This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Hareira and Sheria article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The names of units used by the official British Historian have been changed without saying where the new names come from. These changes have been hidden under cover of generic rubrics. Here [1] under cover of the rubric "Adding/removing wikilink(s) Copyedit (minor))" The the 24/Welch was changed to the 24th Battalion, Royal Welch Fusiliers referring to the 24/Welch as Fusiliers when Falls refers to the 25th Battalion as Fusiliers, not the 24th. More name changes to units here along with the call for a citation needed when a citation has been given because the editor claims without citing a source Dalbiac the divisional historian is wrong. [2] still under the rubric of Adding/removing wikilink(s) Copyedit (minor)). More name changes here [3] and here [4] and here [5] and here [6] all under the rubric Adding/removing wikilink(s) Copyedit (minor)) with more name changes here [7] being described as Copyedit (minor)) and further name changes here [8] and here [9] again under the rubric Adding/removing wikilink(s)) still without any sources being quoted.
These disruptive edits continued here [10] under the rubric Copyedit (minor)) when more units names were changed. Still more name changing here [11] The editor continues name changing here [12]. In order to reestablish the integrity of this article, all these edits should be rolled back.
Under the rubric "brig eng" the editor changed direct quotes here [13] which I have undone. See [14] for more disruptive edits changing Battalion to BN under the rubric "Battalion = BN" without any explanation and [15] with the rubric "Battalion =BN not sure of this reads well maybe Bn would work better." This is Wikipedia not experimental editing.
These are all disruptive edits which someone should explain to the editor who made them, that are wrong and should be corrected. I have reinstated these posts because the issue is a very serious one - changing the names of the units from those which appear in the sources quoted. This is not a personal attack on the editor concerned but raises serious concerns about the integrity of the article after the names of the units have been changed. -- Rskp ( talk) 01:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Hareira and Sheria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Hareira and Sheria article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The names of units used by the official British Historian have been changed without saying where the new names come from. These changes have been hidden under cover of generic rubrics. Here [1] under cover of the rubric "Adding/removing wikilink(s) Copyedit (minor))" The the 24/Welch was changed to the 24th Battalion, Royal Welch Fusiliers referring to the 24/Welch as Fusiliers when Falls refers to the 25th Battalion as Fusiliers, not the 24th. More name changes to units here along with the call for a citation needed when a citation has been given because the editor claims without citing a source Dalbiac the divisional historian is wrong. [2] still under the rubric of Adding/removing wikilink(s) Copyedit (minor)). More name changes here [3] and here [4] and here [5] and here [6] all under the rubric Adding/removing wikilink(s) Copyedit (minor)) with more name changes here [7] being described as Copyedit (minor)) and further name changes here [8] and here [9] again under the rubric Adding/removing wikilink(s)) still without any sources being quoted.
These disruptive edits continued here [10] under the rubric Copyedit (minor)) when more units names were changed. Still more name changing here [11] The editor continues name changing here [12]. In order to reestablish the integrity of this article, all these edits should be rolled back.
Under the rubric "brig eng" the editor changed direct quotes here [13] which I have undone. See [14] for more disruptive edits changing Battalion to BN under the rubric "Battalion = BN" without any explanation and [15] with the rubric "Battalion =BN not sure of this reads well maybe Bn would work better." This is Wikipedia not experimental editing.
These are all disruptive edits which someone should explain to the editor who made them, that are wrong and should be corrected. I have reinstated these posts because the issue is a very serious one - changing the names of the units from those which appear in the sources quoted. This is not a personal attack on the editor concerned but raises serious concerns about the integrity of the article after the names of the units have been changed. -- Rskp ( talk) 01:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Hareira and Sheria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)