Talk:Fort de la Redoute Ruinée

[Untitled]

@Srnec: I went ahead and reverted everything that's changed since Kuru666 began editing this article. I know you had a hand in some of it, but wasn't willing to tease out what was good and what was edited. You know what changes you made earlier, and are welcome to re-add whatever you still think is fitting. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The line you removed about Italian occupation was added by me because Kuru changed the first sentence from 1940 to 1945, but the fort was French only technically after 1940 since they did not control it. It became French again in 1945, but to my knowledge was not used as a fort again post-war. Frankly, there wasn't much wrong with Kuru's edits save poor referencing. We note the size of the French garrison, so why not the Italian? Srnec (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Srnec: Regarding the line I removed a second time, it simply stated that Italy occupied it between 1940 and 1945. I removed it because it was placed between 1860 (Treaty of Turin) and 1892 (new works unveiled) in an article that's currently completely in chronological order. I suppose we can re-add it in the correct place, but I should note that we would need to synthesize that with the fact that, currently, the article says it was used between 1944 and 1945.

As to Kuru666's edits, I've analyzed all of them, and they display a strongly anti-French, pro-Italian bias. I noticed in the ones that I examined closely early on that unsourced or poorly sourced statements often were slanted praise of Italy or smears of France, and quite often not necessarily true. I came to point that I felt the best course of action was to revert all of his questionable edits, explain to him what he did wrong, and allow him to try again if he wants to. If you want to his mistakes yourself, here or elsewhere, you are obviously more than welcome to. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 07:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)