User talk:Cinderella157

Thanks for Third Opinion efforts

Greetings! I would like to thank you for your efforts in giving an unrequested third opinion and reaching consensus in Talk:Malta convoys. Even if you were unsuccessfull, I appreciate your sound intervention. Best regards, Lord Ics (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2017

Korean war

Link to image [1]

About the Siege fo Chernihiv

On Siege of Chernihiv you have reverted my edit, stating, "The lead is a summary of the body of the article. We don't write the article in the lead. This revision is not a sumary of the body of the article" It would be appreciated if you could give an example of how it should have been written. Or you could've fixed my edit rather than just revert it completely. Pusf.smbd (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

My edit summary is pretty clear. If you think such material should be written into the article, write it into the article in an appropriate place; not the lead. The WP:ONUS falls to you to achieve consensus for inclusion. What has happened in Chernihiv oblast is out of scope for an article about the city of Chernihiv. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment at the tectonic plate lowercasing RM, now relisted

Thanks, and the RM at the talk page of Eurasian Plate was relisted on the 15th, so not much time left. Logic and commonsense would keep the uppercasing on the 90+ plates under discussion, but lowercasers are using the casing guideline, which some of us have countered with WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE which is under fairly intense discussion. If you agree with this approach, or even have more comments, your additional participation may be useful. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully you'd agree that the talk page named WikiProjects besides Geology should have been notified (I've just done so), as well as the main page for tectonic plates. Pretty late in the game for these notices to be placed, maybe another relisting can be added. This discussion seems most top-heavy in terms of opposers asking to keep the uppercasing although it may be closed as lowercase! Consensus seems obvious on this one, but for the almost 50-50 ngrams you and others are relying on. Since I'm here, may I mention that I've enjoyed our discussions over the many casing RM's. You adhere to your point of view and are a benefit to others who hold it, which is commendable in the overall good faith scheme of things on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the caps corrections

Hi, Cinderella157. Thanks for your caps corrections at Southern Italy. I noticed that 23.233.149.88 (talk · contribs) had also altered caps at Central Italy in the same way (oh, I see you got those already, too; well done). Their contributions consistently have had various other issues as well, of which flipping caps is not even the major one. In any case, I have reverted several of their edits for other reasons, and didn't feel confident enough about the caps issue in those cases, so I left them alone. If you have the time, please keep half an eye out for this editor's changes with respect to caps (and other stuff), if you can. Thanks again. Mathglot (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Mathglot, thank you for the endorsement ant the heads-up. I see they are currently blocked. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding North Korean involvement in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Russian Invasion of Ukraine.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Rc2barrington (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Infobox flags

Hello Cinderella, I've seen you remove a lot of flags in infoboxes summarizing military conflicts lately, and unless I'm wrong, some of your edits go against what MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS says, and what is standard practice. Nearly every battle or war where the factuality of the belligerents' flags is unambiguous (say post-1850) contain those flags in the belligerent and leader fields, so it's not clear, especially when MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS specifically approves their use for Summarizing military conflicts and gives an article with those flags as an example of appropriate use, why the articles you have removed flags on are exceptions. If you want the policy on flags in conflict infoboxes to change, a formal RfC would be needed rather than removing flags on some articles, for example here and here. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The exemption for flags in a military conflict infobox is not a blanket exemption. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Flag icons gives further detail on how icons can serve a useful purpose (ie convey information in addition to the text). The example you refer to is the Battle of the Somme. You will note that there are two belligerents on one side, so the flags serve to indicate which of these two other entries in the infobox are referring to. You may wish to make yourself more fully familiar with the prevailing guidance. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The "not using flags when there is only one belligerent per side" rule does not seem to be one stated on either of the applicable MoS pages, or that is practiced on articles; I and many others would argue that flags convey useful information even when there is only one participant per side, as they by their pictorial nature are more helpful at a glance than text. I'd be hard pressed to find any conflict without flags post-1900 (that is not your doing), no matter the small amount of belligerents. Battle of Moscow, Battle of the Ardennes, and Operation Grenade, which is even linked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history, are some examples. My point is that the interpretation of the guideline you follow does not seem to be common practice, and it should be explicitly stated on those pages (via a formal discussion) if you want that rule widely implemented. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:MILFLAGS: Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative? Icons that differentiate among several parties (for example, icons used to indicate commander allegiance in Battle of the Atlantic) are likely to be useful, while icons that convey irrelevant or redundant information are usually not. This is pretty clear, particularly when we are told Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. We are being told that adding the flag in the way you describe is merely decorative. Adding a flag along with the name of the country is redundancy. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fullbore target rifle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rimfire. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 19:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

A question

Can non-military losses be added in the Infobox Military Conflict? like (500 buildings destroyed) (500 vehicles were destroyed) (500 agricultural sites damaged) Vbbanaz05 (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not expressly forbidden but nor have I seen it done and would advise against it - particularly if military casualties are confined to personnel. It would also need to be seen as a "key fact" (reported in sources as having particular significance - not just that it happened) as well as being supported by the body of the article per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox is not there for a random collection of factoids and, just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Beshogur (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but could you please roll back this edit, until there is a consensus for the change? The original version was stable for a long time, and there does not appear to be a strong consensus for this edit so far. If you wish, we can start another RFC on what to put into that part of the infobox, but we should not be making unilateral changes to such crucial parts of the article until there is a clear consensus among the involved editors. Thank you. Grandmaster 14:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Grandmaster, one can equally say that the substance of the existing version has more recently also been stable for a long time. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by substance, but the infobox said "Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Armenian-occupied territories, Armenia–Azerbaijan border" for years, until you changed it to Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh without consensus at talk. I don't think that's how it should be done in a contentious article like this. Grandmaster 10:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I made changes in response to the recent TP comments but the key difference (substance) between the two versions remains the same. The more recent version of these two parameter has been stable for nine months, despite intervening edits and over three hundred page watchers. Opposing change for the sake of opposing it could be considered disruptive - I don't like change is not a substantive reason to oppose the change. Nor is claiming that the Republic of Artsakh doesn't exist (not you) - we have an article on it. It is defined even if it is disputed. As another editor points out, this is not (shouldn't be) controversial - particularly as it is supported by P&G. If you believe there is reasonable reason to prefer the earlier version, we might seek further input into the discussion (eg a notification at MilHist). You are also free to start an RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Warning User:Donoatetome12

I see that that you gave a 3RR warning to User talk:Donoatetome12 about exceeding 3RR on Spanish Empire. Please note that I had previously warned the user about edit warring, and they responded that they had stopped, and indeed they had not edited the article after that. Your warning to the user seems to have been unnecessary, and a bit bitey. Donald Albury 15:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Donald Albury, the difference between your warning and mine is that they have actually violated 3RR but I am not going to pursue it. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)