Talk:Operation Aerial

Untitled
Aerial or Ariel? - difference sources give different names - Mmartins
 * It's Aerial in the Admiralty War Diary and Ariel in the official campaign history (see links at the foot of the main article). Alansplodge (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The section with Operation Cycle is unsatisfactory but I've decided to re-do that article and then put a better synopsis here.Keith-264 (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits
thanks for your edits; which source did you use pls? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

For Keith-264
Thank you for your message, I am sorry I can't figure out how to reply directly. Aerial is the name on TNA files WO106/1615 and WO 197/105, it was often called Plan Aerial. I can find no primary sources with Ariel. It is difficult to confirm the number evacuated from the south of France during the period of Aerial, there were 27,538 from 'unknown ports'. I have listed the ships involved in Aerial, in my book Ebb and Flow. About half of those I listed for the south of France lifted just over 6,000; I don't have figures for the others. Poor official records for the time, W Somerset Maugham was on one of the ships and wrote about it in Strictly Personal. Roy V Martin. Droxford Navigator 20 March 2018 Droxford Navigator (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the reply, this is the place to discuss Aerial/Ariel; primary sources are difficult on Wiki, we risk original research if we rely solely on them. I will go through my sources to see if I can find justification in a secondary source instead. If you're an author you'll need to be careful about an imputation that you're advertising your works or yourself too. PS do you sail under the flag of Roy V. Martin? ;O) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've just tried look inside on Amazon but the pages on view don't have the material to cite, worst luck. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I found the passage in Roskill, cited the 10,000 and removed the reference to the website for the moment. The evacuation is definitely called Aerial in the OH so perhaps the title should be re-spelled and Ariel given as an alternative name?Keith-264 (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edits
The reverted edits you keep making to the Operation Aerial page are making the relevant sentences harder to read, and also adding poor grammar which I had just edited out. What is the reason for this? I don't want to get into an edit war, but you've created new issues which now need to be corrected. I suggest you research the relevant grammar, punctuation and style before making any more edits in order to avoid creating more work for other editors.


 * Comments by Cadar duplicated from my talk page.


 * Cadar, you have blundered around an article that has been stable for ages and (more often than not) made a mess of things. I suggest that if you want to achieve consensus the place to do it is here, not by competitively reverting. I'm willing to keep an open mind because I was at work and pressed for time. Keith-264 (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have not, as you put it, "blundered" around the article, nor in ANY WAY made a "mess". I'm a professional writer who deals with this sort of poor writing on a daily basis. I'm a member of Wikipedia's Typo Team. I improved the article's readability, and stated so on my edits. The fact that you didn't agree with them (for no good reason, I might add) is not, frankly, my problem. The only point you have in your favour is the stability of the article, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that some of those sentences were unreadable. I found myself getting lost in lists of phrases and clauses, not properly structured sentences. Many of the sentences had perfectly ludicrous quantities of commas in them, many incorrectly used. I corrected it. You changed it back. I cited OUP references and corrected them, and you changed them back again. I understand if you're out of your depth when it comes to the use of correct English, that's fine. But stop reversing edits which improve the article and adding new errors which then have to be fixed by editors who actually do know what they're doing. That's not helping anybody, least of all when they take a couple of hours out of their own time to sort problems out, only to find them being arbitrarily and incorrectly reversed, with extra problems created just as an added bonus. If you can't cope, rather leave the article alone. If you feel my edits were wrong, find arbitration in the form of editors who understand the correct use of English, or simply do your research, as I have done.

Cadar (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, You made a mess and have not attempted to conciliate your differences. I suggest that we go through the disputed edits one by one.Keith-264 (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't care whether you agree, and this entire fiasco means I now care even less about the state of the page. I realised what the problem is: this is your pet article, and you can't separate your ego from it. Therefore you won't accept other editor's changes to it, even if they improve it. At this point, I've reached the stage where I've made changes to improve it and tried to help you understand why I made them, but ended up in a ridiculous fight about it. All it needed was a bit of research, or a query to me to enquire about changes if you don't understand them. I'm really not interested in having to explain myself step-by-step to someone who isn't interested enough in their role as an editor to learn the rules of basic English grammar and punctuation for themselves, and I have no intention of trying to fix your errors yet again. There's no reason why I should waste time explaining things I already explained or are available on the internet for anyone who actually cares to find out for themselves. I've found out the information I needed from the page and did my duty as a member of the Typo Team to fix problems I found. I've wasted more than enough of my time on this already. For all I care the page can now simply be deleted, and good riddance.
 * Cadar (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed that you don't want to discuss each item as a way to reach consensus, we might learn something from each other. I hope you change your mind. Keith-264 (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)