User talk:Cinderella157/Archive 1

collapsing text
How do I collapse a long portion of text so that only the subject shows, with a "show" (hide) box to click on the right?Woonpton (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

For me, the best one is Template:Hidden begin.

Welcome!
Hello, Cinderella157, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Invitation to join the Military history project
 Hello ! Thank you for your contributions.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject&mdash;we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please sign your name here, and a project coordinator will soon be along with a formal welcome. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Buna–Gona (November 7)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Cinderella157 Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MatthewVanitas&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Cinderella157 reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Action at buna.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Action at buna.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC) ==Speedy deletion nomination of File:USA-P-Papua-p229 BOATLOAD OF RATIONS is brought up the Girua River, December 1942. (Collapsible assault boat.) milner.jpg==

A tag has been placed on File:USA-P-Papua-p229 BOATLOAD OF RATIONS is brought up the Girua River, December 1942. (Collapsible assault boat.) milner.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:USA-P-Papua-p229 BOATLOAD OF RATIONS is brought up the Girua River, December 1942. (Collapsible assault boat.) milner bunar.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:USA-P-Papua-p229 BOATLOAD OF RATIONS is brought up the Girua River, December 1942. (Collapsible assault boat.) milner bunar.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in an interview in The Bugle
Hi, I'm one of the editors of the Military History Wikiproject's newsletter The Bugle, and I'd like to invite you to participate in a group interview with all the nominees for the 2014 Military History Newcomer Award which we're hoping to run in the January edition. If you're interested in participating, I'd appreciate it if you could post responses to some or all of the questions at WikiProject Military history/News/January 2015/Interview by 11 January. Thank you, Nick-D (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your responses Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you found Wikipedia and the Military History Wikiproject to be a welcoming place for new editors? Do you have any suggestions for how new editors could be welcomed?
'''Have you found Wikipedia and the Military History Wikiproject to be a welcoming place for new editors? Do you have any suggestions for how new editors could be welcomed?'''

My experiences have been at both ends of the spectrum. While working on this project, I have been mentored by User:AustralianRupert‎. I am very grateful for the assistance and support he has provided. Mentoring is one way of supporting new editors. I feel privileged to be part of the development of 13th Field Regiment (Australia) and particularly 1st Mountain Battery (Australia) both of these grew from stubs to B-Class articles almost overnight and are great posters for how Wikipedia can work as a collaborative experience. On the other hand, there are those that want to issue commands but don't want to do anything, those that want to make sweeping changes without considering accuracy and those that if you don't agree with them, respond with personal jibes. I think that the experience should be about collaboration, consensus and the facts. It would be nice to have a little more feedback sometimes. By this, I don't mean affirmation but different perspectives that recognise acknowledge and respect the differences between editors. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @User:Nick-D, I am being honest here and perhaps, not very tactful. I am ok with you editing the last 4(?) sentences as you see fit, just let me know before you put my name to it. Regards.
 * That looks fine to me - warts and all feedback is really valuable (and I agree with the points you raise!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
Hi @User:Peacemaker67,

Hope you don't think the stuff on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history is about dissatisfaction with your advice on Draft talk:Battle of Buna–Gona. The stuff on the MH page was going to happen in any case. I made the changes IAW your opinion. I am not that hung up on what the style should be - just that there should be a style. Although I do have my own preference, I am not trying to push it too hard. I approached you because the other party was trying to dictate one style. I was happy for them to change it to whatever they wanted if they were going to do it. Perhaps I was being too subtle and I was about to loose my cool. Fixed the problem anyway. Regards and thanks. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I'm glad you've raised it. It could be clearer, and a tweak to the MOS wouldn't hurt. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change at Manual of Style/Capital letters
Hello Cinderella157, I've just read through your proposals and I posted a link to them at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style since that page would be impacted and is watched by more people. Though your proposals are different from what has been my practice and my understanding of the existing MoS, I find them very clearly written. I look forward to watching the discussion. SchreiberBike talk 00:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

hi @SchreiberBike this is, if nothing else, a starting point to get clearly articulated guidelines. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, "solar" and "lunar" were not derived from proper nouns, but from Latin common nouns sol & luna, which were only later adopted as proper nouns in English. Same w terrestrial & Terra. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Operation names
I'm putting this on your talk page, rather than the MILHIST talk page because a consensus appears to have been reached and it appears you've taken the bit and are making the appropriate changes to the Manual of Style to implement it. I have recently edited a couple of pages in which operation names were bolded. Perhaps, where you add not adding emphasis through italics, you might add "or bolding". --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Lineagegeek, I am happy to do this since I perceive this as only a minor edit, quite consistent with the intention. However, it is not intended to override existing conventions for use of bold in the lead, where boldface is used for the article name and synonymous terms (usually in the first sentence of the lead) and target redirects (again, usually in the first sentence of the lead but sometimes elsewhere. This style amendment for operation names is not meant to override this existing 'rule'. To clarify, an operation name may be (nearly) synonymous with a battle so the first sentence would (and should) read something like this:
 * Battle Blah Blah (the implementation of Operation XYZ by the Allies) ...
 * Perhaps not a good example on how to word it, but you get the gist? I recall now your original comment. I perceived your comment to be a misunderstanding since this amendment is not a change to the existing general policy on boldface. I will amend the proposed change (final draft) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history before I make the actual change so you can make any further comment or suggestion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I wasn't intending to suggest a change in boldface policy. What I had been running into in articles was something like:  The 1st Foo Wing participated in Operation A, Operation B, and Operation C.  I don't think this is quite in line with the bolding policy to start with, and just thought if the style for operations was to mention not adding emphasis through italics, it should also mention not using boldface solely for emphasis.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lineagegeek, I didn't think you were. Just thought I needed to add the extra detail to the final draft so there was no misunderstanding or ambiguity. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The City
Hi, just saw some discussion at MOSCAPS. Yes indeed, at the heart of the city of London as it stands today is the City of London (alongside the City of Westminster). This is also known as "the City", which also (by metonymy) refers to the British financial services sector.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Hi, I was quite aware of this. It is used as an example in the MOS; however, the point the example seeks to make is not elaborated, thereby making the convention of style the MOS is seeking to make in that particular section, even more unclear. My understanding is that 'the City' has a long history of use as an alternative name for the City of London in a way which treats it as if it were a 'proper name' - much like a personal nickname. Furthermore, the article 'the' is an intrinsic part of the name - not appended to the name nor can other definite articles be substituted for it. Did you read the discussion by me at 01:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)? 'The City' in this case in analogous with 'The Hague'. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Scythia
Thanks for your comments have re-instated the citation really it was a valid source for inclusion and the figure is not unreasonable I have mentioned it's initial removal on the talk page hereTalk:Scythia feel free to add your own thoughts many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The universe/Universe debate
.... seems to be as endless as the universe itself! All of this causes me to wonder if I haven't communicated clearly, and/or how coherent communication can be better promoted at Wiki. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Isambard Kingdom I really didn't think it was [insert suitable explicative of your choice] that hard! We (you and I) must be aliens. It reminds me of the 'Shoot the Nigger' scene in Blazing Saddles and the closing line. I think that the problem is that most commentators (here) aren't reading back more than one or two posts and the real problem arose when I pinged, thinking it was important - given the short time frame of the poll. Perhaps everyone should have some sort of brain-lock installed that restricts them from commenting until they have read everything new. I have one thing more to try. Stay posted. This could get interesting. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Now I'm curious! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: people with brain-lock: Short-attention-span-syndrome, I think...sometimes it wears off, but, sadly, not always. Anyay, I came here wondering if you were aware of any current discussions on wording a proposal to reword the MoS' policy on capitalization of celestial bodies. I'm kind of itching to start one, but I don't want to jump the gun, and I have a tendency to misunderstand certain nuances and choose poor wording. Also, you said something somewhere that made me think you hadn't seen MOS:Register (an index of links to past discussions). Xaxafrad (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Xaxafrad, nothing as yet re Celestial bodies. I think the best and most likely approach is going to be one bite at a time. There is a lot of inertia and divided opinion. A lot of the problem comes from (I think) sneaking in the reference to the IAU. It all depends upon the outcome now for this RfC and then for 'solar system' who knows where then. From what I can see, there has already been a lot of toing and froeing over the second paragraph. This is where I quoted Dicklyon. Thanks for the link but it obviously doesn't include a lot of stuff. What are your ideas? I would like to see the lead of MOS:Caps addressed and the section on proper names. I think more recent edits have been retrograde. There are assumptions about the universality of conventions that aren't necessarily true in a global context. I would like to see capitalisation based on the conventions of English, in conjunction with sources and using the evidence of usage as a last resort. We shouldn't have to go off and do a source search every time we have a question. And which sources should we consider? Not something which is all that intuitive. I wish CMOS and some of the other style guides were on-line. Yes, the football team analogy had me stumped as to what was so hard to grasp? I also struck the same sort of obstinacy when I was trying to help out on improving Union (American Civil War)‎ for a GA review. Do you know what 'Hoosier' is? BTW have a look at this (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=B7jOGz7zMnwC&pg=PA85&dq=proper+name+definition&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0vPfVNe3AsPd8AXmkILIAQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=snippet&q=universe&f=false). Thought it would muddy the waters too much given the attention spans of some but do with it what you might. Nice to hear from you. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not that smart. After reading your reply, I think I'm one of the ones with a short attention span. Personally, I'm all about "keep it simple, stupid", using common sense and intuition to use a minimum amount of complexity to reduce confusing ambiguity. I don't trust my own judgement, I've put my foot deep down my throat on more than one occasion. Having been confused before and disliking the feeling, I would like to prevent others from experiencing the same, especially if all it takes is a short, parenthetical statement. But I doubt such a statement would work for this case. I think the MoS:Caps policy page needs revising, but I'm not sure what revisions to suggest. Since sources are so inconsistent, I wouldn't rely on any of them, unless we can establish a consensus on the IAU, or some other (hopefully more consistent) organization. With that said, I would suggest to to recommend lower-case is as many cases as possible. Xaxafrad (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * After further reflection (that is, attempting to reply to a couple sections), I would specify I'm not smart enough to be a policy-maker. I like doing things the right way, so I also like learning policy; it's not enought to know the rules, but one should know both the exceptions and the spirit. You seem like a good policy-man (or -woman), I don't think I'll be doing much more contributing, but I'll try to watch things develop (it's so hard to keep up, sometimes!). Feel free to ping me if you want my opinion somewhere. Xaxafrad (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I almost forgot to reply, I know about the article Hoosier, and I heard of the movie when it was released (I was 5, the weird word stuck with me), but outside of that, not much. Xaxafrad (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Alert
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard
The filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard has been closed for two reasons. First, DRN does not accept a case when other dispute resolution mechanisms are in progress, including other Requests for Comments, even if the RFC is controversial. Second, the case is a Manual of Style issue involving conduct allegations that can be dealt with at arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Premature RfC
Hi,

I've removed your premature RfC on universe and explained why at WT:MOSCAPS. I'd ask you to hold off until there's agreed upon process and wording. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 03:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I found it to be exceedingly disruptive a mere few hours after the last close. I will ask an administrator to look into it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), This was not closed but reverted and the reasons given did not substantiate the reversion - specifically that this proposed an edit to the MOSCAPS and there was no consensus for same. It does not make such a proposal - infact, it specifically makes a statement to the contrary. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I made no such statement. I said that there was no consensus on the process or on whether this is the right question to ask at this time. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 10:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ashill, I am not certain exactly what statement you assert you did or did not make however .... You did state: "In particular, multiple editors don't think that this should be specified in the MOS ..." This RfC quite specifically does not presume a change to the MOS but addresses the question originally posed on this talk page. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I said that that question should be resolved before we decide whether universe is ever a proper name (a question that you rightly try to resolve before deciding upon MOS wording). I did not say that your RfC makes a MOS wording proposal. For the record, I do think that this should be specified in the MOS, but we need to come to a consensus on that point before deciding what the capitalization should be. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 14:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ashill, And this RfC is not presumptive of a change to the MOS. Therefore, a need to determine if a change to the MOS has consensus is not a prerequisite for asking this question. The justification you asserted does not substantiate your actions. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks
Hey, thanks for pointing out that I put support instead of oppose in the universe discussion.

I actually went ahead and removed your comment because you were totally right and I fixed my mistake so it seemed unnecessary to retain, but if that offends you feel free to go ahead and re-insert it. Thanks again. It's clearly been a long night.  AgnosticAphid  talk 07:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ping prang
I noticed your edit summary "fixed ping". Lots of editors have hoped that sort of fix will work. Sadly, as WP:PING says, if the edit does not add a new signature to the page, no notification will be sent and what's more In some cases (usually when changing another, recent, comment with a signature) the parser does not realise that a user has made a new signed comment, and so does not trigger a notification. NebY (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC
You're invited to participate in the discussion at Village_pump_(policy) Dohn joe (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.
Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see  and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc &#x1F4AC; 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Buna-Gona
G'day, Cinderella, thanks for your fix regarding this edit of mine: Not sure how I messed that up; I recall the harvnb script identifying it as an error at the time, but it doesn't seem to display like that now when I look at the history. So, I'm not sure what I was thinking! Anyway, thanks for the fix and keep up the good work! :-) Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Cinderella157/edit


Hello, Cinderella157. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "edit".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Retreat from Kokoda
@AustralianRupert, Hi, have you read Retreat from Kokoda by Raymond Paull. Nearly finished. Very much a narrative style rather than a formal history but interesting as a more contemporaneous account. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, no I haven't yet. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bert kienzle2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bert kienzle2.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Sfan00 IMG, I had previously sent to permissions commons but have now sent to the address you provided and added the tag if these are the correct actions? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bert kienzle2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bert kienzle2.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 15:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Numbers
I follow this for numbers in the text (more or less) but wonder if US usage is different? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @Keith-264 FYI, I am Australian. I was working by recollection of that there was no discretion in the MOS up to 99 (as I understand it to be in anycase) but it is no discretion is up to 9. My error but it does solve some issues where a x has been used. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hard luck ;o)) What are round and sigfig for?Keith-264 (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @Keith-264 See Significant figures. A distance of 200 yds has one significant figure so 200 yds implies a degree of precision down to 10 m (10 yards). Most battlefield measurements above 100 m (yds) are to the nearest 100 m (yds) or 50 m for the first few hundred metres/yards. The sig figure output adjusts to an appropriate number.  In practical terms - 100 m is effectively the same as 100 yards unless you are getting out there with some sort of measuring device such as a tape or distance wheel or somebody paced out the distances.  If you can't say that it was 200 m versus 190 m then you can't claim that the distance being referred to as 200 m is 220 yards (as opposed to 200 yards.  The round parameter allows reporting to the nearest multiple/fraction of 5 but the sigfig parameter rounds to the nearest whole increment for the digits which are significant.  So, 400 m but apply one significant figure 400 m and round to 50 400 m  When saying the perimeter was 4 ×, the about 4 x 5 km means an precision of  ± 100 or 200 m but reporting to 0.1 of mile implies ± 20 or 40 yards but using the round, it is reported to the nearest half mile 4 ×.  Hope that is clearer than mud. It avoids giving a false impression of the precision and accuracy of the measurements. Have a look at the edit code. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's most helpful. When I learned about convert I didn't realise that there were niceties, I assumed it was just for comparison. I've seen both on occasion but never thought to ask. Keith-264 (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edged and bladed weapons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axes. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kokoda Track campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Ford. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Wingwraith (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Milhist co-ordinator elections
G'day, it's that time of year again when the Milhist project elects its co-ordinators for the coming year. I wonder if you have considered running? I think that you would make a great addition to the team, as you have been around for awhile now, are level headed, committed, and have a pretty good grasp on many of our processes. If you are interested, please consider adding your nomination here: WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2017. If you have any questions about the role, please let me know. I'd be happy to try to answer them. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert, I am honoured that you think I might contribute as a co-ordinator. I am a little hesitant to take on responsibilities but will give it a go if you wish to nominate me. I don't see you putting yourself forward for another term? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, yeah, it's pretty jack but I'm not sure about running again this year. I had been hoping to take a break as my wife and I are expecting another little one in the next couple of weeks. Plus, I am thinking of undertaking another masters next year. If we don't get many more noms, I guess I will just toss my hat in the ring again, but I'd been hoping that we could get some new blood. Regarding noms, it is a self nom process so while I'd like to, I can't really nominate you. Happy to check your nom statement for formatting, etc, if you do decide to nom and you would certainly have my vote. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Best wishes for your pending arrival. What are you looking at undertaking? I appreciate your reluctance to step up again but I think that the project will be diminished by your absence even if it is time to take a step back. Fondest regards. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at doing a Masters of War Studies through UNSW at ADFA. Just not sure I have the time and energy anymore. Next year is a big year for me career wise and family wise, so I have to weigh those things a bit more before making the decision. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI
I just replied there - I just saw what you did - I meant asking at ANRFC for the talkpage discussion to be closed - the heading you've used looks like you're asking for ANRFC to close the DR, and I don't think that's going to work...-- Begoon 14:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations!
In recognition of your election as one of the Military History Project's Co-ordinators, please accept these Co-ordinator's stars. Thank you for your ongoing efforts in support of the project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

MoS
I guess Boson's citation to Quirk's book provides at least one source for the idea of some linguists approaching the philosophy side of the proper name definitional sphere after all. I wasn't aware of any such shift. It's rather dry reading, so I haven't been keeping up with linguistics journals and such, other than on a handful of pet topics like Tartessian and the "Celtic from the west" hypothesis. The Dunning-Kruger effect many have thus craftily crept up and bit me in the buttocks when I least expected it. I guess it's good to get a reminder every now and that one's understanding of understanding has to shift as the underlying understanding does. :-)

As for more circular reasoning in MOSCAPS, where are you seeing more of it? Sometimes it's not hard to fix such things with some copyedits and clarifications. The main approach so far has been to mostly avoid proper name/noun talk and go with a "don't capitalize unless necessary" approach, which basically resolves to "capitalize if almost all the modern reliable sources do". People mostly seem to this, because it's consonant with our "follow the sources" operating mode, and is even consistent with WP:COMMONNAME in spirit (though it is not a style policy, which a lot of WP:RM arguers take a long time to figure out). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I have given up on MOS:CAPS as something of a lost cause so I have no "recent evidence" but you did refer to WP:SSF skirmishes and, unfortunately, those that shout loudest and longest tend to get heard regardless of the strength of their arguement - hence why I now only occasionally have a look-in there. The "there is only one" or "it refers to this particular one" s a particular misconception. The circular reasoning often goes hand in glove with SSF. You see it with job titles and anywhere else where there is a tendency to capitalise appellatives. You might be interested in this . Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The "there is only one" or "it refers to this particular one" argument is, yes, a constant "how do we get people to stop capitalizing this here?" issue. I'm skeptical that any "monoreferential appellative" references are going to help, nor that the concept can be explained in plain English in one or two sentences in a way that will work in MoS.  It's more practical for us to just specify rules that seem arbitrary to some, always toward LC by default, without explaining them in great detail. That book really shows some even more philosophy-like linguistic material, commingled with psychology.  Lordy!  I think I'll order a copy of that, just to see where some people are trying to go with it.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised, given that anthropology has radically changed in the last twenty-odd years, coming to be dominated in many ways by its own hybrid children like evolutionary psychology and human behavioral ecology. They're amazing tools for some kinds of data, but not so great for every kind of question (e.g., the fact that in a particular culture in a particular area, without a strong religious convictions against polygamy, you can predict polygamy on a village-by-village basis – simply from average number of available calories of food per day per household – doesn't actually tell us anything at all about the incidence of polygamy anywhere else nor about the nature of monogamy, other than there's a possibility that sharing of food and food-preparation labor may be a factor (which was already obvious).  A problem for us is that taking linguistics in any "everything is a quantitative datum" direction (or some of the more theoretical psychological ones in that volume). is too-new a thing for us to be certain it's right on anything. Its as problematic in a different direction as the old philosophical material (on which this book has a long chapter, which seems to inform much of its later reasoning), which is based on logical arguments for which we don't have any observable evidence.  Two extremes, I guess.  That's a 2007 book by a single author making arguments against colleagues publishing in 2005 or so, and we'd have to get on a journal site and see what the later reactions are, I suppose. Just in skimming it momentarily, there's two clear factual errors, or at least failures to consider the history and to think about human use not certain humans' use. The Internet is a proper name (and a proper noun phrase in some conceptions, like The Hague, but unlike "the apple I ate for lunch"), regardless of the decapitalization trend (a style fad introduced by newspapers, promulgated by journalism editors who don't know what they're talking about as a technical and word-history matter but – rather like us here – primarily concerned about stylistic consistency and not causing the reader's mind to revolt about spelling trivia in mid-sentence). It has no lexical meaning as a word rather than a name to much of anyone using it (as a noun). The concept of "an internet" and "several internets" a) is a backformation from that name, and b) it does not exist in the minds of most users of "the Internet", but rather is a technical concept, a now-obsolete word for WAN. So the psych arguments about "semantic memory", etc.,  apply except for a tiny subset even of technical people (some mostly university and government sysadmins with grey in their hair), and same goes for the appellative assessment; the Internet isn't descriptive to anyone but that very rarified crowd. Rather similarly, the idea that "the moon" (which astronomers prefer as "the Moon") is just the selection of a particular instance from the lexical set "moons" is nonsense; we didn't even have the idea there could be additional moons of this or any other planet until the 19th century (as far as I know; we at least had no evidence of it, and it's unlikely the hypothesis would have existed before the telescope and some sense of what a planet is). So, "moons" wasn't a word except maybe in some playful poetry that might also have spoken of Londons or Christs. (From a more traditional analysis, "the Moon" has issues as a proper name because of the definite article, but people have argued for generations about this, mainly because what does or doesn't have an article varies by language or even over time in the same one, without any change of meaning or role in a sentence until you get down to the micro-level of morphology).  The same core issue of the [m|M]oon case applies to a case without the "the":  Earth.  The word "earths" (in the sense of planetary bodies rather than kinds of soil) didn't exist except as a protologism or nonce word until within my lifetime, but most of us have probably encountered it by now, e.g. "Astronomers are using space telescopes to detect new earths around distant stars". So, I'm seeing a lot of cart-before-the-horse in that book. These cases are not at all comparable to "Parliament" (meaning the British one) and "parliaments".  It's all kind of headache-inducing and simultaneously an exciting "where are were going with this in the 2020s?" topic, but it's hard to see how to apply any of it to make MoS easier or more stable. :-/  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@User:SMcCandlish, a poser if I may? How should "the kantian imperative" be capitalised? I would say that "Kantian" is an adjective derived from a proper name and therefore capitalised but the definite article attaches to "imperative" indicating it is a common noun. If one applies the guidance to deprecate caps, it should be "the Kantian imperative" - a specific referent does not make it a proper name. Furthermore, it is descriptive. I go back to what I said about proper names being applied to "the concrete". I am prepared to be corrected on this and can't immediately cite sources. However, this leads to the issue of the title of works, which are abstract. Are the titles of works proper names or are they appellatives (ie, a name that is not a proper name) written by convention in "title case"?

There is the example of "the Location XYZ railways". Unless this is a company (and hence, a proper name), this is both descriptive, has the definite article applied and is pluralised - an appelative, even though it has a definite referent. "The Watts' riots", similarly. in this particular RfC, the main proponent for full caps advanced all sorts of arguements, including that they were a "specific event" and the emotive, that they deserved to be capitalised. In the end, they acknowledged the strength of my arguement. It was a "light-bulb" moment. In many cases, the sources are not definitive and it becomes a matter of who can rack up the most sources to support their position or discredit the sources of the opponent. And then there is SSF and the specialists throwing up specialist sources to counter the generalists and arguing that it is a specialist area and the specialist sources should predominate.

Which sources should guide us? Generalist acknowledged style guides which are not necessarily readily accessible to all? Specialist style guides? Sources which are subject to SSF or which have a propensity to over cap? This becomes problematic when the subject is not one widely published in a "general" sense. The results become skewed if the results are narrowly covered in say, only newspapers, which may be reliable for content but not style. "The Marvel Universe" is analogous to "the Kantian imperative", yet the sources are skewed. Sources that discuss "the Marvel universe" are intrinsically specialist. There is the whole "celestial bodies" fiasco of a couple of years ago - and hence, my "Faulty Towers" like references not to mention "the universe". "The Sun", "the Moon" and "the Earth" have "evolved" to be proper names (see the source I linked if I recall correctly). "The Solar System" (for ours) is "caps for distinction" and SSF, as is "the Galaxy" (for ours) - as opposed to it being a capitonym like "the City". I submit, it should be: "the Milky Way galaxy", not, "the Milky Way galaxy" - again analogous to "the Kantian imperative". The circular arguement, SSF, "he who shots loudest" and confusing the matter with TLDNR led the the SSF dominating against "strength of arguement" (IMHO). So much for WP consensus! I don't want to right the wrongs of the world (well, maybe I do but I know a brick wall when I see it, even if I bash my head against it a couple of times just to make sure it is real).

I would make two observations. If CMOS (as I perceive things) generally guides MOS:CAPS, then it should be paraphrased into MOS:CAPS on specifics, since it is not generally available. This does not preclude variation by consensus on specific details; however, where CMOS is specific, something should be said - if it was sufficiently noteworthy for CMOS, then there is good reason for us to note it too, even if our position is different. On my second point ... A good essay might go a long way to resolving many of the misconceptions and fallacies I have identified. It could support MOS:CAPS and might even be written into it where changes to MOS:CAPS might be less probable. As an example, I would refer to WP:SOLDIER wrt WP:GNG. While not written into GNG, it has considerable standing as it applies to MILHIST. Some thoughts. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

PS, I don't care so much what it says, so long as it (MOS:CAPS) is pretty clear, reasonably unambiguous and easy to apply. By these criteria, I think that there is scope for improvement. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Thus ends my firehose of a reply. Feel free to refactor as you like to break out discussion items. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ , 18:59, 25 September 2017‎ (UTC)
 * "I don't care so much what it says, so long as it (MOS:CAPS) is pretty clear, reasonably unambiguous and easy to apply." – Indeedy. To start back at the top: Just speaking from an MoS perspective, it would be "the Kantian imperative", and this is how most other style guides will treat it. We only down-case an eponym where the modern usage in the sentence in question has lost all connection to the namesake and is not a comparison to the namesake's actual qualities/methods/whatever, and is not a direct reference to the namesake, but is a derived metaphoric usage, or something that has taken on a new meaning that's inaccurate when applied to the namesake:
 * Justice has long been conceptually treated as something of a Platonic ideal in the West, with considerable consequences for our legal and governance systems. (Direct reference to Platonism.)
 * The love we share is Platonic, in the strict sense – exploring together our connection to the world and what may be beyond it." (Direct reference to Plato's original idea.)
 * My roommate and I have a platonic relationship. It's not some kind of platonic ideal we're pursuing, but a practical measure." Use of the adjectives in vernacular, buzz-word senses to mean, respectively, "non-sexual" and something like "philosophically motivated".
 * Use of the death penalty for minor crimes did not survive the Draconian period in Athens. (Direct reference to the actual legal regime of Draco [Drakon]. Due to ambiguity, Draconic is often used for clarity now.)
 * Soviet law was classically Draconian in many ways – rigid imposition of a rule system that "the people asked for", with severe consequences for transgression, resulting in general public loathing for it within a generation. (Direct comparison between Draco's legal system that of the USSR.)
 * My boss is really draconian; it's like working for some kind of dictator. (Common figurative and rather confused usage to just mean something like "despotic", which Draco actually wasn't.)
 * Sometimes this can apply to national and other cultural or geographic adjectives:
 * I'm of Scotch-Irish ancestry. (Direct reference to the Scots. Today we use "Scottish" mostly.)
 * I only like some Scotch whiskeys, the less peaty and more iodine-laden insular malts. (Scotch actually comes from Scotland; it's a direct relationship.)
 * Saturday's tournament will be in scotch doubles format. (Some still capitalize this usage, but people in sports more often do not; there's no known evidence this tournament format has a connection to Scotland. Cf. "welshing on a bet", sometimes altered to "welching" to further divorce it from its racist origin. Or "french fries" which aren't really French, nor is "frenching" a.k.a "french kissing", also commonly decapitalized these days.)
 * I've been meaning for some time to do one of my "survey almost every style guide available to see what they say on it" sprees on this one, and see if anything like a consensus has emerged on such treatment. Regardless, I observe that this pattern of use is real, even if it's not terribly consistent.  Some would capitalize every single instance of these things, while others would LC all except maybe 3 of them (probably retaining UC for the Soviet, ancestry, and whiskey sentences).  There are other cases of "genericization" of eponyms, e.g. "macadam" for "asphalt"; they seem to all have in common that any sense of reference to someone or something specific or what the connection was has been lost. Others are "crapper" for toilet and "guy" meaning "male human who is not a small child" (from Guy Fawkes, and originally a Guy meant a dastardly man, then guy meant a low-class man, then just a man). The average user of a diesel engine probably doesn't know that it's named for a person, nor that a zeppelin was, or that the caesarean section was named for a legend about Julius Caesar's birth. Medicine (so I see at our own Eponym article) has a curious practice of dropping the caps for adjectival use ("parkinsonian") but this doesn't seem to be spreading in English generally, and isn't even universally accepted in that field.  The American preference for "cesarean" is proof of genericization and the loss of connection to the referent; Americans still write Caesar, but "cesarean" has just become an arbitrary word, to which the American trend of simplification has been applied (fetus, pediatrics, maneuver, specialty, encyclopedia, etc.). Back to the other half of Kantian imperative: The MoS and NCCAPS regulars have long been trying to get rid of unnecessary capitalization of things like "Stafford–Manchester L ine", "Powell Street S tation", "Watts R iots", "the African-American C ivil R ights M ovement", " M ethod A cting", "Benford's L aw", "Canada G oose", "British S horthair".  The results have been mixed and very gradual but toward lower-casing except when politics gets in the way (either external politics about events and social movements, or internal ones, as when a wikiproject WP:OWNs a topic and has a "F the MoS" attitude in favor of an SSF style they care too much about enforcing outside their own publications).  There's a big tension (even aside from specialist versus general-audience sources) between academic style and low-end press style (e.g. overcapitalization of descriptive names of events and movements, and mimicry of marketing overcapping in the titles of works, like "Do It L ike A Dude").  The "follow the sources" argument gets confused very rapidly, especially among people who do not understand the WP:COMMONSTYLE reasoning and are somehow convinced that WP:COMMONNAME is a style policy despite all evidence to the contrary.  "Which sources should guide us?" is the real question.  The MoS position has consistently been that it's internal WP consensus first and foremost – no external source can tell us what works best for our context; thus we have MOS:LQ, probably our most radical departure from external style guides, though it's actually a return to an academic norm that didn't start to fragment until around 1900, mostly due to American newspapers.  Generalist, mainstream style guides like Chicago and New Hart's are second.  They are readily accessible, but their lack of free online access is irrelevant; people writing here should either just write, and leave it to gnomes to clean up after them (and absorb WP norms as they go), or read and follow MoS directly themselves, not try to second-guess MoS with off-WP style guides.  Those are primarily of WP use in formulating and adjusting what MoS says, a policy process not an encyclopedia-writing one.  Specialist style guides are something we generally don't use, except when they're very broad.  The only one with significant impact on MoS is Scientific Style and Format, and we only follow it for thing where what it recommends does not conflict sharply with everyday reader and editor expectations (thus we may say to use   or   not " ", but we don't call for the use of weird units like mebibytes, because the real world has not adopted them.  The problem of SSF-accruing topics without much general-audience source coverage is address (to the extent it has been) by having general rules like defaulting to lower case for anything where the sources aren't remarkably consistent in capitalizing.  The problem that this could in some cases result in every source capitalizing something that shouldn't, for something that's barely notable and very recent, is that we've been able to apply generalized rules from analogous cases, and the rules are written rather generally to begin with. Mostly it's been sufficient at RM to show that because of all the examples at MOS:ISMCAPS that a various things the adherents or afficionados of which want to capitalize but which aren't actually proper names should be lower-cased here.  This can fail in OWN cases, as it recently did at Modern Paganism and some related topics.  The argument goes that "the sources" capitalize, but it's the non-WP:INDY sources written by pagans that do capitalizing, plus some news sources who can't tell the difference between  religion or religious organization and a broad and an inconsistently defined categorizing label for a wide range of them, so they over-cap out of fear of giving offense.  I have no doubt that article will eventually move to lower case, or be completely renamed, but it may take 5 years to erode the OWN/SSF blockade.  (The articles in that category are generally completely controlled by adherents to the religious movement in question; breaking the blockade will require identifying where all their NOR and NPOV failures are and drawing sufficient attention the more serious problems undoes the conflict-of-interest stranglehold; the article can then be renamed as an afterthought.) Dunno about "Marvel Universe". I know that "Marvel Cinematic Universe" is actually a trademark; and we're not capitalizing "universe" in this sense in other places, in absence of a trademark, e.g. at Star Wars expanded universe (I think the actual trademarks are "Star Wars: Expanded Universe" and "Star Wars Legends", but whatever). In general we should be lower-casing all these niche things at every opportunity. I think the "whole human meta-environment" things like the Earth, Moon, Sun, Solar System, etc. are capitonyms we can probably live with.  The problem with writing "the City" in Wikipedia is it doesn't mean anything specific to anyone but residents of the city in question (or, sometimes, a nearby one; I live in Oakland, and if I see an SF Bay Area writer use "the City" I know they mean San Franciscio).  But we all live on Earth, so no problem arises.  The Moon is a place, so the argument can be made that it should capitalized like the Northern Hemisphere and the Rocky Mountains. People don't want to hear arguments that it should be "the moon" but "Mars" because Mars doesn't have a "the".  They'll also point to common capitalization of "the Kuiper Belt", etc.  I just got tired of arguing with them after a while, on the traditional lower-case of "the moon", "the solar system" in everyday English. It's just not worth the stress, and it's a small concession to make. "The Milky Way Galaxy" seems pointless when "the Milky Way galaxy" is sufficient, but people are going to argue for "the Galaxy" when they mean ours. I notice that right now our article is at Kuiper belt, but this is encyclopedically problematic because it's very, very likely that other solar systems have their own Kuiper belts, and there's already material written about this idea in the plural.  As soon as better telescopes prove it, we're going to need that title to be about the concept of Kuiper belts not ours in particular. Same goes for asteroid belts; we have (in this line of thinking)  Asteroid Belt. (This "there's only one in our daily worldview" naming habit goes ultimately back to local populations; the endonyms of many people mean simply "the People", and they live near things that often linguistically boil down to "the Mountain", "the River", etc.; their meaning gets forgotten over time and treated as a proper name without a word-level meaning or non-capitalized equivalent, as the language changes but the name does so more slowly and doesn't keep up, and sometimes gets an equivalent later word tacked on to it, Torpenhow Hill 'Hill-hill-hill Hill' being everyone's favorite example.) Anyway, to back up to "Marvel Universe": if that turns out to be not a trademark somehow, it's not really a "fatal" problem if it gets capitalized on the basis that virtually all the sources on the topic capitalize it (if this is true). We actually have a rule at MOS:TM that capitalization and other style quirk for a commercial and similar name can be used if it's consistently done in the sources (thus Deamau5 and k.d. lang, but not P!nk or Ke$ha).  It's another of these compromises between following randomly varying source usage no matter what and having no rules, versus having a rigid ruleset and complete disregard for style in RS.  The "Marvel Universe" kind of capping is minor problem in that it inspires attempts at more SSF capping without a "all the RS are doing it" basis, but we can pick these off in most cases.  So, it's tedious but nothing more. CMoS has had more influence on MoS than any other style guide, but we don't follow it blindly. It's terribly nationalistic, infrequently updated, and strongly resistant to reflecting real-world change.  I just got the new 17th ed. and haven't gone over it yet, but I strongly suspect very little we care about has changed (at least in a positive way).  The 16th (and 15th) eds. had provable errors in them (I don't mean differences of interpretation but objectively demonstrable mistakes, like citing authorties for a CMoS rule that do not support it, and CMoS contradicting itself right in the same section, and elsewhere declaring facts about usage that can be disproven in just a few minutes' fact-checking).  I for one have taken some pains to make sure that Hart's/Oxford is well-represented, too, and to seek commonality.   We also use Fowler's, Garner's (which has become more internationalized in the last edition), and some others, and try to avoid the influence of The Guardian and other British press outfits, because they all contradict each other and they have nothing to do with writing in an encyclopedic register, often being compressive and expedient to the point of confusion.  For the same latter reason we don't take much from Associated Press Stylebook.  Scientific Style and Format has had a strong influence on the sci-tech material.  Most of the rest that are available are derivative of these, too narrowly specialized, primarily about citation styles (AMA, AHRA, MLA, MHRA, etc.), the house style of particular entities, punditry by non-notable people with questionable credentials, or just covering basics (Struck & White, Gower).  Regardless which books we're using, we're trying hard not to import any rule that is not, i.e. that does not forestall some kind of recurrent screaming match, otherwise MoS gets too long (it already is), and starts to defeat its own purpose, by providing too many things to keep arguing about. By all means write an essay; we haven't had a new style one in a while, that I know of.  We do already have a lot of topical MOS subpages, just as there are many for notability and naming conventions, but they have often proven problematic, in that they can PoV-fork easily (by wikiproject intent or lack of maintenance), and people most don't read them.  The the notability ones are taken more seriously because it's life-or-death for an article at AfD.  Even short of an essay, just a list-out of logic or comprehensibility problems would probably be helpful.  I've already got two or three concurrent RfCs open on language clarifications, once at MOS:CAPS and I think the other at MOS:BIO, and at least two discussions over the last couple of months at WT:MOS are probably good enough as the bases for RfCs to patch up the main MoS page on a few points.  It's baby-steps work, but articulating what the issues are is the first step.

Reply
@User:SMcCandlish, Thankyou for your reply. I am glad that you have appreciated the link. I think that we are seeing many of the same things. If I can do something, it is to sow the idea of an essay to support MOS:CAPS since this is likely a path of lesser resistance. To some extent, the lead at MOS:CAPS sets itself up to fail in the cases where it does fail: "... capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, or for the first word of a sentence." Having said "primarily", it does not address the many other cases which are commonly capitalised and which WP may "choose" to capitalise or not. An essay can make these other cases explicit. Most of the contention in WP as to CAPS arises not from what are proper names but the other cases where CAPS are often applied and the misconception that this (CAPS) makes them proper names - the circular arguement fallacy. While MOS:CAPS links to proper noun, there are two limitations. The issues transcend the articles boundaries and an article in the mainspace cannot be contexturalised to how it might be applied in WP. An essay is not so constrained. I (we) have identified a number of fallacies that lead to over-capitalisation. An essay might give "real" examples and give caution to these fallacies. On the matter of proper names, I think that the "properties" could be guided as a first check as to whether to CAP. English is a language of exceptions and the second check would be common exceptions. If these two checks do not indicate a decision, then the sources should be consulted as to usage. In practice though, the sources might initially raise the question. From this, an essay can guide how sources should be weighed to avoid some of the "traps" we have discussed. An essay can also record the collective memory of WP - precedent. It can report on decisions like "XYZ line" and guide decisiona on that which is directly similar (other lines). It can also provide guidance on decisions which are not "physically" similar but for which the conceptual considerations are similar - facilitating transference. I don't think that I have either the subject expertise or the WP memory to pull this off myself. Certainly, a lot of what we have discussed is a nucleus for such an essay. It is a case of putting this into a form that is comprehensible. It is something that has been fermenting for a while. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That all makes sense to me. Digging up "precedent" material would be a lot of work.  Most of the relevant discussions/disputes have been operationally resolved at WP:RM, since it's an RfC-like process with a record (though not an easily searchable one; some improvement as been made in that regard, at my request, about a year ago – see search tools at the top of Wikipedia talk:Requested moves).  The RM discussions do not get to every single over-capping case that MoS cares about, but probably does hit most of them.   However, not all the RM outcomes are actually consonant with MOSCAPS at all; it's fairly common for a OWN/LOCALCONSENSUS camp to bloc-vote and get a result they want which directly conflicts with the guidelines, and to even spread that result to other articles.  This can take years to clean up.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * See also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters – We have a pointless WP:CONTENTFORK in the guidelines, at MOS:PN.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@User:SMcCandlish, I just came across this gem - David Wilson (Army General). Will think on drafting a lead/intro as an outline for a more detailed article. Precedent material need not be comprehensive and exhaustive but illustrative and transferable. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The overcapping disambiguation, or is the content a mess, too? If the latter, I feel your pain.  PS: Congrats on the election.  Nice to know someone cognizant of and non-hostile to MoS/AT concerns will have some influence there for a change. (I'll try not to lobby you!)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

NB: Weren't we just talking about something like this? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Rollback?
In a cursory glance through the user rights of the current coordinator tranche I noticed that you do not have the rollback tool. Would you be interested in acquiring it? I can grant it if you like, and you can put it to use both within and outside of MILHIST. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@TomStar81, Yes thanyou. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright then, I've enabled the tool. Enjoy! TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please
Hi, Cinderella. When checking up on the recent IP on Talk:Werner Mölders, I noticed this comment from you, where you say things like "[Coffman's] "excessive zeal" sails close to POV warrior, Wikilawyering and Troll - perhaps indistinguishably so." Those are serious attacks on an experienced, never blocked, editor whose intentions for Wikipedia are obviously good, even if you personally find them misguided. "Perhaps indistinguishably so" — really? If you want to call somebody a POV warrior, wikilawyer, and troll, then, as Coffman says on the page, ANI would be the right venue (even though with a high likelihood of a boomerang, since it's hardly ever appropriate to call anybody those things). The article talkpage is for discussing content. Your back-pedalling response when Coffman complained was "To be clear, my general observations apply specifically to this article to the extent of what you perceive as 'excessive detail' is not more widely accepted for a large part" (the syntax of that is obscure, but I think I understand largely what you meant). I'm afraid that's not "clear" at all, because what you had said could not be taken as specific to excessive detail on that article at all — it was a general and wholesale attack on the integrity and good intentions of a user. Did your typing run away with you when you wrote it? If so, it's a pity you didn't find it in you to apologize in response to their protest, and cross out the attacks. I'm never one to insist on insincere apologies, but please introspect a little, put yourself in the other person's place, and another time give a post more thought before hitting "save". Bishonen &#124; talk 20:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC).


 * @Bishonen, I have no doubt that Coffman believes he is acting in good faith and with integrity. I observed that there is some benefit to WP in his contributions but with considerable disruption. My comments were made objectively and are based on observation. At Troll, "Trolling is any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the reliability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is a violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces and is often done to inflame or invite conflict." I do not believe that Coffman's actions are deliberate and intentional. However, there is sufficient evidence that they should be reasonably aware that their actions are nonetheless disruptive. Do they have an agenda? Is it motivated by POV? Is this a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? Is removing the place of birth and death from an infobox quoting "unsourced and unnecessarily intricate detail" (or words to that effect) appropriate? Is that Likely to be challenged? Do such matters fall to When to cite? Are such edits a case of: "However, many editors misunderstand the citation policy, seeing it as a tool to enforce, reinforce, or cast doubt upon a particular point of view in a content dispute, rather than as a means to verify Wikipedia's information. This can lead to several mild forms of disruptive editing which are better avoided. Ideally, common sense would always be applied but Wiki-history shows this is unrealistic. Therefore, this essay gives some practical advice."? And: "Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material simply because they dislike it or prefer some other material, not because the material in any way needs verification."? (from You don't need to cite that the sky is blue - though I am not saying this example particularly falls to WP:BLUE). Is there evidence of some of the behaviors at Don't be a WikiBigot? Are the arguments advanced "strict" and "ridgid" interpretations per WP:BURO? Do such actions reasonably fall (close) to Wikilawyering? Are arguements in support of their actions WP:REHASHED in other articles even though they have been consistently rejected? Is this a case of Civil POV pushing? Are such behaviours "close to" or "perhaps indistinguishable from" POV warrior, Wikilawyering and Troll?


 * You will note that I quoted and supported another editor's statements. I have expressed an opinion. Where I have indicated a process, I believe I can substantiate same. Such comments are not a personal attack if there is evidence of same per WP:NPA. I could provide evidence that has led me to my observations. I am sure that others might do the same. However, this is unlikely to be productive since, I note, at Civil POV pushing, the acknowledged difficulty that WP processes have in dealing with the behavior described therein.


 * You are correct in assuming that any demanded apology, if given at all, would be insincere - my personal integrity would not permit such or, if given, it would be significantly qualified. I did not "backpeddle". You are applying to me a judgement of my motives which is incorrect in its conclusion. I saw in that particular discussion, examples of what I more generally described. Apparently, I was unclear in this. I do not see that I have either a right or duty to strike another's comments and as an aside, I saw some element of truth to the statements. As to the response from Coffman to me, I saw in this as something of a dare. My statement was made after careful consideration of what I have observed over a period of time and what was described in the links. I did put myself in the other person's shoes. I will acknowledge that I was somewhat frustrated by the "result of the seemingly never-ending problems" associated with this editor and the disruption caused.(Civil POV pushing) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings
 Dear   I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and, a very Happy New Year. Thanks for all your help and contributions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, thankyou and best wishes for you and yours also. regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

British logistics in the Normandy Campaign
The main question that the subject of the article begs is: why the British? Why not the Americans? Far more has been written about the latter; the British Army's logistics is a less-explored subject. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  02:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * @ Hawkeye7, Ah! Though it did occur to me that a study of the British might be more instructive than the usual method of the US to use a sledge hammer to crack a walnut. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about MOS:JOBTITLES
There is a discussion about whether to add clarifying text (shown in boldface) to MOS:JOBTITLES at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters that you may be interested in. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion seems to have settled toward consensus, Cinderella. What is your advice on how long to wait to implement the improved examples? I'll look for your advice, here. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi @HopsonRoad, this is not a formal RFC and MOSCAPS is well watched, so pretty much anybody with 2 cents to add will have done so. I would suggest just a couple of more days. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yeah opps
I've not a clue why that phrase rang such a bell with me when I saw him still maintaining his position but it did. Opps, didn't mean to echo you apologies rendered Milady of Heart.Tirronan (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Caps or not?
There was an RfC on the talk page for the Japanese medium tank Type 4 Chi-To as to whether the word "tank" should be added to all Japanese tank article titles ; consensus was that it should (even though not all other tank articles for other countries are consistent in doing same). My query to you for your opinion is should it be "Tank" or "tank". I believe it should be in lower case letters. What do you think? One editor started adding the word "Tank" in caps to a few article titles after the RfC and then stopped. Anyway, let me know your thoughts. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi @talk, I think that "tank" is acting in an attributive sense, rather than being part of the "proper" name (particularly given the article title existed without it). I think, therefore, that tank should be in lowercase - particularly since MOS Caps tends to less rather than more caps. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BTW, have a look at Manual of Style/Military history the section on tanks. I tweaked it according, per the above. See what you think and if you believe it needs further wording. Kierzek (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @Kierzek, tweaked it a little. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

German war effort of 1939–45 Case Request
Hi, Cinderella157. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; in any event, concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * @Mdann52, May I ask if the notification at the statement by user:GreenMeansGo is considered in this? I did so as a courtesy to all involved (and ArbCom) and not as an intrinsic part of my statement. I note that K.e.coffman's initial statement exceeded the word count (by the measure I employed) and has subsequently been greatly increased. By way of the principles of natural justice (more specifically, that "rules" must be applied to all in the same measure and that justice must be done and seen to be done), I ask, if I may, if action is being taken to address this? I also advise that I am making a request for an extension. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - I am looking at these separately. As these statements include replies to other editors who have commented on their statement, we usually allow some leeway into the lengths - I will go and double-check the guidance on this shortly. When I posted this notification, I could see no such reply directed to other editors, hence I did not consider this at the time. Sorry, just understood what you meant! It does not IMO, however I've moved it back into your own section where it should be. If you have applied to the committee for an extension in any case, I'll keep an eye out and tag as appropriate when they make a decision on this. Mdann52 (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * @Mdann52, request sent. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * @Mdann52, I note a subsequent statement that refers to my statement as a whole. Consequently, I submit that to significantly alter my statement has ramifications on that which has been subsequently made. This has occurred since my application. I request that this be be conveyed to the decision maker or (alternatively) you advise me of the appropriate means to convey this subsequent development to the decision maker. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I just do as I'm told, anything regarding an extension should go to the committee directly. Mdann52 (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion with TonyBallioni

 * I don't want to further clutter the case request page, but I think you completely missed and, and what I'm pretty sure was also 's points with this edit. You are now only linking to three murderous events and one non-murderous Nazi propaganda action instead of three non-Nazi murderous events and one Nazi murderous event. I think you should know that the number of people who find this incredibly offensive is still likely going to be very high. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * @TonyBallioni, and you have all totally missed my point. History is rarely pleasant but it serves a purpose. From hindsight, we might have foresight. Yes, these were to be evocative and thought provoking (but this was not my point). My "intent" (that is, my point) was a warning of what might be! was incorrect in their assumption of my intent and their criticism falls to ad hominem and WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Though I am concerned by what they saw in the various statements that would cause them to reach that conclusion. That should be a concern for all. I would direct you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history As a consequence of the thread there and some time after my initial statement, I observed: How they are construed; however, may well speak more to the person doing so than to my intent. I also note the ad hominem there. I am sorry, but I do not see why this is perceived as "so offensive" and why, in a robust discussion I cannot or should not refer to historical events? I have not made a personal attack against an individual or group. I do not believe that I have contravened any policy of guideline. I would, however, be more concerned with some other comments/statements that I believe have significantly crossed such boundaries! To criticise me for advocating WP:NPOV - really. And gross misrepresentations. In the RW, there would certainly be sanctions for such conduct. I deliberately included a Nazi event for some fear, that to not do so might label me as a Nazi apologist too - the substantive allegation against ? The Nazi book burnings better represent my intent too. All of these events are ideological in nature, in some way they relate to censorship of information (books), they were conducted by the dominant authority, they were consistant with the prevailing law (or, at least, were condoned), they were ostensibly for the "greater good" but history now casts them in quite a different light (as evidenced by your characterisation). They each serve as a warning of what could be once we start to travel down this path. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. History serves to tell us that. My intent was to indicate a potential future and not a commentary on what had transpired to that point - I was not analogising but cautioning.


 * I deliberately did not overtly state my intent. It was a literary device intended to give an "edge" to this thought provoking statement: "Hey, just what did he really mean?" There is then my subsequent predictive statement: How they are construed; however, may well speak more to the person doing so than to my intent. This did not form part of my original thinking, but I do find that what has transpired is quite revealing.


 * If you are prepared to make a rational, logical, objective case (that does not rely on purely emotive reasons to any considerable extent per WP:IDONTLIKEIT) as to why I should strike these links then I will give it full consideration and, (per WP consensus) if there is any weight to the case, I am more than likely to do so. However, (in respect to these links) at the moment and quite frankly, this is taking on shades of Monty Python's Life of Brian (warning: hyperlink is to scene from movie). If you prefer, I could find a similar scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I've really debated on how to respond to this. I'm not sure there is really a correct response, as I literally have never been at a loss for words anything someone has said on Wikipedia until now.All that I am going to say is this: it is impossible to separate the events of the last century, and in particular the crimes of it's tyrannies, from emotions for people. This is not at all a bad thing like you seem to be suggesting it is: emotion is a natural human response to things, and forms part of our intuition, and intuition is the basis of all of our intellectual and logical thoughts. We shouldn't let it overrun us, but the fact that a fair number respected editors are shocked that you would even think to make the comments should tell you something.Saying that and keeping that in mind, I think you also need to remember that there are editors here who grew up in or currently live in countries that were occupied by the Nazis. We likely have editors who are the children and grandchildren of holocaust survivors. We likely have editors who's parents lived through the brutalities of National Socialism, and it is not outside the realm of possibility that we actually may have editors who directly experienced the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis. For many of these people, the crimes of the Nazis are not just history, they are very real things that affected and still impact them and their families.Keeping all of this in mind, regardless of whether or not you agree with K.e.coffman's actions, they view themselves as doing important work making sure that Wikipedia's coverage of the Nazi war effort accurately reflects the historical record, and doesn't gloss over the brutalities. There are other very respected editors who have stated on the ARC page that they view their efforts the same way, and I know at least one of those editors is from a country that the Nazis did occupy. Seeing you compare (or even appearing to compare) those actions, which reasonable people can view positively even if you don't, to a crimes committed by Hitler and Stalin is likely to be very offensive to them for any number of reasons.Additionally, even if we throw out the reactions of people who are emotionally invested in this, let's just go to the fact that comparing any actions on a website to murders by Hitler and Stalin trivializes the actual suffering and death of innocent people who died at their hands, and is extremely disrespectful. There is nothing on this website that is remotely comparable to that. I hope you will really consider what I am saying here, and what other people have attempted to tell you elsewhere. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * @TonyBallioni, thankyou for engaging in a discussion in a reasonable way without resorting to some of the more negative behaviours I evidenced before. You have not relied on emotive arguements to make your case. Rather, you have made a case by exploring the emotional factors in play. Your statement: Seeing you compare (or even appearing to compare) those actions, which reasonable people can view positively even if you don't, to a crimes committed by Hitler and Stalin is likely to be very offensive to them for any number of reasons. Is a bit unclear to me so I may have misunderstood.


 * I think you will agree that dramatic social and ideological events in history may be characterised by: revolution, counterrevolution and even counter-counterrevolution. In each, there are dramatic (even diametric) shifts in the prevailing ideology.


 * Firstly, I have no intrinsic objection to the overtly stated aim of Ke. However, as I sated at the request. This appears to be nearly as extreme (in practice) as what they seek to redress. Secondly, there is how they go about achieving this. I stated that I found their user page disturbing. Yes, there are examples of what should be improved. However, it did not convey to me a message of somebody interested in collaboratively improving the project. The means does not justify the end. linked to Talk:Werner Mölders. There is reference to posts on my talk page. You will see these above. If Ke's actions focused more on building consensus in a collaborative rather than confrontational way, there would be less resistance to them achieving their overt objective.


 * I am still not certain if you have quite grasped the "caution" I intended. I was certainly not comparing Ke's actions to Hitler's or Stalin's. That would be most inappropriate and contary to WP:NPA. [C]omparing any actions on a website to murders by Hitler and Stalin trivializes [that] ... There is nothing on this website that is remotely comparable to that. I was making a caution as to where this could lead if it was decided to travel down this path. I am not suggesting that this would lead to mass murder or at least, not in the way you suggest. However, you might also underestimate the power of the web. These events started in a small way. From Little Things Big Things Grow. Can you imagine the web in the hands of Stalin or Hitler? This path may lead to censorship of literature to be used on WP and to prescribing language and perspective to be used in WW2 article through a decision condoned by the prevailing authority. And from there ... ? This would be contrary to policy. It would also be contrary to the laws of the US which I understand, bind WP. I could also link to Nineteen Eighty-Four.


 * In your response though, you identify some very real concerns of potential bias and Natural justice.


 * Your case is compelling. But so, I believe, are the reasons for making the links in the first instance. How do we reach a consensus in regard to this, by which both concerns can be addressed? I think you will agree that this has been much more constructive and enlightening than any of the previous. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll try to keep this response shorter than the one above: while I get that you are coming from a good place here, I am generally of the philosophy that even if we are 100% right on the merits, we should usually avoid acting in a way that causes others to respond negatively if there is a better way to go about it. For the point you were making, you could have said something like My fear is that going about things in the way he is, K.e.coffman is going too far in the other direction and causing Wikipedia to lose other important parts of the historical record. That would have conveyed the same idea without necessitating references to crimes by tyrants in a content dispute about crimes committed by one of the same tyrants (and another from the same era.)From a more practical standpoint, as I'm sure you understand, the events of the Second World War in Europe, are very emotional topics for a lot of people. If you can make the same point you're trying to make in a way that doesn't get them upset, they're more likely to listen to what you are trying to say, and come to some form of middle ground with you. Sorry if this doesn't address all of your points, but it's how I usually analyze things (on-wiki and off-wiki) so at the very least, I thought it might give you an idea where I am coming from. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * @TonyBallioni, Firstly, I do not expect a response to this. I would like to thankyou for engaging in a constructive dialogue. By your suggestion (for which I nonetheless thank you), I still think that you miss the essential point and caution I was trying to make. My opening statement has already pretty much said exactly what you suggest. If this request to ArbCom is accepted (it now is?), where might that path lead. I was looking beyond the individuals involved. There is the potential for sanctioned censorship and for imposing an ideological perception of how events of WW2 are to be depicted.


 * I am perhaps more use to engaging in robust, polite but dispassionate discussions to exchange ideas in a full and frank way. While I certainly sought to be evocative and thought provoking, it was not my intent to deliberately upset people. You have represented a Eurocentric perception of the issues (not a bad thing) but you might appreciate too, that the events directly and indirectly touched nationalities from across the world. I have been considering how to respond to since their comment. Some of what I have discussed with you is the result of some of my drafts. I think you might appreciate that it is not simply a matter of striking these links, since the caution they represent is IMHO, of great significance. Some of my dilemma has been how to convey my concerns accurately but succinctly.


 * I am considering a course that links to Orwell's novel and the proverb above as well as this discussion. Of course, if you disagree with this, I welcome your opinion. Once again, my thanks. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I won't engage with the finer points above, but since The ed17 and (perhaps also Tony here?) seems to be encouraging you to remove or radically alter the famous sentence with the four links, I'll just point out that silently removing/altering text that somebody else has already specifically commented on (in this case me and Newyorkbrad) is frowned on. It wrongfoots the other person and is confusing for the reader. Even changing one of your four links the way you have done makes it look, to somebody who reads the RFAR page now or in the future, as if NYB and I are careless readers, and removing the whole sentence might make us look a little unhinged ('What are they talking about?'). The correct thing would be to strike out, with and, anything you now wish to disown or change, and then add anything you may want to say instead. I'm only talking about anything that has been explicitly commented on; there is IMO no need to fuss with strikeout code for altering other parts of your statement. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC).


 * I used the word "redact." :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)