Talk:RAF Akrotiri

message: Not led by what?! Loganberry 01:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The image :Image:RAF Akritori base.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:RAF Akritori base.jpg

message: :File:RAF Akrotiri crest.jpg
The RAF Akrotiri crest is up for use and I just added into the article, problem is... it doesn't work! Can someone help please!? --Dave1185 (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: RAF Akrotiri crest

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :RAF Akrotiri's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "AFMFEB15":
From Operation Shader: 
From Military intervention against ISIL order of battle: 
From American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present): 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:RAF Akrotiri]] 

message: @Gavbadger Ok, I watched the edit warring over whether it's "RAF" or "Royal Air Force Station" the other day, but do we really need a citation in the title of the infobox? This seems somewhat WP:POINTY and counter to MOS:INFOBOXREF. Isn't there a place in the body where you can place that citation, if you absolutely must do so? – Recoil16 (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, will move the ref. Gavbadger (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks – Recoil16 (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation in the infobox title 

message: There is a classic misreading of a source today. Doubly bad is that an editor repeats it, although doubtless meant in good faith. ie, Blockks don't passively happen. Someone enforces them. In this case it was the UK government and Rishi Sunak. The source says "Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is reported to have enforced an extraordinary blockade on parliamentary questioning about ... " and MacAskill was told that his question -   - 'Is reported as saying' is gossip, not fact, so don't report it as a fact. The MoD refused to answer questions about an ongoing operation. MacAskill's whinging opinion is not relevant to this article. The source is low grade, biased and tabloid standard and should be used with care. I suggest you look at wp:RSS and other useful links. And, read what a source actually says before adding it to back your opinion of what it says. This story has little to do with the topic of this article. It is veering off course into uk domestic politics. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The source says "Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is reported to have enforced an extraordinary blockade on parliamentary questioning about ongoing secret operations in the UK air base in Cyprus, Akrotiri, Declassified UK has revealed". When MP Kenny MacAskill lodged questions about Akrotiri he was told that his question "is subject to a block by Government". "The passive voice is the favourite rhetorical tool of propagandists worldwide, who “regret the mistakes that were made” without having to admit who made them". We should avoid the use of the passive voice to hide the person or group responsible for the block. Burrobert (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The source, in the part above, quotes an advocacy website which means it is not from the source. The source is not a good source anyway because it is biased. See first sentence: "The British government is refusing to answer questions over whether it is supplying weapons to the Israeli military to conduct its operations in Gaza which bears disturbing hallmarks of genocide and ethnic cleansing." A quick check reveals there is nothing about this 'story' except a couple of mentions in a local Scottish rag about the Scottish MP. Just because a website mentions the name of an article doesn't mean that should be added to the wiki article. Before using sourced detail you have to spend time considering if the information and/or the source should be used. In this case the source should not be used and the information is barely notable and only loosely relates the Akrotiri. I think my change should be removed with the source, but if kept it can easily be tweaked for style, which is a different matter. There is no need to start another sub-heading on this talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  The government lifted the block on questions after a recess. (Or should we say "The block was lifted after a recess"?) So perhaps that point can be removed. It also means more information is now available about operations from Akrotiri to Israel since 7 October so we can expand the section. Burrobert (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Source edit today -  UK government places a block on parliamentary questions about Akrotiri