Basically, I did what you did. I did a literature search to see if there was any evidence that those bayonets were illegal, I could not find anything, and since the claim was then unverified, I removed it.

Roadrunner 21:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on this.
I can’t say I’m enamoured with the layout at ON 67; the subject of the article is the convoy and the action as a whole, not the actions of the individual U-boats ( you can get that on uboatnet, which is externally linked, or the various U-boat article pages)
But I’m not sold out on “protagonists” as a section title either, and a number of the other convoy action pages (see HG 76 for example, or SC 42) have a “Background, Action, Conclusion” layout. So I’ve changed it to that. And having “Ships Involved” before “Action” makes sense, so I’ve moved that too, and fixed ONS 18/ON 202 and ONS 20/ON 206 the same way.
What do you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I answered you on my talk page. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CD:
I just posted a note in response to one of yours and one by another – on the talk page of "The ed17".
Cheers!
Doc.
DocRushing (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]