This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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)
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: "Australian Antarctic Medal celebrates 25 years". Australian Antarctic Division. Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 15 June 2020.
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)
Kangaresearch, 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
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in
page-specific restrictions
, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the
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)
Abhishek0831996, 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.
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
--
talk
) 02:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Battle of the Wilderness
@Cinderella157: 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
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)
@
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)
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)
LaHire07, 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)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
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 2021 election, please review
Orphaned non-free image File:Ramage and the Renegades 1982 paperback edition.jpg
Thanks for uploading
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
Please don't create a page at my username. I prefer the redlink for multiple reasons and I still receive pings with it. -"GhostofDan Gurney" 14:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
JWB to do so, which I haven't got around to doing thus far. Sod25m (talk
) 23:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi
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 grandslamwc) so that the infobox could support wheelchair events and Olympic/Paralympic events etc. I've overridden the type on the example Wimbledon article [1] to show you that the fix works. Articles with no matching event link in the infobox are automatically put in Category:Pages using infobox tennis tournament event with no matching event link, 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 qual 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)
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 [citation needed] :)
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.
—
talk
) 10:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi
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
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
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)
Antony-22, 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)
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)
Th78blue, 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)
N8wilson, 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)
EkoGraf, 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 good stewardship 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 less often might make it more 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 N8wilson, 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 Example text variable to Example text? 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 [2]? 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)
EkoGraf, 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)
((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
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: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
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)
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: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:P&G
.
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)
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 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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
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)
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 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)
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=1080068594Wikidgood (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikidgood, 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)
Wikidgood, 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
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 ErnestKrause, 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.
Agree with everything you said here [11]. Was just trying to find a compromise solution due to the recent edits/reverts by these editors [12][13]. EkoGraf (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
All good EkoGraf, 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).
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)