Keith-264

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 (~~~~)

Who you looking at?

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Operation Albumen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Rohwer

I don't count a "special assistance" as a co-author. I imagine that that's somebody who provided a lot of data, etc., but didn't actually write anything. Otherwise they'd be listed as a co-author, n'est-ce pas? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: My 2005 copy has special assistance on the title page and shared copyright on the biblio page, that's enough for me. regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Worldcat has all three contributors listed as authors.[1] Keith-264 (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that we'll have to agree to disagree on this. So long as we respect existing cites and don't try to change one to another, we should be good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Point 175

Hi there, I reverted your earlier page move to "Action at Point 175", as it was undiscussed and the article itself still calls it "Battle of Point 175". I assume you still want it changed, so in that case would you open a WP:RM discussion for it? Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

German Capture of Moresnet moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to German Capture of Moresnet. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Arnhem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Lord.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Clarification of talk page comment

Hi, in this diff you have marked my comment with an asterisk and then added a line below to say the question is not honest. Was this just a typo or do you have an issue with my question? From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: Of course I do the way you formed the question was not honest. Keith-264 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

You asked for assistance on the Military History project and, while I don't know about the specific guidance page you asked for, I checked to see if I had the same issues being discussed. To aid the discussion, I reported that I did experience a similar issue. I received a reply asking if my issue is important enough to be considered. I replied to say that while I can accept if the consensus decides not to take any action, I'd at least hope my issue is considered (surely that is a minimum expectation for any reported problem? That someone actually thinks about whether to take action). I then received a reply that making a list of commanders in the infobox readable for mobile users is "trivial," and I am genuinely stumped. Is this a comment that the information in the infobox being trivial or that the experience of mobile users in trying to read the information is trivial? I honestly have no idea, so I asked a question to better understand User:Mztourist's point.

I didn't expect an accusation of dishonesty from the person who summoned uninvolved parties to the discussion.

At the end of the day, I don't have a strong view here. I simply reported that I had a similar issue to what was already discussed and tried to understand why the editor responding to me was being unusually dismissive. I'll withdraw from the discussion now as I only got involved as a favour to a fellow editor. Good luck in finding a resolution. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: Have I confused you with one of the other editors? Are you the one who asked a question posing two negative reasons? Keith-264 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that I confused you with MylowattsIAm but in all fairness your question was disingenuous. Keith-264 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

While an accusation of being disingenuous is a slight improvement on an accusation of being dishonest, you are still accusing me of acting in bad faith here. Even if this is a case of mistaken identity, you should really know better than to throw incendiary terms into a discussion. At no point have you assumed that I was confused by Mztourist's replies or accepted my explanation of my confusion (honestly, I still have no idea what the editor meant, but it is rather redundant now). Instead you have questioned my honesty and sincerity.

I am content to chalk this up to you making an initial mistake and then digging yourself in deeper. To defuse the situation, I think I will give you a wide berth for a while. Good luck with your editing. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)