| Revision as of 04:59, 9 January 2023 editBilCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers215,891 edits →c-17.....: Use article talk page, and thanks ZLEATag: Manual revert← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:50, 9 January 2023 edit undoVictory799 (talk | contribs)426 edits →Revert: Why?: new sectionTag: New topicNext edit → | ||
| Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
| ::Good to know Misplaced Pages is still collaborative even after all my inactivity. ] ] ] 05:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC) | ::Good to know Misplaced Pages is still collaborative even after all my inactivity. ] ] ] 05:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC) | ||
| == Revert: Why? == | |||
| Hello, you reverted my edit on the Bf 109 page (which was adding a link to the WM-23's article) because you say the aircraft is not from the same era, but I really don't agree. The Bf 109's era began around 1935 and ended in 1945. The WM-23 (link I added that you removed) was from 1939 to 1942, which is nicely within the Bf 109's era and its 'prime' era too, so I don't see why you had to revert it. There are links to aircraft like the F6F Hellcat, Fiat G.55, Focke Wulf Fw 190 which came much later than the WM-23, these were like 1941-1945 aircraft and you don't seem to have a problem with them, nor do you seem to be bothered by the Rogozarsky IK-3, Polikarpov I-16, Curtiss P-36 or Heinkel He-100, all of which are mid 1930s aircraft. So if you let aircraft from before and after the WM-23 stay on the Bf 109's similar aircraft page, why not let the WM-23 stay? Is it the WM-23's performance? Because its performance was comparable to the early Bf 109s, and it is still better than other aircraft on the list such as the I-16, P-36, Ki 43, IK-3 and so on. Please tell me why the WM-23 can't stay in the Bf 109's similar aircraft section, or undo your revert. ] (]) 11:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:50, 9 January 2023
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
 | Before posting, please read and follow the notes below.
|
 Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Happy new year and Bradley conundrum
I think you've already taken care of some people prematurely adding Ukraine to the list of Bradley operators on the M2 and Fighting Vehicle articles. I don't want to jump the gun and add anything to the bodies quite yet as the reports are fairly spotty, but I was hoping you could provide guidance on what we could say should we want to add anything. The best sources I've found are Bloomberg (who I believe broke the story) and The Hill (which leans on the Bloomberg reporting). Happy new year! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year, BilCat!
BilCat,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages.
— Moops 00:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops 00:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Happy New Year!
|
Happy New Year! | |
| Hi BilCat, Looking backwards, looking forwards, best wishes for the New Year. Happy wikifying! (Regardless of UTC, it is still January 1 where I'm posting!) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| hi there thank you bilcat Paytonisboss (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC) |
Revert
Why is using excerpt not a good idea? In this case, the two bits were already identical. Lfstevens (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Because the lead in one article and the summary of that article in another one should be independent. As the engine article grows, the lead will be expanded to three or four paragraphs, but the summary in the aircraft article shouldn't be more than one or two paragraphs, though it can and should be updated. The reason they are currently identical is that when I split the engine article off from the aircraft article, I used the summary as the lead. BilCat (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Good work
Nice eye catching ], I missed it! James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 05:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- No problem, Misplaced Pages is collaborative, so we all help each other out. Just like an admin will help out if that vandal keeps vandalizing! BilCat (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Good to know Misplaced Pages is still collaborative even after all my inactivity. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 05:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Revert: Why?
Hello, you reverted my edit on the Bf 109 page (which was adding a link to the WM-23's article) because you say the aircraft is not from the same era, but I really don't agree. The Bf 109's era began around 1935 and ended in 1945. The WM-23 (link I added that you removed) was from 1939 to 1942, which is nicely within the Bf 109's era and its 'prime' era too, so I don't see why you had to revert it. There are links to aircraft like the F6F Hellcat, Fiat G.55, Focke Wulf Fw 190 which came much later than the WM-23, these were like 1941-1945 aircraft and you don't seem to have a problem with them, nor do you seem to be bothered by the Rogozarsky IK-3, Polikarpov I-16, Curtiss P-36 or Heinkel He-100, all of which are mid 1930s aircraft. So if you let aircraft from before and after the WM-23 stay on the Bf 109's similar aircraft page, why not let the WM-23 stay? Is it the WM-23's performance? Because its performance was comparable to the early Bf 109s, and it is still better than other aircraft on the list such as the I-16, P-36, Ki 43, IK-3 and so on. Please tell me why the WM-23 can't stay in the Bf 109's similar aircraft section, or undo your revert. Victory799 (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)