Truth Is King 24 (talk | contribs) →Condescending: Apology |
|||
Line 230: | Line 230: | ||
I apologize for originally leaving that on your user page. I'm not sure how I managed to do that. It was not my intent.[[User:Truth Is King 24|<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;color: #996600">Truth is King</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Truth Is King 24#top|<small style="color: #7851a9; font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-style: italic">TALK</small>]]</sup> 14:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC) |
I apologize for originally leaving that on your user page. I'm not sure how I managed to do that. It was not my intent.[[User:Truth Is King 24|<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;color: #996600">Truth is King</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Truth Is King 24#top|<small style="color: #7851a9; font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-style: italic">TALK</small>]]</sup> 14:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
:Could be better worded, but the entire conversation began on whether the the French revolution was ''inspired'' by the American (per the OP), or ''influenced'', so we'd had that discussion earlier. |
|||
:The OP objected to me replacing 'Inspired' with 'Influenced', on the grounds they have ''a very different meaning'' (which I agree), then came back later in the ''same conversation'' to tell me they were in fact ''the same word''. Hence the ''I'm surprised etc'' - why was I having to explain the difference to someone who objected to me changing the words because they were different (a bit 'Alice in Wonderland' but you get the idea). |
|||
:I'll try harder to assume Good Intent next time, although I'm not sure it would have altered this. [[User:Robinvp11|Robinvp11]] ([[User talk:Robinvp11#top|talk]]) 16:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:49, 21 October 2020
Hallo, I see that you created this article alongside the existing Lady Betty (WP:COI: that ws my 20th article creation, on 1 November 2007). That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to develop: existing articles should be improved, not abandoned. I've proposed a merge of your new article into the existing one: see Talk:Lady_Betty#Proposed_merge_with_Lady_Elizabeth_Hastings_(1682–1739). PamD 07:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- And I notice that you also "moved" the talk page with a cut and paste: please don't do this as it complicates edit histories. It doesn't make sense to have 11- and 2-year old comments on the talk page for an article created this week. If you need to move a page, please use the "Move" tab or, if that's not possible, the WP:Requested move system. The talk page will follow (or perhaps there's an option "move talk page" when a page is moved). PamD 07:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
You and His Majesty the King have done great work rewriting pages for certain Early Modern treaties! Great job! Msftwin95 (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC) |
Not Jacobites this time, you'll be pleased to know! The page on Towton has been on my watchlist for a couple of years and I saw you were making some edits to it. You might find this article by Tim Sutherland from the Journal of Conflict Archaeology interesting; a whole new way of looking at contemporary reports of the battle which concludes that Towton may have been of rather different scale and timing than usually concluded. I find his arguments quite convincing. Svejk74 (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Rowland Laugharne
Hi Robin - I'm Phil,
Your latest revisions of the above are a definite improvement and thank you for adding a source after the rather puzzling removal of my own citation for what was left of my addition and which I've queried.
I'd like to respond to your comment about my deleted additions being possibly more relevant in a separate article on the 'Siege of Laugharne Castle'. Although the attack permanently transformed the town's chief attraction into an uninhabitable, if picturesque, ruin its historical significance seems very minor. Just one of many such events during the civil war in Wales and Laugharne is never mentioned again in the records following the events of 1644. It seems to me though that Laugharne castle did have special importance to Rowland Laugharne and is probably worthy of a brief mention in his biographical article. Trouble is I'm not nearly experienced enough as an editor to judge its appropriate weight (or detached enough as a contributor given my username - purely coincidental btw!)
I believe Rowland's early choice to attack Laugharne castle is a classic revenge story really. Rowland's father John had fought a long and unsuccessful court battle to inherit his grandfather Sir John Perrot's considerable estates. These importantly included Laugharne castle from which his family had taken their name centuries before. Following the untimely death of his mother's brother Sir Thomas in 1594 and after many years of bitter litigation by Lettice as the then wife of Walter Vaughn alongside her sister-in-law Dorothy Devereaux, they finally passed to Sir John's illegitimate son James instead of them. Following his death in 1637 and to the further consternation of John (who was still alive in 1644) and no doubt his only son Rowland, the entire estate passed to an obscure and questionable relative in Herefordshire. The owner of Laugharne castle at the time of the seige was Sir Sackville Crowe who had secured a reversionary lease in 1617 on the Lordship of Laugharne, again in highly dubious circumstances, which he was granted on the death of Sir Thomas' widow Dorothy in 1619.
All this could well explain the now deleted description of Laugharne by the Parliamentarians as ‘one of the holds from whence our forces and the country received the greatest annoyance.’ (see Thomason Tracts E256.44) None of this is original research I think, just linking known information.
I recently edited the Laugharne article to remove an apparently common misconception that it was Cromwell who destroyed the castle in Laugharne in a second seige. The source still survives there - for now at least - "Oliver Cromwell was in south Wales on two occasions, in 1648 and on neither occasion did he visit Laugharne. It would appear that the fact that Cromwell defeated Colonel Laugharne has somehow become associated with Cromwell besieging the castle of Laugharne. The only siege at Laugharne Castle was the one of November 1644".
Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sirjohnperrot All reasonable points, although a lot of it is speculation.
- However, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, designed for the general user. There are several implications;
- (a) It has to reflect the general academic consensus - and none of your points appear in any of the biographies.
- (b) It has to be concise - so not everything can be included; and
- (c) It's online. Wikipedia stats show 60% of users only ever read the Lead, and almost the same % do so via a mobile device. What that means is too much detail and they don't read any of the article; so adding stuff is not cost free. Its called 'Bite-size'.
- I want people to read stuff I edit, so I spend a lot of time trying to condense - if you look at any of my articles, I'm constantly removing stuff that is interesting to me, but not really central.
- I seem to be unusual in thinking about the User (probably because I design online Learning solutions). The problem with Wikipedia is you can end up driving an extremely personal view.
- Again, if you do an article on the siege (and it would be a good idea) you can include all this (assuming its sourced). Just not here.
- Hope this makes sense. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Robinvp11 Thanks Robin, I take your point about this not appearing in the biographies - maybe there's a gap in the market for me Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Fontenoy
- Two housekeeping points for User 93.22.148.15 (a) please make sure you put these comments in the right place; if you want to collaborate, I suggest you create a User page. (b) Second, I think you need to read the article more carefully, because you've expended a lot of energy answering questions I haven't raised.
- As a general point, have a look at the list of Sources for this article; the vast majority come from me. If you want to suggest I'm biased, then do the work; dig out your own.
- I have made notations below.
Hi Robin! I hope you're doing fine. May I please know the reasons of your deliberate removals of informations on the page related to the Battle of Fontenoy. I am sorry but considering the content you add and those (including sourced ones) that you deliberately remove, I can't exactly say you're being objective.
There is even a paragraph in the aftermath of the battle where you state the Allies weren't defeated...
Please point to exactly where I make this claim.
...and evoke a notion of British military superiority held in Europe since the War of the Spanish Succession? The Grand Alliance had great military campaigns with the Anglo-Dutch forces under Marlborough and the often forgotten brillance of a certain individual who acted as his second-in-command in the allied campaign and led the Habsburg/german forces... Prince Eugene of Savoy. The Grand Alliance had absolutely stellar campaigns against the Bourbon forces from 1704 to 1709 but not much from Malplaquet (which Malborough himself led again against Villars) to the Rhine Campaign. The allied campaign in Iberia where the British were quite involved against FitzJames and Vendôme indicates that and which is an often forgotten theater as well doesn't.
Regardless of all this, the original claim didn't come from me, but I checked the reference; if you disagree, rather than a paragraph telling me its wrong, produce your own - otherwise, its unsubstantiated personal opinion, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia.
The Allied infantry (the Anglo-Hanoverian one especially) was definitely considered better than the French one, by de Saxe himself included, for much of the 18th century as France has traditionally been famed for its excellent cavalry and artillery but I think your edits are actually selling the whole campaign in Flanders short, despite it being one of the most highly regarded campaigns of the 18th century by contemporaries and near contemporaries (Clausewitz, Frederick and Napoleon) and many military historians.
Again, personal unsubstantiated opinion, which doesn't relate to this article on Fontenoy.
At the same time you seem to not be willing to aknowledge allied shortcomings and disorganization following the fall of Tournai. Almost the entirety of Flanders fell in 4 months and most of it happened before the diverting of troops and ressources by the British to deal with the Jacobites because yes, the British did not entirely withdraw from the Low Countries.
(a) Again, the article is about Fontenoy, not the campaign in Flanders as a whole; (b) I didn't remove it, so you're talking to the wrong person.
I don't know you might not be realizing it but yeah your edits have a pretty much defined pro-Allied stance which I think we can all agree isn't the point of the article.
If that's the case, provide an alternative view, with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.22.148.15 (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Robinvp11 (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations from the Military History Project
Military history reviewers' award | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between April and June 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
|
Belligerents of the War of the Spanish Succession
Hi. I think you're writing nonsense and personal interests are your matter, not my, just study the battles, I checked them all. For example, do you think landgrave Frederick of Hesse was a Hessian mercenary in the Battle of Speyerbach? Ridicolous. So get Hesse-Kassel back there. On the other hand, I did not notice that Cologne and Liège took part in some battle, no leader or commander of them is mentioned here, so how did they take part in the war? It's weird all over. Then I also don't know why you removed Morocco? In the article about sieges of Ceuta is written that it is part of the war. Philip V then fought with Morocco because it was on the side of the Grand Alliance during the war. --Dragovit (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- User:Dragovit That seems an unnecessarily aggressive response. If you take the time to look, I've written many articles on battles of this War, as well as the main one - so rather than assuming I know less than you, perhaps do me the courtesy of assuming I know at least as much.
- Once again, the fact Frederick of Hesse took part in a battle does not make Hesse-Kassel a belligerent. Or the Camisards. I'm not sure why that's so hard to grasp.
- The Imperial Diet declared it an Imperial War; any German state that took part did so as part of the Holy Roman Empire. Bavaria is listed separately because it was in effect ceding from that decision.
- Cologne and Liège - short answer; because there is another Dragovit out there who is utterly convinced they should be included, despite the fact they don't appear in any list of belligerents. And their willingness to constantly undo edits was far greater than mine; you are more than welcome to remove them.
- Ceuta; not sure where you've got this from. Ceuta was ceded to Spain in 1668, and was blockaded by Morocco from 1694 to 1727. An English naval officer approached the Sultan in 1706 to see if they could agree terms for resupplying naval vessels, the Sultan hoped to use the opportunity to get it back but it was certainly not a member of the Grand Alliance or even an ally of Britain.
- Here's the thing; look at the article, I've used a lot of Sources. I have two large books on the war; Ceuta appears exactly once, Morocco does not appear at all.
Robinvp11 (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
A few late 17th c. projects
Thanks again for the comments on reviewing; I see Murray of Broughton is now updated B class, though I still reckon it's GA material . I've submitted one of my own recent efforts so we'll see how that goes!
I've started hacking Argyll's Rising about again - I borrowed a bit of your wording to expand the 'background' section, which I admit was pitifully thin before. If you wanted to or had time to improve it further that would be great.
I'd also been wanting to look at Argyll's own article again. I've spent hours weeding out dreadful 19th century DnB verbiage on this but it still needs a load of work; back in 2006 there was a version of the article written by Argyll's biographer, who was subsequently hounded off Wikipedia and eventually reverted completely for a copyright violation of, er, his own biography. If you are interested in reviewing my proposed changes (when I make them) then let me know as the period and focus seem up your street. Same with Tyrconnell, who turns out to be a far more interesting figure than 19th century historians made him out to be.Svejk74 (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Will do - I've always avoided Argyll, because his picture reminds me of my Paisley-supporting grandfather :), but I am currently rewriting the article on the Bishops Wars, so will have to take a closer look.
- Just finished updating Sarsfield before submitting for B; see what u think. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well, as good a reason as any I suppose :) Incidentally one of the main portraits knocking about usually labelled as the 9th Earl is in fact his father the Marquess, a distinctive looking man. The Earl's not nearly as interesting a figure as his father was but his career is quite illuminating in terms of post-Restoration Scottish internal politics (and of one of the reasons James II was widely disliked; Argyll's prosecution seemed highly personal to say the least).
- Sarsfield looks pretty complete now; I'd say a probable GA, given there isn't much more concrete info on him beyond what's in the article (unless you include the dubious "Sarsfield is the word and Sarsfield is the man" type of thing). Incidentally he allegedly once told his French surgeon "there are two factions here, Lord Tyrconnell's and mine; he can do whatever he wants, I do not care. I will always be stronger than him".Svejk74 (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again for the edits so far on Argyll's Rising; much improved!
An interesting point about Duncanson - I hadn't realised he was involved too, but I suppose late 17th century Scottish society was a very small world indeed at that social level. Incidentally I believe the first Lt-Col of Argyll's Regiment was actually Auchinbreck. Strange that the Auchinbreck family later went Jacobite.Svejk74 (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Auchinbreck was hereditary Lt-Colonel for the Earls of Argyll, which is why he felt obligated to turn out in 1685; Earl of Argyll's Regiment of Foot was one of my first articles :). Robinvp11 (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Booth
Glad to see you helping out! I'm aware the Presbyterian / Independent split is a bit simplistic but am trying to keep background concise (particularly background outside Cheshire; many of the issues are local to the north-west, e.g. ongoing arguments over militia committees, patterns of religious allegiance etc). Any wording suggestions / changes gratefully received...
A point I did want to try and emphasise is that even in early 1659 the Royalists were generally demoralised and very much in the background; the 'Great Trust' seems very much like an effort to inject Royalism into a separate crisis.Svejk74 (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think moderates and radicals is close enough - a major point of contention between Cromwell and those like Edmund Ludlowe was the establishment of the Protectorate (and the proposal by some Cromwell become king). You can argue (as Ludlowe did) that meant the principle was no longer about monarchy, but who ie Charles II or Cromwell. The Independent/Presbyterian split ceases to be a useful identifier because that political principle transcended religious lines eg Fifth Monarchists supported the Protectorate because they assumed it would bring about the Second Coming (like US evangelicals who support Israel for the same reason). Robinvp11 (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Battle of Sourton Down
"the knee-jerk speed of the response" just happened to be when I looked at my watchlist, rather than anything else; there was certainly no malice in it. We clearly have fundamentally different writing styles, and without discussion, I think we are likely to just bounce edits back and forth without finding much of a middle ground. Harrias talk 18:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Duplicating across articles
Hi Robin, and thanks for your contributions. I'm no expert in these matters, but I think duplicating the same text in multiple articles, e.g. Treaty of Compiègne (1624) and Siege of La Rochelle, might be discouraged. I don't know where to look for guidance on that, but I have the impression I ran across it somewhere. Certainly no great offense in any case! Just wanted to alert you. Eric talk 22:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up; I haven't found it to be a problem previously. It seems odd to argue linked articles shouldn't share content; since the Treaty was designed to deal with La Rochelle, I'm not even sure how it would be enforced.Robinvp11 (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Miller (1978)
Hi, you have added a reference to "Miller (1978)" to Glorious Revolution in Scotland, yet no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add it? Thanks, Renata (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Also missing "Wedgwood 1938" in Treaty of Compiègne (1635). Suggest installing a script (explained at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors) to highlight such errors in the future. Thanks, Renata (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Done; I can't install the script for various technical reasons, just have to be more careful. :) Robinvp11 (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Four sources missing in National Covenant: Lee 1974, McDonald 1998, Wilson 2009, Stevenson 1973. Please do be more careful. Renata (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Two sources are missing in Third Anglo-Dutch War: "Kitson 1994" from September 2019 and "Le Blond 1758" from October 2019. Thanks, Renata (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Treaty of Ripon
Thanks for your help with Treaty of Ripon :) One thing though, you've added Harris 2014 as a citation, but this is missing from the sources section. Are you able to add the full detail please? --CSJJ104 (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Thirty Years War revert.
Hello Robinvp11, I have noticed you reverted my edits restoring the Article to his last version before your edits. I know you have made a long work of 5 days. If my edit caused a problem I apologize but some information in the infobox should be kept as well. Especially the repercutions and the Casualties section. The list of commanders and states was insanely long, I agree with you on that. But the consequences should be kept for the understanding of a "normal" reader. A plain "Peace of Westphalia" for such a event is not encyclopedic. Mr.User200 (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Also saying that the article was not updated since 2012 is not true, since I made changes to the Battlebox this year. If you want to change the content on the main body of the article, ok go ahead. Battlebox was ok in the current version. Mr.User200 (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm following Wikipedia guidelines on Infobox ie Consequences is the Treaty that ends it, and territorial changes.
- If you have specific changes you'd like to include, please let me know, rather than simply inserting them. The 50,000 Ottoman cavalry were only 'offered', they never actually showed up.
- The list of belligerents is taken from Wilson, Wedgwood and Tucker; I see you have an interest in the Ottomans/Turkey but they are not considered participants (and if you read the article, it explains why).
Robinvp11 (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with you in that. The changes you made in the content are Ok for me. No reason for disagree on that. Regarding the outome of the War for sake of room and simplicity just added 3 consequences instead of 8.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations from the Military History Project
Military history reviewers' award | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 3 reviews between July and September 2020. Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
|
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Uncivil Behaviour, Source Deletion, and Article Neutrality. Thank you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
DRN Notice
At the direction of administrator Tenryuu, an event has been arranged in discussion of the impact, influence, and/or inspiration of the American Revolution on that of the French. 021120x (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2020 (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 a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
021120x (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Reflections at Talk:French Revolution
Robinvp11, thanks for your work at French Revolution, as well as your comments in several different discussions at the its talk page. This is just a follow-up to my reply to you in your #Reflections discussion there.
Please don't be discouraged, even by being "dragged" by somebody to DR, or even ANI, or wherever. If you keep calm, do the right thing, and just keep on improving the article per policy, as you have been, and discussing calmly at the TP, like you have, nothing ill will come of it. In fact, it can help hone your skills, as one's understanding of policy generally improves in settings with plenty of experienced users called upon to look at contentious situations, so it can even be a good thing, in that sense. There's another benefit: as long as you keep your nose clean, those who are running around half-cocked, issuing unfounded accusations, violating policy, and dragging users to the drama boards will be seen for what they are (and might even end up in the clink), and you'll end up with some positive editor cred among a whole new set of users who haven't interacted with you before and can see how you kept your cool and stayed laser-focused on improving the article, and discussing civilly, while those around you were forcing their opinions into articles and issuing threats. So, hang in there, keep on doing what you're doing, and don't get rattled. If you feel like you're reaching your limit, go off and do something else for a day or two, then come back. It would be a shame to lose your voice there, just because of the misbehavior of other editors.
By the way, I value your perspectives on the article, but what I value isn't so much that we appear to agree on a central point of the content dispute at French Revolution (although that's always nice), but rather that you're trying to do the right thing and stick to policy and discuss civilly. I'd rather you keep on doing that, and disagree with me on every single content issue, than vice versa. Content agreement/disagreement comes and goes, so you can be on the same "side" with someone one day, and 180 degrees apart the next. That's nbd. But following policy and discussing civilly is something you can carry around to every discussion, and will get you respect from editors of good will with opinions all over the map. (You've got mine, so don't worry about taking an opposite position from me some day. ). Actually, now that I think about it, our first interaction *did* start out as nominally "opposite", when you reverted my addition to French Revolution in this edit. That was my first edit there, or at least, lately, and I was unaware of the drama going on at the Talk page; your revert was both completely proper per policy, contained a neutral and informative edit summary, and even may have gone against your own preferences in the article. Bravo! That tells me all I need to know about you, as an editor here.
So, hang in there, stay calm, keep on following the behavioral and content guidelines, and don't get rattled by threats, just let them roll off you, like water off a duck's back. When a discussion gets lively and some editor with limited understanding or a low threshold for histrionics threatens to bring me to ANI, I will occasionally provide them a link to ANI and invite them to do so if they are particularly annoying, but mostly I just ignore their bluster. You can, too. If you ever wonder if you're approach on something seems right, or if you're worried about something, or you just want a pep talk, stop by my Talk page anytime. In the meantime, illegitimi non carborundum! Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wow, I don't normally even go to ANI and I certainly don't know why I went there today but that was a lot to read. Look, some people, myself included, can be overzealous and extremely passionate (that's putting it nicely) about specific subjects we hold dear to our hearts. I admit that may not always be a good thing. I tend to get very narrow minded and focused when that happens but that's because I am a focused person by nature. I am still learning. Sometimes I get it right. Other times not so much. I also talk too much which my Papa told me was an issue and my grandfather warned me against. So, here's my deal. You are an exceptional person and a valuable editor to this encyclopedia. I'd say that if we were on opposite sides and I truly believe that is the case, even for those I disagree with right now. I just wanted to drop a note encouraging you to keep being you, which is pretty awesome (Yes, I read your background). Don't get discouraged. It's easy to do. I've quit three times in the past week. I can appreciate someone who offers a thoughtful and constructive approach to every comment. I find that some editors who have been here for a long time become so familiar with specific nuances that they offer short and terse responses without any depth to it and expect that new editors like myself will just get over it because they have been here for so long...I am rambling. Just keep being you and keep creating, editing and offering your perspective. :-) --Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Condescending
From October 9 French Revolution talk page: "(6) Surprised I'm having to explain this" - condescending, perhaps? Truth is KingTALK 18:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC) (moved from User page to Talk Page by Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC))
I apologize for originally leaving that on your user page. I'm not sure how I managed to do that. It was not my intent.Truth is KingTALK 14:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Could be better worded, but the entire conversation began on whether the the French revolution was inspired by the American (per the OP), or influenced, so we'd had that discussion earlier.
- The OP objected to me replacing 'Inspired' with 'Influenced', on the grounds they have a very different meaning (which I agree), then came back later in the same conversation to tell me they were in fact the same word. Hence the I'm surprised etc - why was I having to explain the difference to someone who objected to me changing the words because they were different (a bit 'Alice in Wonderland' but you get the idea).