Hello! I saw your note regarding commons about the essentially duplicate category on wikicommons. Those category issues can be a serious mess to understand. I requested deletion of the extra one and it was taken care of by someone who knew what to do. Thanks for bringing it to attention! Tbennert (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI at c:Category:Hawker_Hurricane there is a sub-category labelled c:Category:Albion_AM463_refueller which contains 10 photos of this vehicle, together with either a Spitfire (2 photos), a Hurricane (5 photos), or a Defiant (3 photos). Whilst it is very interesting, to me it seems slightly off-topic,:WendlingCrusader (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I asked your question at Commons:Village pump#Category:Hawker Hurricane. I would encourage you to create an account over at Commons. When it gets into subjects I have no clue on, then we need to call in more experienced people. --Tbennert (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the article RAF Alconbury. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, let's talk about this.

In essence, I believe that everything I have written is covered, either by existing sources already quoted within the article e.g. <ref*name=ABCT/> which is cited 19 times already, or within another related article e.g. note (a) 'Due to a shortage of space at RAF Sculthorpe...' i.e. see RAF Sculthorpe for more details.

So... please can you be specific as to which part(s) of my edit fail?

Also, notice the section headed USAAF use; :IMO it is overly long, and yet conveys so little information.

Five Bombardment Groups are listed, together with all their constituent squadrons. Why?

The same citations listed against each individual entry - is that really helpful?

My proposed edit would reduce the listing to just the FIVE Bombardment Groups (because individual squadrons can be inferred from that alone). And an indication of the aircraft type would be soooo useful (B-17, B-24, B-52, something else?). And an indication of the era we are talking about, because not everyone will associate these entries with the second half of WWII

talk 09:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Castle Bromwich Aerodrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asphalt. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a simple 'thank you' for a bot that is genuinely useful. I have since smoothed over the asphalt.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page John Kestel, you added a piped wikilink to avoid linking to a redirect. Please do not make such edits to bypass redirects that are not broken. Such edits generally do not provide any benefit, and can be detrimental for several reasons. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. Thank you. Graham87 (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also see my edit summary there. I'm curious regarding how you came to find out about Rager7, per your recent edits. Graham87 (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It took you FOUR MINUTES to jump in and revert my edit; what on earth took you so long?

Please do not make comments that do not apply in this case, even when you have such a glowing history on Wikipedia and know so much more than I do.

• I did NOT add a piped wikilink to avoid linking to a redirect.
• I did NOT make an edit to bypass redirects that are not broken.

As far as my limited knowledge of Wikipedia goes, there is no redirect to bypass. If I am mistaken in that, please explain in simple and non-technical terms where it is located in the article, and how I came to transgress so badly. I was simply trying to add a LINK to 'dartchery', in order to give the average reader some clue as to what it is. It is not a sport I have ever heard of, and that isn't because I have lived in a cave all my life. In fact my mother caught polio before I was born, and was confined to a wheelchair for 84% of her adult life. Hence I was born at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, the place where the disabled games originated. But as an able-bodied person myself, I cannot claim any special connection to the event, hence my ignorance regarding 'dartchery'.

Perhaps you should re-acquaint yourself with Wikipedia practices, particularly the bit about assume good faith, because right now my blood pressure is through the roof, and at my age that is not a good thing.

Now, how about we start again?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry; I'd misread the diff and didn't realise you'd also added the link. I've re-added it to the plain form "Dartchery" . I've also read your earlier message at User talk:Rager7. An edit summary at the John Kestel page would have been helpful in this case, but this mistake is more my fault. I found your edit so quickly because I just happened to recheck my watchlist just after you'd made it. I acted so hastily because of my previous dealings with Rager7. Graham87 (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so I don't need to add the detail regarding my (brief) attempt to bring Rager7 on track. "How did I notice you {Rager7}? Quite simply, you {Rager7} followed me into an article I had recently edited, and added a comma. In itself it is a minor edit of no consequence, but we clearly have a situation where you see this comma as necessary, and I take the opposite view."

I had seen a history of reverts to his edits and was genuinely hoping he might have grown into the challenge of educating me in some ways, but he passed on that. As for omitting the edit summary, that was my mistake, possibly a function of my erratic pre-historic internet connection. Twice recently the edit has flown off without giving me the chance to add anything. Or it could just be that I caught the keyboard with a trailing hand due to carpal tunnel problems.

I'm glad we sorted it. WendlingCrusader (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WendlingCrusader! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Consort, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have fallen foul of the "link to a disambiguation page" sniffer, don't we all? ;O) If you click on Preferences at the top of your page → then click Gadgets you can avoid this by ticking "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". Next time you do a link and save it will show in orange if you have pointed to a disambig page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WendlingCrusader! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Example text, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]