User talk:Tarletonic

Tactical victory
Not a word about tactical victory not being allowed in Manual of Style/Military history. Creuzbourg (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It clearly falls under "The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to..." etc.Tarletonic (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why could you not have explained that from the beginning on the talk page, so the discussion will be public and others can learn from it. As of now, I feel that your use of obscure acronyms and refusal to discuss is akin to bullying.Creuzbourg (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see: Talk:Battle of Ridgefield, since I do not know how to ping you. Creuzbourg (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be a talkpage discussion when it's a revert of your WP:BOLD change in line with a clear guideline. But by all means start a talkpage discussion and see if there's consensus for you change. I can't see any "refusal to discuss" on my partTarletonic (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Obligado
Hi Tarletonic. I actually agree with you regarding MILMOS. My approach to the Obligado's infobox was based upon the page Siege of Ostend (take a look there), where there was some sort of consensus that citing reliable sources allows to overcome MoS. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. I think that's a bit of an exception that proves the rule.
 * Sorry didn't realise Darius and FarSouthNavy were both you when looking at what you added to the talk page Tarletonic (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)