User talk:ShanganiPatrol

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, ShanganiPatrol! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Danube[edit]

Hello! I've reverted your edit to Internationalization of the Danube River; you indicated your edit was intended to be NPOV, but i think that what we ended up with was worse than what was there: The Crimean War was very definitely a bloody one ~ using the word as a simple adjective, not the sometimes intended intensifier/expletive ~ and Britain certainly wanted to hobble Russia, so its actions can reasonably be described that way. In addition, the sentence as you left it, Britain was winning in its attempt to persuade Russia..., was incomplete in that it gave no indication of what Britain was trying to persuade Russia about or to. Hope this is a clear explanation of my edit; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 14:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you LindsayH, I believe you are correct about the bloody part of the Crimean War, however, I do believe that adjectives such as "bloody" should be backed up by sources, and this was another reason I made the change, though I did not record it alongside "WP:NPOV" on the edit page. Also, I kind of wonder about how the Crimean War being bloody has any relevance on the proceedings of the negotiations. Perhaps the war being bloody would make Britain more amenable to compromise? If so, then the article should probably say so explicitly, as otherwise I don't really see why including the term "bloody" would be useful in the article. I apologize for my terseness, but I do not know how to suggest these edits otherwise. Regards, ShanganiPatrol (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the reply. I rather agree with you about the bloody adjective; i'd be happy enough to remove it if it isn't referenced there ~ the only reason i put it back is that it was part of the whole reversion thing, and i wasn't worried about it either way. Maybe i'll just pop over there now (or after i go for a walk) and see if i can figure out its value or otherwise. D'you get what i was meaning about "hobble" versus "persuade"? happy days, Lindsay^Hello 14:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again Lindsay, I get how "hobble" and persuade" would be interpreted differently in the article now, and I wish to thank you for everything you have done for me so far. I'll be sure to keep differences such as these in mind in the future when editing articles. Regards, ShanganiPatrol (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]