| Revision as of 12:55, 9 December 2022 editMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,457 edits →The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:19, 9 December 2022 edit undoMzajac (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users66,545 edits →Discretionary sanctions alert: new sectionTags: Reverted contentious topics alert New topicNext edit → | ||
| Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=1125839454 --> | <!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=1125839454 --> | ||
| == Discretionary sanctions alert == | |||
| {{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.'' | |||
| You have shown interest in '''Eastern Europe or the Balkans.''' Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called ] is in effect. Any administrator may impose ] on editors who do not strictly follow ], or the ], when making edits related to the topic. | |||
| To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{tlx|Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the ] and the ] decision ]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. | |||
| }}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> —''] ].'' 20:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:19, 9 December 2022
I'll reply to your message here. If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.
Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~)
 Archives | |
Index
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Grand Slam (bomb)
Hello Keith-264.
You recently reverted an edit I made to Grand Slam (bomb).
As someone with a longtime fascination with words and their meanings I was wondering where you found to formate as a verb and its meaning?
Regards Orenburg1 (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Orenburg1: Good evening, I'm English and it comes from reading about air warfare fact and fiction. When aircraft take off, they get into formation by formating. A stray aircraft after a dogfight looks for other friendly aircraft in formation to to formate on. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hello again Keith-264
- Thank you for your explanation. Do you have any third party examples that you can share or point me towards. The reason I ask is that both the OED and Merriam-Webster do not have an entry for formated or formating nor do they give formate except as the chemical salt.
- Regards Orenburg1 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- I noticed that too, I'll have a look about. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, talk page stalker with access to the OED here. The OED lists two verbs "formate", the second of which is "Aeronautics. intransitive. Of an aircraft or its pilot: to take up formation with, to fly in formation. Also const. on. Also (rare) of a boat: to proceed in formation". First citation from The Times, 1929. Other examples from Aeroplane, T. E. Lawrence, Winged Victory by V. M. Yeates, Flight, and, in 1942, We Speak From the Air (broadcasts by the RAF). This sense is also in my 1983 Chambers 20th Century Dictionary. DuncanHill (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- I noticed that too, I'll have a look about. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Orenburg1 Thanks Duncan. I remember reading Winged Victory; a bit of a trudge until the end when they are put on ground attack, my buttocks still clench at the remembrance. ;O) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Compass
Compass was originally planned as a raid. However, it became a major counter-offensive and lasted for 2 whole months leading to the British conquest of Cyrenaica. So writing that a 5-days-raid was the Operation Compass that destroyed an entire army is just incorrect. The actions and battles of December, January, and February, were all part of Operation Compass. The 10th army was finally destroyed at the Battle of Beda Fomm; it took place on February 6 and it was still Operation Compass. Barjimoa (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC):
- @Barjimoa:Operation Compass was a five-day rid that was extended opportunistically, this does not mean that it was or was conceived as a counter-offensive. This is a matter of the OR not our opinions. regards. Keith-264 (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- The only problem is that Operation Compass was not a 5-days-raid. It continued as a counter-offensive that lasted 2 months. I don't know how the fact that it was opportunistic can change that. Barjimoa (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Try reading the sources. Keith-264 (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
HMS Sahib
I just rolled back your changes to this article. Why aren't you respecting WP:CITEVAR? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: The long references are templated and the short ones aren't so I made them consistent by doing sfns. Is this so bad? Keith-264 (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- But you didn't do all of them to make the article consistent. I only wrote the description portion so had only a limited amount of interest in the rest of the article and missed that fact that Santoni was the only sfn cite in the article and should have been changed to match the rest of the article when I was working on it. I'm not that fond of sfn and generally prefer for people not to change my cites to that format without notification on the talk page or similar. If you want to do that, either do all of them or not at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: I do like sfns but if it is left as it is all the biblio details will keep "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAkermann2002." etc all over them. You're quite right that I gave no notice of wanting to change the short cites and for this I apologise, I work on so many derelict articles that I've been complacent. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have my prefs set up to acknowledge Harv warnings and the like, so I'm totally unaware of them. I'm much more concerned about how articles are presented to the reader than about stuff that only (some) editors can see. I appreciate what you're doing, I would only ask that alert any interested editors that you'd like to change cites formats and the like, and then to be consistent throughout the article so it looks tidier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sturmvogel 66 Thanks I've put something on the talk page. Keith-264 (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have my prefs set up to acknowledge Harv warnings and the like, so I'm totally unaware of them. I'm much more concerned about how articles are presented to the reader than about stuff that only (some) editors can see. I appreciate what you're doing, I would only ask that alert any interested editors that you'd like to change cites formats and the like, and then to be consistent throughout the article so it looks tidier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Crusader
Not understanding your reversion Feldercarb (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Initially and later add noting to the words used. Keith-264 (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Battle of the Frontiers
Why did you reverse my last edit in the Battle of the Frontiers? After the series of these battles, the Great Retreat began, that is definitely a result of the battle and I think it makes the article clearer. There is no mention of the Great Retreat which followed in the introduction, so how would someone fully understand what happened? אוהד בר-און (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- @אוהד בר-און: Because of this Template:Infobox military conflict
- result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. Keith-264 (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.