Tarletonic

Tactical victory

Not a word about tactical victory not being allowed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history. Creuzbourg (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It clearly falls under "The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to..." etc.Tarletonic (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Why could you not have explained that from the beginning on the talk page, so the discussion will be public and others can learn from it. As of now, I feel that your use of obscure acronyms and refusal to discuss is akin to bullying.Creuzbourg (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Battle of Ridgefield, since I do not know how to ping you. Creuzbourg (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be a talkpage discussion when it's a revert of your WP:BOLD change in line with a clear guideline. But by all means start a talkpage discussion and see if there's consensus for you change. I can't see any "refusal to discuss" on my partTarletonic (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Obligado

Hi Tarletonic. I actually agree with you regarding MILMOS. My approach to the Obligado's infobox was based upon the page Siege of Ostend (take a look there), where there was some sort of consensus that citing reliable sources allows to overcome MoS. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I think that's a bit of an exception that proves the rule.

Sorry didn't realise Darius and FarSouthNavy were both you when looking at what you added to the talk page Tarletonic (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)