This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Thanks a lot Baffle gab1978, I appreciate you taking on this work. --Rskp (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very grateful if you would not add white spaces as they make it very difficult to compare your edits with the previous state. Thanks a lot. --Rskp (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do that to make editing easier for myself and other editors; it's never been a problem before since it doesn't show in the article's text. I'll try and remember that. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Australia Rupert introduced white spaces here [1] just before you began your ce. I removed the white spaces here [2] on 10 August at 20:39 but then you reintroduced them, and continued to use them, even after I explained the problem here [3]. I am only bring this to your attention now, Baffle gab1978 in the interests of other users' work which you may copyedit in the future. Have a nice day, --Rskp (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rskp; yes I added hard returns after each (sub)section title to make editing a little easier for me. They help me (and probably most editors) more easily differentiate image codes from article text so I don't start editing code I don't need to. I removed the hard returns I added after I'd finished editing as you asked. I'm not responsible for the spaces in the (sub)section titles between the 'equals' signs (unless I did a 'null edit' which I don't think I did); they were here when I arrived. Really, I'm not going to sit here arguing about this (literally nothing!), so I'll bid you good morning and happy editing. ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I couldn't agree more - its about absolutely nothing except space. Yes, as I said Australian Rupert added them just before you started your ce. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Rskp, I believe you have misinterpreted the edit that you highlight where you say I "introduced white spaces". The advisor script actually removes whitespaces from the end of sentences, rather than adding them in. It will, though, sometimes add them to section headings to make those headings consistent if the majority of the headings in the article already use them. For instance "==Title==" will sometimes be changed to to "== Title ==" if the majority of the section headings already use this format. That said, if you'd rather I don't use the script on your articles, please let me know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be a kindness, particularly directly before a Guild ce begins. Although it appears Baffle gab 1978 adds them routinely, but not consistently. --Rskp (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious edits change names of units fighting the battle[edit]
Jim Sweeney's edit [4] which he describes as a minor copyedit changed the names of the units which took part in the first phase of the attack at Umbrella Hill. After I undid this dubious edit here [5] he undid my correction here [6]. More changes to the names of units have been made by Jim Sweeney here [7] and here [8] These changes to the names of units as they are described by the official British historian have been made without sources, explanation or justification - merely being described as minor copyedits. --Rskp (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a question over presentation of the unit names rather than a change in the name. Eg to use a more modern example replacing "1 R ANGLIAN" with "1st (Norfolk and Suffolk) Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment" as opposed to changing "1 R ANGLIAN" to "1 YORKS"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No its adding the battalions/regiments correct names see also Talk:Battle of Beersheba (1917)#Battalion names. I believe an encyclopaedia should be exact and accurate the official British historian is using abbreviations. The sources quoted even uses two versions of one regiments name see (4) above we have 8/Scottish Rifles and 8th Cameronians they are both the same battalion of the Cameronians (Scottish Rifles) regiment [9]. The correct designation is in fact 1/8th Battalion Cameronians (Scottish Rifles). The 1/8th is important as there was a 2/8th Battalion that served with the 65th (2nd Lowland) Division and a 3/8th Battalion part of the reserve.[10] Falls the official historian even uses 1/8th see here Google books PAGE 746 Scottish Rifles 1/7th Bn page 68, 69,70 etc 1/8th Bn page 68-71, 153, 204 etc [11]. Also just what is a 8/Scottish Rifles from the writing it could be anything. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The names of the units used in this article are those which appear in the sources quoted. These sources are not lists of names of units but describe the fighting; who did what and when. When these names are changed systematically as they have been the integrity of the article becomes questionable. This is not a personal attack as Jim Sweeney is trying to make it out to be, but questions the value of edits which change the names of the units from those which the quoted sources used. Jim Sweeney has also changed the names of the units in the Battle of Hareira and Sheria, the Raid on Nekhl and the Battle of Beersheba (1917) so this is a major problem. I have edited Jim Sweeney's post above to remove a personal attack. --Rskp (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted sources use 1/8th etc as the link to Falls clearly shows. How by adding a regiments or battalions correct name does this affect the integrity of an article, it can only improve it for readers who do not know what a 1/Sussex is for example. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems that different sources use different naming conventions for the units, though these are in fact the same units and not confusion between different units with similar names. Under those circumstances, it would be best if it was the clearest unit name used - and that sounds like spelling it out in as full a form as possible at least once in the article even if a contracted form is used later in the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GraemeLeggett. If they are all the same units then the integrity of the article should be fine, but do we know that? Who can give that assurance? I also thought it would improve the articles if Jim Sweeney's source/s were known. Jim Sweeney always edits authoritatively. --Rskp (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
why is Turkish forces called enemy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.222.183.135 (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for pointing this problem out. All references to enemy, except those in a direct quote have been either cut or changed. --Rskp (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This campaignbox has been cut from the article, claiming its "too-distantly related." What do other editors think? --Rskp (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.svg)
