User talk:Cinderella157/Archive 3

Thanks - Australian Antarctic Medal
Hi Cinderella157. Thanks for contributing to the discussion on the Australian Antarctic Medal image. It would be a shame to lose such an illustrative visual (and it is one way to get around the legal description of the image - I originally put ice-axe myself but then took it out as I realised that even though its no doubt true, it’s not the wording used by the official description in the legislative instrument, and therefore is original commentary). It is so easy to get pinged on that, and I’d like to get this article up to GA status (just got it upgraded to B-class so its on the way). Still got a fair bit to do though.

Oh, and if you have some spare time, can you have a read of Nursing Service Cross for me? I’m interested in feedback. Thanks if you can.  Kangaresearch  17:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , happy to have done so and will look at the other. On my edit, I had added "pick axe" parenthetically after its "official" description. Perhaps it might be better in square brackets and I would not dispute it being better described as an ice axe.  Doing so does not override the official description but is of benefit to the reader - otherwise the article text appears to be in error compared with the image since it is clearly not an axe in a conventional sense.  Adding it is not synth since it falls to WP:BLUE. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem with common sense is it is rarely consistent (and it only takes one) lol. I do like your suggested solution though and I have a secondary reference to support it (it is just less authoritative than the primary), so I have made this diff and stylised it [ice-]axe. Reference:


 * Do you mind if I copy part of this and put it on the article talk page, for the benefit of others in future?  Kangaresearch   02:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , happy for you to do so. I have read the article on the NSC. It is well structured and appears to be comprehensive. Any changes I might make are minor and stylistic and would be my preference rather than necessary. I would suggest describing the ribbon as "white, with gold edges and a 12 mm wide central deep-red stripe." The substantial difference is that the description starts with the base colour rater than the edges. The description could retain the symbolism of the colours parenthetically but I think that it could just be written as a separate sentence.  It is up to you whether you adopt this suggestion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It is a decent suggestion (I followed the order it appeared in the legislative instrument, but there is no reason not to look at alternative orders). I had thought about making the symbolism of the colours into a note, but it is probably better to break it into another sentence. I’ll have a play with it and see how it works.  Kangaresearch   08:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You are to be congratulated
I have read a lot of words...off of a lot of pages...from a lot of books...but I have never before seen thirteen letters in the order of "Misconstrusion". Primergrey (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Novel, I will omit but syntactically accurate. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Alert
Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Saragarhi
It is pretty embarrassing that you have to remove Bloomsbury Publishing in support of a website. The source clearly supports the mention of the victor of the battle. If you know a different outcome then you are free to find a more reliable source but don't remove figures and results supported by this high quality scholarly source. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , I apologise that I did not see this post; however, it was created (with the one above) as a single edit that had two separate main headings and two separate separate signatures.
 * The appropriate place to discuss edits to an article is at the article's talk page.
 * WP:BRD does not give permission to replace a challenged edit just because a discussion has been initiated.
 * I find the tone of the post to be WP:UNCIVIL. I also find the tone of the subsequent post made at Talk:Battle of Saragarhi to be uncivil and WP:BATTLEGROUNDy.
 * Cinderella157 (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , per this statement: As for your strange reliance on their "about us" page, at Talk:Battle of Saragarhi, I again remind you about civility. One should "avoid personal comments" (per WP:UNCIVIL, see also WP:AVOIDYOU). There is nothing "strange" about referring to the journals editorial policy.  However, labeling it as "strange" can (and is) be perceived as uncivil.  There will be a point where I will cease to be tolerant of such matters.  By the post above,  you are aware of the consequences. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Italian invasion of Egypt
Regarding the victory of Italy, Italy did not win this war decisively, as it advanced and took control of the city of Sidi Barani only and for a short time, after which the British forces attacked the Italian forces and captured a large number of them, and even occupied Cyrenaica in Libya and then Italian Libya fell --Ahmed88z (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Battle of the Wilderness
Thank you for your work on the Battle of the Wilderness. I hope to get this article to Good Article or A–Class by 2022. Sources for everything in the InfoBox can be found in the text, mostly in Opposing forces, Casualties, and Performance and impact. I like the term "Inconclusive" for the result of the battle, and it is used in the Introduction. However, it would be even better if I had something to cite (and mention in Performance and impact) if that term is going to be used in the InfoBox. Note that the MOS Template:Infobox military conflict for result says that the result "should reflect what the sources say". (Also the MOS has not changed much in the last 10 or 15 years—does it need to be updated?) The U.S. National Park Service uses "Indecisive" for the Battle of the Wilderness and for the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House. Also, in Schaff's book on page 302, Assistant Secretary of War Dana calls the battle "Indecisive". I really wish I had a source to cite for the term "Inconclusive". Can you provide a source? TwoScars (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have been technology deficient for about a week.  MOS:MIL is not as static as you might think.  In particular, it has given voice to the infobox documentation on the matter of the result.  Furthermore, that documentation has depricated the term "decisive" - all in the last several years.  In short, we have a victor (victory x) or no victor (inconclusive) as "standard terms".  Sources rarely say exactly the same thing about an outcome.  The guidance is therefore to sumarise the sources (plural) within the two permitted terms (and/or use the "see" option).  This is what is meant by "should reflect what the sources say".  While it should be narrowly construed, it should not be taken literally.  Battle of the Wilderness is an unusual case, where the sources (as you report) appear to consistently use the term "indecisive" and this consistency in the actual term is a little unusual.  Also, this consistency was not apparent (to me) from the article etc.  The sources are however, consistently telling us that nobody won.  This is one of those rare cases where both terms are reasonably defensible: "indecisive" because it is explicitly used in multiple sources; and, "inconclusive" because it reflects the explicit guidance.  Consequently, I won't loose sleep over either term being used but I would tend to the guidance.  Hope this helps.  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the response. You are right—I should not worry about something so insignificant. I'm leaving it as "inconclusive", and it is good for me to know the MOS:MIL position on the term. I'm glad the article is getting views. TwoScars (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Opération Léa
Could you please explain why you keep deleting "French tactical victory, strategically inconclusive" when it is almost word for word what it is written in the introduction ? This is just not consistent at all. LaHire07 (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * , pls read the guidance at MOS:MIL and documentation for the template (per my revert comment). Your edit is contrary to the guidance.  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer. Indeed, it's written that infoboxes don't have the scope to reflect nuances, which created more problems than it resolves in my opinion, but it's not the subject of the discussion. My point was rather that, when you prefer to put "inconclusive" in the infobox, it means that you've clearly decided to put the strategic outcome of the battle in the infobox. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to put "see aftermath" as the guidance suggests. LaHire07 (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * , reading the article, the French killed a lot of people but didn't really achieve anything - the outcome was inconclusive (ie nobody is claiming that either side was the victor). Nuance can be captured in the lead - which it does.  However, I can live with a result of "See Aftermath". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ramage and the Renegades 1982 paperback edition.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ramage and the Renegades 1982 paperback edition.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi
Please don't create a page at my username. I prefer the redlink for multiple reasons and I still receive pings with it. - "Ghost of  Dan Gurney"  14:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * My apologies then. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Tennis templates
Hi, I came across your post on the RFC closer's talk page where you raised potential improvements to/issues with the tennis templates, and specifically the red links to legends events on the infobox of 2021 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles. I can explain that one for you - how it works is that the infobox template, Infobox tennis tournament event, calls Module:Tennis events nav to fetch the list of events that need to be linked. It pulls the events based on the  parameter it is passed, and you can see all the various options on this list (which I created). Events with "Wimbledon Championships" in their titles default to passing type = wimbledonchampionships, which links the full spectrum of Wimbledon events including legends exhibitions. However, in 2021 as you noticed, no legends events were held, so this default  needs to be overwritten by passing type = grandslamwc to the infobox template. This is true for many years' Grand Slam tournaments, where no wheelchair or legends events were held so all the draw articles need their  defaults overwritten in their infoboxes. It's just a matter of using AWB/JWB to do so, which I haven't got around to doing thus far. Sod25m (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am pretty much aware of what has happened and why - in broad terms. Thankyou for filling in some of the specifics.   Module:Tennis events nav generates the grid of titles being played for based on the "type" parameter passed to it. For each "type", there is a separate section of code to generate the grid.  If a new grid permutation arises, then a new section of code must be generated to reflect the new permutation and assigned a "type". The presently available types are given at Template:Infobox tennis tournament event/testcases.  So, in the particular case of 2021 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles, the redlinks occur because the wrong type has been assigned. However, there might be cases of redlinks where there is no correct "type" yet and the remedy is to create a new code section of code for the new "type".  That would essentially be a cut paste and modify, using an existing type that is close to what is required. I had already raised the issue of the redlinks during the RfC at WP:AT and suggested there was scope to improve and address this existing problem. Thank you for clarifying where the problem lies. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You've summarized it well. Yes, new types can certainly be added to Module:Tennis events nav - I added numerous ones (including ) so that the infobox could support wheelchair events and Olympic/Paralympic events etc. I've overridden the   on the example Wimbledon article  to show you that the fix works. Articles with no matching event link in the infobox are automatically put in, so if there are any articles for which there is currently no correct "type" available, they would be in that category. Most in it currently are qualifying draws, for which one of the options for the   parameter needs to be added to the infoboxes; and the Wimbledon articles which use lowercase in their titles from the previous move request, which will be fixed once all the draw articles are moved to lowercase titles and the template is updated. Sod25m (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Reversion of edit to Pacific War
Hi! You reverted my edit to Pacific War, which removed a CN tag, citing "WP doesn't work that way" as a reason. I would argue that this claim itself is :)

WP:WTC provides some insight. Regarding tagging claims as CN: "Editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate." Do you have reason to believe the facts in the paragraph in question are false? I certainly don't. The Soviet Union without doubt fought two border conflicts with the Japanese in 1938 and 1939, certainly remained neutral throughout their neutrality pact with Japan, and definitely invaded Manchuria along with allies in 1945. This information does not require citation in my view.

I'm happy to discuss this further - I'm not a particularly experienced Wikipedian myself, despite the age of my account. — Jthistle38 (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, firstly, can I say that this is probably not the right place to start this discussion. It would have been better to have started it at the Pacific War talk page.  That way, other editors watching the page would be aware of this discussion.  To your query, I would refer you to WP:UGC: In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source.  I acknowledge that I might have cited this in my edit summary.  WP:MILHIST tends to set a high standard.  The expectation (at a minimum) is that any paragraph can be supported by a citation - hence the tag.  Hence, notwithstanding WP:WTC (and I am not challenging that such sources "do" exist), the best way to address the tag would be to add suitable citations that support the paragraph in question.  I hope that this is sufficient explanation - both for my initial revert and for that subsequent.  If not, can you please copy this discussion to the article's talk page and the discussion can be continued there.  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Migrated to Talk:Pacific_War — Jthistle38 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Trademarks versus proper nouns
Per our previous discussion at Talk:National Historic Landmark, you might take an interest in this edit (and my other recent edits of Manual of Style/Trademarks). —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC closing policy
I noticed this comment of yours at the Caltech RfC. I want to point out that it is inconsistent with RfC closing policies. It is the job of the !voters to determine whether the burden of MOS:CAPS has been met; it is the job of the closer only to determine whether there is a consensus among !voters and which way it goes. There are very limited circumstances under which !votes can be discarded, and none of them apply here, so you are pretty explicitly asking for a supervote here. I'd like to avoid an argument about process at the RfC, since that may distort the close, so I'm asking if you could revise or retract the last sentence of your comment. Thanks. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , firstly, it goes to strength of argument and weight (not discard). Do not confuse !vote with vote.  Secondly, it was a response to your statement. In short - no. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit to Buna re US Army uniforms
Hi Cinderella, I'm querying about your edit to my edit with regards to US Army HBT M1941 fatigue uniforms. The article said an almost reallydiculous remark about the uniforms being the wrong colour. I added a description to make the titbit a bit more specific. Ever since the US military had the green fatigues, those that wanted to look 'salty' or like old timers would prefer them faded to a bright grey that was just as bad as the Imperial tan, GI khaki. Could you please revert the edit or can we discuss it? Thank you.Foofbun (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Responded at Talk:Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces and order of battle. Please discuss there, where other interested editors are more likely to contribute. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Spacing RfC
Your comments introduced a really neat and interesting new perspective that I had not thought of. I'd love to also have some part of this added to the Help:Whitespace page if possible after we come to a consensus. I personally am realizing that perhaps a requirement to have a space below each header would be too much to ask, but if instead I could at least get support in the MOS so that when I add these spaces, it is not hastily reverted, that would be wonderful. Regardless of whether or not you support or oppose my proposal, I'd love it if you would also voice your opinion (for or against), if you'd be so kind. Thank you. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 03:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , I would be opposed to any proposostion that would support edits for the sole/primary purpose of adding or removing unrendered white space. I have said as much already. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Note to self
Make a bet on the strength of this undertaking. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear - lost in confusion
Hey - with regard to our limited discussion at Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine: I'm really not following on your reference to WP:BEANS. What's the connection there? --N8 13:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * , sorry if that was too obtuse. We (including you and I) have reached a rough consensus to just go with the map. So far, it is holding. If we start talking about what images we could use if we have to have one, then it is likely to be interpreted as "we need one", where that wasn't your intent. In that way it is a bit like the beans analogy in that, there is (likely) an unintended consequence to your suggestion.  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Roger. That makes sense now and I'm not sure why I couldn't put it together before but thank you kindly for taking the time to clarify. :) --N8 23:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian National Guard fatalities
The Russian National Guard is a separate entity/organization from the Russian Armed Forces and are not part of/subordinate to them. Thus they are not included in the already mentioned Russian death toll, which relates to the Armed Forces only. As per earlier consensus, we list all losses/estimates in the table of the main article. And there is no need to disregard the losses of the National Guard branch just because they have been small so far. So I would please ask to reinstate it. Regards. EkoGraf (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * , I did read your edit summary. I also said in mine, to take it to the talk page (ie Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). I will happily continue a discussion there, where other contributors can offer their views.  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Responded there with a proposal for a note expansion in the table. EkoGraf (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of section on 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
I noticed that you deleted the leadership of Putin and Zelenskyy section on 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, however, I have reinstated it. Please see the talk page. If you think there is too much editorialising, please, please edit and improve the section instead of deleting it outright.Mozzie (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Strategic discussion closing
Thank you for helping manage the very active Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine page. I noticed you've closed 9 discussions and I'm concerned that being the single user of the archive/close templates with high frequency may lead some editors to confuse your efforts at of this page with attempts of ownership because of the strong "do not contribute here" message implied by these templates. (Is that what you mean to communicate on all 9 of these?)

I associate the name Cinderella157 with constructive helpful edits and I trust these are no different. Just dropping a note here because it occurred to me that using this technique might make it  effective. Maybe some discussions just need a Done or Resolved? Then again - maybe not. :) In any case - thank you sincerely for staying active and involved here. --N8wilson 15:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, you will have noticed there has been a lot of manual archiving after only a couple of days which I have thought to be quite wrong for a couple of reasons. The main reason given to archive was to make the page more navigable. I decided to use the archive template as an alternative to the quick archiving because it gives a rationale.  To me, closing addresses the navigation issue. It allows page viewers to quickly skim through "closed" discussions while still being able to see the discussion.  Thankfully, the rate of manual archiving has slowed.  I fully expect that if any of my closes were in some way incorrect, they would be reverted by other experienced editors such as yourself or the discussion would reignite outside the close box but this hasn't happened.  I also hoped that other experienced editors would follow my lead so that I would not appear to be a lone voice. Hasn't happened.  It has never been my intention to "bite the newbies". It is a fine line to tread between stewardship and ownership. Thank you for your constructive comments.  I will strive to be cogisant of your comments in any further closes. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah ha - that's some helpful context I was missing. Yes I vaguely recall the archiving rate discussion and I hadn't considered using these templates as a means to keep discussion content accessible for reference on the talk page. Used as an alternative to disappearing a discussion into the archives, this takes on a very different, and very helpful, look. Thanks for sharing that perspective with me.
 * I didn't see any issues with correctness in closing discussions. I wouldn't have even posted here except the optics were starting to look one-sided and I thought if I wait for somebody else to mention this there's a real possibility they won't raise the question with even a modicum of respect. Nobody deserves that so I just wanted to check-in with you to try and head that off.
 * I'll just add that I think you do a great job of stewardship from the contributions I've seen (these included). Again -thanks for your diligence and quality contributions. Cheers Cinderella157! --N8wilson 13:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Closing edit requests
When you close an edit request, as you did here, could you please switch the variable to ? That will remove it from the list of open edit requests. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The casualties section
What do you think ? Trying to get a second opinion and check myself if I managed to take into account everybody's concerns while sticking to the sources and WP guidelines. EkoGraf (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , responded at article TP. Was getting there in any case. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point
Stuff like this and the other edits I have just reverted, in the course of an RM where you use these as "evidence" to support your point, is highly disruptive and inappropriate (and as an argumentative strategy, it's nothing short of a literally self-fulfilling prophecy). Please don't do that again. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , reverting valid edits IAW WP:P&G to prove a point is WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:POINTy. My edit here that you have revered (and any others) was evidence based or, more correctly because of the lack of evidence. The WP:BURDEN per MOS:CAPS is to show that caps are necessary. To revert requires a capacity to show that caps are necessary per MOS:CAPS. If my edits are valid (as I am quite sure they are because I did a number of checks), there is nothing self-fulfilling or improper in them. Yes, I am making caps changes in articles, where these are not being supported by sources (per your post). My case does not rely on the edits I have made but on the lack of a proper name as determined by sources.  I will be reinstating any reverts you have made and give you notice that any revert without discussion and evidence will be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE.  I would strongly advise that you be less personal and less WP:BATTLEGROUNDy.  I could easily have reciprocated, such as your faux pas that: "to" wins the battle hands down over "for".  We will clearly not agree on the move being discussed; however, it is not WP:CIVIL to make unsubstatiatable allegations of impropriety (as you have done at the RM TP). When these were pointed out, you have neither redacted nor apologised.  Your comments there and here (IMO) fall to WP:POT. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ((U|RandomCanadian}}, if anything you have said above (and below) in criticism of my actions would have any validity, then (IMO) your edit here can be similarly characterised and falls to WP:POT. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I at least back up my edits with evidence, ex. ... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Umm: 1. doing this now makes it look no less WP:POTish, 2. a single source does not show a strong consensus in sources (to paraphrase MOS:CAPS), 3. the evidence is irrelevant (the only use being in an article's title of questionable case styling - and caps are not normally retained when pluralising as done in the linked article) to the question of how it is conventionally capitalised (ie in running prose). Cinderella157 (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You should not make widespread edits without consensus. Changing capitalisation on multiple articles with merely the justification that "evidence exists" (but without presenting such evidence anywhere) is not appropriate (and furthermore, given none of the sources you "found", or your methodology, have been left anywhere for anyone to discuss, your claim that evidence exists is not actually supported by any evidence), and goes against WP:BRD, which is that once your bold edits have been reverted, you should not reinstate the, but instead discuss them. I have reverted them again. Such edits do not improve the encyclopedia, particularly not when a related type of edit is being discussed (and overwhelmingly rejected) at a page which is clearly related to it. If you disagree, and want to persist with your edits, now that it has clearly been shown that the edits are in fact controversial, start a discussion, either on the individual talk pages, or more likely at the relevant Wikiproject (which is probably WP:MILHIST). This not only to avoid any further angst between us, but to get other people involved too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As for claims of burden of proof, unless it includes the removal of disputed material for which no previous consensus exists (covered by WP:ONUS), or material which fails WP:BLP or legal requirements, the burden, once an edit has been disputed, is on those who wish to make it. This is also exactly what MOS:CAPS says, at MOS:MILTERMS (thus more specific advice than the generic advice of CAPS): Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page. Such a consensus does not exist at the present time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

, per MOS:CAPS: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. There is a burden imposed here to show that caps are necessary. If (as you would assert here at Talk:Battle of Kherson‎) that capitalisation in such instances is just a style choice and not a proper name, then the advice at MOS:CAPS is quite clearly that "battle of X" should not be capitalised in running prose, since a simple style choice is clearly not "necessary". The decision for capitalisation is determined by a consensus in sources and the threshold is significantly higher than a simple majority. The pertinent part of MOS:MILTERMS is: The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized. This is essentially mirroring the general advice at the start of the guideline. Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources ... This similarly mirrors the general guidance.

WP:BURDEN would state: All content must be verifiable. ... Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed ... In practice with respect to capitalisation, it must be established that caps are verifiably "necessary" per MOS:CAPS and a consensus in sources. Consequently, it is resolved not by adding a single citation. Capitalisation requires WP:VERIFIABILITY. WP:ONUS does not apply since it inherently assumes verifiability: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included.

Capitalisation, once challenged, should only be reinstated once the burden to establish that "capitalisation is necessary" has been established. WP:BRD is an essay. It is not WP:P&G.

MOS:MILTERMS does state: Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page. - ie an uncertainty in determining whether the threshold set by MOS:CAPS has been reached. I does not remove the initial burden to [try to] show that caps are necessary. The consensus to be reached is whether the threshold has been met.

As to the other assertions you would make, cite your authorities else they are simply that, assertions that reflect your opinion and without weight.

Unless I have indicated an internal inconsistency within an article (which inherently shows that capitalisation is not considered necessary), I have conducted an ngram search and a Google Scholar search as well as a review of the article page. As you would point out, JSTOR can also be used. For the most, it is not that evidence exist but that evidence doesn't exist. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * If somebody says that they disagree with you, you can't say "oh, the burden is on you to prove me wrong". That's not how it works. Unless the material falls under one of the specific cases I mentioned (and capitalisation is neither a "legal requirement" or a violation of BLP), then you don't get to reinstate your edits simply because your reading of the guideline suggests that the burden is on others to disprove you. The guideline says that capitalisation must be based reliable sources. If you can't find reliable sources, then obviously whatever result it is is not based on reliable sources. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", so goes the popular saying, and for good reasons. Treating such an absence as being favourable to one's personal interpretation is not usually a logically sound idea - in fact it's rather dangerously close to an appeal to ignorance.
 * Oh, and final point, WP:BRD is widely followed even if it isn't P&G, so this is one of those cases where following the "letter" is clearly misleading. Simply because something is an essay doesn't mean it can be tossed out like that if you disagree with it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

, your revert at Battle for Baby 700 was accompanied by the edit summary: rv per WP:BRD - there is no consensus about this; and it's quite possible the sources cited in the article actually do use this in a capitalised fashion: without access to them, one must WP:AGF that the editors who wrote this (and they seem to have done a competent job) have followed the sources they consulted [empasis added]. There are direct links from the article to two and a third can be accessed online. All of the other sources can be searched online (save these two ). The evidence does not lend veracity to the emphasised statement. It appears to me to be a pretense. If one is going to invoke WP:BRD, then one should be conversant with it in its fullness, such as (just some that might apply): Consider reverting only when necessary; Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article). For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse (noting that a part of your argument is that these edits are unnecessary); and, Before reverting a change to an article in the absence of explicit consensus, be sure you actually have a disagreement with the content of the bold edit (and can express that disagreement), not merely a concern that someone else might disagree with the edit [emphasis added]. The last of these implied a degree of "due dilligence". You were already made aware (here) that no evidence could be found to support capitalisation. Stating that evidence could exist or that the editors at Battle for Baby 700 might have got it right does establish a reasonable basis for disagreement. You have never referred to an explicit consensus. WP:BRD also lists alternatives to that particular cycle and would suggest that since you were made aware of the WP:P&G applicable and of the existence of evidence to support the initial edit, one of these alternatives was more appropriate. WP:BRD also states: BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle. Simply reverting and then claiming the edit is disputed (as has been done for other similar edits) places such a revision outside WP:BRD. Your revisions (at Battle for Baby 700 particulurly) appear to me to be to further a personal disagreement and for no other reason. Such edits are considered disruptive edits. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

[Bb]attle for Brittany
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Battle for Brittany. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mathglot (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * , Per WP:DISRUPTIVE This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.. We have exchanged views (albeit through edit summaries where you were pinged) that do go toward reaching a consensus.  Given WP:BRD in its fullness gives many paths to reaching a consensus, perhaps your time in posting this warning might have better been spent in you opening the discussion instead of posting a warning here that inherently doesn't WP:AGF - particularly since the burden per MOS:CAPS is to show that caps are necessary IAW the guidance given there. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Cinderella157. Placement of this template has to do with editing behavior, and not about whether MOS:CAPS applies in the article, which as you rightly point out, is a content discussion that belongs on the article Talk page. I'm not sure why you quoted from WP:DISRUPTSIGNS here, that's certainly not what's happening at the article, afaict anyway. The edit warring template describes the behavior as "repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree", and whether your point of view about capitalization at the article ultimately proves to be the most in line with the guideline and the evidence or not, that precisely describes your behavior at the article.
 * Since you apparently believe that placement of this template was a matter of bad faith on my part, let's look at the specifics of your editing at the article in more detail:
 * on April 26, you changed battle to lower case in the WP:LEADSENTENCE
 * on April 27, this was reverted by RandomCanadian to status quo ante
 * on April 28, you set it to lower case again
 * April 28, reverted by RC again
 * on May 6, you set it to lower case again
 * May 6, Mathglot reverted to status quo ante (my only edit at the article)
 * on May 6, you set it to lower case again. (current state of article at this writing).
 * By my count, that is one bold edit, followed by three reverts to insist on your view of things, in the face of opposition by two editors. That is edit-warring, as I understand it, and this template was properly placed, per the history of your editing at the article; therefore, I reject your insinuation of bad faith on my part. Please undo your last edit at the article, and bring your concerns to the Talk page instead.  Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that you started a discussion on the Talk page before I added the comment just above, and that discussion is ongoing. Thank you for that. Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * , I quoted from WP:DISRUPTIVE because it is linked from the template. We have exchanged comments through editing to build a consensus in good faith. BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.  Whether the other editor has followed this is another question.  See above section. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are quoting from BRD, for reasons I can't guess; that one is not linked from the template, unless I missed it. My only intention in placing the template, was because your four edits at the article fit the description, and nothing more. Links inside the template, including WP:DISRUPT and even WP:Blocking_policy are not in play when there is no repeated pattern over time. It's more of a reminder of good practice at this point, especially the first time it is placed. The point needed to be registered, and now it has been, and I wouldn't worry too much about it. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The quote from BRD was in respect to the above section and another's editing. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Linking to discussions would be helpful
Looks like your revert may have been perfectly appropriate in that the article appears to fail as RS due to overt bias. (I have no connection to the other editor, just curious about the assertion re Armenia.) It might be interesting to see the "TP discussion" but seems like finding it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. It would be helpful to include links to things which you use as a basis for these edits, if possible. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Ukrainian_War&type=revision&diff=1080083551&oldid=1080068594 Wikidgood (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * , At the time of my revert, there was an open TP discussion at "Armenia supported Fascist Russia" that has since been archived. The discussion was plain to see and any link would be corrupted by archiving an any case. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Plain to see" but where. You could at least link to which archive. You are very quick to revert and slow to explain. Not a fan.You bite anyone new to the page. I am not the only one who feels this way. I don't question your motives, but your style is very put-offish and creates impression that you believe you own the topic at least on WP. A friendlier style would go a long way. You obviously have spent many hours on your favored pages but when you revert, constantly, you make reference to discussons which you know of but force others to spend time searching for whatever and wherever they may be. Your reverts are often not really needed or improvements, just your preference for how to approach a topic. You are not necessarily having an entirely beneficial impact with your work, which I presume in good faith you do intend. You can take this as a perspective which may improve your style, or take it defensively and ignore. I, for one, will not waste time arguing with people like you who appear to be at least subconsciously more interested in being right and triumphing in every petty quarrel than creating a constructive collaborative community. Prove me wrong, by being nice to people. Prove me wrong, please. Wikidgood (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * , I responded quickly to your question and provided a hyperlink to where the discussion had been archived from the TP. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Bir Hakeim
You reverted my edit with words: "original source shows this is the event which is the subject of this article", but did you pay attention to the date in the original description of the picture? This is June 12, and the battle indicated in the article ended on June 11. So even despite the fact that this is the same place, these are still two different battles which can be seen from the spirit of the picture where the French Foreign Legion, which previously defended itself from the Axis forces, is conducting a counteroffensive. 109.254.254.152 (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a minor discrepancy in the date but not the place. Any explanation for the date would be WP:OR. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Belleau Wood
Hello, In your edit here, where are you seeing that a song should be used with italics, instead of quotation marks? I'm following the procedure in MOS:QUOTETITLE which has songs having quote marks, not italics. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * , you are correct. Apologies. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * thanks Funandtrvl (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
From your comments on the Talk page for the Russian invasion article. It seems that an RFC was started by another editor, though I'm not sure it is the correct RFC. It seems that the question of bulking down the size of this very long article still needs to be addressed for the article as a whole. Possibly one way to do this would be to have a separate RFC to decide which parts of the article can be bulked down and downsized since the Invasion appears likely to continue for at least several more months by most estimates in the international press. Any thoughts about how to do this or how to start a possible RFC to get this process of bulking down the article to move forward? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't think that an RfC would be productive. This would be too broad a question. RfCs only work (and not always then) if there is a single narrow choice. The things that can be reviewed are the sections that have stabilised such as the prelude and the early phases of the war.  Whether a section is best done as a concerted block or by incremental change is another question.  Both have advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps the latter in the first instance. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Note of appreciation
Greetings @ Cinderella157

May be you differed with me @ Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation but I liked your sticking to rationality while putting forth your arguments, thus this is simple note of appreciation for you. Wish you happy editing.

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Davydiv Brid
Agree with everything you said here. Was just trying to find a compromise solution due to the recent edits/reverts by these editors. EkoGraf (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * All good, hopefully they will settle. That slow edit war has been disruptive. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ramage's Signal cover art 2001 paperback ed.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ramage's Signal cover art 2001 paperback ed.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 07:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Reversion
What do I need to discuss? About Coral Sea: There were no consensus against "Inconclusive", actually, this is exactly what infobox doc advises to do. "Result" is for results, "see X" is not a result. About Pleasant Hill: I don't see any valid reason to omit the parameter if we have "mainstream" view. Seems like guidelines are interpreted by users arbitrarily... Oloddin (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Please discuss on the relevant article's talk pages so that other editors of those pages may contribute to the discussions. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It was you who made this reversion, so I would like to see your explanation for this action first (because it doesn't contradict any consensus). Oloddin (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I will respond at the respective talk pages. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Modern paganism
take the dispute to Talk please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * , if you had looked, you would see that I have already opened a discussion at Talk:Modern paganism. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

3RR
Your recent editing history at Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs) 07:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice on contentious topics area Balkans or Eastern Europe
You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. TylerBurden (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Two articles about the same subject
Hi Cinderella157,

just found out that there are two articles about the same subject: Burma campaign (1944) vs. Burma campaign (1944–1945).

Sorry to molest you, but you are the only person I know in the English part of Wikipedia. I am in the German part.

Greetings Thomas --ThomasJa276 (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, while the titles, Burma campaign (1944) and Burma campaign (1944–1945), might suggest a duplication of content, a review would indicate otherwise. These two articles are sub-articles of Burma campaign. the subordinate articles reflect section headings in the main article. I would agree that the titles do appear to be confusing unless viewed from the main article and the campaign box. I will raise this matter at Talk:Burma campaign. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Cinderella, thank you very much! I'm just translating 'Japanese coup d'état in French Indochina' into German and was checking which of the links in that article have corresponding links to German articles, that's how I found them, I didn't have a closer look on them. Regards ThomasJa276 (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

1962 war
Just like you helped resolving dispute at Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947–1948 can you also help resolving dispute at Talk:Sino-Indian_War? Thanks. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
Hi, saw your edit and thought I would provide some clarification. Per the GS: However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions. Quite specifically, non-ECP users cannot participate in RM discussions, so an IP cannot initiate an RM. The page creator was also a non-ECP user. The article has been speedy-deleted with this reason: This article was created as a direct copy of sections of Russo-Ukrainian War. Articles exist for Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and War in Donbas (2014–2022)‎. Falls to A10? Article created by non-ECP user. General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War apply. Apart from the inappropriate content forking, GS also apply to article creation: Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. As the article was deleted, the reasons given would appear to have been sufficient to justify the deletion. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I should have read more carefully, and obviously there was more going on than I understood. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Russian invasion of Ukraine
Hello! I have been reading the recent discussion about this redirect, but some of the reasoning behind the outcome is still unclear to me. Could you provide some clarification? Why is it not possible to redirect the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the Russo-Ukrainian War? You wrote that the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation receives approximately 2,000 page views per day, the War in Donbas receives about 2,500, while the daily views of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-present) tend to level out at around 40,000-50,000, which is an order of magnitude greater than the sum of the 2014 invasions of Crimea and Donbas. However, the Russo-Ukrainian War includes the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) as well. Therefore, redirecting the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the Russo-Ukrainian War would be more precise than only redirecting it to the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present). In this way, readers can access information on the 2014 invasion of Crimea and the War in Donbas from the Russo-Ukrainian War page. 145.2.224.199 (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I made such comments here in a discussion about the redirect. It is a matter of what is the primary target: where people expect to land and not where we want them to land. The evidence indicates that Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) is the primary target for Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

British English re:Invasion of UA
Hi! I noticed you recently made a copy edit enforcing en-gb usage, per the template affixed for as long as I can remember to the top of the page.

I'm concerned that people will probably keep editing the page with other usages and spellings. In that case, it might be better to remove the template and not specify a preferred variety. Frankly, there's been so much back-and-forth about the infobox wars and whatnot that I wouldn't be surprised if half the active editors are unaware that they're supposed to use British English.

I also am unsure where and, more importantly when, the consensus came from. For all I know the template was there on the first revision (I suppose I could check in a bit, can't do multiple tabs on the app).

I realise that this could potentially become a parochial conflict. But I doubt it will be anything like the contentious everyday discussions we have over there :\

I have a lot going on right now IRL and I'm not ready to seek a new consensus about it on the talk page. But I thought I'd reach out first and see what you think. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for running this past me. You would probably observe that my edit was largely in response to an edit request at the TP. This is not the first time such a request has been made and I do recall a brief discussion long time ago when this was discussed.  At the time I looked into it and the article has been templated forever (pretty much). The discussion was not contentious and the status quo stands. I could check too but ... I acknowledge that editors will generally use their own ENGVAR without conscious choice (ie they are usually unaware of the ENGVAR to be applied). This is not in itself a bad thing except that, at the end of the day, individual words or similar words should (need to) be consistent in their spelling within an article, even if the article does not strictly follow one particular ENGVAR. Given my past observations, periodically fixing things shouldn't be problematic into the future.  Bottom line, let sleeping dogs lie? Cinderella157 (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't read that particular talk page often enough, I wonder why not? ;) Thanks for mentioning that there was an edit rq.
 * Yeah, I personally can only say I'm always careful about Engvar with regard to short descriptions "humourist, programme" and Indian English in MOS:TIES articles.
 * I use WP mainly as a therapy these days so I can be less like my persona here IRL or sometimes to let off steam. So sometimes I'm bound to mess up, and most others probably will as well.
 * I agree, best to let sleeping dogs lie. So long as someone is enforcing consistency ;) RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thinning patience
I'm thinking this is an indicator of your patience wearing a tad thin. So, what's doing you in? The being pinged to head-desk worthy replies or the general quality of the contributions to the talk page. I was about ask if you'd seen the mess that had been made of this thread but then I noticed you had closed it for archiving. I am an irritable individual with a tolerance for shenanigans that is lower than most other editors', so I've refrained from mentioning any concerns about it and just generally held back on responding in most instances. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thank you for a bit of sanity amongst all the chaos. Your characterisation of this is fair. The reason in this instance is mostly the former in this case. My head was starting to hurt too much. I was characterised by my uni supervisor as a good teacher with a low tolerance for fools - which sort of implies that I have a good eye for recognising one when I see them. If my response was testy, it was much more measured than some of the possible but very implausible spelling mistakes I might have responded with - but I was a good boy. I hope that the thought of what these might be gives you cause for a smile. I just couldn't contrive a remotely plausible explicative from the text string I had to work with. ;)


 * This thread you linked started with a simple reasonable and uncontroversial request. It was resolved with this edit at 14:17, 17 March 2023. More than half of that thread occurred after the resolution had been reached. Some of the comments are just baiting the bear? Too minor to action but still disruptive across the board - particularly when repeated at other places. The simultanious forked discussions at Hundreds of thousands and How accurate are the estimates? was intolerable. One or both needed to be closed. I was half expecting a hue and cry.  The whole Reuters thing is a strawman but not isolated. See Phase terminology in this article  A strawman reflects a low quality of discourse that deflects from the prime issue but there have also been cases where it is used in a way that attacks an opponent. The digression at Too many moves is just post hoc ergo propter hoc. Duh! Ukraine mobilization caused by lack of membership in NATO?, Duh! There was an issue here that was heading toward ANI - misrepresenting a source to inflate its significance. One thing I am seeing is a perception that the zeitgeist is permission for Wiki to be openly partisan. Russia is doing enough to blackwash itself without Wiki needing to guild the lily. Taking a position that Wiki should be more circumspect will get one labelled as a Putinist. Broadly, I think there are some parallels here to the Polish case at ArbCom.  While some OPs like this are reasonable, many are poorly considered. The general quality of discussion is only slightly above the head-desk threshold (IMHO) - particularly recently.  I would observe that one relatively new editor to the page might be considered unintentionally disruptive.


 * I have closed a lot of discussion at the TP, though not so much recently. I don't recall any of them being challenged and many have been thanked.  If they were challenged, I would have self-reverted. I thought he recent comment about this, without context, was an aspersion of conduct - which I did not respond to.  Some RL things aren't helping. I will be taking a short forced-break soon. I'm not 100% certain whether your post here was an invitation to vent, a request for feedback or just advice - so, it is all three. Thank you. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My post was an invitation for all of the above, I wasn't 100% certain which I wanted either. I too was and am venting a little bit. I had a similar response to the 'possible misspellings' discussion, though more gibberish than expletive. I hit a bunch of keys simultaneously to create a string of nonsense and said that we should create a redirect for that because a family cat jumping on a keyboard could be responsible for such an output. It's possible after all. I was pleased with the phrase 'create a whole qwertyuiop's worth of redirects' that I had coined, but it wasn't worth it alone to post the response. The Reuters' discussion, among others mentioned, is doing my head in as well. Closing one thread at least concentrated the participants in one location, though all that's succeeded in is creating a merry-go-round of 'besides the point' replies. I'll take a look at that other thread. A wiki-break may hopefully recover that sanity meter. Take care, Mr rnddude (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

, I didn't even get a chance to raise the Rfd (here). Perhaps we should have said that proceeding might be seen as disruptive? Nah - such is life. I should make a redirect to that. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw it and thought the very same. I'd hoped my R3 comment on the talk page might save us all some time, but alas... Mr rnddude (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the edition on article "Sino-Soviet Border Conflict" Top infobox
The infobox of this article's infobox was extremely contested before your edition. Now it'd be quiet for a while and I'm happy with that.

Please allow me to explain what has been going on with the infobox here. There were two users (Editorkamran and DestructibleTimes) who insisted on concluding the result in the top infobox as "Soviet Victory"based on the sources they had in hand. And yes, these did claim that conflict ended up in Soviet victory. However, I also had some sources that claimed Chinese victory or in favor of China, and my sources were reputbly published by reliable platforms ans institutions as well. So I've found that the result of this conflict is very hard to determine.

According to our own knowledge and experiences regarding to the conflict. This is not a typical hot war like any others, this is an incident which includes political and diplomatic confrontations, hot battles, foreign relations, and territorial occupation changes. Therefore, the result of any incident as complicated as Sino-Soviet conflict cannot be unilaterally claimed as either side's victory, it needs to be a bit more specific to avoid misleading.

Per above reasons, '''I found "Soviet Victory" was inappropriate to be used as the only result of the conflict, which was far from the reality. So I added additional contents suported by another reliable source underneath the "Soviet Union" (China's success in deterring Soviet Union), but the above two users insisted on claiming that my source was not neutrual cuz it was the author's own opinion. The fact is, the "China's success in deterring Soviet Union" statement I cited from my source was based on a primary source, which satisfied the Wiki policy. On the other hand, the claims stated in their sources to back up "Soviet Victory" were not based on a primary source. They kept charging my source with the netruality issue while completely ignored the problems of their own.''' This is an unacceptable act of Douable Standard. Initially I was ok with "Soviet Victory" showing up in the infobox, I just wanted to add a few more things to let our readers see a whole picture of this conflict. But the above two users kept deleting or removing the content I added despite it was supported by reliable sources.

 I believe the purpose for the infobox as well as the whole article is to help our readers gain some knowledge about the whole story of the historical event, not to judge the ownership of a non-existent victory . The result of this conflict should be marked as "Inconclusive" instead of which side's "victory". Now both biased points are gone and I'm totally good with that. So thank you again for your help in bringing more justice to our page. Crows Yang (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * , my comment at Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict‎ was made before reading this. I would comment that the edits today can only be described as an edit war and do not reflect well on yourself or the other editor involved (IMHO) and may not end well for either of you. I had hoped to intervene before things progressed too far further but may have been too late. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the intervention came in just in time! I can definitely accept the status quo, leaving the infobox as neutral and brief as possible, hopefully no more confrontations would arise on that page for future. Really appreciate your edit! Crows Yang (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
I already issued an official "Thank you" for your edit on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capitalization page. I'd like to repeat that here. You do not have to agree with me, but you at least are constructive in your criticism. I edited the post by adding two wikilinks to posts I made with proposed revisions to legitimate Wikipedia articles, as a kind of "middle way" between putting all stuff in footnotes and writing an entirely new article (which I am afraid would amount to excerpting the chapter in CMOS I keep quoting; I am getting too old for that :-) Ereunetes (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * my response at MOS:CAPS is a bit blunt and might give offence but that can be a problem with being direct and to the point. I do hope it is seen in the spirit it is intended and that is to be constructive. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If I minded bluntness I'd already have ran away crying my eyes out after the debate on the talk page (well, it was more of a soliloquy on my part, with some interruptions) But I hope you'll take my reply seriously. I have a strong feeling that the people who reacted to my proposal on the talk page are for some reason personally invested in the current formulation and not ready to see another point of view. I think most of them have already turned away from the discussion after they put in their 2 cents worth. So be it. If you come up with a better formulation, you'll have my undying support. Ereunetes (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I gather it is not easy to find a "concise" formulation? I am not gloating. If you want to "brain storm" (or is it "storm brain"?) I'd be open to that. Or would it be time to force a vote? Ereunetes (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , for a lot of reasons, I haven't put my mind to it yet. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If I may permit myself a Batavism. One should not disturb a brooding chicken :-) So I am retreating on tiptoe. Ereunetes (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , your prompt was probably nonetheless timely. Your Batavism caused an association with a fb post last night by my neighbour, who lives about two miles away - get your head around that :)  She was trying to rehome an occupant of her hen house, which she described as: a fucker not a clucker. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will run this past you here for comment. I know it probably looks like more words and it needs a bit of refinement - links, formatting footnotes and examples to be agreed upon. However, something like this might fly.

Please copy and adjust below with strike/underline (Wiki is paying for the bytes) along with any comments/questions. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, shooting off the hip, and my mouth off, as usual. I don't think this is a real improvement. With respect, it is not "concise" at all. But my main objection is that you cling to the approach in the current MOS:PERSONAL, i.e. "ignore existing standards (even quasi-legal ones), even when it is relatively easy to discover what those are with the help of Wikipedia itself, and substitute vague, almost intuitive notions". Even the advice of an authoritative source (in the US at least) like the Chicago Manual of Style is ignored! I think that could at least be paraphrased as: "For foreign names (even "English" names with a foreign origin) containing grammatical particles follow the capitalization conventions used in the language communities concerned" (CMOS does this by giving examples; cf. CMOS, pp. 312-317. But that is not exactly "concise" either). You decry my going into detail as to the methods of obtaining pertinent information, but then turn around and start "teaching by example" by giving a number of disjointed examples, without the necessary context, like the current CMOS also does. Sorry if I sound harsh, but I have to be concise in my criticism also. Anyway, thanks for at any rate taking the trouble to present an alternative. I do appreciate that. Ereunetes (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, my first suggestion was an ab initio attempt to capture my understanding of what you are trying to do. Don't like it - OK. Referencing CMOS would be a simple solution except that it is behind a paywall that excludes 90% of editors (I picked a suitable big number) and so it is no solution at all. I undertook to copy edit your last suggestion and this is what I have done in the following.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Almost OK. My only problem now is this phrase "...Foreign names, may contain separable family-name affixes that are conventionally not capitalized {fn. See examples at List of family name affixes.} but should be capitalized in certain situations."
 * I would make this: "Compound names may contain grammatical particles, such as separable family-name affixes {fn. See examples at List of family name affixes.}The capitalization conventions for such particles vary between (foreign) language groups; those conventions should be respected..."
 * And then continue with your text (i.e. the big footnote; only you need to put in Surnames by country there). The footnote with the example of the Belgian/Dutch imbroglio could be replaced with simply a translation of the Taalunie rule (with reference).
 * The main reasons for these quibbles are:1. We need to cover the Mac-s and O'-s in British names also, not to forget all those old French and Norman names; 2. You should not fall into the trap of confusing exception with main rule. The main rule for Dutch surnames is: "The first word is capitalized, as are all following nouns (if any)" (Maybe the following "paradigm" is helpful. A "Full-fledged" Dutch name is "Van Nispen tot Pannerden Hzn." This is a prefix (Van; capitalized), followed by the first noun (capitalized), followed by an infix (tot, lowercase), followed by the second noun (capitalized), followed by an optional suffix (Hzn for the patronymic Hendrikszoon, also capitalized, because the H stands for a noun. Clear? :-).And then there are four exceptions (counting "following titles of nobility", which may be Belgian exclusively, but I don't think so). Better be clear about that. But it is not a universal rule (viz. the Portuguese), so I think it has no place in the general guideline. Finally, I really see no objection to giving a reference to the CMOS guidance rule as a justification. References to not-readily-accessible sources happen all the time in Wikipedia.
 * How about that? I think it is even slightly shorter. brevitas super omnia :-) Ereunetes (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I offered to do a copy-edidt on your last proposal at WT:MOSCAPS and that is what the immediate above is. To my mind, it is pretty much saying the same as your last version there but in a slightly different way - mainly by being more direct and using fewer words.

The footnote fn. For example, the conventions differ between Belgian Dutch and the Netherlands. is added to explain the nuance of the meaning of language groups in this context, where I previously used nationality/language. There may be national variations for other languages (eg South American Portugese and Spanish). I don't know, but that is its purpose.

You would wish to add vary between (foreign) language groups; those conventions should be respected ...[emphasis added] However, I have said The capitalization conventions for a particular subject's language group should be followed. In application, this means the same.

In article space, there is no requirement that a source is accessible. However, if we want to use CMOS as a source of guidance (P&G), then it needs to be readily accessible. Because it is behind a paywall, as guidance, it is as useful as a hip pocket in a singlet for most of our editors. I have no idea what CMOS says. The nearest library that might have a copy would be 2.5 hrs/200 km away.

I understand what you are saying but it needs to be presented as a draft. I will have a look at it then. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * How about this?

--Ereunetes (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, three main comments.


 * 1) Where your would now write Compound names may contain grammatical particles, such as separable family-name affixes, you originally wrote at WT:MOSCAPS (most recently) Foreign names, especially the ones containing separable family-name affixes ... Adding grammatical particles (and the link) isn't all that useful here because I wasn't seeing anything in respect to names there.  It is too much of a distraction to the main point (IMO).  It is quite sufficient to say Compound names may contain a separable family-name affix, or something similar.
 * 2) My text would say: ... may contain separable family-name affixes that are conventionally not capitalized but should be capitalized in certain situations. IMO, the underlined bit (or something very similar) is very important.  It defines the problem -  without this, there is no reason for the addition.
 * 3) A minor point at footnote d. can be found at Capitalization and at articles in Surnames by country (e.g. Italian name). to can be found at Capitalization and at articles linked from Surnames by country (e.g. Italian name).

Cinderella157 (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * As to your point 1. Agreed. As to point 2. Not agreed: my main beef is that Wikipedia editors incorrectly leave Dutch affixes uncapitalized where they should be capitalized. Let's not encourage this by saying that they are "conventionally not capitalized", which may be read as an encouragement to continue with that abuse. So if you insist on going into the weeds (I prefer my "concise" formulation), I would make it"... that are capitalized if at the start of the compound surname, but may be left uncapitalized under certain conditions." That is the correct formulation. Point 3: agreed con amore. That is actually an improvement :-) Ereunetes (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, the usual rule is to not capitalise but for Dutch, there is an exception and exceptions to the exceptions. We might say: that are not usually capitalized but should be capitalized in certain situations. We will probably continue to disagree on this. However, there is now a version that can be put back to WT:MOSCAPS. Whether it garners support is another thing. I am going to be away for a bit. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Where do you get that the usual practice is not to capitalize the first letter of a name? That is pretty universal and that says the guidance also. It applies to Dutch names with affixes just as well as to other languages. So I don't quite get what you are getting at. But maybe you'll explain when you return. No hurry putting things to a vote, certainly not prematurely if there is still disagreement. Ereunetes (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad you are back. I have had time to think and I hope we can agree on the following version:


 * I have changed what you suggested in the third note, because the differences between Dutch and what you called "Belgian Dutch" (and linked to the Flemish article) are not "linguistic", but "administrative" in nature. Besides, you open a whole can of political worms with your formulation, that we can really do without :-) Ereunetes (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , I have been back a bit but got side-tracked and lost sight of this. My apologies. I think we have gone as far as we can and this is certainly a much better proposition that can be taken back to MOS:CAPS. I am not sanguine as to the prospect of success but one can only try. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So what do we do? Copy the latest version to WT:MOSCAPS; say that we both support it; and then wait what happens? If so, who acts as "prime mover"? I'd prefer it if you would as I think it has a better chance then. If I do it more people will reject it just because I proposed it, I think; let's be realistic :-) I have no problem deferring to you. Ereunetes (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Meaning of CPC v CCP
Thought I would just reply here as it's not really relevant to that discussion; CPC stands for Communist Party of China, CCP stands for Chinese Communist Party.

We normally use Chinese Communist Party as the WP:COMMONNAME, but its common to have SPA's trying to switch us over to the official name. BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * , I was reading it like they were two sides having a dispute but they are the same thing, so it wasn't making sense. Thank you for the explanation. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Summary style issues in Russian invasion of Ukraine
Apart from the burden on readers, it makes it hard on editors as well.

The constant content additions (often by nonnative speakers) and editing, combined with ECP making the pool of potential CE fixers pretty small, mean that as of this writing, the article is significantly messier than its talk page!

What is to be done?

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, glad that you have considered asking me this but I don't think I have a solution. ECP restriction excludes some editors that would make constructive edits. However, the nonECP pool has a far greater proportion of disruptive editors - SPAs or politically motivated editors. There is also a high proportion of well intended but inexperienced editors that may be "good faith" but ultimately problematic. Probably even a larger proportion of nonECP users that would edit are not native speakers. This is observation based from related articles that were not protected.  The small positive would be massively out-weighed.  The problems will only start to end when the war ends. Perhaps we could ask for a truce while we get the article sorted. ;)b That is just my dry sense of humour. I hope there was something like a laugh in that. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry
Forgive me for being obstinate in the Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox. I should not have acted arbitrarily without the rfc. Parham wiki (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , all good in the end. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Edits with regard to commanders
Hi! Wanted to request clarification on the matter of recent military infobox edits. I would typically ask this on the WikiProject:Military history talk page, but given your (voluntary, thank you!) closeness to the issue at hand, I decided it would be better to ask you first.

When I made my complaint against ACPP, I was particularly bothered that they were adding mid-level staff and command leaders (chief of staff, deputy chief of staff, director of maritime headquarters, etc.) that were there solely for having URLs to a U.S. military unit website's Leadership page. ACPP seems to now be listing only top leadership (the commander [officer], deputy commander [officer], and senior enlisted leader [top soldier/NCO]). Many high-level U.S. military unit pages (Air Mobility Command, United States Central Command, etc.), long before I began regular editing of Wikipedia, included this information. In this respect, I no longer view ACPP's edits as disruptive as before, as they are trying to remain limited.

However, under current Wikipedia standards, I may not have been aware that even this level of editing is officially WP:DISRUPTIVE. Firstly, is this editing, under official Wikipedia policy, disruptive? If so, I may have been guilty of it for over four years now. Secondly, assuming that they are disruptive and should be undone when encountered, should high-level commanders be restricted, where applicable, to those who actually have Wikipedia pages?

Thank you. SuperWIKI (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, there are a couple of things at play here. On the general issue of adding multiple command positions to infoboxes, there is WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which tells us that less is often better. So, just because there is a parameter and there is sourcing, WP:VNOT applies too. As I explained at their TP, the level of information to be added should (IMHO) be proportional to the level of the command - ie one might add Sergeant Major of the Army to United States Army but it would be more difficult to justify adding the senior non-commissioned office to lesser commands. Note that there is an article for Sergeant Major of the Army.


 * I have just particularly noticed that edits are adding red-links for individuals. This does appear to be against Red link since the individual linked would need to meet notability guidelines and in all probability won't.


 * Edits have continued to add hyperlinks to leadership pages under the web-site parameter. As explained at their TP, this is clearly against the documentation and somewhat WP:POINTY in the circumstances.


 * The editor's edits has been challenged on several points. There is a WP:ONUS to be met when edits adding new material are challenged. It can be considered as disruptive to continue to edit against WP:P&G when this has been pointed out. It would also be considered disruptive to continue to make edits when edits have been challenged and there has been no attempt to gain consensus for such edits. The types of edits you may have been making are not inherently disruptive and have been made in good faith. It is the accompanying conduct in this instance that may rise to being considered disruptive. Considered along with the post I have made to their TP, I hope this is sufficient explanation. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I thank you. SuperWIKI (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Korean War. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. Lourdes 06:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * 4 reverts within 24 hours: I would suggest address your queries to other administrators from hereon. Thanks,  Lourdes  11:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

, So much for shoot them both and let God sort it out. It only delayed the ongoing disruption by a bit over the 48 hrs -  Cinderella157 (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Cindrella, you've done the right thing by opening up talk page discussions. Continue using a civil tone and go by what talk page consensus guides. I would suggest limiting your usage of tendentious statements such as "shoot them both and let God sort it out" as it alludes to your not being clear about how you got yourselves blocked and what you need to do to not get blocked again -- reasons that increase the probability of you getting blocked again for a longer time. Once again, bringing down an administrative action to prevent disruption is the first thing we will do. Try not to go down that path again please. Thanks, Lourdes  06:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Status quo in Spanish Empire
Look at the article history, the status quo was the dual map version. (January 2023)

I have hardly ever edited this article, but taking a good look at the edition history is the version with two maps (maximum extension and anacrohonus) the most recent long-established version. Venezia Friulano (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Placing contentious topics alerts
Hello Cinderella157, if you are going to place a contentious topics template on a user talk page, please familiarize yourself better with the WP:Contentious topics process so you use the right one. The one you placed here was not the right one. A more minor point: the section header "CT alert" would be very mysterious to most editors receiving one for the first time; spelling it out would be more transparent and user-friendly. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit War
Could you please take a look at the Battle of Ekeren. The user I am in conflict with, doesn't wamt to engage on the talkpage DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The same is true for the Assault on Nijmegen (1702) DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Question
I am hoping you or one of your talk page stalkers knows about the technicalities of the military infobox template.

My question is: if an emperor, king, sultan, etc, plans the campaign should that emperor, king, sultan's name be in the infobox(under commander?)? Example:Mehmed II's Albanian campaign. Should Mehmed II's name be in the infobox, if he did not participate in the campaign?

My gut says no, but templates are weird things. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, I had a quick look at the article. Infoboxes are often bloated with information not supported by the body of the article and therefore contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. There is also guidance within the template documentation to limit the number of commanders. We are also told that it can include the direct superior commanders over those that directly controlled (fought) the battle. In this case, there is no infobox bloat to contend with. While Mehmid did not command in the field he was the direct superior commander. The article (not only being named for him) evidences that he was the superior commander - albeit at a very long arms length. On the other hand, he was far removed. The nuance of his role is dealt with in the lead. However, the article would not suffer because of his removal and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us less is best. This particular case is IMHO a line call. He could be removed but it isn't worth having an argument over. On the other hand, see First Italo-Ethiopian War, inclusion of Umberto I of Italy is not reasonably justified and there are lots of other issues in the infobox. It is on my to-do list. Hope that helps. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. That answered most, if not all, of my questions. My sincerest thanks, Cinderella157! --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

List of Justices of the High Court of Australia
Hi Cinderella157, I've got another ongoing move discussion that's encountered some resistance. Would love to read your input on it. Cheers! Woko Sapien (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Why are you removing it?
Firstly hello... I'm new to wikipedia I'm just learning and i realized that photographs of the Ottoman wars needed to be improved and these are photos of the Crimean War i don't understand why you removed it thank you Vbbanaz05 (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * , I have given a detailed statement at Talk:Crimean War. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

oops
Got confused in an edit conflict, thought I was putting bacvk the version you just restored. Still working on table but I am pretty sure I know what happened so let me struggle with it, k? t fixes a number of errors, and I an pretty sure I know what I did Elinruby (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * , all good. No criticism. Keep up the good work. However, your most recent posts at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine aren't making a lot of sense and are a bit garbled (see also above) and this is quite uncharacteristic. It causes me some concern because it isn't the usual you. Perhaps you need to take a short break? RUOK? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * maybe soon. It is indeed late here. but the proliferation of typos above were mostly caused by bad ergonomics where I was just sitting, I think, plus an innate inability to type that I usually correct for before hitting send. I have moved to a different chair. I do however appreciate the delicacy of of your suggestion. I'd just prefer to get this section out of my face before I wander off. Ta. Elinruby (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Move review for List of spaghetti Westerns
I have asked for a Move review of List of spaghetti Westerns. Because you were involved in the discussion, you might want to participate in the move review. --В²C ☎ 04:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

First Nagorno-Karabakh War
Hello Cinderella157. I'm writing about some of your reverts: , - if the problem is the dot point, why not just remove the dot and keep the factual sourced and crucial info? And about this - per the Croissant, Bonner, and Demoyan sources already in the body of the article, all support Turkey being a belligerent for providing Turkish national militants, advisors, other military aid, and for Turkey sealing its border which is an act of war.

I hope you don't mind if I restore both, I'll remove the dot on first one to address your concern. Have a good Sunday! - Kevo3 2 7 (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * , MOS:MIL (see section on infoboxes) gives voice to the template documentation. The supported entries against this parameter are very narrow. Additional information is not supported. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate what you mean by this comment? What you have removed was in the article for years, you can actually go back in the history and take a look - you can look at the talk history too, things you removed were discussed already. I genuinely don't understand the reason you keep removing sourced long-standing content without getting any consensus, please elaborate on your comment above. In the meantime, I'll be restoring long-standing stable version. I kindly ask you to please discuss and reach consensus first before doing anything. - Kevo3 2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7 (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * , First of all, see WP:CONLEVEL. See WP:MILMOS at MOS:MIL about Template:Infobox military conflict and the template documentation itself. The broad community consensus is that there are only three permitted entries against the result parameter: X victory, inconclusive or see section. The community consensus does not support additional text. Just because it has been there for a long time doesn't make it right. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit war
There is a difference regarding the content that should be written in the infobox of the Iran–Iraq War article. Parham wiki (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)