User talk:Cinderella157/Archive 4

Don't see an email

Internat Archive doohickey doesn't like this OS. Here is some of the lede, I think that should be within fair use.

"Aug. 18, 2023 The total number of Ukrainian and Russian troops killed or wounded since the war in Ukraine began 18 months ago is nearing 500,000, U.S. officials said, a staggering toll as Russia assaults its next-door neighbor and tries to seize more territory.

---snip---

Russia’s military casualties, the officials said, are approaching 300,000. The number includes as many as 120,000 deaths and 170,000 to 180,000 injured troops. The Russian numbers dwarf the Ukrainian figures, which the officials put at close to 70,000 killed and 100,000 to 120,000 wounded.

But Russians outnumber Ukrainians on the battlefield almost three to one, and Russia has a larger population from which to replenish its ranks. Ukraine has around 500,000 troops, including active-duty, reserve and paramilitary troops, according to analysts. By contrast, Russia has almost triple that number, with 1,330,000 active-duty, reserve and paramilitary troops — most of the latter from the Wagner Group."

[1]

Still not really here but I thought of an easier way to find it. And here you go: Roger Marshall (politician), one of the Republicans who tried to overthrown the last election. Otherwise an obscure follower of Ted Cruz of all people. Pretty much the personification of a politician who only talks to Fox News. Link = [[2]]

re excess mortality: I think you said that you couldn't substantiate that number either, so I probably *will* remove it. Not tonight though. Elinrubys

(talk) 07:45, 29 September 20e23 (UTC)

Re excess mortality. I agree that that seems to be the best methodology. However I may be confused. I thought I read that but about the New York Times source but didn't see that when I looked again. I will look into it some more tonight. For sure Meduza'e Bring out your Dead' uses that for Russian fatalities.

Re: getting you a copy: Looks like I am going to have to do a browser reinstall and as I recall the reason i haven't already done this is that it will require an oS reinstall, which my hardware won't support. I have an idea how to do this though; I will see if I can catch you in your waking hours tonight my time. I can't believe it isn't already archived but I can't even sign in to that website. Elinruby (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Elinruby for the transcript. It is always good to have the full context of an article. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Suez Crisis

Then it's better to return the previous stable and consensual version ("Coalition military victory") with sources. Oloddin (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The see aftermath option would appear to be the most appropriate here. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

What are your arguments against victory for the coalition?--Oloddin (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Charge (warfare)

I have re-added my edit on the Charge at Krojanty (September 1, 1939) to the list of Notable Charges. This time I made sure to include citations to primary sources, including ones in both Polish and English. I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if there are any other improvements I can make. Very Respectfully, CygnetRiver (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you CygnetRiver for opening this discussion. I see that you have now added sources to support the events of the charge. This is a good start; however, the issue is whether this is a notable charge that should described as such in the article - as would be established by (multiple) sources. The last sentence of your edit describes why this might be considered notable but it is an unsupported statement that can be considered as WP:OR. The edit still needs improvement in what is the critical issue as to whether this should be retained. I will be reverting your edit for these reason though it is my sincere wish that the issues identified in this feedback can be addressed. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback on my recent edit on Charge (warfare). I appreciate the clarification on how notability is the key criteria for inclusion in this particular list, and that my sources must support the claim that this charge was notable in some significant way. I stand by your correction at this time, until such a point that I come across new sources which can better support the claim that the charge at Krojanty is a notable charge. I am grateful for your feedback, and I hope to become a better editor through such corrections. Very Respectfully, CygnetRiver (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

On the regnal titles of napoloen

Hello Cinderella157 sorry for bothering you i will be honest i am a not regular editor on articles regarding people. Personally i think removing the titles is wrong . I would also like to add that i was not aware of the talk page i have created a new section on the talk page and i would like to hear your opinions i have come up with an idea to both add the regnal titles and make sure the infobox is not bloated Friendlyhistorian (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Failed ping

Hey, I just wanted to mention that this edit didn't actually ping the user. You need to add both the ping template and your signature to the page in the same edit. See H:PINGFIX for more info. — mw (talk) (contribs) 11:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Cinderella157!

Happy New Year!

Cinderella157,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 — Amakuru (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

 — Amakuru (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Amakuru. Best wishes for a prosperous and happy year for you as well. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Supported by

I was unaware of the "Supported by" discussion on Infoboxes (which I would have opposed). The IP who deleted the "Supported by" lines in Infoboxes is suspected of being recidivist socker Orchomen. regards Mztourist (talk) Mztourist (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Mztourist, I thought you might have been unaware, just as I was about the socker. I can only say that the RfC was notified several places including MilHist. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I was on vacation when the discussion took place. Mztourist (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Military blunders

I see no contradiction with the criteria the battle of kiev was a blunder which resulted in the collapse of the soviet army group south,

i really don’t see any contradictions in my edit with the criteria. CoffeeRZ (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

CoffeeRZ, the critera given is: Entries on this list are those where multiple sources dealing with the subject of military disasters have deemed the event in question to be a military disaster (or an equivalent term). [emphasis added] The subject of sources must be military disasters. Sources used to support other entries are specifically on the subject of military disasters. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Listen dude if the largest Encirclement in history isn't a military disaster i don't know what is CoffeeRZ (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Listen CoffeeRZ, we rely on what sources dealing with the subject of military disasters have to say on what are military disasters, not on the WP:OR of editors. That is what the inclusion criteria is telling us. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)