User talk:Day to day

Edit Warring
Please read the policy linked in the title for this section. When an editor is reverted their next action is to go to the article's talk page and determine consensus for their article version. The explanation for this is found at BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Remember, discussion does not take place in edit summaries and edit warring jeopardizes one's editing privilege.  Tide  rolls  12:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Tide  rolls 

On 06:16, 1 November 2017‎ Day to day did a deletion, "(the reaction strike time was reduced from the normal required 24 hours down to 14 hours and 17 minutes.[1][improper synthesis?]" and stated- that "I did examine and can't see it in the source. Here are the quotations that he did not see:

- "The initial request would include the general situation, target information, objective, distance from friendly forces, and contemplated ground follow-up, if any. If beacon emplacement was precluded by virtue of target locations, normal radar bombing techniques would be used. When a request was initiated, approval for the strike, MACV said, would be expedited to allow a TOT not later than 24 hours after the initial message was transmitted." (Meyan, p.9)

- "However, during November, the B-52s were used in a close-support role in conjunction with a major battle in the Ia Drang valley of Pleiku Province, involving the 1st Air Cavalry Division in Operation "Silver Bayonet," a bitter fight with North Vietnamese elements. On five consecutive days, beginning 17 November, strikes were conducted in the 1st Air Cav battle area. To meet these close-support needs, scheduled strikes in Binh Duong Province were deferred and, within 14 hours and 57 minutes of the COMUSMACV request, 18 B-52s launched from Guam to provide necessary support." (Meyan, p.23)

Please restore, as you know I am forbidden to edit the article and its talk page.

By the way, Day to day might be an alias of Dino nam.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I will not be able to restore the content. Without certain mitigating circumstances, any edit I make to the article content would render me involved and I would be prevented from taking administrative action with regard to the article.  This is just my opinion (pinging  for input), but I think a concise and restrained post to the article talk page explaining your position would not be out of order.  I would think, though, that any discussion that degraded into the old tendentious pattern could bring unwanted attention your way.  Tide  rolls  14:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say that asking someone else to make your desired edits to the article for you rather than doing it yourself, here on a user talk page far away from the eyes of those watching the article, is not really in keeping with the spirit of your agreement "to stop editing Battle of Ia Drang completely". Anyway, while I would strongly recommend that you stay away from that article altogether (take it off your watchlist and pretend that it doesn't even exist), I don't actually see that you are banned from editing the article talk page. So the concise and restrained post that User:Tide rolls suggests would, I think, not be breaching anything - but I second the caution that anything verging into tendentiousness again would be a very bad idea. Finally, I offer no opinion either way on the content, and I support neither your desired version nor anybody else's - and Tide rolls is absolutely right to adopt that same approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)