Talk:Operation Masher

Military history: Asian / North America / Southeast Asia / United States B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	North American military history task force
	Southeast Asian military history task force
	United States military history task force

Vietnam C‑class Low‑importance

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unnecessary Reverts without a good cause is vandalism

Noticed a big change that happened, in which no justification seems to be given except "reverted to last good edit".66.229.17.212 (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Viet Cong claim they evaded the operation is as correct as the Allies claiming operational success. No ref is given that says that the operation was an Allied strategic failure. The C-123 is included in the aircraft shot down, it does dot merit separate mention in the Infobox. We do not list in the Infobox artillery rounds fired nor comments like "Primarily small-arms and a few 12.7mm weapons. Including "Probably Includes Civilians Listed As Enemy KIA" is POV pushing. Changing "counting 127 PAVN bodies after the battle" to "claiming 127 alleged PAVN were killed after the battle" is deliberately misleading and incorrect change.Mztourist (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

okay should have provided that reason initially, i don't know if other users agree to it or not since nobody particularly seems to care so much or don't want to dispute this. but no need to undo everything else which is cited, no need to WP:GAME or try to roll back edits since you aren't an admin. 66.229.17.212 (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My explanations are clear, do you have any other comments to make before I revert you? Mztourist (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are not clear at all, nobody reads your mind. this isn't even the issue I'm raising, delete that part then if you feel so strongly about it, but completely changing everything else is not justified when you delete cited content. you are being a bit crafty there with this blatant changes while hiding behind one or two reasons, i don't care what kind of changes you make but reverting much more than the reasons you justified is WP:DISRUPTIVE. go read the guidelines and debate individual points if you are still feeling that emotional about it. 66.229.17.212 (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to want to discuss specifics, just to criticize me for making changes generally. As per WP:BRD you can either discuss the specific points or drop this and go off and do something useful. I would note that A bicyclette who made these changes originally didn't bother explaining any of them.Mztourist (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my changes point by point, explaining each in the edit summary. If you have a problem with any of them discuss it here. Mztourist (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Battle of Bong Son into Operation Masher. Battle of Bong Son is an unnecessary fork from Operation Masher, with most of its content already included on the Operation Masher page. Mztourist (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.Smallchief (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No-one else has commented on it so I've done the merge and Battle of Bong Son is now just a redirect to this page. Mztourist (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]