillands' work and there is no mention of German medical troops or other German forces in the town prior to the ambush; my memory appears to be a tad faulty.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 12:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

== Pre-FAC review ==

I am here at the request of [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]] to have a read through and review of the article to see if I can pick up on anything before the article has another stab at FAC. Overall, I find this an excellent article and fascinating read. I do have some suggestions, however, which are as follows:
*'''Lead'''
** "during the night of 14–15 June" - per MoS a night period date should be presented with a slash rather than an endash. eg. "14/15 June".
***addressed.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
** The wikilink to [[Normandy Landings]] should be moved up to the mention in the first paragraph. This would also remove the need for the information in the brackets.
***Addressed--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
** In general, the lead is written and structured very well. However, it is a little long and if there are any minor details that are not so necessary for inclusion I would recommend it be cut down a little.
*'''Background'''
** "Armoured was now to exploit the Caumont Gap" - It is preferable that sentences do not begin with a numeral.
**Addressed this one and changed armoured to armour; seems more gramatically correct as the latter.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 17:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
*'''Planning'''
** I don't know if it is just my screne, but there is quite a bit of image swandwiching in this section. Perhaps it might be best if one of the images was moved up into the previous section?
***Moved images around--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 12:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
** Emdashes should be unspaced.
***Cant spot this one, could you point it out lol--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
****Fixed. [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 12:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
** "I SS-Panzer Corps commander Sepp Dietrich" - I would recommend that Dietrich's rank be included here, particularly for the sake of consistency.
***Will add that in ASAP.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
***Rank added.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 22:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
** The inclusion of the German personnel's ranks in both German and then English is redundant. I think just the German, with a wikilink, is sufficient.
***Sorted.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
*'''Morning fighting'''
** "called a conference on Point 213 and attended by all officers and senior NCOs of A Company." - I think this sentence requires tweaking. Is this meant to mean that the conference ''was'' attended by the personnel of A Company?
***i have added in the words "to be held" prior to the Point 213 bit.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
*'''Late morning and the fighting on Point 213'''
** "arrived and began to round up isolated British tankers and riflemen" - are the numbers of the captured British known?
***Taylor p. 42 - no figure is given but does state that 30 riflemen, who had not made it to the point but were along the main road, did manage to escape during the day and following night. Taylor p. 56 - 30 men from the Sharpshooters, some badly wounded, and later joined by men from the rifle brigade, men from the RHA and other infantry.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
** "30 members of the County of London Yeomanry" - same issue as above with starting sentences with numerals.
***Changed to the word in place of the number--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
*'''Casualties'''
** The final sentence in the second paragraph is uncited.
*** Its a tally of the previously cited info--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
****Fair enough. Just be careful with this, though, or move the cite to cover this. We know how picky FAC reviewers can be. :) [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 12:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
** Due to the related nature of the final two paragraphs in this section, and the relative shortness of the former, I would recommend they be combined.
*'''Notes'''
** There is inconsistency in the presentation of citations, with some including the author's surname, while others have the surname and the publication year. This should be made consistent.
I hope these are of some use. :) Cheers, [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 12:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
*** The only time it has been used is when it been authors of the same name and multiple sources used; i.e. Buckley and Hastings. Regardless of this, we should edit all other refs and add the year in?--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Thanks Abraham, B.S., your review is very helpful and greatly appreciated! Re the names/dates, Enigma is right - it's used to resolve potential confusion between refs to more than one work by the same author (but not needed where there's no confusion). We'll get to work on your other points :) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 20:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
::::A little overdue but i have just worked through these; thanks for the review.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::You are most welcome. :) Regarding the citations, I presumed this was the case. However, it is always best to be consistent and this may be picked on. I tend to use [[Template:Harvnb]] for book cites, which gives the presentation of the author's surname, publication year and page(s), but also acts as somewhat of a link when clicked and takes one to the appropiate source in the "References" section. This is just something to think about with future articles; I would by no means recommend you go through and implement the template for this article—it would take hours! Lol. Cheers, [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 12:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

== analysis POV ==

schneider is only one historian... the biggest part of analysis is critics against wittman, the article not even mentions that historians like erickson called his action cool. i mentioned this before it was ignored .... . write in the articles that other historians dispute schneiders opinion. now its POV. by the way its very weird that the guy who destroys more enemy ressources in one action than any allied tank commander in his career is so blamed for his action in the analyse. its like blaming a football player for missing the 7th goal after he shoot 6... . every military action can be critizised.... . very bias this part.... . —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.192.121.123|188.192.121.123]] ([[User talk:188.192.121.123|talk]]) 04:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 
:the discription of the nook which is quoted for wittmanns failure : This is a controversial yet definitive work on the famous battle between 7th Armoured Division and the s.SS-Pz. Abt. 101"
even the discription says it a controversial book but the article takes this as the ONLY ONE source for the analyse of german actions, lol...
i bet the author choose the worst opnion about wittman he could find, lol.... interessting is that this book is only used ONE time in this article , for wittmanns judgment. for the rest of the article the book was not good enough. POV at its best —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.192.121.123|188.192.121.123]] ([[User talk:188.192.121.123|talk]]) 04:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 

:Let me humour you; the largest part of the analysis section focuses the attention of critics on the British actions revolving around the battle not Wittmann. Since you have took the time to look up the book, and using its description to write it off, do you know who Henri Marie is? He was the definitive historian of the fighting at Villers-Bocage, he lived there and put allot of effort into recording what happened. Do you have evidence bar '''your opinion''' to dismiss the book as unqualified to use as a source? Also considering you looked it up, did you also decide to glance at the price and possibly consider that other than the book not being "good enough" for the rest of the article none of us own it, and the pieces of information provided have been donated via other editors?
:Considering it would seem Schneider's opinion is not good enough for you - a new point considering prior to this your POV accusations have been aimed at the lack of German historians, here is one but its not good enough for you - he appears to be a well respected historian on the German panzer arm; his opinion clearly states that Wittmann's action may have been brave but it squandered an opportunity to take the British by surprise with overwhelming force. Do you have a source, page numbers etc that dismiss that Wittmann made errors on the day '''bar your opinion'''?
:Erickson, would this be John Erickson? The only historian i could find on Amazon with that surname and he appears to have works mostly relating to the Eastern Front and none on Normandy nor Villers-Bocage; would you care to elaborate, provide page numbers etc instead of name dropping. Additional, war is not "cool" i seriously doubt any historian would claim such and if he did he is not a serious historian.
:So as always, if you want to be taken seriously start providing information - book titles, authors, page numbers etc.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 09:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

::It would seem that it is infact the late Professor John Erickson you are on about (a British historian for anyone keeping track); but i still cant see what book these comments come from. What book of his are you talking about?--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 12:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"He was the definitive historian of the fighting at Villers-Bocage, he lived there and put allot of effort into recording what happened" ,but u dont own the book? lol.... u are the biggest fan of the battle but u dont own the perfect book about this battle ^^ must be a very good book. and again its intersting that the judgment of wittmann is the only material which comes from this perfect book...
i didnt say wittmann did no mistakes man READ WHAT I WROTE, no military action is perfect there are always improvements possible. i brought the example of the footballer shooting 6 goals but missing the 7th... . wittmann achieved more in one day that any allied tanker in the whole war but the analysis is critizising him completly.... ONLY one historian is cited. thats POV face it. u really have to learn reading what other people say....
about schneider: i cant find one book of him about panzer tactics or something else....

erickson said this in an interview about this battle. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.176.151.199|85.176.151.199]] ([[User talk:85.176.151.199|talk]]) 02:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 

:::Until you grow up, learn to read what has been presented to you, stop provinding your own opinion and actually bring cited well supported information to the table - that has been requested from the get-go (months ago); there is no point contuining this line of conversation with you... --[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 08:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
:::PS: It would appear that Schneider wrote a book on the very topic you were unable to find: Panzer Tactics.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
lol my opinion^^, when i tell u that erickson said this u call this my opinion ? u are the guy who has problems with reading what other people said. discussion ended because u dont want more than one opnion about wittmann ? its funny that nearly all british military actions were worse than this action but even when they lost huge number of ressources for nothing than u find good words in the analysis... look all your normandy articles . but wittmann gets complete negative assement. u are the king of POV .

by the way the entire article is your opinion u select the sources u review every edit of other people, u decide that wartime claims of allied soldiers come in the infobox which is totally uncommon on wiki, u decided that partial figures are only ok for allied casualties ( operation brevity opertation totalize ) and for german partial figures cant come to the box. u decide that unreliable historians are ok for the articles when they support your points of view, u only choose british historians or german when they support u . u are so funny to call a book perfect but only use the book one time , to critizise the guy who destroyed much british armor.... . if somebody would go to the articles of battle of cean and edit the analysis with other historians which say british totally failed and did bad u would revert it because u are the commander. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.192.121.123|188.192.121.123]] ([[User talk:188.192.121.123|talk]]) 21:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 

I never saw a article about a battle which involved more than one regiment and a battlion critizing or debatting over the decisions of an hauptsturmführer, hauptsturmfüher means he was a captain, this article invest such big text about critizing the actions of an CAPTAIN LOL.... . a captain who destroyed " 13–14 tanks, two anti-tank guns and 13–15 transport vehicles had been destroyed by the Heavy SS-Panzer Battalion 101, the vast majority being attributable to Wittmann" gets a complete negative judgment... . the article is a joke every serious historian will laugh if he reads your analyse section —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.192.121.123|188.192.121.123]] ([[User talk:188.192.121.123|talk]]) 22:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 

:Thanks for supporting my point :) Btw Wittmann was a Lt during this action ;) And if you have a problem with the Brevity article, take it up there.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Most historians and commentators have been equally scathing about the British handling of the battle." equally?????? :-) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.192.121.123|188.192.121.123]] ([[User talk:188.192.121.123|talk]]) 22:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 

yes a leutnant lol even better , what a joke.... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.192.121.123|188.192.121.123]] ([[User talk:188.192.121.123|talk]]) 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 

the brevity articles has partial figures in the infobox , because the casualties of one unit are unknown while the others are known complete same situation like here with sSSpzAbt but here the casualties dont come to the box because u say so. if i wouuld go to the brevity article u would say "blabla this is my article i decide blabla" ...

and by the way your article says he was Oberleutnant...........

:Please see: [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles]]; All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article.
:That doesnt stop people from reverting vandalism however :)--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 22:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

===Pre FAC idea===
IP editor, you might find Wikipedia a more enjoyable place to contribute if you make constructive comments and suggestions. Finding fault with an article, blaming it on an editor and rushing in with accusations of bias and skewed points of view is fairly offensive and unnecessary. If you think there is an issue with an article, then please share it but do so considerately and politely. Even if you had a valid point, you're likely to get peoples hackles up with the attitute above and then you won't get very far.

Anyway, as long winded as the posts above are, there might be a glimmer of a point. At the moment the Analysis section goes from the propaganda on each side to criticisms of Wittman in the next paragraph, and there isn't very much that's positive in there. The paragraph might open better with a summary of the praise that has been directed Wittmnan's way by historians, which will balance out the opinions of Schnieder. Something like (and this is just off the top of my head):
:''It was largely Wittman's actions that stopped the Allied attack in Villers-Bocage....So and so thinks Wittman was very good, Hastings descibed his attack as "one of the most devestating single-handed actions of the war".''
I'm sure there must be more references in praise of his actions that could be added, but it doesn't need to be very long. I think it'll improve the section a wee bit. Cheers, [[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

:I've actually started to re-go through my sources today just to double check. At the moment however i only have access to my elctronic copy of Buckley's book; no kinds words to say other than it was audacious.
:I think a few sentances already in the article can be moved around to be suit your suggestion Steve; do you have the full quote from Hastings at hand?--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 10:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

::As a start i have flipped around the first two paragraphs so that it runs on from the Germans propaganda - infulence on modern works - into the tactical critiasim of his actions. Additional comments can easily be fed in between i believe without breaking up the flow of the section although am not to sure with the section now opening on the British progranda; may need some work to iron out the creases lol--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 10:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that does anything to be honest... seems an odd way to open the analysis. I haven't reverted it though - I can't find the typo! I actually got the Hastings quote right (read it last night), it's on p132. Some others that might help:
*Hart, Hart and Hughes (The German Soldier) describe it as "perhaps the most famous display of outstanding Waffen-SS combat performance...".
*Lefevre (Panzers in Normandy) best line is that "There is no doubt that Wittman's largely single-handed initiative stopped a British armoured thrust which could have resulted in the encirclement of Panzer Lehr Division."
*Another book I recently picked up when it was 80% off in Borders(!) called "In the Heat of Battle, A history of those who rose to the occasion and those who didn't" gives him his own section in the "A constant thread of Valour" chapter. Mainly descriptive rather than analytical, but does say "Together with his little group of Tigers, he had completely blunted Montgomery's attack". Now ordinarily I wouldn't bother using this, but I thought I'd mention it because it actually gets the facts of Wittman's actions that day correct!
[[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 11:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The more I read of V-B the more unimpressive it looks (as does most of the writing). A Brigade Group was never going to undo PzLehr. It was also never expected to have an effect in isolation. At best it would take a tactically advantageous position somewhere near V-B that would make the subsequent fighting harder for the Germans, tilting the balance of attrition further against them. The idea that it could have taken the Germans to the cleaners and captured Caen if only the 7th Armd Div had had the bottle is ridiculous. Consider also why Wittmann's detachment was able to spring the ambush - because the column had stopped to sniff out the situation beyond pt 213. Had they bashed on there would have been a real disaster because Wittmann and Co were already there. They were half deployed when the Tigers attacked which is why in the photos you see lots of half-tracks and Bren carriers but do you see any corpses? Wittmann and the other four or five Tigers undoubtedly brought off a tactical success but then got shot to pieces trying to exploit it. I really think it unwise to allow facile comments by writers using secondary and tertiary sources to dominate the article. Stopping the story with Wittmann's swan into the town rather than describing the course of events before the Brigade Group was withdrawn falls into the hands of the 'declinist' school. I think we need at least a paragraph on what was ging on in the rest of the division and 50th Infantry Div around Tilly. Anyway did the Br-Grp retreat all the way to its start point or only to a less exposed position?[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 12:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

:Am in the same school of thought as you are Keith; this is a rather unimpressive battle and i think it has too much attention attached to it. Imo for the enterprise to work it would have required an entirely different battleplan from XXX Corps and had the Brigade group went further would have most likely came unstuck; the ability of the Panzer Lehr to send in ad hoc battle groups, the entire 101st battalion and 2nd Panzer en route. Now yes the 7th Armour prob would have outnumbered them tank wise but would have been stretched out and with too few infantry to support. I dont think Caen was reachable via this hook.
:As for the withdrawal, i believe it was a mile down the road.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 15:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

::I think Steve has made some useful suggestions and the critical commentary re Wittman probably does need some balance, though we'll need to be careful about how we present it. Becuase we've noted that historians like Hart, D'Este, Simpson etc have been criticised for apparently being influenced by the German propoganda accounts and 'bigging up' Wittman, any subsequent laudatory quotes need to be in this context (ie who's credible and who isn't) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 15:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Totally agree; I believe the Hart, Hart and Hughes (One Hart being Stephen and the other being the other Hart mentioned by Buckley?), along with the Hasting's comment provide the "positive commentry". Talk on the attack being the decsivie momment followed up by the Buckley dismissial, then the "most famous comment" followed on by the "devestating attack" comment with Schiender taking up the rear. That should show all levels and provide all sides of the comment. Some additional stuff may need to be moved around a bit as there a comment from Buckley regarding Wittmann's bravey and daring in launching such an attack.
:::I will be taking a further look through my other sources once i get home.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 16:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

::::Agree with you all. The German Soldier is indeed by Stephen Hart, Russell Hart (an American if that helps identify him) and Matthew Hughes. I'll add it in the bibliography- pages are 77 going onto 78. It's hard to know who's comments to use when they might themselves be drawing conclusions from duff gen, (that's the only reason I mentioned the other book above) but Enigma's layout above looks good. [[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 16:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
'Clash of Arms: How the Allies Won in Normandy' by R. Hart?[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 18:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Enigma, I meant the withdrawal after the 'B of the Brigade Box'. Did the BG go back all the way it came?.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 18:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
:Yep, as far as i know back the way they came; that was on the evening of the 14th after they had gave the hun a damn good thrashing! pip pip old boy! :p --[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 21:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

wittmanns bravery was outstanding his achievements were outstanding his military skill as tank commander was outstanding, his military desicions after the first battle were not perfect maybe bad his leadership was not perfect maybe bad... bring this in the analyse if u want to discuss the actions of a first leutnant. this is neutral... bring the positiv opinions about him to support his action and bring schneider to discuss his desicions after the first battle.... . the analysis now is totally crap...

@steve i brought my point weeks ago, nothing happened . i said that there are other historians with other opinions but nothing happened... this article is POV thats a fact... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.176.138.73|85.176.138.73]] ([[User talk:85.176.138.73|talk]]) 22:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC) 

== Further copyediting ==

I'm in the process of making another ce pass; comments etc below. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 13:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

*Clarified the Background section a bit (and tried to sex up the prose a little too...)

*Footnoted and trimmed the details of Wittmann's platoon; I think it's too much information for the article body.

*Possible inconsistency; a count of Wittmann's platoon gives 12 tanks, but Taylor (in the previous footnote) gives 14 per company.

*Is it worth mentioning the notorious mechanical unreliability of the Tiger I in relation to the Heavy SS-Panzer Battalion 101's strength on 13 June? I'm not sure it's that relevant, but others may differ (I think Hastings mentions a quote from a British tanker saying that the best way to knock out a Tiger is to get it to move then wait for it to break down, but I can't remember what that was in relation to).
*: Do them being mechanically crap i would presume :p The first one in Africa iirc seized up. I will look into the possible inconsistency later for you.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 14:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
*::Yes indeed. We have a paper strength of 45, and a combat strength of 17, for 13 June. I was curious to know if we can say how many of the 28 losses sustained between Beauvais and the front were actually due to air action and how many were down to simply trying to make the things move. Re the inconsistency, thanks (though I don't think it's anything worth spending too much time over!) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 15:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

*Excellent map of the Caumont Gap [http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-4/7-4_9.htm#370 here]; I'll draw this up for the article :) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 11:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
*:Does look rather spiffing! One minor change will need to be made; there should be three "x"s over the 30 symbol or it should be left with two "x"s and changed to "50"--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 12:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Too many 'howevers' which should be avoided, particularly (with 'meanwhile') as the first word of a sentence. Too many commas, which are unnecessary either side of words like 'and', 'but' or 'or'. The last sentence of the introduction is too dogmatic. Propaganda ever since the gig is reminiscent of the news about Jutland; an engagement which was tactically indecisive, operationally a British success and a strategic defeat for the Germans being distorted by a skilfull publicity stunt.

The advice about making Tigers move came from the 8th Army in Italy.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 13:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks for the comments. I have a bit of a blind spot with commas sometimes; I'll go through again looking for them, but please feel free to take out any you think shouldn't be there. I haven't addressed the lead yet - that needs to be considerably trimmed I think... it's next on my list. And thanks for pinning down that Tiger quote :) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 13:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a pompous page for pompous people, we'll have no commas here. ;O)[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 14:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
:I think we're allowed up to twelvety according to the list of [[WP:MOS|Precious Things]]. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 16:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

*Re 7th Armd/22nd Bde gp, in the Background section we have the entire division disengaging and making for Livry. Is that correct, or should it be only those elements Hinde took with him? [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 14:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Keith love the reference!
Eyeball: I will check out the sources tonight, I know I keep saying that so lets say ill do it sometime this weekend :p; off the top of my head the division disengaged in parts and was full committed to the gap by the time the Brigade group reached V-B. Ill check Taylor, Forty and their own div history to get better specifics if I can for you.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 15:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On p. 256 the OH has 7th Armd '....stationed between the 50th Division and the Americans at Caumont.' So the BG disengaged from the Germans around Tracy Bocage and held a line roughly from La Belle Epine south to Livry. The map facing p. 256 has all of the 7th moving from the area round Tilly. P.254 has the advance to V-B being strictly tactical to menace the PzLhr, NOT an attempt to capture Caen. It's not explicit but it looks like the BG fell back on the infantry brigade at Livry.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 16:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks both :) Re menacing PzLehr, do we have any sources that discuss this in more detail? I too am not massively happy with the characterisation of the battle as a failed attempt to capture Caen. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 16:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
OH p. 254, "....turning to their left they would seize the Villers-Bocage ridge from the west. Their capture of this high ground behind Panzer Lehr Division might compel its withdrawal or surrender." As usual the story is bedevilled by ulterior motives. As I've looked into the B of N, V-B looks less and less like a battle for Caen and more like a tactical manoeuvre. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

:I completely agree. The altered Perch might originally have been intended to sweep around Caen, but that went out of the window fairly quickly. V-B could never have taken the city with the force committed - it does seem to be nothing more than taking advantage of a fluid situation to jockey for position. All being well, it might have caused PzLehr to withdraw and freed up the front around Tilly-sur-Seulles, or might perhaps have provided nothing more than a jumping-off point for further operations intended to pinch out the Tilly-s-S - V-B bulge if PzLehr didn't withdraw. Within the limits of the sources, I've tried to clarify things a little in the Dempsey's intentions part of the background. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 18:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

*Casualties section trimmed (much of it footnoted); hopefully the important points are still extant in the text. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 11:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought 'tactics' were military doings up to division and 'operations' the doings of corps and armies? Wouldn't this make it a German tactical success and an indecisive operation?[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 11:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

=== Re 7th Arm Div Question ===

The divisional history has this to say:

Miday 12 attack at standstill. “The Divisional Commander, therefore, was ordered to disengage and attempt to...” move on VB

8th Hussars who had been watching the right flank led the advance followed by 4CLY, A1RB and then the rest of the brigade group “131 Brigade with the 1st Royal Tanks, were to step up behind the armour as required, and to be ready to do this by the morning of the 13th, by which time their remaining battalion, the 1/6th Queen’s Royal Regiment, was due to arrive.” (p. 35)

So the impression the 7th Arm staff give is that the entire division was pulled off the line with the 22nd leading and 131 trailing behind watching the rear. Btw some juicy details on the brigade box/island action that could be shoved into the Perch article.

Club route states the entire division was pulled from the line(p. 25) as does the short history of 30 corps(p.12)

Forty doesn’t seem to state if its the entire division being pulled off the line but does talk about 22nd bde advance and that at 0615, on the 13th, the vanguard of 131 bde arrived at la Paumière (p.50 (google map or google earth cant find it however it is around 1km NW of Livry on forty’s map (pp.48-49)))

Taylor states that the division was ordered to disengage from the fighting (p. 10), 131 bde was still moving to the front when its orders were cancelled and it was ordered to flank the Panzer Lehr with the rest of the division (p.11)--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 17:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

=== Operational victory? ===

Going off the refs in the article:

Wilmot:
“Thus the fruits of the initial success, which might have been turned into a striking victory, were handed back to the enemy. Erskine’s troops gad suffered no defeat after the first costly encountere with the single Tiger, and i fBucknall had reinforced and persisted with the attack by 7th Armoured, he would have provided a series threat to the rear of Caen and would have forced Panzer Lehr to abandon the Tilly Sailent in order to help close the gap which the Americans had created at Caumont. This great opportunity of disrupting the enemy line and expanding the Allied bridgehead was lost not so much in the woods and orchards around Villers-Bocage, as in the Corps Commander’s mind.”(pp.310-311)

Here Wilmot supports the tactical indesivness of the battle however how does one sum up the rest – what was achieved by the German defence and the British withdrawal?

D’Este:

He calls the withdrawal (of the entire division back to friendly lines) as “necessary”. He quotes Dempsey as saying that as a result of the failure to hold the town “no chance now of a snap operation with airborne troops either to seize Caen or to deepen the bridgehead. It is clear now that Caen can be taken only by a set-piece assault...”(apparently also in Wilmot, p. 40 this latter comment)

General Kraemer is mentioned, he believed the opportunity to roll up I SS Panzer Corps flank was squandered. “the enemy had let a favourable opportunity slip”.

D’este goes on that there was now no open flanks to turn – the brief moment of German weakness had been missed and it was “to prove one of the costliest Allied mistakes” (pp.197-198)
I think he has gone a little over the top there but anyhoo

Reynolds:

The failure of the operation resulted in the British having to launch multiple costly assaults to remove the Germans from the Caen area (p. 107)--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 18:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

== german tank casualties ==

we all know that its high likly that there were only 8 destroyed tanks and not more. we all know that the 8-13 means only that enigma wants wrong wartimeclaims in the infobox. the british only counted 8 destroyed after the battle so only 8 destroyed i dont think the germans took the burning tanks back but ok. so the other 7 are wrong counts or temporaly disabeld tanks. the german took 7 nearly destroyed tanks out of the battle^^ ( yes moronic to believe this, i know.. ). or maybe the tanks were only damaged ( tiger tanks got damaged nearly every time they start their engine ) but when they were only damaged why they come to the box.

when i look the brevity article i see that enigma decided that the british damaged tanks dont come to the infobxo, this damaged tanks are fact . soooo allied damaged tanks dont come to the infobox but german !!!maybe!!! damaged come to the infobox...

can someone explain to me? iam sure its simple bias and not more but maybe their is another
explantion

LOL its everywhere , operation crusader: many allied tanks were damaged or immobilized but only "278 were permantly lost" infobox says 278 allied tanks lost.... i guess enigma is the editor of crusader

Do not delete my text, answer my simple questions, answer why enigma uses different methods. tell me. deleting my text is so lol...... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.176.149.211|85.176.149.211]] ([[User talk:85.176.149.211|talk]]) 18:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Villers-Bocage

2010-01-25T18:51:58Z

85.176.149.211: /* german tank casualties */ new section

{{talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=WPR
|action1date=14:28, 21 March 2008
|action1link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Villers-Bocage
|action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=199355673

|action2=FAC
|action2date=17:30, 17 October 2009
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Villers-Bocage/archive1
|action2result=not promoted
|action2oldid=320244187

|action3=FAC
|action3date=00:34, 12 December 2009
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Villers-Bocage/archive2‎
|action3result=not promoted
|action3oldid=331131964

|currentstatus=FFAC
}}
{{WPMILHIST
|class=B
|peer-review=
|old-peer-review=yes


|B-Class-1=yes

|B-Class-2=yes

|B-Class-3=yes

|B-Class-4=yes

|B-Class-5=yes

|British-task-force=yes
|German-task-force=yes
|WWII-task-force=yes
}}
{{archive box collapsible|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]]}}

== Copyedit notes ==

Usual form; questions etc below. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 11:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

===Lead===
*I normally leave this until last (and will come back to it later), but given the battle's controversial nature I thought any objections might be worth dealing with now rather than while the article's at FAC :) I've made a tweak to the final paragraph re historical views of the battle... Comments?
*:Would it be better to write 'part' of 7th Armd Div was sent on the flanking move?[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 12:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
*::I think so, though I'll get to that when I ce the lead later (unless you fancy making the tweak?) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 12:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*:::Have altered a few words for clarity but feel free to change if you think it hasn't helped.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 12:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
*::::Looks good :) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 07:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

===Background===
*I've trimmed much of the Perch stuff from the start of this section - I think due to its complexity, it's difficult to summarise adequately and we've got the link to the main article anyway. However, please rv if you disagree ;)
*:Looks alright so far.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 15:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

===Morning fighting===
*<s>The note re the three Stuarts has a reference - ''After the Battle'' magazine - that doesn't seem to be properly listed in the refs section or anywhere else.</s>
*:<s>Ill add that in a mo.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)</s>
*:Just noted that the magazine is already listed: "After the Battle Magazine (2006). Issue 132. After the Battle Magazine. After the Battle."; with no editorial name i have just used the magazine's name so it does display a little funky. So we have "authors surename", the year, title, series title and the publisher displayed.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*::Cool, that should be enough [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 13:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*<s>Not really part of this section, but while I'm thinking of refs, is [http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/gerob/ghqpz/101pzabt.html http://w1.183.telia.com] a [[WP:RS]]?</s>
*:I would argue it is; it appears to be copyrighted by a reliable historian, Zetterling, who has had a number of books released plus all sources used on the website are mentioned.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*::OK, np. I wondered if it was ''the'' Zetterling ;) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 13:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*:::I think it is.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*<s>What rank was Dyas?</s>
*:Am gonner have a busy weekend studying and writing an assingment but when i get a moment i will add it in.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*::It's ok, I ran across it while looking up something else. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 13:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*:::Nice one.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*<s>Who was Charles Pearce? A rank or position would be helpful. Also, is this the same person as the Charles Pierce mentioned later in this section?</s>
*:Likewise, also i dont believe their was another guy out there with a similar name who was so high profile so i think ive made a typo. I will check the spelling too to find out which variant is correct.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*::They seem to be the same Pearce, according to the newsletter, so I'll save you some time and fix it myself.
*:::Chers
*<s>I'm not convinced about the Sharpshooter newsletter as a source - wouldn't the recollections of the troopers qualify as primary source material? It may be ok, as long as we're careful about how we attribute.</s>
*:Yes i believe it would qualify as primary source material due to it being letters/comments etc sent into the regiments newsletter. I think this usage should fall within the guidelines; it has been published (the guidelines not a reliable source i.e. uni press or mainstream newspapers however i think this regmental newsletter should be covered by this too) and has on the whole been used mostly for descriptive purposes - i dont believe it has stepped outside the guidelines and to be used in an analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative manner etc (if i have understood the guidelines correctly).--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
*::I believe that's right. Since we're using it to cite what the troopers recollect, I think it should be fine - just wanted to double-check with you ;) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 14:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

===Aftermath===
*<s>I have a feeling that the Propoganda section might sit better at the start of the Analysis section. Can I give this a try?</s>
**Done this - hopefully it works better, but please feel free to change as necessary. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 17:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

===Analysis===
*Major point: the lead claims that recent historiography has looked at the change in German tactics as the reason for the offensive's failure. However, this isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. I'd have thought it belongs in this section, so until we get something in here about that, I'll comment it out in the lead.
*:I have reviewed all changes made thus far and am very happy with what has occured, sorry i havent been around the last few days but life got in the way. I will consult my sources and with Keith on this issue.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 16:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
*::No problem :) Other than the lead and this issue, I'm about done anyway. I'll keep checking back. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 18:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

==Conclusion==
The effect that the German foiling of the British attempt to lever Panzerlehr out of Tilly by doing the V-B gig is decribed in the conclusion but I'm curious about a forestalling of any German opportunity to counter-attack at Tilly with the forces that ended up at V-B. Does anyone know of sources which discuss British defensive arrangements in the area?[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 12:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
:I don't recall reading anything specifically about that. I'm certain (given the offensively-minded nature of the German strategy at that time) that the redeployment of German forces caused by the thrust at Villers-Bocage forestalled something, but ''what'' I've no idea. I'll recheck my sources though. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 07:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Considering the strength of Panzerlehr and the reinforcements approaching I doubt they'd have been content to hold ground if there was an alternative. I like the revisions to the article, particularly the historiographical analysis of the Wittmann propaganda and its exploitation since by both sides. I found it reminiscent of the way the story of the Battle of Jutland was told by the Admiralty soon after it, compared to the use the Germans made of it. That said it shows how far gone the Germans were in the days after D-Day that they could only muster a propaganda victory.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 08:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:I dont recall seeing anything in my sources about this sort of thing however one should look to be aware of this battle as being part of the larger operation. On top of which to me it seems that the Germans did not hold the initative they were reacting to the advances made by the British and Americans; any notion of counterattack came when II SS PanzerCorps arrvied.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

::...and then it remained a notion ;) There was 21st Panzer's post-D-Day attempt to split the British and Canadians, and 12th SS Panzer had a good go when they arrived, but thanks to the Allied pressure I can't recall any 'proper' German offensives that actually went off even remotely as planned between those local efforts and Mortain. The succession of German commanders in Normandy certainly seemed to arrive at a realistic assessment of their position rapidly enough, so who can say how much of the constant planning for counterattacks that never took place was just to appease Berlin? [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 11:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about it more from the British pont of view - the importance to Monty of not allowing the Germans a sniff of an opportunity. I get the impression from the British deployment at Tilly that this was the 'schwehrpunkt' and that the move of part of 7th Armd Div round the flank was not intended to compromise the effort elsewhere, that it was more of an attempt to trigger a German retreat than to bulldoze them. Closing the gap made by the 1st Inf Div also guarded against the Germans going the other way. As it was the fighting around V-B consumed German resources and engaged German reinforcements. As we know (being groovy through hindsight) the encounter battle at V-B and the Brigade Box depleted one of the Germans' most powerful armoured formations (101HSSPzA) as well as distracting some of the 2nd PzDiv and parts of the PZL Div. I also wonder if we underestimate the weather as a factor - it pops up like a deus ex machina rather than being a permanent presence. All that said, with what we know now, could a Brigade Group have done any better?[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 13:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think when we look back on the information available on this battle we can see how the fighting was downplayed and the defeat of the 7th Armoured Division being overplayed. Only recently have we managed to gain new books detailing the battle in a more accurate light (although not perfect) but it seems there has yet to be a look at the battle within the bigger picture, i.e. 7th Armoured Division’s actual objective and how that figured in Perch, what the objective of the German reinforcements was, where the Germans planning a counterattack or was their attitude purely defensive, how much of an impact did this battle really have on both sides and the campaign?

To be honest I think the battle is overrated; we have, for example, accounts from Kurt Meyer detailing how he ambushed and destroyed numerous tanks soon after D-Day etc It appears these sort of things happened on a fairly regular basis so in the end what is really so important about this battle? A loss opportunity to capture Caen? I think this last premise is completely unfounded, the operations goal was to encircle the city and with I Corps advance halted could have a strung out XXX Corps really have achieved that objective when we consider it would be encircling three armoured divisions who were still combat effective?

I think so too. The quick capture of Caen still appeals to many writers as the way to advance in the east without a great attritional battle or as a demonstration of Anglo-Canadian feebleness. Perhaps there's also been a bit of jealousy of the 7th Armd Div as well. Considering that it was equipped with Cromwells I would have thought that it would not be seen as a battering-ram, rather a latter-day cavalry force to exploit a success rather than make one.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 14:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:This is wandering off-topic, but it's an interesting question as to whether or not 7th Armoured (or any Allied armoured division for that matter) was actually equipped to a standard that would let it be used as a battering-ram. I know historians have plenty to say about the relative qualities of German vs Allied tanks, and maybe if something as well-armoured as a Tiger had been available to the Allies they could have pressed home that type of offensive, but I have to confess I'm sceptical. The Soviet heavies were undoubtedly effective, but didn't prevent huge losses (of a type the Brits particularly couldn't have sustained) when attacking on the Eastern front. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 17:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The organisation of westender armies does rather look like they were built to erode German fighting power with artillery while the tanks and infantry manoeuvred under its cover rather than by armoured duelling. The big German tanks look to me to be the 1944 version of the line of 88's that thwarted the Anglo-French attack at Arras in 1940. On the whole the fighting in Europe after 1941 looks more and more like 1916 with knobs on.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 19:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

== FA review ==

Moved the following here for now in an attempt to tighten up and trim the background section. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 18:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

<blockquote>The pincer's eastern arm would consist of I Corps's [[51st (Highland) Infantry Division]] and the [[4th Mechanized Brigade (United Kingdom)|4th Armoured Brigade]]. These formations would strike out of the [[Orne]] bridgehead—the ground gained east of the Orne by the [[6th Airborne Division (United Kingdom)|6th Airborne Division]] during [[Operation Tonga]]—towards [[Cagny, Calvados|Cagny]], {{convert|6|mi|km|adj=off}} to the southeast of Caen. XXX Corps would form the pincer's western arm; the 7th Armoured Division would swing east, crossing the [[Odon River]] to take [[Évrecy]] and the high ground, Hill 112, near the town. refname=Trew22, refname=Pg247 (Ellis, p. 247)</blockquote>

== Agte info ==

<blockquote>
Wittmann's 2nd Company consisted of three platoons. I. Zug (1st platoon) made up of Tigers 211 (Ostuf. Jürgen Wessel), 212 (Uscha. Balthasar Woll), 213 (Hscha. Hans Höflinger) and 214 (Uscha. Karl-Heinz Warmbrunn). II. Zug (2nd platoon) made up of Tigers 221 (Ustuf. Georg Hantusch), 222 (Uscha. Kurt Sowa)), 223 (Oscha. Jürgen Brandt) and 224 (Uscha. Ewald Mölly). III. Zug (3rd platoon) made up of Tigers 231 (St.O.Jk. Heinz Belbe), 232 (Uscha. Kurt Kleber) 233 (Oscha. Georg Lötsch) and 234 (Uscha. Herbert Stief),[68][10] although Lieutenant Wessel in Tiger 211 was sent off to establish contact with the Panzerlehrdivision, and Tiger 233 was suffering from track damage and 234 from mechanical failure.[17]
</blockquote>

<s>Two questions; all other sources point to most of the entire battalion being non-functional and Wittmann having 6 tanks with him at V-B- one of which was sent off to make contact with the panzerlehr; where does these other 6 tanks come from? Edit: to clarify Tigers 212, 213, 214, 224, 231, and 232. No other source places them at V-B; does Agte?

Additionally what do all the abbreivations mean?--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 15:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)</s>

No Agte does not contradict your sources. What triggered me to start expanding this section is the sentence "Wittmann's 2nd Company consisted of..." and that the article stated that two other Tigers were either unserviceable or not present. I felt that the section should state what his authorized strength was, listing all the Tigers and all unserviceable tanks. [[User:MisterBee1966|MisterBee1966]] ([[User talk:MisterBee1966|talk]]) 20:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

:Forgot to say cheers the other day for you addressing the questions raised and sorting out the rank issue.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 10:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

:Ostuf= oberscharführer uscha unterscharfüher hascha = hauptscharführer all SS ranks —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.192.121.123|188.192.121.123]] ([[User talk:188.192.121.123|talk]]) 21:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 

== Hopefully quick C/E ==

I think I'm far enough away from this article to give it a quick c/e and suitably 'accessiblise' it. First question - where were the five battlegroups of 84 corps reserves originally from, and who destroyed them? [[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 20:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

<blockquote>
But the strong German doctrinal instint for such counter-attacks led to attempts on D plus 1 to repeat Battle Group Meyer's attack with the last remaining available LXXXIV Corps reserve, Mobile Brigade 30 (mobile on bicyles), which was liekwise effectively destroyed north of Bayeux. Counting this last attack, three battle groups of 352nd Infantry Division had been smashed by the British from Gold, and a further two by the Americans frm Omaha, producing the brief gaping hole in the German centre on 8 June that became the known as the Caumont Gap.
</blockquote>
Buckley, p. 59

To note, Battle Group Meyer is described on p. 58 as part of LXXXIV Corps reserve; no mention of the parent unit. To me it looks like the text implys that BG Meyer and Mobile Brigade 30 are part of 352nd Div however they dont show up on their OOB: [[352nd Infantry Division (Germany)]].--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 20:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

::Cheers Enigma. I'm guessing there's a village called Caumont somewhere there? PS, where I adjust text, can I ask you and EyeSerene to check that refs match slightly adjusted statements? [[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 20:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

:::That would be [[Caumont-l'Éventé]]; it is a town south of Bayeux and west of Villers-Bocage. Ill double check the refs following your changes and adjust were needed.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 20:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

== german tank casualties ==

*"Michael Reynolds records the loss of six Tigers and two Panzer IVs, that were found knocked out in the town following the battle." 8 tanks which were found. maybe only 8 destroyed????????????????
*"Forty notes that up to six Tigers and three Panzer IVs were knocked out during the fighting" 9 tanks , similar to reynolds.
*Bayerlein reports 6 tigers lost. consense with forty and reynolds
but the infobox says 8-15 , how can this happen? because we start bias modus now
* delaforce says 15 tanks destroyed
* taylor says the british !!!!!CLAIMED!!!!! 14 tanks destroyed.
its obvious for everybody with brain that delaforce high likly means the same claims.
* Immediate claims are nearly always exagrated. the guys are nervous shooting on empty tanks counting them twice, everybody knows this. claims of the troops arent usefull when there are other numbers avaible. they counted 8 tanks . TANKS ARE HUGE MACHIENES THEY CANT MISS THEM
including the immediate claims of british soldiers in the infobox while better numbers are available is absolutly bias. u want a featured article with this shit? unbelievable....

:from the article "He recorded a radio message on the evening of 13 June, describing his role in the morning's fighting and claiming that later counterattacks had destroyed an entire British armoured regiment and infantry battalion" , wittmann claims the destruction of a amoured regiment this must be writte in the infobox like the british claims. or not ENIGMA??? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.176.148.111|85.176.148.111]] ([[User talk:85.176.148.111|talk]]) 02:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC) 

:Considering Delaforce does not make any mention of the words "claimed" or how his figures break down, or what his sources are everything is assumption on your behalf to conclude the figures are basis, made-up, or include over-claimed knocked out tanks.
:If you read the full extract from Taylor's work he states these three regiments claimed x number of tanks knocked out, then concedes that these tanks were in fact hit but most immobilised - he is not suggesting that these are overclaimed figures; it is all in the casualty section. His figure shows a comprehensive look at how many tanks the British disabled. To also note his figure is less than Delaforce's.
:As for Wittmann's claim; its actually disproved by facts on the ground and various sources consulted - there is no need to present the destruction of an entire armoured regiment (~60 tanks) or infantry battalion (7-1,000 men) as an answer when there are no relibable sources suggesting the same.
::Wittmann never claimed this. In the interview which is printed in full in Agte, he stated that he believed to have destroyed 21 amoured vehicles (including tanks), the exact number he doesn't know and needs to be counted. [[User:MisterBee1966|MisterBee1966]] ([[User talk:MisterBee1966|talk]]) 08:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
:In regards to your other concern over German losses; we have a full answer - the range of men lost from the Waffen-SS and KNOW that the Panzer-Lehr and 2.Panzer losses are unknown - again this explained in the casualty section so what is in the infobox is as accurate as possible.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 10:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, has terminological inexactitude reappeared? Plenty of tanks on both sides were 'knocked out' in the sense that they became U/S. some of these were also written off as 'destroyed'; many more are recorded as 'under repair', some were back in action next day and some weren't. It seems far more revealing to look at the number of tanks recorded as 'operational' and compare this to the number just before D-Day to see the fluctuation in the number of tanks available than to engage in sterile numbers games.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 10:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Agte on page 203 goes into great detail listing the losses on the German side. The heavy Panzer battalion lost 6 Tiger tanks and Panzer-Lehr lost 2 of the 10 it deployed. German personnel losses are named in person for the heavy Panzer battalion (differentiating between KIA and wounded). The human losses for Panzer-Lehr are not quantified. If the English sources indicate 15 tanks lost, can we at least add a footnote stating that German records constitute for 8 losses only? [[User:MisterBee1966|MisterBee1966]] ([[User talk:MisterBee1966|talk]]) 14:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Is 'loss' defined?[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 16:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:I would kindly remind you to check out the article; one source states 15 tanks, one sources breaks down the claims by each regiment to 14 and the 7th Armoured Division themselves post war only claimed 9. I have no problem with adding in an additional source and the inital line of the German tank casualty paragrah can easily be changed to also incorparate Agte - Reynolds claims only 8 tanks lost as well.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 16:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

:: Nice job! I like the way the discrepancies are being represented now. [[User:MisterBee1966|MisterBee1966]] ([[User talk:MisterBee1966|talk]]) 10:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

== Panzer Lehr officer name typo ==

A typo has just been noted, in the one paragraph a Major Wenck becomes Major Wenke; the latter was used twice and the former once. I have so far changed Wenck to Wenke but i do not have access to the source: The Desert Rats: 7th Armoured Division, 1940-1945 by Robin Nielands.

I will check this out sometime next week, unless someone else has access to this book; i have checked out google books and onere is no snippet view or preview. Google searches just turn up results for this page or foriegn versions etc--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

:Wenke seems to be the prevailing version in what I could find (though I don't have that specific book either). [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 19:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

::According to the book by Ritgen, Helmut (2004). ''Westfront 1944''. Stuttgart, Germany: Motorbuch Verlag. ISBN 3613024098. his correct rank and title is Major i.G. (im Generalstab—in the general staff) Berend? Werncke. The picture shown [http://www.tank-net.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t21545-100.html here] is also published in the book [[User:MisterBee1966|MisterBee1966]] ([[User talk:MisterBee1966|talk]]) 07:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I will not have access to Neillands' book until next week, possibly tomorrow, but i would suggest throwing in a ref from Ritgen's book and changing the name to the way he spells it; the logic being there both German, there both from the same division Ritgen is most likely going to have it correct.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 16:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

::::Seems i just plain old cocked the name up; Neillands has it as Werncke too.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 12:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

== FA ==

Sorry to see this didn't get promoted guys. I'm unsure of what to suggest, as personally I think it's a solid article. It's hard to balance 'inaccessibility' vs too much detail, but I think this article's got it right. Given that you've managed to dig up a great deal of information, it would be a shame to lose it. I started Copy editing the article, but I think EyeSerene does a far better job so I've stopped now (don't worry, EyeSerene, you didn't edit conflict!), plus the more people who do quick c/e's, the greater the risk of the article's prose suffering. All I can really suggest is a peer review (seeing as the last one was almost 2 years ago) or maybe an A Class review to get the article up a step.

Only other thing I can think of (and I imagine I'll get some light hearted flak for this as I originally suggested it), is that the casualties section is now ''very'' detailed. I only really imagined combining the 4 notes into one section originally and while Enigma's done some brilliant research, the section is now quite complex and perhaps not in the same 'flow' as the rest of the article. Got the flak jacket on...

Cheers, [[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 22:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

:Your last-minute help was greatly appreciated, Steve, thank you very much. I think you're right that prose can sometimes suffer from dip-in copyediting but that's no fault of anyone's, more an effect of the time factor involved when everyone dives in to help try to beat a deadline. Personally I'd much rather have the help than not... we just ran out of time was all :)
:Now the pressure's off, I'm intending to go over the article again in a week or two so I'm coming to it fresh. The PR idea is a good one I think; I suggested something similar to Enigma yesterday. However, if you've got any comments or want to fix bits of the prose you see as unclear, ''please'' do! There's no rush, and Tony's comment about us being too close has some justification. Don't worry about the overall prose flow - I can polish that later if necessary. Thanks again! [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 08:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
::I consider the article quite good. However before I approve this article I would want to add more information pertaining to the German point of view. I find the background on 1st and 2nd company of the heavy Panzer battalion 101 slightly insufficiently covered. Especially since the section on analysis criticizes Wittmann for his actions. While I don't want to challenge this criticism I do feel it appropriate to elaborate a bit more on the situation he was forced into. The area he was in was under constant naval artillery fire, his tanks needed an overhaul, etc. He was not expecting to face the enemy at that point in time and the alley he had positioned his tanks in was chosen for concealment and to do maintenance on them. The article lists one tank as having a mechanical problem, which is true but not to the extend indicated in the article, the engine was prone to overheating, also not mentioned so far is that Villers Bocage was actually occupied by a German first aid/field hospital unit prior to the attack. I then checked the story about Major Werncke whose name was misspelled. All said I want to further investigate and expand the article. [[User:MisterBee1966|MisterBee1966]] ([[User talk:MisterBee1966|talk]]) 11:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe at least one source i have looked at said that the Sani boys had already taken off before the Brits showed up. Other sources including the tankers and Robin Neilands talk of combat troops occupying the town when they turned up i.e. them coming under machine gun and fire fire from second floor buildings. Another source mentions a sniper being killed when the shell fired at the B Squadron firefly missed and hit the building behind it.

There are multiple sources saying there was or there was not a handful of men in the town; we can add a note however...--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 22:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

== analyse ==

nice text about the flaws of the tank commander who destroyed many tanks and equipment

erickson says this: ...."extremly good tactical handling "..."absolut masterpiece of individual tank fighting" —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.176.144.3|85.176.144.3]] ([[User talk:85.176.144.3|talk]]) 05:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 

== German forces stationed in V-B prior to the battle ==

Since this has been brought up;

Off the top of my head Neillands' and the tankers themselves, via the newsletters, make mention of the German troops and possibly some snipers being within the town when they arrvied. Am a little reluctant to use the latter for this due to it being a primary source and i will report back what exactly Neillands does state when i check out his book again - hopefully tomorrow.

The other sources:

#History of the 7th Armoured Division (the divisional history) does not make any note of contact with German forces prior to the ambush bar those encountered by the Hussars.
#Wilmot states only 2 Germans - who fled in a hitlermobile - and French civvies were encountered when the British entered the town.
#D'Este notes only the ambush being the first contact
#Delaforce states the ambush was the first contact and uses two first hand accounts that make no mention of Germans in the town
#Fortin also gives the same account - the ambush being the first contact
#Beevor states the only forces met during the advance and capture of the town was the 8-wheeled scout car; afterwhich the only German forces encountered was the Tiger ambush.
#Forty notes that according to Germans sources two medical companies and the Panzer Lehr's ambulance platoon had established a dressing station and hospital within the town but thats the only mention of them. Other than that he mentions the armoured car that got away and the ambush as the only other German contacts.
#Taylor, as far as i can see, does not make any mention of medical personal or any German troops within the town prior to the ambush.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 17:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just checked out Neillands' work and there is no mention of German medical troops or other German forces in the town prior to the ambush; my memory appears to be a tad faulty.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 12:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

== Pre-FAC review ==

I am here at the request of [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]] to have a read through and review of the article to see if I can pick up on anything before the article has another stab at FAC. Overall, I find this an excellent article and fascinating read. I do have some suggestions, however, which are as follows:
*'''Lead'''
** "during the night of 14–15 June" - per MoS a night period date should be presented with a slash rather than an endash. eg. "14/15 June".
***addressed.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
** The wikilink to [[Normandy Landings]] should be moved up to the mention in the first paragraph. This would also remove the need for the information in the brackets.
***Addressed--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
** In general, the lead is written and structured very well. However, it is a little long and if there are any minor details that are not so necessary for inclusion I would recommend it be cut down a little.
*'''Background'''
** "Armoured was now to exploit the Caumont Gap" - It is preferable that sentences do not begin with a numeral.
**Addressed this one and changed armoured to armour; seems more gramatically correct as the latter.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 17:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
*'''Planning'''
** I don't know if it is just my screne, but there is quite a bit of image swandwiching in this section. Perhaps it might be best if one of the images was moved up into the previous section?
***Moved images around--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 12:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
** Emdashes should be unspaced.
***Cant spot this one, could you point it out lol--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
****Fixed. [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 12:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
** "I SS-Panzer Corps commander Sepp Dietrich" - I would recommend that Dietrich's rank be included here, particularly for the sake of consistency.
***Will add that in ASAP.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
***Rank added.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 22:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
** The inclusion of the German personnel's ranks in both German and then English is redundant. I think just the German, with a wikilink, is sufficient.
***Sorted.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
*'''Morning fighting'''
** "called a conference on Point 213 and attended by all officers and senior NCOs of A Company." - I think this sentence requires tweaking. Is this meant to mean that the conference ''was'' attended by the personnel of A Company?
***i have added in the words "to be held" prior to the Point 213 bit.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
*'''Late morning and the fighting on Point 213'''
** "arrived and began to round up isolated British tankers and riflemen" - are the numbers of the captured British known?
***Taylor p. 42 - no figure is given but does state that 30 riflemen, who had not made it to the point but were along the main road, did manage to escape during the day and following night. Taylor p. 56 - 30 men from the Sharpshooters, some badly wounded, and later joined by men from the rifle brigade, men from the RHA and other infantry.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
** "30 members of the County of London Yeomanry" - same issue as above with starting sentences with numerals.
***Changed to the word in place of the number--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
*'''Casualties'''
** The final sentence in the second paragraph is uncited.
*** Its a tally of the previously cited info--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
****Fair enough. Just be careful with this, though, or move the cite to cover this. We know how picky FAC reviewers can be. :) [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 12:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
** Due to the related nature of the final two paragraphs in this section, and the relative shortness of the former, I would recommend they be combined.
*'''Notes'''
** There is inconsistency in the presentation of citations, with some including the author's surname, while others have the surname and the publication year. This should be made consistent.
I hope these are of some use. :) Cheers, [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 12:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
*** The only time it has been used is when it been authors of the same name and multiple sources used; i.e. Buckley and Hastings. Regardless of this, we should edit all other refs and add the year in?--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Thanks Abraham, B.S., your review is very helpful and greatly appreciated! Re the names/dates, Enigma is right - it's used to resolve potential confusion between refs to more than one work by the same author (but not needed where there's no confusion). We'll get to work on your other points :) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 20:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
::::A little overdue but i have just worked through these; thanks for the review.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::You are most welcome. :) Regarding the citations, I presumed this was the case. However, it is always best to be consistent and this may be picked on. I tend to use [[Template:Harvnb]] for book cites, which gives the presentation of the author's surname, publication year and page(s), but also acts as somewhat of a link when clicked and takes one to the appropiate source in the "References" section. This is just something to think about with future articles; I would by no means recommend you go through and implement the template for this article—it would take hours! Lol. Cheers, [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 12:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

== analysis POV ==

schneider is only one historian... the biggest part of analysis is critics against wittman, the article not even mentions that historians like erickson called his action cool. i mentioned this before it was ignored .... . write in the articles that other historians dispute schneiders opinion. now its POV. by the way its very weird that the guy who destroys more enemy ressources in one action than any allied tank commander in his career is so blamed for his action in the analyse. its like blaming a football player for missing the 7th goal after he shoot 6... . every military action can be critizised.... . very bias this part.... . —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.192.121.123|188.192.121.123]] ([[User talk:188.192.121.123|talk]]) 04:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 
:the discription of the nook which is quoted for wittmanns failure : This is a controversial yet definitive work on the famous battle between 7th Armoured Division and the s.SS-Pz. Abt. 101"
even the discription says it a controversial book but the article takes this as the ONLY ONE source for the analyse of german actions, lol...
i bet the author choose the worst opnion about wittman he could find, lol.... interessting is that this book is only used ONE time in this article , for wittmanns judgment. for the rest of the article the book was not good enough. POV at its best —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.192.121.123|188.192.121.123]] ([[User talk:188.192.121.123|talk]]) 04:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 

:Let me humour you; the largest part of the analysis section focuses the attention of critics on the British actions revolving around the battle not Wittmann. Since you have took the time to look up the book, and using its description to write it off, do you know who Henri Marie is? He was the definitive historian of the fighting at Villers-Bocage, he lived there and put allot of effort into recording what happened. Do you have evidence bar '''your opinion''' to dismiss the book as unqualified to use as a source? Also considering you looked it up, did you also decide to glance at the price and possibly consider that other than the book not being "good enough" for the rest of the article none of us own it, and the pieces of information provided have been donated via other editors?
:Considering it would seem Schneider's opinion is not good enough for you - a new point considering prior to this your POV accusations have been aimed at the lack of German historians, here is one but its not good enough for you - he appears to be a well respected historian on the German panzer arm; his opinion clearly states that Wittmann's action may have been brave but it squandered an opportunity to take the British by surprise with overwhelming force. Do you have a source, page numbers etc that dismiss that Wittmann made errors on the day '''bar your opinion'''?
:Erickson, would this be John Erickson? The only historian i could find on Amazon with that surname and he appears to have works mostly relating to the Eastern Front and none on Normandy nor Villers-Bocage; would you care to elaborate, provide page numbers etc instead of name dropping. Additional, war is not "cool" i seriously doubt any historian would claim such and if he did he is not a serious historian.
:So as always, if you want to be taken seriously start providing information - book titles, authors, page numbers etc.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 09:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

::It would seem that it is infact the late Professor John Erickson you are on about (a British historian for anyone keeping track); but i still cant see what book these comments come from. What book of his are you talking about?--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 12:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"He was the definitive historian of the fighting at Villers-Bocage, he lived there and put allot of effort into recording what happened" ,but u dont own the book? lol.... u are the biggest fan of the battle but u dont own the perfect book about this battle ^^ must be a very good book. and again its intersting that the judgment of wittmann is the only material which comes from this perfect book...
i didnt say wittmann did no mistakes man READ WHAT I WROTE, no military action is perfect there are always improvements possible. i brought the example of the footballer shooting 6 goals but missing the 7th... . wittmann achieved more in one day that any allied tanker in the whole war but the analysis is critizising him completly.... ONLY one historian is cited. thats POV face it. u really have to learn reading what other people say....
about schneider: i cant find one book of him about panzer tactics or something else....

erickson said this in an interview about this battle. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.176.151.199|85.176.151.199]] ([[User talk:85.176.151.199|talk]]) 02:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 

:::Until you grow up, learn to read what has been presented to you, stop provinding your own opinion and actually bring cited well supported information to the table - that has been requested from the get-go (months ago); there is no point contuining this line of conversation with you... --[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 08:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
:::PS: It would appear that Schneider wrote a book on the very topic you were unable to find: Panzer Tactics.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 13:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
lol my opinion^^, when i tell u that erickson said this u call this my opinion ? u are the guy who has problems with reading what other people said. discussion ended because u dont want more than one opnion about wittmann ? its funny that nearly all british military actions were worse than this action but even when they lost huge number of ressources for nothing than u find good words in the analysis... look all your normandy articles . but wittmann gets complete negative assement. u are the king of POV .

by the way the entire article is your opinion u select the sources u review every edit of other people, u decide that wartime claims of allied soldiers come in the infobox which is totally uncommon on wiki, u decided that partial figures are only ok for allied casualties ( operation brevity opertation totalize ) and for german partial figures cant come to the box. u decide that unreliable historians are ok for the articles when they support your points of view, u only choose british historians or german when they support u . u are so funny to call a book perfect but only use the book one time , to critizise the guy who destroyed much british armor.... . if somebody would go to the articles of battle of cean and edit the analysis with other historians which say british totally failed and did bad u would revert it because u are the commander. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.192.121.123|188.192.121.123]] ([[User talk:188.192.121.123|talk]]) 21:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 

I never saw a article about a battle which involved more than one regiment and a battlion critizing or debatting over the decisions of an hauptsturmführer, hauptsturmfüher means he was a captain, this article invest such big text about critizing the actions of an CAPTAIN LOL.... . a captain who destroyed " 13–14 tanks, two anti-tank guns and 13–15 transport vehicles had been destroyed by the Heavy SS-Panzer Battalion 101, the vast majority being attributable to Wittmann" gets a complete negative judgment... . the article is a joke every serious historian will laugh if he reads your analyse section —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.192.121.123|188.192.121.123]] ([[User talk:188.192.121.123|talk]]) 22:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 

:Thanks for supporting my point :) Btw Wittmann was a Lt during this action ;) And if you have a problem with the Brevity article, take it up there.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Most historians and commentators have been equally scathing about the British handling of the battle." equally?????? :-) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.192.121.123|188.192.121.123]] ([[User talk:188.192.121.123|talk]]) 22:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 

yes a leutnant lol even better , what a joke.... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.192.121.123|188.192.121.123]] ([[User talk:188.192.121.123|talk]]) 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 

the brevity articles has partial figures in the infobox , because the casualties of one unit are unknown while the others are known complete same situation like here with sSSpzAbt but here the casualties dont come to the box because u say so. if i wouuld go to the brevity article u would say "blabla this is my article i decide blabla" ...

and by the way your article says he was Oberleutnant...........

:Please see: [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles]]; All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article.
:That doesnt stop people from reverting vandalism however :)--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 22:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

===Pre FAC idea===
IP editor, you might find Wikipedia a more enjoyable place to contribute if you make constructive comments and suggestions. Finding fault with an article, blaming it on an editor and rushing in with accusations of bias and skewed points of view is fairly offensive and unnecessary. If you think there is an issue with an article, then please share it but do so considerately and politely. Even if you had a valid point, you're likely to get peoples hackles up with the attitute above and then you won't get very far.

Anyway, as long winded as the posts above are, there might be a glimmer of a point. At the moment the Analysis section goes from the propaganda on each side to criticisms of Wittman in the next paragraph, and there isn't very much that's positive in there. The paragraph might open better with a summary of the praise that has been directed Wittmnan's way by historians, which will balance out the opinions of Schnieder. Something like (and this is just off the top of my head):
:''It was largely Wittman's actions that stopped the Allied attack in Villers-Bocage....So and so thinks Wittman was very good, Hastings descibed his attack as "one of the most devestating single-handed actions of the war".''
I'm sure there must be more references in praise of his actions that could be added, but it doesn't need to be very long. I think it'll improve the section a wee bit. Cheers, [[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

:I've actually started to re-go through my sources today just to double check. At the moment however i only have access to my elctronic copy of Buckley's book; no kinds words to say other than it was audacious.
:I think a few sentances already in the article can be moved around to be suit your suggestion Steve; do you have the full quote from Hastings at hand?--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 10:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

::As a start i have flipped around the first two paragraphs so that it runs on from the Germans propaganda - infulence on modern works - into the tactical critiasim of his actions. Additional comments can easily be fed in between i believe without breaking up the flow of the section although am not to sure with the section now opening on the British progranda; may need some work to iron out the creases lol--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 10:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that does anything to be honest... seems an odd way to open the analysis. I haven't reverted it though - I can't find the typo! I actually got the Hastings quote right (read it last night), it's on p132. Some others that might help:
*Hart, Hart and Hughes (The German Soldier) describe it as "perhaps the most famous display of outstanding Waffen-SS combat performance...".
*Lefevre (Panzers in Normandy) best line is that "There is no doubt that Wittman's largely single-handed initiative stopped a British armoured thrust which could have resulted in the encirclement of Panzer Lehr Division."
*Another book I recently picked up when it was 80% off in Borders(!) called "In the Heat of Battle, A history of those who rose to the occasion and those who didn't" gives him his own section in the "A constant thread of Valour" chapter. Mainly descriptive rather than analytical, but does say "Together with his little group of Tigers, he had completely blunted Montgomery's attack". Now ordinarily I wouldn't bother using this, but I thought I'd mention it because it actually gets the facts of Wittman's actions that day correct!
[[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 11:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The more I read of V-B the more unimpressive it looks (as does most of the writing). A Brigade Group was never going to undo PzLehr. It was also never expected to have an effect in isolation. At best it would take a tactically advantageous position somewhere near V-B that would make the subsequent fighting harder for the Germans, tilting the balance of attrition further against them. The idea that it could have taken the Germans to the cleaners and captured Caen if only the 7th Armd Div had had the bottle is ridiculous. Consider also why Wittmann's detachment was able to spring the ambush - because the column had stopped to sniff out the situation beyond pt 213. Had they bashed on there would have been a real disaster because Wittmann and Co were already there. They were half deployed when the Tigers attacked which is why in the photos you see lots of half-tracks and Bren carriers but do you see any corpses? Wittmann and the other four or five Tigers undoubtedly brought off a tactical success but then got shot to pieces trying to exploit it. I really think it unwise to allow facile comments by writers using secondary and tertiary sources to dominate the article. Stopping the story with Wittmann's swan into the town rather than describing the course of events before the Brigade Group was withdrawn falls into the hands of the 'declinist' school. I think we need at least a paragraph on what was ging on in the rest of the division and 50th Infantry Div around Tilly. Anyway did the Br-Grp retreat all the way to its start point or only to a less exposed position?[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 12:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

:Am in the same school of thought as you are Keith; this is a rather unimpressive battle and i think it has too much attention attached to it. Imo for the enterprise to work it would have required an entirely different battleplan from XXX Corps and had the Brigade group went further would have most likely came unstuck; the ability of the Panzer Lehr to send in ad hoc battle groups, the entire 101st battalion and 2nd Panzer en route. Now yes the 7th Armour prob would have outnumbered them tank wise but would have been stretched out and with too few infantry to support. I dont think Caen was reachable via this hook.
:As for the withdrawal, i believe it was a mile down the road.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 15:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

::I think Steve has made some useful suggestions and the critical commentary re Wittman probably does need some balance, though we'll need to be careful about how we present it. Becuase we've noted that historians like Hart, D'Este, Simpson etc have been criticised for apparently being influenced by the German propoganda accounts and 'bigging up' Wittman, any subsequent laudatory quotes need to be in this context (ie who's credible and who isn't) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 15:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Totally agree; I believe the Hart, Hart and Hughes (One Hart being Stephen and the other being the other Hart mentioned by Buckley?), along with the Hasting's comment provide the "positive commentry". Talk on the attack being the decsivie momment followed up by the Buckley dismissial, then the "most famous comment" followed on by the "devestating attack" comment with Schiender taking up the rear. That should show all levels and provide all sides of the comment. Some additional stuff may need to be moved around a bit as there a comment from Buckley regarding Wittmann's bravey and daring in launching such an attack.
:::I will be taking a further look through my other sources once i get home.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 16:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

::::Agree with you all. The German Soldier is indeed by Stephen Hart, Russell Hart (an American if that helps identify him) and Matthew Hughes. I'll add it in the bibliography- pages are 77 going onto 78. It's hard to know who's comments to use when they might themselves be drawing conclusions from duff gen, (that's the only reason I mentioned the other book above) but Enigma's layout above looks good. [[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 16:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
'Clash of Arms: How the Allies Won in Normandy' by R. Hart?[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 18:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Enigma, I meant the withdrawal after the 'B of the Brigade Box'. Did the BG go back all the way it came?.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 18:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
:Yep, as far as i know back the way they came; that was on the evening of the 14th after they had gave the hun a damn good thrashing! pip pip old boy! :p --[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 21:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

wittmanns bravery was outstanding his achievements were outstanding his military skill as tank commander was outstanding, his military desicions after the first battle were not perfect maybe bad his leadership was not perfect maybe bad... bring this in the analyse if u want to discuss the actions of a first leutnant. this is neutral... bring the positiv opinions about him to support his action and bring schneider to discuss his desicions after the first battle.... . the analysis now is totally crap...

@steve i brought my point weeks ago, nothing happened . i said that there are other historians with other opinions but nothing happened... this article is POV thats a fact... —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.176.138.73|85.176.138.73]] ([[User talk:85.176.138.73|talk]]) 22:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC) 

== Further copyediting ==

I'm in the process of making another ce pass; comments etc below. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 13:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

*Clarified the Background section a bit (and tried to sex up the prose a little too...)

*Footnoted and trimmed the details of Wittmann's platoon; I think it's too much information for the article body.

*Possible inconsistency; a count of Wittmann's platoon gives 12 tanks, but Taylor (in the previous footnote) gives 14 per company.

*Is it worth mentioning the notorious mechanical unreliability of the Tiger I in relation to the Heavy SS-Panzer Battalion 101's strength on 13 June? I'm not sure it's that relevant, but others may differ (I think Hastings mentions a quote from a British tanker saying that the best way to knock out a Tiger is to get it to move then wait for it to break down, but I can't remember what that was in relation to).
*: Do them being mechanically crap i would presume :p The first one in Africa iirc seized up. I will look into the possible inconsistency later for you.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 14:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
*::Yes indeed. We have a paper strength of 45, and a combat strength of 17, for 13 June. I was curious to know if we can say how many of the 28 losses sustained between Beauvais and the front were actually due to air action and how many were down to simply trying to make the things move. Re the inconsistency, thanks (though I don't think it's anything worth spending too much time over!) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 15:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

*Excellent map of the Caumont Gap [http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-4/7-4_9.htm#370 here]; I'll draw this up for the article :) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 11:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
*:Does look rather spiffing! One minor change will need to be made; there should be three "x"s over the 30 symbol or it should be left with two "x"s and changed to "50"--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 12:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Too many 'howevers' which should be avoided, particularly (with 'meanwhile') as the first word of a sentence. Too many commas, which are unnecessary either side of words like 'and', 'but' or 'or'. The last sentence of the introduction is too dogmatic. Propaganda ever since the gig is reminiscent of the news about Jutland; an engagement which was tactically indecisive, operationally a British success and a strategic defeat for the Germans being distorted by a skilfull publicity stunt.

The advice about making Tigers move came from the 8th Army in Italy.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 13:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks for the comments. I have a bit of a blind spot with commas sometimes; I'll go through again looking for them, but please feel free to take out any you think shouldn't be there. I haven't addressed the lead yet - that needs to be considerably trimmed I think... it's next on my list. And thanks for pinning down that Tiger quote :) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 13:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a pompous page for pompous people, we'll have no commas here. ;O)[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 14:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
:I think we're allowed up to twelvety according to the list of [[WP:MOS|Precious Things]]. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 16:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

*Re 7th Armd/22nd Bde gp, in the Background section we have the entire division disengaging and making for Livry. Is that correct, or should it be only those elements Hinde took with him? [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 14:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Keith love the reference!
Eyeball: I will check out the sources tonight, I know I keep saying that so lets say ill do it sometime this weekend :p; off the top of my head the division disengaged in parts and was full committed to the gap by the time the Brigade group reached V-B. Ill check Taylor, Forty and their own div history to get better specifics if I can for you.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 15:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On p. 256 the OH has 7th Armd '....stationed between the 50th Division and the Americans at Caumont.' So the BG disengaged from the Germans around Tracy Bocage and held a line roughly from La Belle Epine south to Livry. The map facing p. 256 has all of the 7th moving from the area round Tilly. P.254 has the advance to V-B being strictly tactical to menace the PzLhr, NOT an attempt to capture Caen. It's not explicit but it looks like the BG fell back on the infantry brigade at Livry.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 16:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks both :) Re menacing PzLehr, do we have any sources that discuss this in more detail? I too am not massively happy with the characterisation of the battle as a failed attempt to capture Caen. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 16:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
OH p. 254, "....turning to their left they would seize the Villers-Bocage ridge from the west. Their capture of this high ground behind Panzer Lehr Division might compel its withdrawal or surrender." As usual the story is bedevilled by ulterior motives. As I've looked into the B of N, V-B looks less and less like a battle for Caen and more like a tactical manoeuvre. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

:I completely agree. The altered Perch might originally have been intended to sweep around Caen, but that went out of the window fairly quickly. V-B could never have taken the city with the force committed - it does seem to be nothing more than taking advantage of a fluid situation to jockey for position. All being well, it might have caused PzLehr to withdraw and freed up the front around Tilly-sur-Seulles, or might perhaps have provided nothing more than a jumping-off point for further operations intended to pinch out the Tilly-s-S - V-B bulge if PzLehr didn't withdraw. Within the limits of the sources, I've tried to clarify things a little in the Dempsey's intentions part of the background. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 18:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

*Casualties section trimmed (much of it footnoted); hopefully the important points are still extant in the text. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 11:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought 'tactics' were military doings up to division and 'operations' the doings of corps and armies? Wouldn't this make it a German tactical success and an indecisive operation?[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 11:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

=== Re 7th Arm Div Question ===

The divisional history has this to say:

Miday 12 attack at standstill. “The Divisional Commander, therefore, was ordered to disengage and attempt to...” move on VB

8th Hussars who had been watching the right flank led the advance followed by 4CLY, A1RB and then the rest of the brigade group “131 Brigade with the 1st Royal Tanks, were to step up behind the armour as required, and to be ready to do this by the morning of the 13th, by which time their remaining battalion, the 1/6th Queen’s Royal Regiment, was due to arrive.” (p. 35)

So the impression the 7th Arm staff give is that the entire division was pulled off the line with the 22nd leading and 131 trailing behind watching the rear. Btw some juicy details on the brigade box/island action that could be shoved into the Perch article.

Club route states the entire division was pulled from the line(p. 25) as does the short history of 30 corps(p.12)

Forty doesn’t seem to state if its the entire division being pulled off the line but does talk about 22nd bde advance and that at 0615, on the 13th, the vanguard of 131 bde arrived at la Paumière (p.50 (google map or google earth cant find it however it is around 1km NW of Livry on forty’s map (pp.48-49)))

Taylor states that the division was ordered to disengage from the fighting (p. 10), 131 bde was still moving to the front when its orders were cancelled and it was ordered to flank the Panzer Lehr with the rest of the division (p.11)--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 17:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

=== Operational victory? ===

Going off the refs in the article:

Wilmot:
“Thus the fruits of the initial success, which might have been turned into a striking victory, were handed back to the enemy. Erskine’s troops gad suffered no defeat after the first costly encountere with the single Tiger, and i fBucknall had reinforced and persisted with the attack by 7th Armoured, he would have provided a series threat to the rear of Caen and would have forced Panzer Lehr to abandon the Tilly Sailent in order to help close the gap which the Americans had created at Caumont. This great opportunity of disrupting the enemy line and expanding the Allied bridgehead was lost not so much in the woods and orchards around Villers-Bocage, as in the Corps Commander’s mind.”(pp.310-311)

Here Wilmot supports the tactical indesivness of the battle however how does one sum up the rest – what was achieved by the German defence and the British withdrawal?

D’Este:

He calls the withdrawal (of the entire division back to friendly lines) as “necessary”. He quotes Dempsey as saying that as a result of the failure to hold the town “no chance now of a snap operation with airborne troops either to seize Caen or to deepen the bridgehead. It is clear now that Caen can be taken only by a set-piece assault...”(apparently also in Wilmot, p. 40 this latter comment)

General Kraemer is mentioned, he believed the opportunity to roll up I SS Panzer Corps flank was squandered. “the enemy had let a favourable opportunity slip”.

D’este goes on that there was now no open flanks to turn – the brief moment of German weakness had been missed and it was “to prove one of the costliest Allied mistakes” (pp.197-198)
I think he has gone a little over the top there but anyhoo

Reynolds:

The failure of the operation resulted in the British having to launch multiple costly assaults to remove the Germans from the Caen area (p. 107)--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 18:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

== german tank casualties ==

we all know that its high likly that there were only 8 destroyed tanks and not more. we all know that the 8-13 means only that enigma wants wrong wartimeclaims in the infobox. the british only counted 8 destroyed after the battle so only 8 destroyed i dont think the germans took the burning tanks back but ok. so the other 7 are wrong counts or temporaly disabeld tanks. the german took 7 nearly destroyed tanks out of the battle^^ ( yes moronic to believe this, i know.. ). or maybe the tanks were only damaged ( tiger tanks got damaged nearly every time they start their engine ) but when they were only damaged why they come to the box.

when i look the brevity article i see that enigma decided that the british damaged tanks dont come to the infobxo, this damaged tanks are fact . soooo allied damaged tanks dont come to the infobox but german !!!maybe!!! damaged come to the infobox...

can someone explain to me? iam sure its simple bias and not more but maybe their is another explantion

Do not delete my text, answer my simple questions, answer why enigma uses different methods. tell me. deleting my text is so lol......

User talk:EyeSerene

2010-01-25T18:48:30Z

85.176.149.211: /* trolling? */ new section

<div style="background: #B9B9D9; -moz-border-radius: 8px; border-left: #D9D9F9 solid 2px; border-top: #D9D9F9 solid 2px; border-right: #9999B9 solid 2px; border-bottom: #9999B9 solid 2px; padding: 8px; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 90%;">

{{User:EyeSerene/Linkbox}}

<div style="-moz-border-radius: 4px; background: #E5E5F5; padding: 8px;">


<h2 style="-moz-border-radius: 4px; background: #4B0082; text-align: center; padding: 2px;">

messages

</h2>

{{User:EyeSerene/Archivebox}}

Click '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EyeSerene&action=edit&section=new here]''' to leave me a new message, or use the various '''edit''' tabs on the page. Don't forget to sign your message by including four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) at the end - I like to know who I'm talking to ;)
</div>
</div>


<div style="background: #B9B9D9; -moz-border-radius: 8px; border-left: #D9D9F9 solid 2px; border-top: #D9D9F9 solid 2px; border-right: #9999B9 solid 2px; border-bottom: #9999B9 solid 2px; padding: 8px; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 90%;">

<div style="-moz-border-radius: 4px; background: #E5E5F5; padding: 8px;">





== Thanks for School Rumble ==

Can't see anything major out-of-place.
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" style="text-align:center" width=100px | [[Image:BarnSakura.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Manga and Anime BarnSakura Award'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For thanks in your exhaustive work on ''[[School Rumble]]'', especially the anime's reception section.[[User:Jinnai|陣]][[User talk:Jinnai|内]][[Special:Contributions/Jinnai|Jinnai]] 22:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
|}

== confession ==

I must confess I regard Larry Sanger as an animal not a human being so yes a topic ban on Sanger would be okay. --[[User:Trulexicon|Trulexicon]] ([[User talk:Trulexicon|talk]]) 09:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

== [[History of terrorism]] ==

Hi. I see you have been trying to keep things in check at this article. Unless I'm very much mistaken, an anon. IP that was recently blocked is back with a different tag and is reinserting swathes of text without so much as a nod to consensus. Could you keep an eye out please. I don't want an unfamiliar Admin coming by and drawing simplistic conclusions as I try to restore previous content. Best. [[User:RashersTierney|RashersTierney]] ([[User talk:RashersTierney|talk]]) 18:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
:Think this is an editor that is deliberately hiding his/her history; possibly also edited here as LSG280709 and under other identities. I have never initiated a Sock investigation before, but there seems to be a long-term pattern of disruptive editing from the same source. [[User:RashersTierney|RashersTierney]] ([[User talk:RashersTierney|talk]]) 18:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

== Another pain in the butt CE request ==

Hi EyeSerene, how are you mate? Sorry to bug/attempt to burden you with such a request again, but I was wondering if you would be willing to copyedit [[Walter Peeler]] for me within the next week or so? I have just vastly expanded it from a stub, and have posted it up for both GAN and ACR, and have hopes of taking it to FAC after that. Re-reading the article, I think it could do with a bit of a textual polish/massage before I undertake the latter. As ever, if you are too busy, do not wish to, or are just plain sick of such requests, do not feel pressured or obligated to do so. :) Thanks mate. Cheers, [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 14:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
:Just happened to spot this after I started my ce of the article while I review it for GAN, so you may be off the hook, Eye, but of course feel free to join in if you feel so inclined...! Cheers, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 11:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
::Lol, thanks for the acceptance, Eye, and for starting the ce, Ian, I really appreciate it. :) Lol, I did happen to notice the ANI-like posts/disputes on your talk page, and was tempted to tell the buggers to cool off and stop arguing on your talk page. Cheers, [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 11:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
:::Heh, thanks. I'll have a proofread after Ian's done his stuff then, if that's ok. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 17:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
::::Well, Ian has passed the article as GA and I think finished with his tweaks, so whenever you're ready, Eye. ;-) Thanks mate, [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 04:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Eye. The article has just passed its ACR, so whenever you are ready and willing, so is the article. ;-) Thanks for this, mate. Cheers, [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 23:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

:Hey Eye. Sorry to be such a pushy pain about this, but, if at all possible, would you be able to do/start the ce by, or on, 10 December? The reason I'm being such a pain is that I wish to nominate the article for FAC on that date so it can, hopefully, be promoted by the end of the month. Cheers, [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 13:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

::Don't fret if you cannot to it right away; RL comes first. I don't mind it if is done in small installments, so don't worry and think it has to be done all at once. :) Again, thanks very much for this, mate. Cheers, [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 01:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Eye! I had decided to hold off on the FAC until the ce was in process, or done, as I figured it was be easier and the article in better shape. Now that it is done, I'll have a read through and make any further tweaks, if necessary, then it will be off to FAC! As a token of my appreciation, I humbly present you with this barnstar:

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Allaroundamazingbarnstar3.png]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''All Around Amazing Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I humbly present the All Around Amazing Barnstar to EyeSerene for his all around amazing, yet undying, efforts in a multitude of facets on Wikipedia, which includes, but is not limited to: brilliance and institutive leadership as a Coordinator of the [[WP:MILHIST|Military history WikiProject]]; an amazingly adept article copyeditor; a source of immense knowledge in multiple areas; and a great Administrator! Cheers, [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 00:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
|}

:Thanks for the pointers, Eye. Regarding the quagmire sentence, I can see your point and have changed it back. :) I've left "lobbed" for the moment, as I have seen it utilised in several professional publications and think it is one of the better words for this case, though will consider tweaking it. As for the final point, I re-added it to point out that's what happened/occured after this stage, if that makes sense. Thanks, mate. Cheers, [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 09:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

::Hope the class wasn't too much trouble! Again, thanks for the pointers. I will re-add the first and tweak the second. I removed a bit from the lead, including the point you mentioned, as it seemed rather a little long, and I've had a long lead be picked on at FAC before. FAC can always be a little fickle; as Forrest Gump said: "Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get." I think this is the perfect quote to describe the FAC process sometimes. ;-) Cheers, [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 11:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

:::OMG! Just reading that made me want to bash my head against the wall! Lol. Hopefully, there will be better luck next time. Cheers, [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 11:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

::::Lol, I should be able to have a bit of a look over the article within the next few days. You know what I find hilariously ironic? The person who stated the lead is not detailed enough for the [[Battle of Villers-Bocage]] is the same person who said that the lead of [[Harry Murray]] was too long! Cheers, [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 01:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Eye. Sorry I haven't had a look at the article yet; it has been rather busy couple of weeks! I ''should'' be able to have a look in the next couple of days, though, but don't hesitate to remind me if I haven't do so by next week. :) Anyway, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, mate. Cheers, [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 06:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

== Devonshire House Preparatory School ==

Please could you tell me how to make the article better and up to wiki standards? Sorry I've been slow to understand how to make a good wiki entry. I would like learn how to make a good article .... so far I have looked at other articles for similar schools for ideas and approaches so I am sorry if some of those other articles have given me the wrong approach. I really do appreciate your help and would like to change the article to make it better. Best regards.

== Sorry for the late reply, had a bit of a busy day==
I was trying to stick up for an editor from what seemed to be degoratory attack based on where he/she came from. Nationalism or [[User:Moreschi/The_Plague|The Plague]] as Moreschi calls, shouldn't be used as a basis for judging the value of an editors contribution to an encyclopedia IMO. Recently some editors of that disposition, have made these kind of derogatory collectivist comments, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay#One_country.3F first on North Americans] and then [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neil_Kinnock#British Australian editors] regaring their contribution to British articles. Suggesting "ignorance" or a different "moral compass" if they dare voice a position contrary to regional nationalism. From my experience, when the England article was getting made to a GA, an Aussie was one of the main people helping out and a Canadian was doing the review, so I felt those kind of degoratory characterisations of them, based on where they live did not seem to be appropriate for a worldwide project. - [[User:Yorkshirian|Yorkshirian]] ([[User talk:Yorkshirian|talk]]) 20:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
:The excuses for trolling [[User:Sarah777]] and [[User:RTG]] ([[User talk:Sarah777#Anorak's korner|here]] & [[User talk:RTG#Racism|here]]) should be good too. [[User:Daicaregos|Daicaregos]] ([[User talk:Daicaregos|talk]]) 20:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

:: I'm pretty sure pointing out that there isn't actually an "Anglo-American Imperialism" conspiracy on Wikipedia doesn't fall under the definition of "trolling", or as Sarah777 put it in the section which I initially replied "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sarah777#Vk.27s_Troubles Wiki (En) is a pawn in the hands of Anglo-American Imperialism]". If you must insist on riffling back through my contributions for straws, I suggest following the [[WP:NPA]] at least. Your excuse for the derogatory comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay#One_country.3F on people who live in North America], would be good in the mean time. Perhaps more useful than [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RTG&diff=prev&oldid=327551110 attempting to canvass]. - [[User:Yorkshirian|Yorkshirian]] ([[User talk:Yorkshirian|talk]]) 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you get a fair idea of the kind of person Yorkshirian is from these [[WP:PA]] edits (cited by User:Daicaregos at [[User talk:Yorkshirian]] during the last Yorkshirian appeal against blocking):
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:England&diff=prev&oldid=306222518 noting a good faith edit with which he disagreed as Welsh nationalist vandalism]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:England&diff=next&oldid=304589958 failing to WP:AGF + insulting/baiting Scots & Welsh editors]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:England&diff=prev&oldid=304676016 insulting/baiting Scots & Welsh editors]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:England&diff=prev&oldid=304679221 belittling Cornish/baiting Cornish editors]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:England&diff=306224522&oldid=306223656 racial baiting]
User:Daicaregos has in the past proposed mentoring as a solution to Yorkshirian's incessant bad behaviour. However, I feel that that point was passed a long, long time ago. When on earth are Admin's going to act? This guy is just making a fool out of the entire Wikipedia project.

The worst nationalist "Plague" at Wikipedia is the plague of mindless British nationalists, at all levels, up to and including Admin level. User:Yorkshirian is just an minor example of the type. --[[User:Mais oui!|Mais oui!]] ([[User talk:Mais oui!|talk]]) 23:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

:What relevence are these diffs from August to the discussion at hand? While the sentimentalism and claims of "racialism" and "baiting" are laughable in themselves. Calling non-collectivists "mindless" and claiming admins are "British nationalists" is hardly good form. - [[User:Yorkshirian|Yorkshirian]] ([[User talk:Yorkshirian|talk]]) 23:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

::Its true, Yorkshirian doesn't know how to say "That's biased" without saying "And your mother". The accusation against Sarah777 and Daicaregos speaks for itself (or maybe that's just a tip of an iceberg, not to my knowledge). Sarahs conspiracy accusation (to the world at large from her own talkpage) was comic and Daicaregos shouldn't have said "I will adjust my view of North Americans over this!" (I can almost hear Americans who read this and go "Aaaa shaddap!") But, Yorkshirian shouldn't be telling tales and defending his/her *impeccable* behavior right now. Yorkshirian should be studying the difference between being comically frustrated or momentarily rude and being persistently debasive, derogatory, and callous without appology. The difference between rectifying and inflaming so come on Yorkshirian, who is going to find trouble in pursueing this? Sarah777 for being Republican? Daicaregos for being Welsh? Do you really need to protect Neil Kinnock from being Welsh or Northern Ireland from being a country? Have you uncovered something sinister for this admin to deal with? What exactly is this admin going to do about what you are complaning here? No offence, EyeSerene... I am assuming that Sarah777 and Daicaregos don't even get ticked off here whereas Yorkshirian is dancing around being barred by pursuing this. ~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]] 12:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

:::No offence taken, everyone's welcome here :) As I noted above, I've seen posts from a number of editors ranging from misfired attempts at humour to inflammatory to outright paranoid. At the moment I'd put Yorkshirian somewhere in the 'lower inflammatory' section of that scale; it's unintentional on his part, I'm sure, but what some will brush off, others will find offensive. The same goes for others in this dispute; the end result of misjudging when/when not and what/what not to post is still pissed-off editors. I'm not intending to block anyone at the moment, although Yorkshirian is well aware that he needs to be careful about manufacturing ammunition that will be used against him. As I quoted recently on an ANI thread dealing with another nationalist editor's long-overdue indefblock, "Every place on earth has nationalists; they are the dupes of demagogues, the tools of conquerors, and a great pestilence upon Wikipedia. Write a thousand good words on an important but neglected figure, and a nationalist will show up to argue over the spelling of his name; his birthplace, ancestry, ethnicity, or category; all in a tone of moral outrage. Look at the "bright" side: they keep our friends in the war industry employed. When some day earth is hidden in its final radioactive dust-shroud, their ghosts will declare: it's not so bad, they got what ''they'' deserved. Let the sane among you ignore them, and be good citizens of all of mankind, rather than just an angry splinter of it." (from [[WP:OWB]]). Good advice. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 15:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

::::Most will see that as a call for tolerance, which there is no mistake that is what it is, but some I fear as a justification to an anti-nazi fight where they select the Nazis with those generally appreciative of their own nations to be in some target line. I wouldn't like to be watching while one slaughters another and says something like, "You are inferior, you were born into it, your race will never be socially acceptable and if you love your nation you should be insulted because I am against the Nazis who slaughtered those they thought of as inferior, born into it, would never be socially acceptable and thought they should be insulted as they loved the nation they were from." That would be a terrifyingly ironic outcome, if the imagination perceived promoting the persecution of Nazis and determined Nazis to be any tolerant of their own nation. If you can love a car, a pair of shoes, a love song somebody wrote, you should be guilty of nothing and neither should your love of your thing be any more than equal to anyone elses, and similarly, the same should go for a constitution, a flag, a boat, or even a local elected official who gets homeless off the streets and gives them something to do or gets racially divided people to open up a school together, that is what a nation is not just a fight against another one, you love yours and Harry-Boo loves his too and for those sort of reasons, he should. Where there is two views they should be anticipated and levelled out rather than fought over until only one man stands. The only anarchy which could exist with zero nation lives in a hut in a field and trusts nobody so if anyone is tagging themself an anti-nation-alist, rather than a tolerant and understanding soul, let's see you editing some anarchy articles. I had to respond because, for anyone who read EyeSerenes quote and saw a big struggle, you should read again. GLuck. ~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]] 20:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::Nationalism doesn't simply mean a respect for a land or culture, that is [[patriotism]] or otherwise [[allophilia]] an entirely different and healthy thing. Nationalism as a modern political movement derives from the Jacobin French Revolution, essentially the materialistic-naturalist twin of Bolshevism: secular religion. If somebody is patriotic or an allophile then they perhaps could be useful for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, because they would have a drive to write quality, well researched, evenly weighted articles on a subject. A nationalist can only bring conflict, because they are attached to a stiff dogmatism, x vs. y, usually victim based and feign offense if anybody dares to present information contrary to their worldview; most of which is derived from mythology pieced together for political convinence after the French Revolution. What EyeSerene said was spot on IMO, I agree with whoever wrote that 100%. - [[User:Yorkshirian|Yorkshirian]] ([[User talk:Yorkshirian|talk]]) 14:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

::::::Sorry EyeSerene. No Yorkshire, "nationalism" is "nationalism" <s>and it is pretty well summed up on Wikipedia, [[Nationalism]]</s> scratch that, it is actually saying that nationalism is only derogatory and a beleif in superiority, well not where I come from, quite the opposite. All that other ball-hopping is just things closely related to nationalism that you are relying on to justify some attacks. It's a classic form of denialism - you reason. You are producing study and research to explain your behaviour. That's what a psychiartrist does and a psychiatrist will not condone, so, end your justification process now, thanks. You dragged me through the muck kiddo without any knowledge of me whatsoever. Want to debate your expression of justified anti-nationalism? I want to see an answer that suggests you conceed your *philosophy* because you are certainly in the wrong even if a nationalist is some sort of space rover, you Yorkshirian, have something to conceed not something to philosophise, thanks again. ~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]] 14:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
::::::Some folk need to read this [[Nationalism#Radical_or_revolutionary_nationalism]] ~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]] 15:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
::::::Is this all those things you are describing [[African_National_Congress#History]]? ~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]] 15:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Interesting though it is, I'm not sure that it's helpful for this thread to turn into a philosophical debate about the thin lines between various 'isms' :) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 15:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

:No, I think I've had it with Yorkshirians racism because he or she is not prepared to own up, has reasoned out with him or herself, and from that perspective has done nothing wrong. If that is the case I should have pursued it already because a lot of it was aimed directly at me. Yorkshirian edits articles for which the only affinity seems to be a pursuit of knowledge on various royalty, only produces minor edits and templates for those articles, and pursues a line of commentary which is not only intolerantly biased against anything non-royalist, is downright racist and offensive using attacks related to effeminism, racism, superiority, nationalism, republicanism, cabal and general bad faith far beyond finding and replacing possible bias with neutrality which I like to do myself in the most insistant ways possible at times, '''loud words''' and <big>disruption</big> but Yorkshirian is being racist and pursuant of POV with little enough legs to stand on. Wikipedia is NPOV and intolerant of racism. I am going to gather diffs and look for help to turn Yorkshirian away because that is the only thing that Yorkshirian seems possible to change. I am all for royals being royals but nobody should accept abuse. ~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]] 18:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

::I said I agree with the comment that EyeSerene posted and pointed out why rationally IMO nationalism (called "The Plague" on Wikipedia) is so counterproductive in action. This site isn't here for you to hysterical attack people (see [[WP:NPA]]), with the rather frequent habit of newspeak libeling people as "racist" (like you did to admin [[User:Rodhullandemu|Rodhullandemu]] not long ago). Besides that it is difficult to make any sense out of your posts most of the time. So far as I can see, you're "offended" that we have a [[WP:NPOV]] policy that dogmatic poltiical nationalism happens to conflict with? And? This does not make Wikipedia "waysist". This is an encyclopedia., neutrality is central to reliability - [[User:Yorkshirian|Yorkshirian]] ([[User talk:Yorkshirian|talk]]) 23:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

:::It took me more than 3 hours because I looked at more or less everything since Sept 24th except mainspace which I cursory examined already and England/GA2 talk so it will take longer again to study them tomorrow and I will let you know how it is looking when we might show you some support for your neutrality and undying "w"ighteousness, including wether or not I labelled Rodhullandemu a racist and wether you have history of lying about what editors post about each other, Okay Sockshirian? A quote from the wikt "(obsolete) To judge; to estimate; to appraise The Earth, which I esteem unable to reflect the rays of the Sun." Goodnight EyeSerene whoever you are. ~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]] 01:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::Are you actually accusing EyeSerene of being my sock? You're wrong. As for lying, here you are attacking admin Rodhullandemu, where you say to him "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_National_Party#Whites_only you are supportive of racist hatred]". The admin tells you to disist and warns you that these kind of libelous attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia. I suggest you take his advice. In a slightly related note; EyeSerene, while I realise this comes with the territory of an open database project and editors are bound to attract all sorts, RTG seems to be stepping over the [[WP:STALK]] line, well into territory which feels creepy to me. Is there any way to get across that this is hardly "normal"? I think its clear that in this discussion I have replied cordially to you and yet here is this guy levelling serious defamation against me, by accusing me of being a "racist" (not a libel I take lightly, as an opponent of collectivist ethnocentric chauvinism). - [[User:Yorkshirian|Yorkshirian]] ([[User talk:Yorkshirian|talk]]) 02:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) This has gone beyond the point of being constructive. RTG, your latest interjections are not helpful; the original purpose of this thread was Yorkshirian's explanation for his comments that had upset other editors, and I think this has been examined in enough detail that everyone has had a chance to let off a little steam (which is probably better done in this informal venue that at somewhere like ANI). It might be helpful if I cross-post part of the reply I've just left Daicaregos, so we're all clear about how I see this situation:
<blockquote>Yes, Yorkshirian is under an editing restriction, and yes, I'll block him if he insists on making sweeping inflammatory statements about other editors based on their nationality. However, he wasn't the only one - some would find your comment re the moral compass of Americans equally offensive, and other editors have been slinging mud too. I accept that much of it may have been friendly, light-hearted banter, but in a text-only medium interpretation can be difficult and comments don't always translate the way they were intended to. I've taken all that into account, which is why I'm not blocking at this time; I feel it would be unfair to penalise Yorkshirian alone when, as with most disputes, there is more than one side involved. Yorkshirian has shown that he can be baited, and because he's on a final warning it would be easy for editors who wanted him gone to provoke him into an intemperate response that leads to his final block. I'm not for one minute suggesting that's what has gone on here, but I see my duty as an admin as protecting not only Wikipedia but also, to some extent, protecting editors from themselves. Of course, the only solution is for Yorkshirian not to bite but to [[WP:NPA|confine his comments to edits, not editors]]; I sincerely hope he (and others) will do this in future, as eventually I or any other admin will be left with no choice but to apply sanctions.</blockquote> [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 10:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

:Well look, I do not see the explaination so I am going to try and force you through diffs to impose a sanction on anything related to Gallic Descendency because it is Yorkshirians pet hate, from the shrinks field day position of Anglo-Irish-Roman, and all contribution in that area since Sept 24th and long before is at least ill-informed and at times purposefully bigoted. That's not acceptable where I am from or where he/she is from either. I will see you later I guess *sheesh* ~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]] 15:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

== ANI notice ==

Hello, EyeSerene. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#|{{{thread}}}]]. }}{{#if:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Off2riorob_after_multiple_extensions_of_good_faith|The discussion is about the topic [[:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Off2riorob_after_multiple_extensions_of_good_faith]].}}  Thank you. --'''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 01:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

== Increased block time ==

Greetings. I increased the block time for the [[Waylon Jennings]] vandal that you blocked earlier. I hope you don't mind, but he's a long-term disruption on that article and related topics. I can guarantee that if you block for 31 hours, he'll be back 33 hours later. I think he uses an alarm clock. I generally block for 6 months at a time now at the first offense, watchlisting the user-talk pages in the (so far non-existent) event that a "real" editor requests an unblock. [[User:Joyous!|Joyous!]] | [[User_talk:Joyous%21|Talk]] 22:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

== Lauraandemilyinart ==

Hi. You just blocked this editor for vandalism, but there seems to be a small inconsistency. At the editor's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lauraandemilyinart&curid=25198335&diff=327900967&oldid=327899409 talk page] it says indefinite block, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ALauraandemilyinart the log] says three hours. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian|talk]]) 18:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

== [[User:Zod1981]] ==

I see you warned above person before, he appears to be a sockpuppet vandalizing pages/edit warring, and another account of his was already blocked. Kindly review this.

[[User:Starmoney|Starmoney]] ([[User talk:Starmoney|talk]]) 06:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

==Manners==
What you give is what you get. Block me and be damned.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 07:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Physician heal thyself.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 09:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I've told you where you (and anyone else) stands with me, the rest is up to you. Good luck.[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 11:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

:Come on guys, chill :) --[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 14:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

::Heh, positively frosty here, Enigma :) Unpleasant duty done, and as far as I'm concerned the matter's closed. I regard Keith's contributions and insight very highly, and hope he'll continue to share these re article content. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 14:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

== V-B ==

Thanks very much for the kind words and the award. As for the review, this one has baffled me; considering how much attention the battle gets and everyone seems to love it ... they dont want to review it lol--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 10:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
:If you dont mind, could you take a look at [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Villers-Bocage/archive2]] and the comments raised by [[User:Tony1]] please.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 08:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

== Stoke-on-Trent ==

Many thanks for the offer EyeSerene, any help is much appreciated. I've pretty much finished the article as far as my sources will allow me to do so, and I think an image of the statue would help finish it off (There is a standard image of Baskeyfield himself floating around on the web, but I haven't been able to find anything that says whether its a personal or military photo, so I'm reluctant to upload it). But obviously, PLEASE don't go to too much trouble for it – Christmas can be stressful enough! [[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 18:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

== Please can you unblock user ==

please can unblock user khuda hafiz please he want disruptive editing never please.

please

thanks you. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Suban allah|Suban allah]] ([[User talk:Suban allah|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Suban allah|contribs]]) 18:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC) 

== Vancouver ==
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver/Operation Schadenfreude/Box}}
- Dear FA Team member, we could use your help if you're available. [[User:Mkdw|Mkdw]][[User talk:Mkdw|''talk'']] 06:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

== [[User:Wikiwikiwoowikiwoo]] ==

Hello again EyeSerene. Seeing as how this user resumed his vandalizing after your block, and since I could not find a single constructive contribution in their history, I have issued an indefinite block. Just thought I'd let you know. Regards, <tt>[[User:Decltype|decltype]]</tt> ([[User talk:Decltype|talk]]) 08:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

== ANI Notifications ==

Dear EyeSerene, I just wanted to drop you a kind note and let you know that you forgot to inform an involved editor in the thread that you opened on [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]]. Don't worry! It's been take care of it. Just wanted to gently remind you to make sure to do so when and if you open a new ANI thread in the future. Thanks!!!  [[User:Basket of Puppies|'''Basket of Puppies''']] 19:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
:Hi, EyeSerene. I am referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#2nd_opinion_requested_re_Nagara373 this thread on ANI]. You created the thread but I didn't see a notice on the editor's talk page regarding the thread. [[User:Basket of Puppies|'''Basket of Puppies''']] 19:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
::Please accept my full and complete apology! I am so sorry! I didn't look carefully enough and I feel really bad about that! I am going to get a cup of coffee now. [[User:Basket of Puppies|'''Basket of Puppies''']] 19:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

== Hey, sorry to bother you... ==

...but could you take a look at this new user: [[User_talk:Corvettecrazy262|Corvettecrazy262]]? He's been disruptively editing a number of articles in the past few days, maybe a couple of weeks, and despite a ton of warnings on his userpage, and attempts to debate issues with him on article talkpages, he still continues. I'm hoping that an Admin taking a look at the issue might help. Cheers, [[User:Skinny87|Skinny87]] ([[User talk:Skinny87|talk]]) 09:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

== Welcome response ==

{{talkback|Sadads}}

== Do you know what this is? ==

Hi, this is a slightly odd question, but I wasn't sure where to ask it, perhaps you know? What is [[French Republican Calendar/Y12]] and its companions in [[:Category:French Republican Calendar templates]]? Are they articles, templates or something else entirely? I ran into them while reading up on the calendar and I'm a bit confused. Any idea?--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] ([[User talk:Jackyd101|talk]]) 20:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
::I wasn't really asking with the aim of deleting them, I was just wondering whether someone had gotten their titles confused or they were some sort of odd image that had wound up in th wrong place. Thanks for taking a look.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] ([[User talk:Jackyd101|talk]]) 13:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

== Villers Bocage tank casualties ==

I think you will need to provide very precise citations for these. There is a great deal of difference between a tank which is "knocked out" and one which is "destroyed". In the horrible but precise later American definition, a tank which suffers a "mobility kill" i.e. is halted through its engine being disabled or tracks broken, or a "mission kill" i.e. armament, radios or sights disabled, can be considered "knocked out". In most cases these can be recovered and repaired in workshops, or even fixed ''in situ''. A destroyed tank is a write-off, though sometimes parts can be salvaged. (The usual cause is a "brew-up" where ammunition ignites and effectively incinerates the interior.) [[User:HLGallon|HLGallon]] ([[User talk:HLGallon|talk]]) 13:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

:Yes, I'm not entirely happy with taking those out. It was done, somewhat experimentally, in response to an editor's objection on the article's FAC, but I've now reinstated them. I think it's something where a case can be made for using military 'jargon'; there aren't too many synonyms with the same implications as "knocked out". [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 15:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

== Reply ==

Hi EyeSerene, I've replied to the comment you left on my talk page. Also Ernest appears to be continuing under [[Special:Contributions/219.88.60.209|219.88.60.209]]. [[User:XLerate|XLerate]] ([[User talk:XLerate|talk]]) 11:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

== [[User_talk:Ernest the Sheep|Ernest the Sheep]] reverts ==

{{Talkback|Nick Wilson}}

== Gibraltar's Mediation ==

Hi, Eyeserene. I write here due to you being the administrator who blocked [[Gibraltar]]'s article. There was a discussion on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#Gibraltar AN/I], where I addressed to you reasoning that in the case of this particular article, both parties engaged in debate weren't in equal positions (I provided [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Gibraltar this] information as well), as I felt that one party being comfortable with the current content of an indefinitely fully-protected article has no incentive to resolve any argument about it.

I received no response, so I thought you disagreed with the statement above. However, after a week of indefinite block, mediation is at risk. May I ask you to speak with Atama[[User talk:Atama|頭]], the mediator, and to read the talk page since at least [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gibraltar#Latest_Proposal_December_2009 01 of December?] It will be time consuming, though, as we've written the equivalent of 15 pages since then, but some advice on how to avoid the impasse we've reached and/or a third opinion are badly needed, in my opinion. Again, thanks for your time. [[User:Cremallera|Cremallera]] ([[User talk:Cremallera|talk]]) 15:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

:Thanks for the input. I quite liked [[m:The Wrong Version]], although I am not yet sure about you being a radical feminist, a zionist or a bolshevik instead ;) We should converse more often in order to form myself an opinion. Cheers. [[User:Cremallera|Cremallera]] ([[User talk:Cremallera|talk]]) 21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

== ANI ==

Hello, EyeSerene. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding a user you blocked indefinitely who has since been unblocked by another administrator. {{#if:User:Pickbothmanlol|The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pickbothmanlol|User:Pickbothmanlol]]. }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic [[:]].}}  Thank you. [[User:A Stop at Willoughby|A Stop at Willoughby]] ([[User talk:A Stop at Willoughby|talk]]) 02:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

== Yongle the Great ==

{{user|Yongle the Great}} is unrelenting in his block evasion. Multiple IPs, a couple of account, the latest this am after he posted from an IP address to my talk page 'Please stop'. He then created {{user|Albert Frederick Arthur George}}. {{user|Perpetual Happiness}}, {{user|123.23.250.182}} {{user|123.23.253.192}}, {{user|123.23.253.111}} (the account posting to my talk page) and others. The IP addresses seem to be non-portable addresses from Vietnam Posts and Telecommunications. I don't know what can be done except deal with the edits and block the accounts. Where possible I am adding references and trying to improve articles. Some are clear redirects, eg [[Hongwu Period]] which just said "The Hongwu period (洪武時代, Hongwu jidai), or Hongwu era, denotes the 30-year reign of the Hongwu Emperor, running, in the Julian calendar, from 23 January 1368 to 24 June 1398. This period was called the Rule of Hongwu (洪武之治)." which I redirected to Hongwu Emperor (maybe someday that article will require a split, but not until the content builds up enough to need it. Any suggestions? [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 09:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
:Seems he had an old account and has been getting around semi-protection, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tr.C6.B0.C6.A1ng_Ho.C3.A0ng_Phong] and comment if you are around please. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 17:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
::Nishkid64 blocked his IP range for 5 days this am (he came on with another sock account). I think we need a category for his socks! [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 16:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

== Lehr Lehr old chap ==

To be brutally honest I only made those changes across the various articles because I was bored in work XD

I think your right however, Panzerlehr/Panzer-Lehr should be an acceptable variant of Panzerlehrdivision and I have seen various sources use this; I shall revert my edits later.

What has me however, I don’t believe I have seen any source use panzerlehrdivision; they mostly seem to plonk dashes between each of the words and am thinking this the version we should also use. I mean even Helmut Ritgen spells it like this on the front cover of his book iirc and am sure he served with the division – unless this is a case of the German being anglicised.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 15:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

:Checking out various stuff on the net; re-enactment groups, forums, modellers etc (yes am bored in work again!) everyone use the terms Panzer Lehr Division, Panzer-Lehr-Division, Panzer Lehr, and Panzer-Lehr.

:One forumite, from a few years, ago made mention of the current German army having a formation called the [[Panzerlehrbrigade 9]]; what I conclude is that Panzerlehrdivision is probably correct but only in German, all English sources use one of the above terms.

:I will check out the sources I have and find out what the majority of them call the division tonight, if I remember, and get back with what term is most used etc – off the top of my head I know that Taylor uses Panzer-Lehr.

:Considering the other articles are not called the likes of 1.Panzerdivision do you think it would be wise to move the page to Panzer-Lehr-Division and then note in the lead that in German it is Panzerlehrdivision; followed-up by changing the Normandy articles to suit the new title?--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 10:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

::Doing a quick check through all the sources i have that i think would have any of the 3 variants in i have came up with the below:

::Those calling the division: Panzer-Lehr-Division (4)
::Hubert Meyer, Kurt Meyer, Daniel Taylor, Ludovic Fortin.

::Those calling the division: Panzer Lehr Division (14)
::Carlo D'Este, Patrick Delaforce, Major Ellis, John Buckley, Colonel Stacey, Simon Trew and Stephen Badsey, Lloyd Clark, Anthony Beevor, Chester Wilmot, Stephen Ashley Hart, Ken Ford, George Forty, Michael Reynolds.

::There may be the odd few more sources that mention the division but i think the issue is mostly resolved; in the English language the second term is the most used and the current one - never.
::I will most this on the actual article at some point this week.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 09:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Cheers for the heads up and advise :) Am not to sure about blocking talkpage access; sure i have seen this guy, along with British and Irish nationalists on a vote, and a bunch of other people argue and vandalise like mad but ive also seen positive edits made; answering questions, notes about the edits they have made etc So maybe as a punitive mesasure agaisnt abusers of the good faith system?

:::I will post on the Panzerlehrdivision talk page and see if i get any feedback; i will make the changes in the normandy articles we have dealt with however.

:::Also i will send Roger or Maralia a message to see if they can give the article the once over. Cheers :)--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 11:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

::::Ive left a message with Maralia but for the live of me cant think of Roger's full username; couldnt share it could you lol.
::::As for the talkpage thing, i it would become more and more restritive and a move that would lead to imposing on the core principle of the wiki. That or it would just push people to register an account to vandalise :p

:::::Thought that was the guy, i got as far as the golfer before i concluded i couldnt remember what his username was lol. Ill leave him alone for now then since i have already asked Maralia and the fact he is overworked.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 14:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::PS, i have posted on the [[Panzerlehrdivision]] talk page and opened the discussion.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 14:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, I noticed this chat after I was reading up on Panzer Lehr. Just to clarify, I only really suggested standardising the name because it stood out to me that 2 diff names were being used (perhaps because its an FAC) in the lede and main body. I kinda thought that where stuff like spelling and person's names are specified, it seemed logical that unit names are too. But, I'll readily admit that I now realise half the articles I edit have the same problem - especially when I start abbreviating the south Staffordshire Regiment to South Staffords halfway through an article! I think at VB I just noticed that an abbreviated name was used before the correct name which is why I mentioned it. Of course I've managed to create a new issue as well, (I support Panzer Lehr Division as the article name btw).

Anyway, I was going to offer to give VB a quick c/e if you liked. I can see what Tony's getting at (and I did agree with Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs comments, but I think that's definitely been dealt with), but I don't think it requires too much work.

On a separate note, as you both do a lot of Normandy stuff, I wondered if either of you could help with [[Template talk:Campaignbox Normandy|this question]] I posed? Cheers, [[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 18:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

:To be honest Steve, it's something that needs addressing anyway; I think your comments just brought it into sharper focus. Re V-B, please do! And as for the template, I have no idea; normally we'd only italicise when it's a foreign word not in general English usage or a title of a book/film/song etc, none of which applies. Unless Enigma can shed light on it, I'd think they should be de-italicised. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 19:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
::Actually I was about to call it quits for the night EyeSerene, I've got to pay attention to the hamster! Feel free to edit away and I'll have another look tomorrow. [[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 21:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

== battle of villers bocage ==

can u join discussion? your opinion seems to be nearly "neutral" —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.176.148.111|85.176.148.111]] ([[User talk:85.176.148.111|talk]]) 02:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC) 

== Rangeblock ==

Any idea why [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~krimpet/rbhelper.php?db=enwiki_p Rangeblock helper] is not working? '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 09:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

:None at all, sorry. I've been getting a lot of error messages for WP lately though; "can't find server", "site experiencing problems" type of stuff. Maybe the toolserver's down? [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 09:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
:Actually, scratch that. The toolserver main page seems to be ok, but I'm getting nothing for the rangeblock helper either. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 09:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
::No idea, but I used to use that tool to help with rangeblocks... Oh well, '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 09:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
:::I found it [http://toolserver.org/~chm/blockcalc.php]. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 09:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
::::Sorted then :) I've never used it to be honest, then I've never had reason to do a rangeblock. Looks handy though - I'll keep it in mind for the future. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 09:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

== please look ==

cant u see the BIAS ? on the "operation totalize" articles he writes 1200+ casualties for the allies , but the WIA are missing, i tell him thats bad and we should write unknown . on villers bocage we know the exact figures for sSSPzAbt101 but they cant come to the infobox because he wants "unknown" same situations but for the allies he uses low number for germans not. look ths discusion pages of this both articles look his arguement u must see it . its so obivous.... . he brings war time claims of soldiers to the infobox though we know the exact destroyed tanks. please open your eyes.. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.176.147.5|85.176.147.5]] ([[User talk:85.176.147.5|talk]]) 20:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC) 

== [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gill Giller Gillerger 2]] ==

Apologies for the delay; I finally answered. --[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User talk:Rschen7754|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|C]]) 21:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

:Thanks, replied on the RfC talkpage. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 10:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

==Block of [[User:Likebox |Likebox]]==
I note that on 11 November 2009 you blocked [[User:Likebox |Likebox]] for disruption. On 13 November [[User:Likebox |Likebox]] was unblocked by [[User:Tanthalas39 |Tanthalas39]] with an admonition to mind his Ps and Qs for a bit. I report that [[User:Likebox |Likebox]] has since continued to behave in an [[WP:Civil |uncivil]] way [[Talk:Higgs mechanism |here]] in his manner of objecting to a request for a source for contentious wording. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 02:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC).

: Yes, I agree it was a little direct, but it wasn't personal--- Xxanthippe was just talking [[bullshit]]. Another editor made the same comments on his talk page. I will try to substitute "nonsense" in the future.[[User:Likebox|Likebox]] ([[User talk:Likebox|talk]]) 09:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:: Just to add, your block on me was total nonsense.[[User:Likebox|Likebox]] ([[User talk:Likebox|talk]]) 09:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Heh, aren't euphemisms fun :) Of course I don't always make the right decision, but sticking to the observable facts you ''were'' serial-reverting and therefore in breach of the "disruptive" clause in your editing restriction. If you hadn't manufactured the ammunition that was then used against you, there wouldn't have been an issue. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 10:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

== ce request ==

Hey, EyeSerene; I know it's been a while. I'm gonna be back in the writing article bit in January, and one of the first things on my agenda is a big FA push on Japanese capital ships. The first one of these - [[Japanese battleship Yamato]] - is in sore need of a copyedit before any eventual FAC. Would I be able to trouble you for one in the near future? [[User:Climie.ca|Cam]] ([[User Talk:Climie.ca|Chat]]) 03:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
:Cam, if you and ES don't mind, can you hold off until I can add info and references from ''[[User:The_ed17/Library|Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II]]''? :) —[[User:the_ed17|Ed]] [[User talk:the_ed17|(talk]] • [[WP:OMT|majestic titan)]] 03:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

::I'm intending to put in some work on the Academy in preference to copyediting for a bit, but from Ed's post this might be a while so no problem on both requests :) Let me know when you're ready, Cam. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 08:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
:::K. Update: Ed's just finishing off the final section. You're free to copyedit anytime you want save for the "1945" section, which Ed hasn't finished yet. Take your time, I'm in no hurry at this point. [[User:Climie.ca|Cam]] ([[User Talk:Climie.ca|Chat]]) 06:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

::::OK, will do. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 09:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Hi ES, thanks a lot for eopyediting. I've finished the article, so don't hold back from any parts of the article. ;) —[[User:the_ed17|Ed]] [[User talk:the_ed17|(talk]] • [[WP:OMT|majestic titan)]] 21:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

== Need a copyeditor (But I know you're busy!) ==

Hey ES. I have [[M22 Locust]] in a Peer Review at the moment with an eye for FAC in the near future. It needs a copy-edit for various prose thingies, as its not my greatest area. I know you're busy, but can you recommend a copy-editor who might have time to run through it? It's not a particularly long or complex article, so I don't think it would take too long. [[User:Skinny87|Skinny87]] ([[User talk:Skinny87|talk]]) 10:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
:Well, only if you're really sure ES, then thanks. But don't wprry about it, 'tis the holiday season and all that! [[User:Skinny87|Skinny87]] ([[User talk:Skinny87|talk]]) 14:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

== School Rumble ==

Can you do a quick check of the article again before I bring it back up to FA as I added and changed some items.[[User:Jinnai|陣]][[User talk:Jinnai|内]][[Special:Contributions/Jinnai|Jinnai]] 05:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

== V-B ==

Am thinking we should go for another FA review in the New Year after we can address everything that has been raised. As for where to go now, do you think it is wise to keep ce the article; i.e. ask Steve and Maralia give the once over?

Likewise the casualty section that was requested has now been pinpointed as a possible problem, do you have any suggestions on how to address them? Personaly i dont like the idea of tables and would prefer not to see one added but do you think it is a worthwhile suggestion?--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 16:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
:Ill ask Steve if he would like to have another crack over the article first; ill go and ask now.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 12:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:A bit of a delayed happy new year, but better late than never! I have just worked through most of the points raised by Abraham on the V-B talkpage bar one iirc; he has suggested that the lede be cut down a tad. Could you take a look at this and address maybe?--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 12:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

== The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009) ==

The '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/Newsletter November 2009|November 2009 issue]]''' of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by [[User:BrownBot|BrownBot]] ([[User talk:BrownBot|talk]]) 08:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:green; background-color:white; font color:red; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">[[image:Christmas_tree_sxc_hu.jpg|70px|left]]

[[User:MisterBee1966|MisterBee1966]] ([[User talk:MisterBee1966|talk]]) is wishing you a [[Mary Poppins|Merry]] [[Christmas]]! This greeting (and season) promotes [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a [[Christmas|Merry Christmas]], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! 

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{tls|Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
</div>

== operation charnwood ==

on the villers bocage article the british claims(delaforce wrotes the unit history and copied this claims) of german tanks knocked out are in the infobox so i take the german claims of tanks knocked out at charnwood. they claimed 103 but 80 are in the box. its the same relation like on villers bocage. maybe they were immobilized or something else or maybe the claims are wrong but the claims have to come to the box . the explanation is on the villersbocage page where enigma explains... . i hope its ok , its the same situation —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.176.148.49|85.176.148.49]] ([[User talk:85.176.148.49|talk]]) 02:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC) 
:Id rather not fan the flames however there are few key issues with what you wrote that tarnish your entire point:
#The divisional history has been consulted and the claim the division made has been inputted into the article - the division's staff claim 9 tanks knocked out.
#Daniel Taylor notes the British regiments claimed 14 tanks knocked out during the battle but acknowledges that this would be a figure that includes tanks latter recovered or only immobilised but STILL put out of action during the battle. To note this is actually mentioned.
#The only claim of 15 tanks comes from Delaforce, who wrote a book ABOUT the division not a book FOR the division; he doesnt state they are claims, he doesnt say his source is Taylor, the regiments or even the division itself, he states the Germans had 15 tanks knocked out in the battle. Him and him alone; in short your point is groundless.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

yep delaforce not even mentions his sources, no note or explanation.... . very reliable men. immediate wartime claims are always exggarated. the six tanks which were not found are temporaly disabled or double count of infantry. absolutly improper for the infobox. wartime claims should maybe be mentioned in the casualties section with the explanation of the issue of overclaiming. bringing them to the box while better sources are available is bias and nothing else. there are many infoboxes which should be filled with immediate wartime claims. we start with CHARNWOOD —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.176.144.42|85.176.144.42]] ([[User talk:85.176.144.42|talk]]) 19:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC) 

:Thats what is called a strawman argument; should i note how Reynolds, who provides the lowest figure, does not provide his source, nor do most of the others.
:Second you can keep rambling away but you are not addressing the point that Delaforce is not a primary source, is not he immediate post war divisional history, does not use wartime claims, and was written during the 90s not during or just after the war. How do you know Delaforce is using wartime claims, or double counting where is your evidence?
:Taylor notes that the tanks claimed were all disabled during the battle, which is a compeltly different matter and infact provides a different figure to Delaforce.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 10:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

== Happy New Year! ==

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border:2px dark blue; -moz-border-radius:10px; background-color:#dfefff; font-family: times new roman; font-size:130%"
|align="left"|[[File:Cathedral of our Lady 7 (Piotr Kuczynski).jpg|150px]]
|
|align="left"|A noiseless patient spider, I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated, Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding, It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself, Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them. And you O my soul where you stand, Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space, Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them, Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold, Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul." —"[[A Noiseless Patient Spider]]" by [[Walt Whitman]] '''Happy New Year''' [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
|}

==GA Sweeps update==
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over '''90%''' done with only [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps/Running total#Progress on reassessed articles|'''226''' articles remain to be swept]]! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about '''4 articles per person'''! If each member reviews an article '''once a week''' this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Appeal2/en?utm_source=2009_Jimmy_Appeal9_collapsed&utm_medium=sitenotice&utm_campaign=fundraiser2009&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia%3AWikiProject_Good_articles%2FProject_quality_task_force%2FSweeps%2FRunning_total&target=Appeal2 Wikipedia Forever] on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! [[User:Nehrams2020|Nehrams2020]] ([[User talk:Nehrams2020|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nehrams2020|contrib]]) 00:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

== Tables ==

<s>Just wondering; do you have any idea how to get the table at the bottom of this article, [[British Armoured formations of the Second World War]], to display better? I've had a play around but it still looks a bit naff in my opinion.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 00:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)</s>
:Figured it out, nevermind.--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks for the kind words :)--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

== The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009) ==

The '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/Newsletter December 2009|December 2009 issue]]''' of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by [[User:BrownBot|BrownBot]] ([[User talk:BrownBot|talk]]) 03:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

== Intentionally erroneus editions ==

Could you give him warnings about adding misguiding references to this art, [[User:M.K]] introduces completely bad data found on incorrect references [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth&diff=336028223&oldid=336022588] [http://books.google.pl/books?id=pV6sFB-KuU8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false], that can be found as intentionally hoax. He even reverted my admonishions from his page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:M.K&diff=336029592&oldid=336029375] thanx [[User:Mathiasrex|Mathiasrex]] ([[User talk:Mathiasrex|talk]]) 17:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

== Join a worthy project... ==

[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Magical Realism Reconsidered]]! [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 19:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

== Happy New Year ==

Hi EyeSerene, I was just wondering if you did manage to take any pics of a frosty John Baskeyfield when you were up north? I've just had an offer from [[User:Nthep]] who has received permission from another website to re-use their pics, but I didn't want your effort to go to waste. Cheers, [[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 12:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
:Cool, thanks again for trying. [[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 20:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

== School Rumble FAC ==

There are some problems listed by one of the reviewers. They also suggest a set of fresh eyes if you can find someone else who is good at copy editing (the anime & manga WikiProject lacks anyone who can do anything beyond basic copy editing) :(.[[User:Jinnai|陣]][[User talk:Jinnai|内]][[Special:Contributions/Jinnai|Jinnai]] 05:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

==Task forces==
Hi. What happened to the Pakistani and Indian military history task forces? :( [[User:Acejet|Acejet]] ([[User talk:Acejet|talk]]) 12:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
::Not a bad idea, but I was wondering if something could be done about the "[[chakra]]" symbol on the template, when the pages are taggged under the task force. That's more of an Indian symbol than being relevant to South Asian militaries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. [[User:Acejet|Acejet]] ([[User talk:Acejet|talk]]) 12:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

== Afd on Daniel Razon ==

Hi! I will gladly submit to the closing admin's decision, whatever it be. But if the article is not deleted, then please do consider merging it with [[UNTV]]. '''I'm sure you have seen the matchless ordeal Howard went through just to get one questionable [[WP:RS|RS]] to support this guy's presumed "notability."'' Someone who is truly notable wouldn't be that difficult. Howard and other pro-keep editors are from the Philippines and naturally want their people represented in WP. – Shannon Rose [[User talk:Shannon Rose|Talk]] 18:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

:I also hope you read the final notes I have added 17 seconds after you placed the closure in progress tag. – Shannon Rose [[User talk:Shannon Rose|Talk]] 18:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

== RE: Arabic ==

I'm afraid that is not Arabic, it's [[Farsi language]], you will need an editor from [[Iran]] for this. Nonetheless, I can read what he's adding and I agree that this is certainly a vandal, because he added the word "قاتل" which means in Arabic (and I assume in Farsi too, because the languages are kind of close) a "Murderer." Sorry I couldn't be of much help. Best. [[User:Zozo2kx|Yazan]] ([[User talk:Zozo2kx|talk]]) 04:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

== SACD ==

Hi!

You recently sent me a message regarding the SACD article. I made the changes after a lengthy discussion on the SACD discussion page (during which time, I presented many arguments, received responses from both Samboy and Bink, and you never showed up). If you disagreed with me, you could have presented your reasoning there to overturn mine. I acted on the changes for I wanted to be bold, as suggested by Wiki and Bink (I found out this later though), and I received no objection over my most recent arguments prior to making the corresponding changes. I have just repeated my argument there again, and hopefully you would respond.

By the way, you chose (by rolling back to a previous state without providing any further edit) to use Marbecks' website [http://www.marbecks.co.nz/classical/sacd-new.lsd?sort=releaseDate&page=1] as a reference for SACD releases. The link opens up to a message that says "'''there haven’t been any classical SACD titles released in the last 90 days.'''", which is '''absolutely wrong''' (please look at [http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1263587738/ref=sr_st?keywords=sacd&rs=5174&page=1&bbn=5174&rh=n%3A5174%2Cn%3A!301668%2Ck%3Asacd&sort=-releasedate]). Marbecks' out-of-date-ness was my stated reason for its removal. Please explain why you think that Marbecks' link should be used. Thank you!
[[User:Iubrecording|Iubrecording]] ([[User talk:Iubrecording|talk]]) 18:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I have just replied.[[User:Iubrecording|Iubrecording]] ([[User talk:Iubrecording|talk]]) 02:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

== Rambles map ==

I put a few last tweaks at my talk page - thanks so much! [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 16:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

:I had noticed them, but thanks for the reminder :) I'll upload the (final?) version shortly. [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 16:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

Thank you for helping to mediate what could have been an ugly edit war in [[Super Audio CD]] and helping us find a number of high-quality references which have helped us to keep the article up to date and be better referenced. [[User:Samboy|Samboy]] ([[User talk:Samboy|talk]]) 18:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

== Good News for the Academy ==

{{talkback|User_talk:Auntieruth55#School_work}} [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 01:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
:Perhaps you'd consider making yourself available to assist the noobs as well? Ive already offered to help anyone new to the site that needs help; if you care to lend assistance as well, you can add your name [[User talk:Auntieruth55/Shaping the Modern World Class Project|here]]. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 09:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

== re:Milhist task force reorganisation ==

Well, that's quite a surprise for me as I wasn't able to follow the discussions on coordinators talk page and therefore wasn't aware of such decisions. However, merging the Romanian TF into the Balkan TF is wrong by principle, as Romania and Moldova are not part of the [[Balkan peninsula]]. What I would have understand would be merging it within a Central European TF, with a Romanian working group to be taken into consideration (due to the fact that it seems the ex RO TF means about half of the Balkans TF). I know that it's my fault I didn't follow the discussions on coordinators talk page, but I believe somebody should have pinged me especially as I created that task force myself. --[[User:Eurocopter|Eurocopter]] ([[User talk:Eurocopter|talk]]) 12:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

:Then that explains everything, as I'm not accessing very often the main project talkpage. Well, what's done it's done. Perhaps those who decided this were aware of the issue mentioned by me above and considered it's better to ignore it. --[[User:Eurocopter|Eurocopter]] ([[User talk:Eurocopter|talk]]) 17:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

== Something for you ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Vitruvian Barnstar.png|75px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The da Vinci Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | In recognition of your diligence in carrying out a series of complex task force mergers, I hereby award you with this barnstar. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] [[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]] [[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|[prof]]] 13:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
|}
:Yes indeed, thank you very much for following through on all those mergers/renames...my brain bleeds at the thought of the amount of work. You're a peach! [[User:Maralia|Maralia]] ([[User talk:Maralia|talk]]) 23:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
::You're very welcome, glad to be of service :) [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]][[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] 09:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

== Hello from the Alejo Carpentier group! ==

Hi Eyeserene!
I noticed your discussion on the WP:MRR talk page and would like to thank-you for your interest in our class project! Currently the groups are putting together a bibliographies and we should then start adding information to our respective articles. Look for new additions soon! If you would like to help my group with the Alejo Carpentier page, it would be much appreciated. Let us know if you'd be okay with us asking you for help when needed. Thanks again! [[User:Katie322|Katie322]] ([[User talk:Katie322|talk]]) 03:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

== #switch/#if help ==

Would you mind coming over [[Portal talk:Speculative fiction/Selected biography/Layout|here]] and helping me with some intricate #switch/#if stuff for a template? I'm still learning how all of it works, and these bits are still somewhat confusing to me. I appreciate your time. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|日本穣]][[Help:Installing Japanese character sets|?]] · [[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|投稿]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] 19:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

== Smedley Butler ==

Thank you very much, that was my first adventure with A class reviews, next stop FA. --[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 19:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

== Compliments ==

You should see all the nice things that are being said about your map at [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rambles in Germany and Italy/archive1]]! [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

== Thank you! ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[File:Design Barnstar.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Graphic Designer's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Thank you so much for the [[:File:Shelley rambles map.svg|beautiful map]] that you made depicting [[Mary Shelley]]'s [[Rambles in Germany and Italy|rambles around Europe]]. Your hard work is very much appreciated. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 02:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
|}

== Tactable/Hill 262 ==

I have just noticed that both articles are at odds with one another over German losses at Hill 262 but both are using the same source; McGilvray, p. 54.

I dont have access to this source, do you?--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 09:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

:Nice 1 =]--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 09:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

::Aye aye--[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 10:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

== [[7th Infantry Division (United States)]] Copy-edit ==
Hello. I am in the process of pushing the 7th Infantry Division article to Featured status, however it failed its most recent review because [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/7th Infantry Division (United States)/archive2|one user requested a copy-edit]]. I was wondering if you would be willing to provide a copy edit for the article or if you knew someone else willing to do so. Thank you, —[[User:Ed!|'''Ed!''']][[User talk:Ed!|'''(talk)''']] 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

== trolling? ==

please answer my simple question why u use different methods for allies and germans, ANSWER!!!