Talk:Capture of Hill 60 (Western Front)

message: I have the following extra information, but I can not match it exectly with the current text:
A great deal of the fighting around Hill 60 was underground and it is believed 
that the first British mine of the war was detonated underneath Hill 60; 
and Hill 60 was primed with two mines along with 17 others to signal the start of the Messines battle on 7 June 1917.
After the war Hill 60 was acquired by the Queen Victoria's Rifles and the area fenced in.
A plaque at the site is inscribed with details of Hill 60's chequered history:
It records that it was taken from the French by the German forces on 10 December 1914, 
recaptured by the British on 17 April 1915, retaken by the Germans on 5 May 1916, 
ceded back to the British on 7 June 1917 (the first day of the Messines offensive), 
taken once again by the Germans in April 1918 (during the great Spring push) and its final capture 
by the British on 28 September 1918.
Harm Frielink 16:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra Information Hill 60 

message: The Dutch article specifies a height of some 60 metres :
"De heuvel is circa 60 meter hoog en 230 meter lang."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.218.36 (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  contour of 60 metres ? 

message: Too many military abbreviations. Those unfamiliar with military writings will find parts of this difficult to understand 67.163.244.124 (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon tag 

message: Aerial photo here: Aerial photo, World War, 1914-1918; Zillebeke; Battlewood; Hill 60.. April, 1916.. Taken in April 1916. Danrok (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerial photo 

message: Tidied prose, added infobox, citations and references and expanded the page somewhat.Keith-264 (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Used German source for the date of the capture of Hill 60 but whether it was by the 30th or 39th division is still ambiguous. Can anyone help? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: CE "Bombers" and added note to explain.Keith-264 (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Please note that wiki cannot be used as a source WP:NOTSOURCE and that the German article is a copy of this one, with an un-cited infobox entry giving 6,000–10,000 casualties. If anyone can cite this fine but if not it can't go in. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits Comment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Hill 60 (Western Front). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://ia700300.us.archive.org/10/items/fifthdivisioning00huss/fifthdivisioning00huss.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110618094143/http://www.webmatters.net/belgium/ww1_hill60_01.htm to http://www.webmatters.net/belgium/ww1_hill60_01.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131183624/http://www.beneathhill60.com.au/background.htm to http://www.beneathhill60.com.au/background.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I found and fixed some vandalism which had survived for quite some time.  Then I found and fixed some of User:Keith-264's bad editing (although not vandalism) in 2017, but maybe I did not get it all.  They cited one or more sources but added ungrammatical bits which simply did not make sense, and some was surviving.  One edit added the following nonsense:
That there was a German Imperial Army was a myth, comprising several national contingents, mainly from Prussia but also from the kingdoms of Bavaria, Saxony, Baden and Württemberg. During wartime, the national contingents retained their distinct identity and some independence; in matters of manpower and maintenance of the order of battle, the other contingents were autonomous.
Its first "sentence" ... is not a sentence.  This passage was apparently partially or entirely removed, since.  But other nonsense from 2017 was surviving, and I am not sure I fixed it all.  Also I do not have the source(s) or really that much interest.  I suggest this article really needs review by an editor having the sources and interest/ability to write, with especial attention to anything added by Keith-264.  And/or, Keith-264, if you are still editing, can you possibly yourself now see how your edits back then were incoherent, and perhaps fix more? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  review by a writer with sources needeed