Talk:Operation Ironside

Adding Haversack Ruse to the See also section
Happy New Year, everybody! I have been accused of making an unconstructive edit for creating a See also section, specifically for the purpose of the addition of a link to Haversack Ruse which in my defense I did make sure didn't exist in the article beforehand. I oppose. While I will readily and wholly concur that any edit can be semantically construed as 'unconstructive,' I am wholly unable to come up with the reasons why this one should be so, although I could see how perhaps a little a drier humor in the edit summary would be preferred, perhaps something more along the lines of 'I should have needed a crook,' perhaps? My point is, I would like to seek input both on pointers on how best to achieve this as well as the aforementioned issue (ie how is that 'unconstructive' from anyone that should like to examine it. Admittedly Main Page Day was probably not the best time to make even a constructive edit.  Thanks in advance. Oh and  sorry if I hurt anybodys feelings.  I honestly did not see that coming. Oh, and does anyone know if it is in fact "not allowed to apologize in France"?  If it is impermissible for me to do so, I probably want to retract my apology.[?]  Thanks. - 55378008a (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't strongly object myself to the inclusion; though I question how "see also" it is, other than just being another ruse. Haversack Ruse is probably more relevant to Operation Mincemeat. I suspect what caught you out was the edit summary which didn't make clear why you thought it was a good see also (except that it was just-another-deception) compared to other deceptions you could link to. What makes it related or relevant in a way that would link from this article? I don't know why you were warned for it, probably you shouldn't have been, although I notice you've been adding a lot of See Also's that have caused a reaction so maybe it's because of that. --Errant (chat!) 08:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)