User talk:EtherealGate

EtherealGate, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Disambiguation link notification for September 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dragon Ball Z: Broly – The Legendary Super Saiyan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gohan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Iranian sentiment
More important in what way? By showing the difference between most to least favorable? That's not as useful. Seqqis (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is an anti sentiment page so yes, showing the difference between most to least favorable is more useful, just like the tables for all the others. How about discussing it on the article's talk page? EtherealGate (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't the same format the others pages use, and you were talking about that there weren't any references, well now it has the references. BTW, please explain how in any way the positive-negative difference is useful, cause from what I see there isn't any useful reason for the positive-negative difference to be used on this and any other page relating to this. Thanks. Seqqis (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Doesn't it make more sense to show the change from negative, not positive? EtherealGate (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

June 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Attack on Pearl Harbor. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. BMK (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2016 (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.

WP:BRD
Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, BMK (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Discussion started on talk. Considered the article previously' already used both countries' full names, what exactly is the status quo? Not long ago, it was also using the full name of the U.S. and the simple name for Japan. You're also the one edit warring so it goes both ways. EtherealGate (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror
Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( ⭐ ) 10:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Battle of the Coral Sea and Module talk:Infobox military conflict
Your reverted your recent edit at Coral Sea that added "Aftermath" to read: "See Aftermath and Tactical and strategic implications"

The result advice at Template:Infobox military conflict/doc reads: In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). [underlined for my emphasis]

The aftermath section is where the result is usually discussed but not in the case of Coral Sea; Tactical and strategic implications is. Your edit is not consistent with the doc advice. It also appears to me to be somewhat pointy.

Per your comment at MilHist talk, I said that you reverted to your preferred version. I did not say that you reverted to your edit. If it was not your preferred version, there would appear to be no reasonable reason for your reverting? I believe my post to have been both neutral and accurate.

You further stated that I am "set to only change this article, and not the other countless articles that run contrary ...". I have changed other articles but usually when these have been bought to my attention through a notification at MilHist because of a issue (conflict) that has arisen with the result parameter. Such was the case with Coral Sea. Your statement is inaccurate and cannot be substantiated. To say I am the one who wants my preferred version ignores that I am acting in accordance with the doc advice. I have had no involvement limiting options that you would prefer to be included, save perhaps, 'inconclusive'. I perceive that you are attacking the person (me), rather than making an objective case and you have done so in a public forum. Your comments at MilHist appear to me to be uncivil. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edit that you made without consensus per WP:BRD status quo, not to "my preferred version". So your comment at MilHist talk was in no way neutral or accurate. I have only seen you focused on this article and not any others brought up that are even more questionable, so yes I can also say you want "your preferred version" and as you refuse any compromise as being somewhat pointy. I'm only saying the same thing you are. Also multiple sections discuss the result, including "Aftermath", "Significance", and "Tactical and strategic implications". I was the one that originally pointed out the "Tactical and strategic implications" section, which was only a minor part of the larger "Significance" section that discusses the result more in depth. EtherealGate (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Suggest that you have a look at the full history of the relevant TP thread and article history. The result was removed at end Feb with subsequent support by Nick-D and no dissent at the time. It was then silently reverted on 6 March. I missed it at the time but reverted back in July, after which you became involved. In Feb, I noted that "See Tactical and strategic implications" was an alternative. Your actual suggestion was: "Another option could be: Both sides declare victory (See tactical and strategic implications".


 * Your comments therefore appear somewhat inconsistent with the facts. I have been open to alternatives/compromise that are consistent with the sources and the advice/MilMos. Per pointy, my observation arose from your edit summary: '"See Aftermath" is standard per Template:Infobox military conflict/doc.' This appears to be quite wrong per the advice but the "See aftermath" appears to have been added to make a point. You have then altered "See Tactical and strategic implications" to "See Significance" after first removing the result, with the comment: "Rmv as the doc says it's optional. There are multiple sections that discuss the result, including "Aftermath", Significance". All of this creates for me, the impression that you are simply acting to be contrary, particularly as you have reverted my "See Tactical and strategic implications" to "See Significance".


 * "See Significance" deals with a number of matters but only "Tactical and strategic implications" deals with an analysis of sources as to who won and by what criteria. This is therefore the section most relevant to to the result field in the infobox. I could take this back for clarification but suggest that the result will be "See Tactical and strategic implications". Would you consider reverting to this. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Illegitimate Barrister's edit only showed that your preferred version was not agreed upon, I don't think he was trying to silently revert you, or that he even knew you blanked it. You did indeed mentioned that '"See, Tactical and strategic implications section" might be an alternative' in passing, so I missed that point until I took a closer look at it just now. I mentioned it more implicitly. The actual example used in the template also says "Protestant victory (see Aftermath section)". The text also states, "In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome" (it accurately describes the outcome in this case, if you want to get picky about text).
 * There are also multiple sections that discuss the result, including "Aftermath", "Significance", and "Tactical and strategic implications". Yes, the "aftermath" often doesn't always address who won at all. In this case, the other two sections do, with one already included under the other that discusses the result is discussed more in depth per the template text. If you're not going to agree with significance, then the best option at this point would be to remove it, as you originally wanted to do, and as the template says it is optional.


 * I can also indeed say that you want "your preferred version" and are "being somewhat pointy", which I think is absolutely more justifiable, as you have not, at all, been open to any uncontroversial or simple alternative or compromise. So, no, your comment at MilHist talk was in no way neutral or accurate. If you want to keep defending that, then I will keep defending mine, which only said the exact same thing. So you honestly need to take a step back for a moment and look at yourself, because you are seeing things at aren't there. I thought we would get along after the discussion, considering we had no more conflict and even gave "thanks" to each other. You seem like someone I would really respect and love outside of arguments, and I hold hope we can get along. I mentioned "see aftermath" as being standard because that's what is mentioned and what is frequently brought up, even on the actual discussion, not because I was trying to discredit you. I indeed see now that it only mentions one section. An option could be to reorganize it all under "aftermath" and have it all in one place. EtherealGate (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)