User talk:Cinderella157/Archive 2

Children in the military; scoring for the contest
Hi. I don't really want to start a debate and am content for you to rule an article ineligible for the contest for any or no reason. However, I tried hard to make sure that all of this time's articles were eligible and so am a little surprised at Children in the military being ruled out, especially the grounds. AustralianRupert assessed it as B class on 14 April, [see diff]. Prior to that I had made 89 separate edits in March and April to what started as a 15,000+ word monster. My only edits since were to sort the dashes with a script and to tag as EngVarB.

Just for your information. No response nor action necessarily expected. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * @Gog the Mild, I will look at it again. I have no issue with you drawing this to my attention. I am not infallible :) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't put yourself out - I already seem to be causing enough work for coordinators. I am trying to learn from articles ruled ineligible and I don't 'get' this one. It is only 3 points, so makes no difference to the results. (Which I settled when I withdrew another 3 pointer, as liable to be over-ruled, a couple of hours before the deadline. [] With it I would have been joint first.) Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I want to be fair above all else. I may well have got it wrong potentially. You are not putting me out. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sticking my oar in where I shouldn't, I assume that you are aware that many of 47thPennVols B classes are self awarded and have not gone through the usual B class peer review? [eg]. I will shut up now. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

A fair call per your points and aplogies. I didn't go back far enough in the history. The points will be awarded. On the other, I am aware. It did concern me. I will make a comment to them but I did a cursory check on each article and was moderately satisfied that they were in a reasonable state and for the most part they were created from anew. Again, if you think I got it wrong, I will consider same. I strive to be fair. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am not worried about the points, just whether I am finally getting a grip on the rules. I am reassured. If you felt that any were borderline eligible I would appreciate it if you would let me know.


 * Re self assessing, I am not sure that it is my place to comment, but you may be inserting the thin edge of the wedge to a slippery slope. Eg, I have had an article awaiting B class review since 25 April. It is, IMO, solid B. If I had realised that I could self assess I would have done, which would have put me in first place as I then supposed, second with 47thPennVols' current score. I didn't as this seemed bad form. (And goodness knows I don't need a reputation for any more of that!) If the rules are that this is allowable I will do next time - and regret not realising that I could this time. I assume others will as well. Which is likely in short order to undermine the B class peer review system. An unintended consequence, but potentially serious.


 * PS I tend to agree with your view of 47thPennVols' articles. I have assessed several as B class myself, given him advise on a couple of general matters and was, I think, the person who first suggested that he put his articles into the contest. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with you. I have posted to their talk page and pinged AR. If there are any specific articles you think there are concerns with (without saying what these might be) I will look at them more closely. I used some discretion, as these were mainly WIR articles linked to their drive. This is a little politic. However, my personal integrity is pretty important to me and ultimately overrides this. I have no issue with adjusting the scores per the annual comp or otherwise redressing any "ultimate" inequity that might exist thought I also WP:AGF. I am a bit time-poor in the RW atm. But it was a "duty" to contribute to the project in doing the checking. Having said that, I will take the time to consider any concerns you might raise or otherwise assist you as I can, here on WP. Justice must be done and must be seen to be done. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Nah. Thanks but don't bother. I am just sore because when I withdrew that borderline article late on the 30th to drop me out of joint first I consoled myself with the thought that I would place second. I knew that 47th had messed up his self scoring, but assumed that his 8 self assessed Bs would be dropped to Cs. (And give him a flying start to May.)


 * 47thPennVols is an enthusiastic, hardworking editor. He has written 12 articles from scratch and is a worthy winner. It won't do any harm for someone to win who has done so many WiR articles either. Of the 6 of his articles which were peer reviewed I did 3. They were high quality and whilst I wanted changes to all 3 before agreeing B class, or C in one case, he took this in a positively welcoming spirit. (Although his two Cs were from the 6 which were peer reviewed.)


 * I am blathering. Summary: let things lie. I shall be amongst the first to congratulate 47PV. And thanks once again to you for the sterling work you do behind the scenes to keep things ticking. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * As there seems to be a Wiki-etiquette that if one discusses another editor on a talk page I feel that I ought to draw this discussion to your attention. Hopefully you will understand where I was coming from with my comments.


 * PS Thanks for putting in a good word for me with 47PV. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, Just to let you know how I do the contest check, for B-class and lower. I first check the article TP to confirm the current assessment and then its history, to check the previous assessment and deficiencies that were identified. I then go to the article and its history. I look at the article prior to the comp period and how the article has been edited - particularly wrt deficiencies from the prior assessment. I think I do a reasonable job of discharging my due diligence though your one article slipped through the cracks. I did not understand PVs intent. I do take the caution you were trying to make. I exercised a limited degree of discretion which (I believe you agree) was not unwarranted or unreasonable.

On the matter of March's comp, I had intended to check your entries but was beaten to it. I might then have applied the same standard as I had in Feb. I can understand that the checks done in March may have appeared overly summarial. I cannot say more than that, simply because I did not look into things in more detail. I had also intended to contact you and discuss any concerns you may have had but the RW got in the way. Nonetheless, you may always contact me. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. It seems appropriate and thorough to me. As for Children in the Military, entirely understandable that you didn't go back 150 edits, especially given my history of, ah, 'enthusiastic' entries in the contest. And you were entirely receptive to my query. Re my "caution", fine - I wanted to mention it in case you missed it, but not to give the impression of telling you how to do the job. And yes, an entirely appropriate use of discretion IMO, for what that's worth. I have no complaints about the March scoring.
 * If you felt that any of my April entries were a bit borderline I wouldn't mind a heads up. No need to go into detail, I will work it out. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * @Gog the Mild, no issues and history didn't come into it. My default screen showed all of April an some but not enough of March. I have just driven six hours and around 500 km. A beer would be very welcome. Where are you from? I am having a couple to unwind.


 * Whew! Sounds like you have earned one. I'm from Derby in the UK. You? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, Monto, Queensland, Australia. You get a differtent perspective on distance. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Mondo looks like a nice quiet sort of place. But 500km to Brisbane is a bit much. I note that England has a population density more than 1,500 times greater than Queensland. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

German war effort arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Cinderella157, the Arbitration Committee has now listed you as a party to this arbitration case. This is not a finding of wrongdoing in any way; the Committee has simply determined that you are a party to this dispute. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Analysis of the German invasion of Russia during WW2
This is my analysis of the German invasion of Russia.

RegardsCinderella157 (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The invasion of Russia was commenced without neutralising Britain. The resolve of Britain to pursue the war was underestimated, as was its strategic importance. Both matters should have been glaringly evident.
 * 2) The invasion of Russia compromised the North African campaign by diverting resources. While not, of itself, strategically significant to a great extent, it would have secured the southern flank and it would have offered significant strategic opportunities. Specifically, this would have been potential access to eastern oil reserves.
 * 3) The Balkans campaign delayed the Russian offensive (which may have affected the outcome). Significantly though, the resources required to occupy these territories far outweighed their strategic value. A political, rather than a military solution, may well have been more expeditious.
 * 4) Blitzkrieg is a strategy of rapid maneuver that relies on exploitation of opportunities and bypassing to seize the initiative, maintain the initiative and maintain the momentum of advance to achieve strategic outcomes. The risk of such a strategy is that the rate of advance may outstrip the capacity to support the advance.
 * 5) While the the German army had modern, mechanised armoured units, the main part of the German army was not so modern and relied heavily on horse-drawn transport.
 * 6) Campaigns (specifically Poland and France) were successful because of "limited" objectives that were quickly achieved without exposing German logistical limitations.
 * 7) The Russian campaign was initiated on an unprecedented scale (troops to support) across a broad front, with objectives at a great distance, through terrain with "primitive" transport infrastructure. All of these conditions would, and did expose deficiencies in the German logistical capacity.
 * 8) The German offensive strategy was ostensibly a "land grab". It failed to identify and secure immediate strategic objectives that would neutralise the Soviet capacity to counter the ultimate German strategic objective.
 * 9) The German advance was across a broad front. This is contrary to the principles of warfare wrt German blitzkrieg doctrine in particular. It did not concentrate but diffused offensive power (and logistic capacity).
 * 10) The campaign "season" in Russia is limited in duration by the seasons: a relatively severe winter, followed by a spring thaw and summer rains. The impact of the rains and thaw were exacerbated by the limited transport infrastructure.

@User:K.e.coffman (particularly) but also @User:Assayer, you have expressed views regarding the Three Wehrmacht alibis, and edits which are overly sympathetic to the Wehrmacht or are a case of selective empathy, such as: "The great expanse of Russia made controlling a front line difficult". Also: "Historical research has firmly established that the military elite of Nazi Germany constructed a deliberately biased account of the Battle of Moscow by arguing that the German offensive only failed because of Hitler, the winter (weather) and Soviet reinforcements from Siberia." I would have thought that weather was a matter of fact, though more specifically, how each side dealt with this battlefied constraint. I would have also thought that Soviet numerical superiority was also a matter of fact (ultimately). I am also fairly certain that there are (many) cases where Hitler's orders were contrary to a prudent military course. As for the "great expanse", it is a matter of fact that such conditions make the effective exercise of command and control more problematic. Each of these are "facts" my question then, is what makes these facts apologistic or alibis, that you find unacceptable. I would also ask for a comment on my analysis, to the extent that you believe it falls to the same error of perception (ie an apologetic bias?). This would do much to help me understand your perspective. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I happily accept an invitation to discuss these matters more closely. The context of the discussion was the sentence During the autumn of 1941, his [Guderian's] offensive on Moscow was delayed by orders from Hitler with whom he disagreed sharply. Soon, German troops found themselves delayed by bad roads and mud and then suffering from the winter cold, one of the major factors that led to the failure of Operation Barbarossa. mainly sourced to Guderian's memoirs. This implies that the German troops were facing bad weather and, in consequence, bad roads, because (!) of Hitler's orders. They were belayed and then, so the logic goes, even more delayed by the roads and thus suffered from the winter cold, so that the whole Operation failed. But belayed for what? To be delayed implies that you could have been on time. Part of the myth is that the Battle for Moscow was close-run and the Germans barely missed victory. Therefore timing is crucial and Guderian's reasoning suggests that if he and not Hitler would have gotten his will, the troops would not have been delayed. This feeds well into the "Blitzkrieg legend" (KH Frieser) according to which speed is crucial for victory. Thus the victory was lost, to borrow Manstein's phrase Lost Victories, by Hitler. In contrast, historians like David Stahel have pointed to the poor planning of the German High Comand. He argues that Operation Barbarossa was based on poor intelligence, strategic misconceptions and an erroneous understanding of warfare in eastern Europe. The German High Command believed that German military superiority over the babaric Russian hordes was natural ("Tannenberg myth)". The strategic premise of eliminating Soviet resistance close to the border was overoptimistic and, in fact, required further operations. The anticipated final blow simply would not come, neither at Minsk, at Smolensk, at Uman or at Kiev (and certainly not at Moscow). In conclusion, the whole campaign was ill conceived and failed not at least because of poor strategic planning, i.e. poor German military leadership. For Guderian and other generals, however, it was Hitler who had them delayed. Besides, the image of the Red Army as faceless hordes who overcame superior German tactical and operational capabilities merely by overwhelming material might (and the assistance of General Winter) fashoined by the German generals was popular during the Cold War, but failed to appreciate the development of the Red Army during the war. Knowledge of the Soviet war effort has greatly increased since the 1990ies and the works of David Glantz.
 * My argument, therefore, is not that your analysis is completely false, i.e. that the weather had no impact whatsoever, but that your analysis is lacking some important, maybe more decisive aspects. I would argue that the campaign would have failed regardless of the weather and also if it had not been delayed by Hitler. Representatives of the German military elite like Guderian, Manstein and others with their memoirs and the Operational History (German) Section of the Historical Division of the US Army with its topic leader Franz Halder crafted a different explanation of the German defeat which maintained their professional authority. But their account is not in line with the findings of modern historiographical research. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Assayer, thankyou for your response. I will offer some comments sometime in the near future. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Assayer, thankyou again for your response. I accept much of what you have said. I would address your observation: "but that your analysis is lacking some important, maybe more decisive aspects." I won't profess to be widely read on the specific area. But would offer the following, noting it is not a change of my assessment but a clarification.
 * 1) There is a distinction between the campaign failing and the result of the war with the Soviet Union. A war with the Soviets was probably doomed to failure - particularly as Britain was not taken out of the equation. A German success required a decisive blow. It is moot if such a blow could have been delivered but I perceive this to be unlikely - regardless of the what-ifs.
 * 2) Hitler exerted direct control over the military. Churchill also exercised control with some less than stellar results such as the Greek campaign and relieving Wavell after forcing him out of his chosen strategy. The same could, be said for Stalin? Roosevelt, on the otherhand, appears to have distanced himself more from the military - though this might be a misperception. Closer to my home, there is the dynamic of the relationship between MacArthur, Blamey and Curtin. There has been some good work that specifically analyses the politico-military interface and the dynamics of the personal interactions as it panned out through 1942 and into 1943. What I am not seeing in discussions is the same sort of detailed analysis per Hitler, but rather, discussions that pick around the periphery? In a dictatorship, the "yes man" factor is incredibly strong. This, however, is not critical to my analysis.
 * 3) The campaign failed for many reasons. I would agree with the assessment you attribute to Stahel. In some respects, these are different ways of saying what I have said.
 * 4) Blitzkrieg has its roots in the tactical developments of the last part of WWI: the rapid infiltration employed by the Germans in operation Michael and the all-arms integration pioneered by John Monash (my analysis). The tactics are not unique to Germany. Speed and maintaining the momentum is critical to keep the opponent unbalanced. It denies them time and space to prevent them from regrouping and reorganising to make a concerted defence or counter attack. Its success requires maintaining a focus on the strategic objective. Pockets of resistance are by-passed and often encircled. There is then, the "final" objective, which is encircled and captured or "annihilated". It is fair to say that speed and time are everything.
 * 5) The doctrine is limited by combinations of weather and terrain that restrict mobility. It can be compomised by a failure of logistics to keep pace with the rate of advance. It should concentrate and direct force toward the objective. It also requires a force of sufficiently mobile infantry to keep pace with the advance to secure the line of communication and contain any bypassed pockets. These things are essentially basic military science.
 * 6) As I indicated above, the German Army was lacking in logistical capacity to support a long range penetration while attacking across such a broad front diffused both force and logistical capacity. It also lacked any significant motorised capability in the balance of its infantry. These are matters of planning and a failure of planning and military appreciation.
 * 7) The impact of winter upon the German forces (as I understand it) was that they had not prepared for a campaign that extended into winter. Equipment had not been supplied for winter fighting and vehicles had not been winterised. There was then a failing of the logistical system to meet this shortfall in a timely way. Again, this is a failure to plan for and meet this contingency.
 * 8) The decision to delay the campaign and proceed had foreseeable consequences in respect to winter and the autumn rains. Attriuting this failure must rest where it falls.
 * 9) From what I can tell, Hitler and his generals had differing opinions on what was the strategic objective. My understanding is that Hitler (and some of his generals?) saw the objective as neutralising the Soviet Army by encirclement and annihilation, while others saw Moscow as the centre of mass (a key "hub"), the capture of which would neutralise or severely disrupt the Soviet Union's political, industrial and military capacity to wage war.
 * 10) While a tenet of Blitzkrieg type warfare is to seize opportunities and exploit weaknesses in an opponent, its success depends on maintaining a focus (and direction) on the primary strategic objective. Any opportunity for the opponent to regain balance will compromise success. Of course, the strategic focus can change but alternating focus IMO is a recipe for disaster. It gives the opponent time to regain balance around the initial focus - particularly if they have much the same appreciation of the criticallity of the initial objective.
 * 11) The centre army group advance outstripped its logistical capacity and its infantry. These are matters of appreciation of capability and of planning. The effect was to reduce the momentum of the advance, thereby compromising it.
 * 12) I note references in articles that Bock surreptitiously disobeyed orders to halt his advance and disagreed markedly with superiors on how to conduct his advance? My comments do not hinge on these but I would be interested in your observations.
 * 13) My understanding is that Hitler did strip the two panzer armies from the centre, sending one north and one south and there was protest from the centre. Did this affect the course of the battle in the centre? Yes, unquestionably. Could Moscow have been captured in 1941 had this not happened? Possibly (not probably) but there are many imponderables. The centre was already impeded by logistical limitations and the capacity to secure its LOC. Would the result of the war with the Soviets (and overall) have changed but for this decision? Unlikely. I perceive that Moscow, while of extreme importance to the Soviets, was not the "critical mass" that would lead to the collapse of the Soviet regime. My appreciation is that Stalin's control was too strong for this to occur and ultimately, the manpower available (not just as troops) would tell.
 * 14) Hitler's decision to strip the panzer armies from the centre is debatable but not necessarily wrong - the strategic focus of a campaign can change. What I would highlight is these were split between north and south rather than being concentrated against one primary objective (MS101). A subsequent decision was then to revert back to a focus on Moscow. This appears quite wrong for so many reasons (some of which I have indicated above).
 * 15) Conclusion: An invasion was always doomed to failure. Any planning "concept" of a success for Germany failed to properly appreciate the strenghts, weaknesses and capabilities of the opponents. In the first instance, this is a military failure. However, any analysis cannot ignore the political element (I would refer to my earlier comment regarding Churchill and Curtin). The actual planning and conduct of the campaign had many significant (yes, gross) deficiencies. These are, for a very large part, a fault of the military. But again, one cannot analyse this in isolation from the political context. This political context is much deeper than just the direct interaction between Hitler and his generals and how he directed elements of the campaign. There is the whole interface between the military and government: resourcing, structure and appointments just for starters.
 * 16) The three alibis: Hitler was the the commander-in-chief and therefore (according to most perceptions of what that means), ultimately responsible for the conduct of the war. He may have been many things, but I don't think "idiot" is one of them. I did read recently something to the effect that, as a commander, he could be erratic - sometimes brilliant and sometimes mediocre. For 1941, the impact of winter was a matter of poor planning and preparation. In later years, winter tended to reverse tactical advantages held by the German forces in favour of the Soviets (and the converse is equally true). I think there is no doubt than Soviet manpower was significant in the long-term, as was supply from the US (and UK to a much lesser extent?). However, I am not suggesting that the battle "would" have been won but for ... and I do not absolve commanders for their failings.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add evidence to the GWE evidence page now
I'm asking you to do this now as it would be unfair to other editors to have to wait much longer before they see your evidence. Given some of your earlier comments I'm sure you will understand this. I'm glad you're providing diffs but there's quite a bit in your sandbox that is about policy or guidelines and isn't actually evidence. The bits about wikilawyering, ownership, be bold, etc. aren't what we consider evidence. You can be assured that the Arbitration Committee members have years of experience and knowledge about policy and guidelines. Although I want you to move your evidence (preferably without those sections) you will of course be able to add more. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * @ Doug Weller, I will comply today. My sandbox is both a self-reference and a work in progress. As to links, I am sure that the Arbs are aware of such policies. While they are not evidence, they are an intrinsic part of advocating my case. I would note, the page views to my sandbox. They significantly exceed what can be attributed to me; so, it would appear to be no secret as to where I am going with my evidence. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

GWE evidence talk page
I have removed your statement regarding MastCell from the evidence talk page, at the request of two arbitrators. The evidence talk page is not really the place for this sort of material; it is intended for resolving questions about the arbitration and evidence gathering process. If you still wish to pursue the matter, you have two basic options: pursue it outside of arbitration at a venue such as AN/I, or pursue it within arbitration by entering it as evidence within the case. In my view, it would fall within the scope of the case, as behaviour on case pages is generally (implicitly) within the scope of any case. GoldenRing (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

, evidence added by KEC just before the close would constitute rebuttal. Rebuttal can be added in the evidence phase and in the next phase. So it is essentially immaterial that it was added just before the close of evidence. Between now and the next phase, evidence will be considered and assessed on its relevance to the case. Irrelevant and inconsequential material will be removed. Further rebuttal (and presumably counterpoints) can be made. In short, I wouldn't be concerned with the last minute additions at evidence. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

To clarify comments from GWE ArbCom workshop
You raised a question that I wil try to answer: I commented upon a claim by Peacemaker67 (Dapi could have been dealt with on the drama boards if KEC had made a better case and not been guilty of poor wikibehaviour and POV pushing himself.), seconded by you saying: KEC has made no attempt I can see, save a 3RR and boomerang topic ban (both against Dapi) to deal with the issues through normal processes. Saving up complaints to gain traction here, where they might have been dealt with elsewhere appears disingenuous. I quoted both Peacemaker67 and you and tried to make clear whom I was quoting. My comment was to remind readers that while a topic ban against user Dapi89 was proposed on ANI (because of repeated incivility), MilHist coordinators chose to turn on KEC as the (more) guilty party. In the same thread KEC gave that event as a reason why they did not turn to ANI, and I would say, understandably so. Because even if Peacemaker67 and others were right in alleging that KEC was guilty of "long-term POV pushing", that would by no means have legitimized Dapi89's continued incivility. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * @Assayer, thankyou for the response. This is much clearer. My take on the Dapi boomerang comments is that it was a case of WP:POT or, if you like, a boomerang boomerang, which is what we have here at ArbCom too. If you look at my case studies in evidence, you will note that I have not condoned the actions of Dapi. However, it is an acknowledged as a response that is a consequence of CPUSH. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions awareness notice
In particular, personalization of style disputes (e.g. making pointed comments about whose views you refuse to even read at WT:MOS) is precisely why the WP:ARBATC case happened. It's not constructive. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi @SMcCandlish, if there is something particular? I was perhaps brief to the point of being unclear in my comment at US/U.S. I got about halfway through before I concluded the discussion was going in circles but I agreed with what you were saying by-and-large (ie let it be). Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I can diff if you want, but this isn't an accusation or threat (these templates are only informational about discretionary sanctions scope, and aren't warnings of impending drama). What prompted it was the comment that you were TLDR-ing half of a discussion, especially material by me; I would have left the same template regardless who it was about, though.  I tried recently to get discretionary sanctions removed from MoS and WP:AT, but ArbCom refused (unanimously) so we're stuck with it. Admins are going to hold us to higher standards in MoS/AT threads. No way around it.  ArbCom insists these notices will have a dispute reduction effect (and by leaving one, I'm basically notifying myself!), so I'm putting that to the test.  It does seem to work in areas like "your ethnicity versus mine" content disputes, but whether DS will function well in policy debates is ... an open question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi @SMcCandlish, I can see, having looked back, that what I wrote might have been misinterpreted (ie I wasn't clear). I hope what I said above made things clearer. TLDR-ing after half of the discussion was simply being honest as it did appear to be going in circles - and not for your part, I might add. It was not intended to be incivil but an objective statement. Anything that stifles civil but robust conversation is wrong (IMO). Perhaps Too long; didn't read needs to be modified. Best of luck with the RfC. It is a can of worms that just won't stay closed. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, I guess all the drama around DS lately has me on edge. Either I'm being a WP:JERK or WP:AC/DS's applicability to policy stuff is a terrible idea. Or, most likely, both.  Sorry about that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Module talk:Infobox military conflict RfC on result parameter
Hi, I am a little confused by the meaning and implication of the subject "close". The close was "no consensus", with essentially no comments. I may have this wrong, but "no consensus" is not the same as "consensus against". In "no consensus", the result is to default to the status quo. The problem is that the proposition was phrased to determine support of the status quo. The status quo is long standing (several years - notwithstanding some minor tweaks recently) and arrived at after a broad discussion. Further, the result section is given weight by MilMos. The close does not discuss how the close relates to MilMos. Am I just not getting it? Your thoughts on what it means and how to deal with it would be appreciated. I am thinking of asking the closer to clarify their close (as distinct from challenging the close). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Argh. Yeah, that's not a helpful close at all.  I think the closer is trying to say they detect a consensus against a simple "X victory" or "Inconclusive" binary choice of input, but that's not at all what "no consensus" means. Given how long that particular dispute has been going on (in more than one place) the close basically resolved nothing at all and is simply going to lead to another RfC.  Worse,, which is that the documentation offers good guidance and that infoboxes are not the place to split hairs, while nuances and debatable interpretations should be covered in the article body.  This came up especially and recently at Algerian War, and if you see its infobox, you can see why. The improperly closed RfC was obviously meant to resolve the issue that was raised at that article's talk page but which came to a stalemate.  The closer should probably redact their close or completely rewrite it (to make sense and to actually represent the results of the discussion). Otherwise the only solution is likely a WP:VPPOL RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Follow up
Hi, as I said, I removed that for a reason. I think the 1 vs 1 "essay contest" was inappropriate to begin with. This is why I added similar sub-sections for all the other thread participants (which you removed). This section, and the sub-page, named for me have not been used and will not be used. Without sections for the other editors,

I don't want one there with my name on it, giving the wrong impression that this is a dispute solely between PsA320 and myself. I showed up long after it started and there was already disagreements posted between PsA320 and the others. Just because I was the last to try and discuss this with them, shouldn't mean that I should be singled out as the sole opponent in this dispute. No sections for the others, then no sections for me. Besides, the admin that tried to set that up has a abandoned the page anyway.

I appreciate the effort you're making to resolve this, but I'm pretty much done with this. I hadn't posted there in awhile, I only responded today because of this close attempt by the admin. I have ceased responding directly to PsA320 for some time now (you may have noticed). Please leave that section out. Thanks (sorry about the length here) Cheers - wolf  08:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Image policy
I revert your addition to the policy on images as it seems to be regurgitating the same thing as that is just above what you added. Perhaps add some information ton whats already there?--Moxy (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

"The lead image (appearing at the top of the page) should usually be no wider than upright=1.35 (which is the default equivalent of 300px at preference selection of "220px")."


 * Hi there was a little more to it than just that (ie that which you combined). I see that you have combined some of it up to the preceding. I am thinking the converse might be a better approach. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed
An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) For engaging in harassment of other users, is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
 * 2) Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
 * 3) is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
 * 4) Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
 * 5) While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard


 * Sigh. I notice your editing has slowed down, and I don't blame you, but I hope it's not because you feel invisible or unappreciated at Milhist. If there's anything I can do to help, let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hope you'll stick around improving Pacific War articles. Also I'm sorry for some inconsiderate words I used when commenting your proposed tban. Regards, --Pudeo (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

MilHist coordinator
When I was really new on MilHist - and goodness knows that I am still new enough - I received a lot of tolerance for what I hope was perceived as my puppyish over-enthusiasm. The coordinator who went the extra mile to cut me some slack, orientate me, and generally make me feel that MilHist was a friendly and collegiate place to work was you.

I note that you have not yet indicated whether or not you will be re-standing as a coordinator. I hope that you decide to; there will be other over-enthusiastic newcomers along who will need your patience and advice to turn them into low-drama content generators. (Which is what I hope I am on my way to becoming.) I also got some insight into the amount of relentless, thankless, behind the scenes work you did. I, for one, do not take for granted that this simply "happens"; your input in ensuring that there was a framework for others to work within was appreciated. In short, the project needs coordinators like you, please stand. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for standing, Cinderella157, and thank you for your work as a coordinator over the last year. I hope you will stand again in future. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Cinderella, I've participated in these for about a decade, and I'd like to encourage you not to read anything negative into the result. It looks to me like validation for you: you got a lot of support in this election. There were limited slots, and a lot of people running who have a lot of experience at Milhist. I'm glad you're sticking around. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Small Scale Experimental Machine or Manchester Baby
Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. I note that you say that the status quo should remain. However, I and I expect others, are also concerned about the status quo ante, which was that the article about this machine and the references to it in other Wikipedia articles used the name "Small Scale Experimental Machine". They were then changed by one editor to "Manchester Baby". Part of that editor's justification being that "Small Scale Experimental Machine" was not always capitalised and so was a descriptive phrase and not a proper name. --TedColes (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, the article title was not the subject of the RfC I closed but there has been a discussion with formal close to move to the present title. There are processes to challenge a close on the basis that the closer was substantially incorrect in assessing the consensus. With only a quick look, I am not seeing an error in the close. I know this is probably not what you wanted to hear. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt response. I'm not sure how, or indeed whether, to pursue this further. I will think about it. --TedColes (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe this is a proper close: Talk:Manchester Baby. You appear to be weighting the arguments by how much they appeal to you, and not taking account of their policy basis. This impression is strongly reinforced after I notice that some of what you HTML-commented as additional notes indicates a bunch of personal analysis of what a "proper name" is, and which seems to be grounded in the philosophy meaning of the phrase, when only the linguistics one has any relevance to typographic question. It's not the closer's job to inject complicated arguments but to assess the arguments that have been presented by others. If you want to make your own, you need to be a commenter in the discussion not a closer of it.

The arguments that respondents presented for capitalization are invalid WP:OFFICIALNAME stuff. It was never in dispute by anyone that some people have capitalized this phrase, so evidence that some people capitalize it is really not dispositive of anything at all. Our rule (MOS:CAPS) is to not apply capital letters unless the RS consistently do so – and it was proven that they do not. Those responding in favor of lower-case presented arguments consistent with our pertinent WP:P&G (and with thousands of previous RMs about over-capitalization, though this particular one was an RfC instead of an RM). I suggest you rescind this closure and let someone else re-assess it. Had this been an RM and taken to WP:MR I would bet serious money that your close would be overturned. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . Apologies for the time to get back to you, as I have been travelling. Firstly, I quite disagree at a personal level with capitalising in this case. Secondly, even has conceded the RfC to be a forlorn hope. I discounted the official name stuff and only considered capitalisation in sources per MOS:CAPS. MOS:CAPS has no substantial basis in either philosophy or linguistics for determining what is a proper noun|phrase. Rather, it defers  to what everybody else did on the question of English orthography rather than defering to onomastics. The comments added were not part of my consideration in making the close. They were added to inform future discussion. They were added in a position subsequent to announcing the close and the reasons leading to the close. Furthermore, the points I raised would support decapping.


 * In respect to the sources, the earlier sources tend to support the decapped version, while more contemporary sources tend to support the capped version (are mixed). I noted the various comments regarding WP:CITOGENESIS. The list article substantially deals with "facts" and "alternative facts". The RfC was a question of orthography and not a question of "fact". It would appear that WP has likely been responsible for (or has significantly influenced) contemporary orthography on the subject of the RfC. The question is then, whether "contemporary sources should not be preferred" or "older sources should be preferred"? The case against caps is that: because citogenesis has occurred, contemporary sources should be ignored. As such, the case against lacks depth that would give it strength. Generally, more weight would be given to contemporary sources. It is not established why citogenesis is "wrong" in questions of orthography. Such a position does not acknowledge that living languages can and do change. An alternative would be to make a strong case for why the older (decapped) orthography should be preferred. I am not seeing this as being developed in any strength. What I am seeing is: "it is citogenesis and I don't like it". Consequently, I have found no clear consensus for either proposition and, that the status quo (caps) should therefore continue.


 * I do believe that the close is un sound. My close (and not my further comments) touched upon what I have described here in more detail. The evidence you cite that the close is unsound appears to me to be contrary to what you purport it to represent. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I assume the first sentence of your last paragraph is missing a "not". I'll bulletize this for easy digestion; no one likes a text-wall. :-) I'm sure this will sound much testier than I intend it. I'm not angry with you, and even constructive criticism always "sounds" angry in a medium without voice tone and facial expression and body language and so on.
 * I agree with the sentiments totally. Damned double negatives caught me out - my fix didn't.


 * Why MoS has the rules it does is immaterial. It simply does in fact have them. Our take on proper names is of course based on the linguistics notion not the philosophy one, but we also have to account for consensus, and it clearly is that when the sources overwhelmingly prefer a particular stylization (not just capitalization) that WP will go along with it for WP:RECOGNIZABLE policy reasons – and that it will not so, but apply MoS's defaults, when the sources are not consistent. You don't get to wave that away because you don't care for how that decision was arrived it, because you don't like the non-onomastic nature of it. Trying to rely on that as a rationale makes this sound even more like a supervote (whatever behind-the-scenes stance on capitalization you now profess in user talk). You seem to be sort of wikilawyering against yourself as a Gedankenexperiment and that's not a good basis for a close.
 * I disagree with: "Our take on proper names is of course based on the linguistics notion not the philosophy one". MOS:CAPS makes a passing gratuitous reference to capitalising proper nouns. "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized". WP defers to orthography (in sources) rather than linguistics (or philosophy for that matter).
 * The MOS default for a lack of consensus is the status quo. The presumption for consensus is a "strong" case. I will expand upon this in following; however, in disagreeing with my close, you presume that there is a sufficiently strong case to the contrary. Herein lies the crux.
 * I have assessed the sources (in a way that you don't believe correct). I have not in any way "waved it away" because of the non-onomastic nature. I have purely relied upon an assessment of the sources. It is at this point that your "arguement" looses traction. I might explain:
 * You believe that I should have relied upon the empirical evidence (the sources) to induce a close for decapping.
 * You assert that I have closed the RfC in the way I have because I am partial (ie not impartial) to the non-onomastic nature of MOS:CAPS
 * If I had acted partially on the premise of onomastics and applied deductive reasoning, I would have arrived at a conclusion for decapping?
 * Your argument is flawed. The premise is contradicted by the evidence unless you assert that I arrived at the conclusion for a perverse reason. I don't believe you are alleging that I did so - or is that what you mean by the last sentence of this (your) dot point?
 * I have previously discussed with you my views on caps and over-capping. Specifically, this includes a tendency to over-cap on a basis of misunderstanding just what is a proper noun and/or why nouns are capped. Proponents for capping often apply various circular arguements. It is not a matter of "professing now".
 * Probably so; I honestly have a dim memory for parties in old discussions; the usernames all blur together! Inducing a close: "no consensus" would have worked; it would have stalemated at the same title, without declaring those with no actual policy basis for their stance to be in the right.  MoS: I think I was misunderstood.  MoS has two kinds of rules: Its line-item defaults for various style peccadilloes ("do this not that") are based on linguistic and "kinda-sorta linguistic" material, primarily other style guides, which near universally interpret proper names in the linguistics way (proper nouns, and – in English – usually also adjectives and other modifications derived from them); the philosophy sense of proper name has jack to do with typography and simply exerts no influence on the style question (despite various RM pundits' attempts to make it do so).  MoS's meta-rules – when to make an exception to those defaults – have nothing to do with linguistics  philosophy, but with policy concerns like RECOGNIZABLE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No one reading a close separates the comments in the closing statement that follow the literal closing sentence itself as not being of a piece. The normal closing format is a short result statement followed by a rationale for it, and you have used that format.  If you wanted to provide follow-on commentary considered separately from your close, that should be some other kind of post, such as a   after the bottom tag of the closed original discussion.
 * Well, I would (ie not being "of a piece"); particularly when premised by: "I will make further observations that they may inform future discussions on capitalisation." But then, perhaps not everybody reads "in total", as I do but cherrypicks what they want without the full context - just saying what I do (asked and answered). I might consider your suggestion. My intention was to prick the brains of those interested. I might say, that I have been successful in a degree?


 * The very fact that you're relying on a very recent increase in capitalization in sources and discounting sources from the actual era when the subject was an active project means you are feeding directly into citogenesis whether you "noted" it or not. Noting that you've been warned you're about to walk off a cliff then walking off it anyway is the opposite of wisdom.
 * You are now starting to make a case with substance (your first sentence)! Why should the sources from the actual era be preferred as opposed to contemporary sources, which are usually given more weight? Had this been established/addressed, I might (would have) very easily closed differently.
 * You believe that I should only consider what is before me. To consider other factors is to exercise a supervote. I should act within WP:P&G but not that which is not placed before me? If I have bought anything to this close that was not already there, it was that living languages change with time. Was I wrong for thinking the sky is blue.
 * On the one hand, you instruct that I should abide blindly, but on the other, that there is no wisdom in doing so. Sorry, but I see this as a case of trying to "have your cake and eat it too".


 * "It is not established why citogenesis is 'wrong' in questions of orthography"?! Please show me the line in WP:CIRCULAR policy that makes such an exception. Yours is an utterly novel opinion, and if you put it to an RfC I bet you any amount of money you want to wager that consensus will disagree with you, because it's not an argument we accept for anything else whatsoever.
 * Orthography is a matter of style, not of "fact". WP:SPELLING deprecates archaic spelling as a matter of style. Ligatures of diphthongs were once relatively common but they are specifically deprecated, except in names (MOS:LIGATURE).
 * You are referring to WP:VER by way of WP:CIRCULAR. Verifiability applies to being able to check information. Where sources are in conflict, due weight would need to be given to the alternatives. As a matter of style though, the choice is one or the other. WP:VER is inconsistent with how MOS:CAPS works in using sources.
 * No reference was made to either WP:VER or WP:CIRCULAR in the RfC. It is moving the goal posts to do so now?
 * To suggest that I should have considered these appears to suggest I should have exercised a supervote in light of theses. That then looks very much like cherrypicking.
 * To say: "show me the line in ... ", looks very much like reversing the burden of proof.
 * "I bet you any amount of money ... ", looks like an appeal to higher authority.
 * You are referring to particular P&G out of context - such as P&G for naming articles. They might help inform discussion in other contexts where there may be no specific guidance but they do not have standing outside of their primary context unless it is explicitly established. It is a case of Apples and oranges. Establishing that there is sufficient comparison for these to be relevant has not occurred. An elliptical arguement only works if the omitted logical premises are sufficiently well established.
 * Please see List of fallacies.
 * My "opinion" is not novel. Matters of "style" are quite different from matters of "fact". Neither proposition of the RfC establishes a consensus since both lack critical premises that might otherwise establish one or the other as consensus.
 * Without picking at this at too much length: When people demand to make style changes based on [cherry picked] sources, they're making a facts argument not an arbitrary style one, so source rules come to bear on those arguments (a good reason to not try to turn style arguments into content disputes!). Citogenesis = CIRCULAR. It's not necessary to mention a particular P&G page by name or by a particular shortcut, just its reasoning. (E.g. "Delete for lack of in-depth coverage in multiple independent RS" is a perfectly valid rationale at AfD, despite not citing GNG by name.) Apologies for fallacious game-playing (though the betting line was more an appeal to emotion; I'm not sure who the "authority" would be).  There's no proving a negative or reversing a proof-burden, however, in pointing to CIRCULAR and noting that it doesn't make any carveouts like "except for style matters". Title P&G do apply to non-title content, because they're effectively incorporated by reference into MoS; it's explicit that the style in the title and in the main text should not be in conflict (e.g., it's not okay to have a clear consensus to have Sony be at that title, then gin up a WP:FALSECONSENSUS among four people to write it "SONY" in the body text just to mimic their logo).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Finally, the opener of an RfC (or RM, etc.) doesn't get to close it even if they want to rescind it, if others have commented (unless the comments are consistently in favor of retracting it). Otherwise people would be shutting down their own RfCa any time things turned against them, simply to WP:GAME against any actual result being neutrally assessed against their proposal by an uninvolved closer.


 * But whatever. I didn't expect you to act on what I've posted here. Almost everyone thinks their closes are perfect and will not revert them; in over a decade here I think I've gotten people to do it a grand total of once, and to modify ill-worded closes only twice. (This actually has negative implications for the future of how seriously WP treats RfC closures, especially in WP:RMNAC cases, but it will take the community a long time to figure that out, as it always does when process slows erodes over time.)  I  expect that some what I've said here will be understood better over time (after the natural defensive reaction has worn off) and will inform your future closes. Please do not use for supervoting (or anything that looks like it – "the optics matter") any more untested and unlikely ideas about policies like CIRCULAR magically not applying to cases you don't want them to apply to.  This particular close appears to be marginally too old to challenge for reversal (if I'm reading the WP:AN pulse correctly), but if it were not, I would be doing so. Not out of any sort of anger or personal animosity, but simply because it's not a close based in policy and source analysis, on their face, of the arguments presented, but injection of a very a novel synthesis of what a particular policy "should" mean, if MoS were based more strictly only on one approach, which it is not.  I'll re-stress that I'm not writing this in anger or trying to pick a personalized fight; this is entirely about close wording and rationale.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . Please read this first. I am responding both here and to your dot points. ""Here", is largely to your closing para, while the other is to each point. I hope that this will make sense at the end. This form of communication can appear terse. You and I can engage in an "arguement" without personalising it and without misconstruing brevity for insult. I would refer to my I don't like it comment - it was a way of explaining how I was assessing things, without any intention of personalising.


 * If I am wrong, I am wrong. Having said that, I would need to be reasonably convinced. I am a very logical person, not too proud to admit an error or oversight. I too, do expect a better understanding of my close after further discussion.


 * I might try to summarise our different views. You perceive I have relied on facts not in evidence to arrive at a novel conclusion that is contrary to P&G and leads to circular "magically" not applying when I don't want it to. I would say that you assume that certain P&Gs apply in a particular way even though the RfC is silent on the premises that arise from them (as you see them). Your view is that the close is unsound (and novel) because I "chose" to ignore these silent P&Gs. I would say that my close is sound because I did not rely on these silent assumptions, the applicability of which, have not been established. If these matters were made explicit and the applicability established, my close would have been quite different. This could have been done by individual commenters at the RfC of by making the relationships between different documentation explicit and clear (when such is intended). What does appear novel to me is that you appear to suggest I "join the dots" that don't exist. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the measured response. I don't disagree that your reasoning has a basis, though I end up not being swayed by it. WP:CLOSE says, in pertinent part: "closers are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure the decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project goal." ... "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." ... "[The closer] is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant."  These instructions are basically just meaningless noise if the closer cannot connect any dots and cannot rely on what the P&G actually say, whether anyone quoted them or not. The closer is, importantly, assessing the consensus of the community on the matter, not just the 7 people (or whatever) that commented; this necessarily means integrating underestanding of extant P&G into the close, since they are the much greater (WP:CONLEVEL) consensus within which the discussion is taking place.  On the other hand, the same page can  a bit wishy-washy about this stuff, noting that a close is not "determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy"; the closer does "not personally select which is the better policy". But this only applies when the commenters are advancing conflicting policy arguments against each other, one side claiming P&G "A" applies, and the other shouting for page "B".  That didn't happen here; one side made policy arguments, the other side demanded that particular sources be given more (undue) weight, based on being newer or more "official", both of which are broken arguments.  There is no policy by which sources that one camp prefers should be mimicked, and multiple P&G against this idea (I suppose OFFICIALNAME is technically a "supplement", whatever that is, but as one accepted for over a decade as a key supplement to a policy, it probably has guideline-level buy in; MOS:TM is clearly a guideline; and AT policy itself does not address capitalization matters at all; for titles, the guideline is WP:NCCAPS, and it would not sanction this over-capitalizing, right from its first, boldface sentence; MOS:CAPS agrees with it – NCCAPS is based on MOS:CAPS).  In the end, I'll drop this as too stale, and it'll likely get re-RMed later.  Absent clearer material on closing, I can't entirely fault you not being comfortable applying P&G that were not explicitly cited, just so, by the participants. But it's not really how stuff usually gets closed. If an argument made doesn't actually rely on real policy (or sourcing that's actually applicable to the question, if it's a factual rather than style matter), such a !vote gets discounted.  E.g., it's entirely routine for RM admins to decline WP:RM/TR requests when someone presents a move rationale that the admin knows is bogus; they do not have to rely on a third party to drop by with an explicit objection. Similarly, closers of RMs routinely re-list things despite a head-count majority, when the could-be-closer realizes the majority argument has no policy basis; and RfCs often sit, still running, for a long period of time at WP:ANRFC, or get closed as no consensus, for the same reason.  It's better to not close, or close with no result, than to close with a questionable one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: I addressed some of the bullets above; if I missed anything crucial or misunderstood a point or something, ping me.  This already got longer than intended, and I haven't wanted to drown you in this stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. My close was "no consensus" (for either proposition). Living language does change (even if WP is the vehicle of change). Consider the evolution: SCUBA, Scuba and scuba, or more recently E-mail, email. With the information age, such changes in orthography occur much more quickly. All of the examples in WP:CITOGENESIS are "false facts". They are quite clearly and unambiguously bad/wrong because they are "false". Evolution of living language is not bad/wrong but a fact. Consider this:

Your position appears to be that CIRCULAR applies not only to "fake" or inaccurate facts (such as listed in Citogenesis) but to matters of style and orthography, such as the capitalisation of words and phrases. The problem with this proposition is that it denies that living languages can be changed (or influenced) by WP. It is a flawed proposition, since it assumes a premise that is, at the least, unsound if not demonstrably false. It would be purely arbitrary to remove WP from any "list" of vehicles that change or influence contemporary language. I also note that WP did not create the capitalisation leading to the claimed citogenesis. It can be attributed to a prior (reliable?) source. Whether the WP decision to cap in the first instance was correct is totally another question. I would be happy for an RfC to address the larger issue re the influence of WP on orthography falling to CIRCULAR.

On the actual subjuct of Baby, I would offer an analogy:

SSEM was the title of the project? Titles often use title-case. It is moot whether a title (in title case) is a "proper noun phrase" or an orthographic convention. Does the title of the project transfer to the name of the actual machine? It was known as the "Mark 1 prototype"? While most people get the "clear cases" of what is a proper noun and what should be capitalised right most of the time, there are a lot of misconceptions. Capitalising does not make something a proper noun nor does only one referent. I don't think that my view falls to Proper name (philosophy), which is an element of the Philosophy of language, which "explores the relationship between language and reality". Grammar (and onomastics?) studies and codifies language. If I use logic (a branch of philosophy) to analyse a problem in the context of grammatical codifications, it does not fall to "proper name (philosophy)". The points I have raised for further discussion are all touched upon at proper noun (I think) though there is unlikely a quantum distinction between lingustics and the philosophy language.

Pardon my length too. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Close no consensus: Right! Sorry;  I was mixing up two different closure matters (it was another caps case, but involving a four-letter preposition in a song title).  I guess my objection really is a teacup matter.  "Linguogenesis": I don't have any disagreement with the fact that WP is probably having minor effects on written English usage, but the "mystical conversion" of a descriptive phrase (and possibly a proper name of a project) into an alleged proper name of the machine itself, to be capitalized and treated as if its official designation, is a factual claim, not really a general language-usage matter.  Maybe an edge case.  It's a citogenesis/CIRCULAR matter because sources were not treating it as a proper name (for the machine, anyway) before WP mistakenly did so.  WP invented the idea out of thin air, and now a certain group of editors are trying to cite (basically unreliable) sources that cribbed from us, as "proof" that their viewpoint is correct, and someone connected to the project is even engaging in obvious revisionism.  It would be very, very different to, say, point to sources in support of logical quotation or singular they which mention that part of their rationale for supporting them is that they're used on WP; we may well eventually have to do so, in updating our coverage of both English-usage matters.  It's not a comparable sort of scenario; the latter wouldn't really be citogenesis.  Anyway, we're not confusing the difference between projects/program[me]s/missions/entities and their output/components/products/services in other places or other ways; we're actually careful not to.  I thought on the HAL analogy, and it doesn't seem very analogous. The closest thing to a name the real computer has is Baby (which bears no relation to the name of the project that created it), so it's not a close comparison.  Philosophy/linguistics: There's a new-ish volume out that caught my eye, an academic's attempt to reconcile the two (actually more than two, but mostly in two fields) approaches to proper names, and I saw an interesting review of it, but it's expensive and I've haven't shelled out for it yet . Plus it's a monograph; I would rather see an edited volume with a dozen papers in it.  Some other fields also seem to want to get in on the act. Synergistic, cross-disciplinary fields like cognitive psychology and sociolinguistics are likely where a meeting of minds will occur.  The whole anthropological and linguistic professional spectrum is undergoing professional revision, as it were, since my time at university.  Entire fields exist that weren't even on anyone's mind back then, and they seem to be doing really interesting stuff, though they probably have their dreck as well.   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * , I think we can agree that your initial primary issue is resolved and agree to disagree on some of the detail?


 * I think that "Linguogenesis" is a useful phrase to apply to the evolution of orthography, as opposed to CITOGENISIS, which is a list of false factoids. I would disagree with your comment per "factual claim". Capitalisation by WP is an opinion, as opposed to an assessment based logically on codification and which may be verified (but the last part is debatable)? Opinion is based on interpretation of evidence. [Verifiable] evidence is a "fact" - "the distance is ... " or "X said ... " (Even though what X said may be their opinion, it is a "fact" that they said it). WP does not even consider facts such as a birth certificate as being definitive. Indeed, to do so might fall to OFFICIAL.


 * I'm not certain that WP invented it out of "thin air". You and Dick both noted at the RfC that capping can be linked to Burton in 97/98. I also think that you understate|underestimate the power of the internet and of WP. The list article, CITOGENISIS, is evidence of that power.


 * On HAL. The analogy is incomplete. Clarke's narrative is evidence that the HAL 9000 was referred to by the proper name, HAL [Hal]. The characters referred to Hal without using articles ("Hal has gone nuts" not "the HAL has gone nuts"). What we don't know (through similar direct contemporaneous evidence) is how the project team referred to the machine. I doubt that they said: "I'm going down to tweak [the] Small Scale Experimental Machine"? In everyday usage, it would have been referred to in a less formal way - "the SSEM (shem)" or "the machine"? Weak proper names that include "the" are pretty much geographical. Applying the definite article in this case would be strong evidence that SSEM is not being used as a proper name like Hal.


 * Again, you are starting to make a case that might have been compelling in the RfC, even though I am picking at it. I agree that part of the problem is distinguishing the title of the programme from the name of the machine and a name is not necessarily a proper name. However, I also think it moot (per somewhere above) whether a title is a proper name or rather, a name that is written in title case by a similar orthographic convention?


 * I hope that this discussion is useful in ultimately dealing with such issues in a better way. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Break
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. I don't have have an "ah HA!" certain argument to present against any of that.  To clarify, though, I'm not suggesting that what MoS does with typography is an objective, sourceable, external fact; rather, some of the claims made in support of the capitalization were verifiable as being factually correct or not, either outright or on a preponderance of the evidence, and trying to extrapolate from isolated cases of capitalization to get to "this is a proper noun" or "this is conventionally capitalized in English" (ideas which are generally not distinct in the minds of most Wikipedians, nor treated as distinct enough by MoS) is something easily refuted by observation of the frequency with which it's not capitalized. We're having essentially the exact same debate over at Talk:Apollo Command/Service Module, with capitalization fans making the same source-distorting, P&G-ignoring arguments.  "I found someone who capitalizes it, and I like it capitalized, ergo WP must capitalize it or WP is wrong and is doing harm" is what their "reasoning" distills to, basically, bolstered (they think) with WP:AADD stuff, various fallacies, and the other "usual suspects" behavior from the capitalize-or-die camp. It's unfortunate, but I would bet money this will also hang at "no consensus" despite the fact that if you discount the bogus arguments there is in fact clearly a consensus for lower-case.  RM closers are not always brave enough to do the P&G-based analysis and buck a majority. The same tiny handful of "capitalization warriors" are skewing RM results. They are playing a tendentious, IDHT WP:WINNING game and so far have actually been getting away with it. The pattern is to get involved in virtually every single capitalization-related RM, maybe get what they want 5% of the time, then try to leverage those "wins" as if they're evidence that RM has a consensus record in their favor when the opposite is true.  It's patently a WP:Civil PoV and long game technique of trying to tear down a guideline they subjectively don't like but which they can't actually get consensus to change. They need to be topic-banned, and I'm on the verge of preparing a case against one of them already (after repeated warnings that I would do so).  It's not okay to wage a guerilla war against site-wide consensus to "protect" your pet topics or pet stylistic trivia peeves.

, I looked at the Apollo RfM. I am seeing a strong case for decapping and a "non case" for capping as summed up by Tony. I think your comment per M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle being a proper name is poor/wrong. "Infantry carrier vehicle" is a descriptive designation. M1 Abrams main battle tank does have a "proper name". M60 general purpose machine gun (GPMG) doesn't. (but M1126, M1 Abrams and M60 might all be considered proper names but not the designations that follow). "Hat, khaki fur felt" of "Hat KFF" is army double back speak for an Australian slouch hat. In "Toyota Lexus", Lexus is a proper noun but Toyota isn't - it is an attributive noun that is capitalised because it is derived from a proper noun. Many people get confused when a name has a single or limited number of referents. Confusion also occurs when you start adding an attributive that is capitalised (Apollo) - there is a tendency to cap the rest "by association". Because of the issues you raise, I think that MOS:CAPS would benefit by some clarification.

Would you mind looking at Wikipedia talk:Don't stuff beans up your nose as I would like some input on how to deal with it please. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the input over there, though I think some of these onomastics arguments won't convince people; they're not all accepted by everyone who thinks and writes about proper names. Even though I don't have a strong disagreement with any of them, wearing one hat, when I put on my "how to get our titling and writing patterns across to Wikipedians who have neither linguistics nor philosophy degrees" Homburg, it's a hard sell. I don't want to sound like I'm picking a new argument about the veracity of what you've said; rather, it's kind of a PR matter. :-)  For example, the argument that a proper name can't be pluralized obviously isn't going to work for most people; they'll look at the desk right in front of them and say, "I have a Sharpie in my pen holder. That's a proper name (specifically a trademark for an indelible ink marker brand). I put another one in there. Now I have two Sharpies in my cup. Still a proper name, yet pluralized. In fact, if the brand name had been Sharpy, I could write 'two Sharpies', actually altering the trademark to comply with English norms, though some might prefer 'two Sharpys' if they're hardcore about preserving trademark stylization", and so on, on and so forth.  This would be a difficult argument to defeat, except in a huge and academic text-wall virtually no one would read (i.e., the refutation of it would not have much if any effect on the debate). Another tactic I never try here is distinguishing between proper names, per se, or proper nouns more particularly, versus derived appellative nouns, "proper adjectives", etc.  It just goes in one Wikipedian ear [or, in this medium, eye] and out the other.  People just do not get it (nor will even care at all when the "real" proper noun and the attributive are identical).  It's much easier, possibly even, to simplify it.  Similarly, none of the MoS regulars ever take on the idea that modern linguistics is tearing up and redefining the entire notion of "preposition" as two different classes of things with different observable "rules" of usage (for non-academics, McWhorter's Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold History of English, or maybe Pinker's The Sense of Style, goes into this in some detail – I read them back-to-back and may be misremembering). Trying to inject this sort of thing into, say, MOS:5LETTERRULE discussions would hopelessly confuse matters, among an editorship that already has brains falling out on the floor when you tell them there's a preposition in "Do It like a Dude" and that's why to not capitalize like in that construction. Hell, some of them want to capitalize a in that, too, since it says "Do It Like A Dude" on the CD cover. They don't care about linguistic or MoS arguments of any kind at all.  In other words, sometimes a grammar-school "parts of speech" approach has to be maintained here, despite its flaws, to communicate with other editors and get the results we need to get, and even that can fail. Things like M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle are treated, unitarily,  proper names, and getting into an analysis of how they really are an agglomeration of things that end up being capitalized under pretty much exactly the same rules as a real proper name just isn't time well-spent at WP.  Only a handful of people who bother to read it will understand it. In the end, MoS likely isn't ever going to draw such distinctions because it makes figuring out how to write something too complicated; we seem to be better off treating everything that's "proper-name-like" as a general class, and permitting a "when virtually all sources stylistically agree with each other but not MoS" override (to forestall any more attempts to manufacture an illusory fight between WP:COMMONNAME and MoS).  This is why we have an article at Meal, Ready-to-Eat instead of Meal, ready-to-eat. That result's perhaps not ideal, but it's not the end of the world, and trying to lower-case that will cause more trouble than it's worth. The average Wikipedian will continue to insist that it's a proper name.  (Though even in that reality tunnel, it really should be moved to Meal, Ready-to-eat per the rule to not capitalize after a hyphen unless what follows the hyphen itself a proper name [broadly defined].)  Re: 'Confusion also occurs when you start adding an attributive that is capitalised (Apollo) - there is a tendency to cap the rest "by association – Yes, that's an addition/clarification I would support, though getting past EEng might be a challenge. He's even more resistant than I am to adding new stuff to MoS, and I'm the one who invented the idea that we should refrain from doing so. >;-)  On BEANS, I'll go have a look-see. Haven't been to that page in years, actually.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

, the plural thing with the pens is easy to explain:
 * "I have a Sharpie [pen] ..." - pen is an implied noun in the noun phrase and "Sharpie" is attributive. That pen is not called "Sharpie". It is a trade name.
 * "I have two Sharpie [pens] ..." but with the noun implied, we pluralise the attributive.

I could give an alternative explanation but in any case, Sharpie is not being used as a proper name. You are probably right though, even though much of the points I made are touched upon at proper noun. Your analysis of the WP reality on caps might be seen as condescending but reality is what it is :) I raised M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle, because it is very like Florida-class battleship and probably as hard to understand/explain as the Sharpies - hence, not a good example. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Try getting the average editor to understand this and buy into it! So much pain.  I'm not advocating "the Sharpie retort", just describing [from long, tiresome experience] the kind of folksy reasoning that editors will bring. On many of these RM matters, it's encased in a thick layer of WP:GREATWRONGS paladin armor, too, the "I am here to defend Holy Traditional English as passed to me by Mrs. Macgillicuddy in 7th grade" stuff.  Or – even worse – the angle that "Wikipedia is  and a total, ignorant embarrassment to everyone in [insert any random field full of jargonistic practices here], so professionals like me are never going to rest until it's written correctly,  way."  These people (of both stripes) have zero patience for linguistic or philosophical explanations, but a mixture of both is required to even try to get across to them how proper names really operate.  You first have to explain what "attributive" even means, then prove it's a well-accepted notion, despite them never having been taught the concept or the word. Then comes all the rest. Then they simply wave it all away as a bunch of noise and just insist on "following the sources" (i.e., the ones they hand picked to agree with them), or make some kind of argument to authority ("it's official", "it's how [some industry/discipline organization] does it", "according to [something listed at WP:TSF goes here] ...", or whatever.  It just never stops. It may never stop, because even if we get the current batch to drop the matter, every single day someone new is going to arrive who is incensed and on the warpath that some article here isn't titled the way they would have done it.  And this is just the capitalization fights.  Next comes the hyphenation and dash squabbling, date format bickering ("well we use '2002/03 season' in snooker"), and on and on. Anyway, now that I've vented my "woe is me" spleen, it occurs to me that you might be in a good position to write what we've needed for a long time, which is an actual article at Proper name (linguistics) instead of a redirect to Proper noun (and merge out of  page all the material that doesn't really belong there, except any compressed bits needed for proper WP:SUMMARY style).  I've intermittently thought about it myself, but I lack the materials do it well, and I don't know the material well enough (my last formal academic study of this was ca. 1991, and both the linguistics and philosophy perspectives on the questions have actually shifted since then, anyway).  If we did have a solid piece on it, with good sectioning or other anchors, it might be something we could directly reference in MoS, and begin to be less vague and conflating about such matters.  I'm not in the habit of trying to volunteer people for such tasks, but you really do seem to be in the right place and right time for it, with the right toolkit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

, It is good to be able to "vent", bounce-off ideas and have a good robust discussion without fear of treading on delicate toes. I very much believe that "good guidance" might resolve many of the perennial issues. I feel some of your angst in respect to these issues. I am neither a philosopher nor a linguist by qualification but a critical thinker with a modestly good education. Interestingly, my best insight into quantum physics was not from my studies in chemistry but the historiography and philosophy of science (OK - a (very) little philosophy). I don't think I have the resources to write such an article to a WP standard but I have suggested to you before the possibility of an essay to the same end. It is still something I still wish to attack, though I have become somewhat disheartened with WP. This dialogue has been useful, both to prompt me and to help coalesce ideas. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Same here. I regret that I began it by grousing at you about a no consensus close (and then forgot that it was one). At least this turned productive even if it didn't start that way.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Pointer: This might be up your alley: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. I added one of by "big-ass replies" there, an attempt to work in some thinking about how proper names (in the broad sense) operate without wading into technical details. I'm not sure if it was successful.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , sent you mail on this. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Danke. Never mind the long reply if you have better stuff to do; I appreciate the input and have some revisions to think about in what I posted at the thread in question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, did you actually have a look at the breed standard cited for Huntaway? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I hadn't. D'oh.  I updated my comment to indicate that the standard is almost empty of detail, but still establishes that a national org. accepts it as a breed and under that name.  A British breed club has a more specific standard, but it's a breed-specific club not a general registry.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, from your link, I would not describe what is there as a "breed standard" but as a "description" that might be written for any landrace or feral population. From your link: "Huntaways are not recognised by kennel clubs as a "true" breed, but as only working dogs". This might be viewed as a "technicality" but the distinction is "central" to the proposal and its workability. I am not working against you but I think there is a flaw in the current reference to "breed standard" that could be tightened/improved/addressed to make it a truly workable solution. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, well if even that source says it's not really a breed, then I guess it's not. I really wasn't paying much attention to that particular case.  My point in that paragraph was suggesting that breeds that have an organization around them but no appearance conformation standard, but some other standard (generally of purebred heredity) count as breeds, but "police dog" or "draught horse" (random animals of uncertain stock that been put to a particular purpose) do not.  Even "breed people" don't capitalize things like "police dog" and "draught horse", but there's a middle ground where a lot of them do, mostly just mimicking the capitalization of headings in breeder organization documents. E.g., they're apt to capitalize mountain dog, which isn't even a real breed group, but a classification of dogs based on them being from high-altitude areas (typically shaggier and thicker-bodied, but not actually closely related to each other).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * But Huntaways do have a studbook register that admits dogs that have won trials. My point is, that a breed register is probably more "definitive" of a breed than a "breed standard" that may not exist for many breeds. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Henry Reid Bay
Hello, Cinderella157,

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for creating Henry Reid Bay! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

An apology
from me to you, Cinderlla157, for my rudeness to you a couple of weeks ago. I was in a bad place—major operation for the wife—and frankly shouldn't have been editing; I realised that, and stopped for a fortnight. I hope you can see your way to accepting my apology, and we can resume "normal" relations ;)  take care!  ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , I sincerely hope that things have gone well. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , Let me know when you are in a position to discuss the review. No pressure on my part. Letting you know that I will be largely without internet next week. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

, a misrepresentation by making a quote out of context is considered to be uncivil, even rising to the level of a personal attack. This quote: "Standardising on "Katherine" at this point in the article" and that part of the post referring this is taken out of context. My "frustration" is repeated posts of similar. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Your post at WP:ANI
Hi, Cinderella. I noticed your comment at ANI, in a discussion of a possible topic ban from images for Beyond My Ken. There, you link to discussions at both Talk:Eduard Dietl (Dietl was a Wehrmacht general) and Talk:Erwin Rommel, referring to several posts by BMK directed at you on those talkpages, and complain that those posts are "'bullying' and certainly not in the spirit of collaboration". (If I've understood you.) Please don't return to old battles in an area that you're topic banned from. I'm not asking you to change or strike out anything you have already written at ANI, but please avoid the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945 completely from now on. If you want to keep talking about it, I suggest you appeal your topic ban. Regards, Bishonen &#124; talk 16:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC).

Thank you Cinderella!
Hi, thank you for voting to keep the Pavlos Kouroupis article. Could you please put a strike through the entire sentence where it starts by saying Article adds nothing of substance, not just through where it says delete. It will look better that way. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Pacific War Discussion
Hi Cinderella157,

This message comes as a follow up to your proposal for an RfC on the Pacific War talk page regarding its infobox. As indicated in my reply, I thought you raised a feasible option for overcoming the current impasse. However, aside from Havsjö and myself, no one else has bothered to comment on it either positively/negatively. Do you have any ideas on how we could get the discussion moving forward? Emiya1980 (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Close review - Village Pump discussion on spelling of category names
As you saw at Village Pump, I requested that you withdraw your closure. You declined. I have initiated a close review:

WP:Administrators' noticeboard

Alsee (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban
I believe that these two edits  violate the topic ban imposed here:


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort

Please self-revert. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * And I do not believe so. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Closure review
Hey, can you please elaborate on your closure? In what terms do you think should lead of the articles should have chrono order and that the 'chrono' arguments are "compelling"? Specially I'd like to know if there's guideline supporting your closure. Thanks. -- M h hossein   talk 12:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, any writing should develop ideas in a logical and ordered sequence. There are many ways in which to sequence information being presented, of which chronological order is one. The arguement of chronological order was compelling in this case, not because any lead should be written in a chronological order but because this particular lead has used chronological order. Having done so, moving the paragraph per the proposal then places it out of sequence. I observed that links made in support of the move actually made broad observations about the structure of the lead, and were not specific, save the first paragraph or referred to the order of the many other elements (eg infobox etc) other than the running text. They did not lend weight to the proposal. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. However, I don't think the comments in favor of the move "were not specific". Comments, and  specifically describe the paragraph in questions as having a vital info which can be interesting for the readers. In your closure, I think, personal points of the users are priored over guideline-wise arguments. --  M h hossein   talk 11:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

AE notification
Please see: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
 * In response to your email, I don't know why you are emailing me, and I don't think I "construed" anything. If there is anything you want to say, you can do that here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , thankyou for pointing out that I might actually have asked my question (comment) from my talk page. You were e-mailed IAW the template. For the record, the email was as follows:
 * You appear to construe something from my silence over the last few days in which I have been traveling. I would have responded as Sandstein has require. Regards, [C]}
 * Cinderella157 (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not want to put your message here, not without your permission. Thank you, and happy editing. Drmies (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Help for closing the RFC
I opened a RFC to make natural lede but now new disputed material is adding and reverting by users made me open more general RFC about just having the strongest accusation of responsibility of bombing in the lade and restore rest of accusation into the article's body. Can I ask you to close current RFC and let me open another one?Saff V. (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , I certainly could not do this without what the new RfC might be - and even then, probably not. An RfC; however, can evolve through its course. The safest course is to propose the change within the current RfC and make a case for why the amended proposition should be accepted over the original. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * On 1981 the headquarters of the Iran Islamic Republic Party (IRP) in Tehran were killed in the bombing. various group or persons had been accused to perform the bombing such as People's Mujahedin of Iran, Forghan group, Iraqi agents and finally Mehdi Tafari. In my opinion, we can keep the strongest accusation in the lede section and restore the rest of them into body. For instance, we can write in lede that MEK is known as a charge of the bombing (because most pf RSes confirmed it) and write about the responsibility of Forghan group, Iraqi agents and Mehdi just into the body, not on lede. All in all, I think we need to new RFC to ask about this structure for lede. Am I clear? Regards!Saff V. (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , I think you need to let this one run its course. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Using caps in titles
I'm very interested in your views on CAPS. There is a discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships on the very subject of using caps in the title of a work. It's talking about Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109, and later an Air Lock Diving-Bell Plant. I've put this here rather than at the pump, to retain some focus there. Broichmore (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Dayton shooting
Thank you for concluding the discussion on Talk:2019 Dayton shooting regarding the inclusion of victims' names. Does your judgement apply only to the article in question, or to all articles about mass shootings? Long discussions such as that occur on the talk pages of many such articles. Jim Michael (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, you will see that I have closed the similar RfCs at Talk:Virginia Beach shooting and Talk:2019 El Paso shooting and in each, I have referred to the previous closes for considerations in general. Taken collectively, you will see that I have given a detailed and thorough statement of reasons. The RfC at WP:VPP is a significant consideration, since it makes WP:OTHER not a valid arguement in these cases. You will also note my disappointment expressed regarding the lack of guidance given in the close. I have also noted that these are recurrent questions. To answer your question directly, my close(s) can only apply to the individual article(s). The close at VPP equally precludes them from being cited as WP:OTHER. The community consensus is to treat each on a case-by-case basis. However, if the cases being made are similar in each instance, then the outcomes are likely to be similar for similar reasons. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Mary Ann Goodchild (otherwise Mansel)
Hi Cinderella157 - I do understand that your remit was to deal with capitalisation last time we 'met' but I have a problem because of my lack of IT skills. I have written a new article about Mary Ann, which is languishing on here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sir_Charles_Asgill,_2nd_Baronet#Mary_Ann_Goodchild_%28otherwise_Mansel%29 but I dare not try to upload it myself. Do you happen to know of anyone who might be able to help me get the links sorted out and upload the article for me? I have some images to support some of the claims. Sorry to be a nuisance. Arbil44 (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, can I suggest you copy your draft to your sandbox here User:Arbil44/sandbox. Before you do that, edit it to delete all text that you see in the edit box/screen. I can then see more easily what the raw article will look like. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Cinderella157 for your reply. I've copied the article over to the Sandbox but I didn't see how to delete the only thing which was there already I'm afraid. In fact I was shocked to find anything there tbh since I didn't think I had ever clicked on Sandbox before! I am really out of my depth! I think I see what I have done wrong now. When I saw 'do not delete' I 'froze' and panicked. Is there anything I can do to rectify my mistake? Regards Arbil44 (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I completely understand where I have gone wrong now :-( I guess this is the end of the line. "Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was: This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you. 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 User:Arbil44/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Arbil44/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 08:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)" Arbil44 (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

handy hint

 * — [to get archive bot to do its work:] 11:48, 15 November 2019 (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! — [to get archive bot to do its work:] 11:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Just some attention for a talk page
Hi, just since you were active on the Pacific War Talk page before, I thought you might be interested in a proposal here: Talk:Empire of Japan --Havsjö (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

White flag
Greetings,. I come under white flag. Not to discuss, or argue, capitalisation/capitalization of any kind, but to thank you for your respectful, non-confrontational approach in raising your concerns. It is so welcome. And did not entirely sink in initially.

I apologize for being cheeky at times in my responses. It wasn't right. There's a backstory (of finding myself unwillingly and unwittingly drawn into a number of recent, well, nonsenses, here at Wikipedia (of which, fortunately, I was never the focus) that left a very bad affect on my patience and morale), not worth going into here. I was inappropriate. Thank you for maintaining your cool. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here you go: