Talk:Operation Masher

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Campaign Template Box Issue - Nonstandard Terms/Contradictory Assessment

This campaign box results section is non-standard and contradicted by the content of the article. The article clearly described the battle as being largely inconclusive, and non-standard terms like "Allied Operational Success" is not part of the template parameters.

As per the template notes found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict

• result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Summerhall fire (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)