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]

August 2024

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Iraq War, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 03:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Notification of motion

An ArbCom motion which relates to you has been proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment § Motion: Cinderella157's topic ban suspended. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Italo-Ethiopian War

Why did you revert my edit? Nearly every other war has flags in the infobox. Russian invasion of Ukraine, World War I, World War II, and even Second Italo-Ethiopian War all have flags in their respective infoboxes. History6042 (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

History6042, per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS, while flags are permitted in infoboxes for military conflicts, they must still serve a useful purpose. This can occur when there are more than two combatants on one side. This is not the case in the subject article. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

But what about Second Italo-Ethiopian War, it was the same sides as this one and yet has flags? History6042 (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Just because WP:OTHERTHINGS exist doesn't mean they are right. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

PS thank you for pointing that out. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know and you are welcome for me pointing that out. History6042 (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding German war effort

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Cinderella157 (talk · contribs) fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the topic area. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will automatically lapse.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 00:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding German war effort

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)