Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hi Keith, How are you doing? I just wanted you to explain why you undid my edits on the Battle Of Gallipoli. Thanks. 174.61.40.97 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad thanks, how you? Were they the ones putting Asquith and the other one into the infobox? Keith-264 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir. Can you explain undoing those edits? 174.61.40.97 (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is for the military commanders most associated with the article, political leaders are excluded unless also military. Britain was (and is) a de facto republic where the monarch is the nominal head of state and head of the armed forces but takes his orders from the prime minister, the real head of state. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just floating through while I work on fixing a list of battles, it was my understanding that the consensus was New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and South Africa were self-governing, while India and the colonies were not. Is there something that says otherwise? Cards84664 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, the Canadian supreme court ruled that Canada was an independent country in 1927, the Australians not until 1948 (and in some legal matters not until the 1990s) the change from Dominion status to sovereignty was one of osmosis rather than a clean break. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps {{Cite Arnold Hague Convoy Database}} may be of some use, perhaps not to replace your existing sources, but as a readily accessible one for readers who won't have the relevant books? Example:

• "Convoy PQ.18". Arnold Hague Convoy Database. ConvoyWeb. Retrieved 2024-07-06.

(Hohum ^@) 16:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hohum: I use that site where the book version lacks detail but it won't hurt. With the Goldene Zange attacks, watching columns disappear might be enlightening. Just a thought. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Keith! You reverted my edit on Feldflieger Abteilung saying "No OR". Where I beg you did I insert any OR? I just copy-edited, esp. using English rather than German. Wegesrand (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping German terms for translations instead of keeping both. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not OR. The English terms are verifiable; they are not likely to be challenged; ergo the German does not have to be present. Read WP:NOR carefully. Wegesrand (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet they have been challenged. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Keith-264! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Raid on Grand Harbour, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://docer.tips/grub-street-cull-b-hurricanes-over-malta-june-1940-april-194.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA 4.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Raid on Grand Harbour and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-enwikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Raid on Grand Harbour, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Raid on Grand Harbour. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 4.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Raid on Grand Harbour with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Raid on Grand Harbour saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: You will note that I have already mentioned my reservations about Cull et al. because the book is structured as quotes with linking passages. I would have reverted it yesterday but was distracted by a flood from the cold water tank. Keith-264 (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI that this edit would be considered "cosmetic" and likely shouldn't be done on its own. See WP:COSMETICBOT, Wikipedia:Bots/Dictionary#Cosmetic edit, and Wikipedia:Bots/Dictionary#editor-friendly wikitext. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The ed17: Why? Keith-264 (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the rules, but the first link there says "Cosmetic changes to the wikitext are sometimes the most controversial, either in themselves or because they clutter page histories, watchlists, and/or the recent changes feed with edits that are not worth the time spent reviewing them. Such changes should not usually be done on their own, but may be allowed in an edit that also includes a substantive change." Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The ed17: I read that and remain puzzled, I was copy-editing the article with a view to remedy its lack of citations. I found the unpipe edits facility recently and I've used it to save space, which seems eminently reasonable. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is auto ed frowned upon too? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AED's second paragraph is devoted to cosmetic edits. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]