User talk:XXzoonamiXX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello, XXzoonamiXX, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Image copyright[edit]

I don't know whether I can give you better generalized advice than you cant get by clicking on the various links at commons:Commons:Community portal. You can ask specific questions at commons:Commons:Help Desk. However, remember to include all relevant source and origination information when uploading... AnonMoos (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Watsonville Anti-Filipino Riots[edit]

WPCF.svg The California Star
For creating the article Watsonville Anti-Filipino Riots, I personally present to you this award on behalf of WikiProject California. May I suggest that you submit your article to DYK so that others may learn of this event. Additionally, I look forward to you improving the quality of the article as time passes. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012[edit]

A tag has been placed on The Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. bonadea contributions talk 17:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio at Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki[edit]

I had to revert your addition to the article even though it was pretty good in terms of information and presentation. The problem is that you directly copied text from the book Ruin from the air: the Enola Gay's atomic mission to Hiroshima, page 163. Other places may have some too-close paraphrasing, which is also a problem. This is not about the leaflet text which is 100% allowed because it was US Government generated and thus is public domain. Take a look at the sentence which starts, "In Hiroshima the bed-ridden and wheel-chair-bound were assembling booby traps..." See? Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Then what do you exactly want me o put in the article? Exactly? Everytime i put it you just simply removed it. Give me some advice.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The usual thing to do is to read the various sources and then write new words which summarize what the sources say. Copying and pasting is not allowed nor is changing one word here and there (called close paraphrasing.) Binksternet (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok I spend a least a day how to put this together. Is this good for you?

"Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing a pristine environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb.

The city also had war industries which was involved in producing parts for Kamikaze aircraft, boats, bombs, shellcasing, rifles and handguns. Hata and his command staff planned on conducting a war of attrition and that every man, woman, and children in western Japan would carry a weapon. Children were shown to how to make and throw gasoline bombs which was enough bottles and fuel being conserved to make over three million. Even the illness were mobilized to assemble booby traps and plant them in the beaches of Kyushu. In addition, they were about 5,000 aircraft in the Kyushu ready to be used as kamikazes. Back in the Hiroshima Harbor, down by Ujina, hundreds of small craft were also be used as suicide attacks as each boat would be filled with explosives and then hide in the coves. If the invasion force came, the boats would come out of hiding and ram into landing craft to blow it up on impact.

Hata hoped that although it was impossible to defeat for Japan to defeat America so it made it impossible for America to defeat Japan. He hoped that the Americans would come to the negotiating table and dropped their demand that Japan would surrender unconditionally.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There are some grammar problems with your suggestion above. Also, there is a little too much emphasis on the general area rather than the target area—the center of the city. I am busy for the next few days but I will work on this text soon. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
That's all i can think off but then, i wanted to get this added as part of the industrial value. That's why it's called teamwork for a reason. Furthermore, can i add LeMays leaflets with the actual text in the article? I want to make sure to the readers(and ones who's too lazy to check the links) that the U.S. did warn the Japanese citizens to leave before the nuclear bombs were deployed. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

BHG talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, XXzoonamiXX. You have new messages at BrownHairedGirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hague Conventions[edit]

Please see IV, Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons or by Other New Analogous Methods. Rmhermen (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You should change the word "aerial bombing" from something else because that makes it seen like it also can apply to military aircraft as well. Would you mind change that wording to something else? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It was intended to apply to military aircraft - that is what the balloons were and why they added the "Other New Analogous Methods" phrase. Actually it turns out that the U.S. was not a party to the chemical weapons part of the treaty - until 1975! Rmhermen (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, Aircraft doesn't exist by the time the 1899 Hague Convention was written, the Wright Brothers invented the aircraft in 1903. After all, the 1899 Hague Convention regarding projectiles dropped from balloons did say that, The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a term of five years, the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other new methods of a similar nature. After five years, aerial bombing virtually did not exist in the provisions when the second Hague Convention took place in 1907. That replaced the 1899 with the second one in 1907, meaning that aerial bombing was virtually non-existent. The CLOSEST regarding aerial bombing was the 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare but this wasn't accepted as a standard international law meaning it wasn't put in effect. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The "by Other New Analogous Methods" was because they knew technology was changing quickly. However the U.S. signed an indefinite extension (Declaration Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons) after the five years were up - which would have been replaced by the 1915 Hague Conference. Since the "Third Peace Conference" never occurred maybe air war is still illegal between any two or more of the U.S., UK and China, the only signatories. Rmhermen (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Because, at the time the 1899 and the 1907 Hague Conventions were written, airplanes were not the primary delivery method of ordnance from the air, as they are today. Also, when the second Hague Convention was held in 1907, the world powers felt they didn't feel the need to renew the ban on bombing from the air by balloons after five years were up so the declaration of 1899 wasn't revived. So the only existing rules of war in the 1907 Hague Convention banned was the bombardment of undefended places by land or sea, not the air. That's why it said "Laws and Customs of War on Land" in both 1899 and 1907 version. To be a war crime, you need to have specifics. That's why the bombings of WW1 and WWII were not declared war crimes at that time and balloon bombing remained mute because the Hague Convention of 1907 never gave out specific definitions laid out for aerial warfare, not the declarations. If the Hague Convention of 1907 covered aerial bombardment, it would have said so OR there would have been a separate Convention on Aerial Warfare, not the declaration. The original definition of defended was made in the context of 1907 weapon declaration - which did not consider massed aerial bombardment. The "Declaration Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons" was a reference to TIME-FUSED AIR-BURSTING ARTILLERY MUNITIONS that came into their own in the conflicts of the American Civil War and the Siege of Paris in the 1870s. The declaration of 1907 was a PRO TEMPORE Declaration, and was never subsequently made a full Convention. And as it was only EVER ratified by the U.S. and the UK, it ONLY applied TO them until the growth of the international law of treaties AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR. ALL you did was prove that the LAND warfare element of airbursting artillery munitions on UNDEFENDED civilian TARGETS only. The USAF review once said that "if international law is not enforced, persistent violations can conceivably be adopted as customary practice, permitting conduct that was once prohibited." So by the SECOND World War, not even the Declaration (XIV) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons applied to the U.S. any more, they had established a "custom and usage" within ten years completely contrary to the Declaration. So there's nothing that said specific anything in the 1907 Hague Convention on aerial bombardment by aircraft and balloon bombing argument remains very obsolete. That's why the ones in the article I'm trying to revise is very inaccurate and misleading. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, XXzoonamiXX. You have new messages at Kolbasz's talk page.
Message added 09:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for June 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Free Press and Transgression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward Snowden may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, XXzoonamiXX. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 06:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, XXzoonamiXX. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 06:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm Narutolovehinata5. Your recent edit to the page Attack on Titan appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Morton (correspondent)[edit]

Hi. Thanks for the message on my talk page. There are two things here. 1) Categories - you can add the article to categories yourself, either by editing the article and typing them in. Or you can add a gadget called HotCat, which helps you do it. You can find this under your preferences. 2) Orphan - an orphan article is one which has no links from other articles. You need to find other articles that might mention Joseph Morton and add wikilinks to link to the Joseph Morton article. You need 2 or 3 articles to get rid of the orphan tag. Hope this helps? Gbawden (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC) How exactly is Morton on the "J" Section when all of the last names are listed in alphabetical order? It doesn't make any sense. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Deny bots.[edit]

No quarter[edit]

Please see Talk:No quarter#Commando order -- PBS (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

National varieties of English[edit]

With regards to your spelling alterations to Strategic bombing during World War II please see MOS:ENGVAR, if you are not familiar with British spellings you should be able to install a UK dictionary into your browser which will allow yo to check the spellings. Also on Wikipedia articles written in British English are in the format day month year with not commas. -- PBS (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm K6ka. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Attacks on parachutists without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! K6ka (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for reverting back the way it was. I have no idea why the entire content I've been working for weeks on was removed for some reason. If anything wrong, then help me out.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep link safe here. Nothing special.[edit]

Thanks much[edit]

Thanks for your helpful contributions at Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC) \

a significant change about Nanking Massacre[edit]

There is a significant change about Nanking Massacre. Hence I create a new discussion topic about it and hope more editor can join it. I want a consensus about it. Please see the talk page of Nanking Massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracle dream (talkcontribs) 11:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Mass murder in Malaya[edit]

I have removed it from the examples on the state sponsored section of the mass murder article as it really isn't that important.

p.s. for traditional british mass murder, have a look at some of the stuff done against the population of new holland and those insignificant islands to the south east. or even better don't, it's unseemly to boast about this sort of thing ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Mass murder is defined by the murder of four or more people so that massacre at Malaya applies. If you don't think it was because it wasn't state sponsored, then maybe the My Lai Massacre should be removed too. The massacre wasn't sanctioned by U.S. commanders whatsoever too. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No Gun Ri Massacre edits[edit]

Hello. I, for one, welcome your recent edits at the No Gun Ri Massacre article, which seem designed to improve accuracy and clarity, in contrast to another contributor's penchant for untruths and cover-up. But I'll quibble with two of your latest:

  • Why remove the page reference rp|113 from the "Committee" footnote? It's standard practice, and there are page references on more than a half-dozen other "Committee" footnotes in the article.
  • In my opinion, the inserted reference to the date of U.S. treaty obligations under Geneva is unnecessary, wordy (in an article already much too long) and potentially confusing to readers, who may ask whether the article is suggesting that the U.S. was duplicitous in saying it would abide by Geneva -- that the Army knew it wasn't legally obliged and so would go ahead and kill refugees. It's just not essential, even though accurate (unlike the dreadful stuff WeldNeck has dumped into the article).

Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 15:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Cjhanley (talkcontribs)

    • Honestly, I don't know. I felt that it was bothering to some readers and that's why I decided to remove it.
    • That was already there for years before I add about the Geneva Conventions not legally binding. I didn't add that in, I just add the latter because without it, it would give reader an impression that it was already legally binding on the US when the No Gun Ri Massacre occurred. I never said killing the refugees is ok, just pointing out the fact that the Geneva Conventions wasn't legally binding on the US when the massacre occurred. It's just the fact. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll restore the page number to the footnote. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 19:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talkcontribs)


Hi, I reverted this edit of yours because I think the problem in the paragraph is one of wordsmithing, but the concepts presented are good. WWII = unintended collateral damage; Malaysia and Vietnam = intended tactic; If you tweak the paragraph to break up the lonnnnnggg sentence while preserving the ideas and sources I'll probably have no objection NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Military history of Japan does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Oda Mari (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

WW 2 casualties[edit]

Your edit During World War II, 26,000 Japanese-Americans served in the Armed Forces during World War II and over 800 were killed in action. does not appear in Clodfelter- You have to provide a source for your edit. Please don't misuse sources. I don't want to take this issue to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard--Woogie10w (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edit 70 U.S. civilians were killed by the Japanese during the Battle of Wake Island, does not appear in Clodfelter- You have to provide a source for your edit. Please don't misuse sources. I don't want to take this issue to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard--Woogie10w (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edit official Japanese figures were 393,367 dead, including 115,000 killed in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki does not appear in Dower Please don't misrepresent sources. I don't want to take this issue to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard--Woogie10w (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is Dower on Google Books see page 298 [1] --Woogie10w (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I will check these sources re US Merchant Marine casualties in Pacific. This may take about a week because they are in in storage at the New York Public Library.

  • Summary of Merchant Marine Personnel Casualties in World War II, US Coast Guard, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1 July 1950
  • A Careless Word - A Needless Sinking: A History of the Staggering Losses Suffered by the U.S. Merchant Marine, both in Ships and Personnel, during World War II, Captain Arthur R. Moore, American Merchant Marine Museum, Kings Point, NY: 1998
  • U.S. merchant vessel war casualties of World War II / Robert M. Browning, Jr. Imprint Annapolis, Md. : Naval Institute Press, c1996.

In general I try to use only official sources for casualty figures. In many cases there are conflicting official secondary sources for casualty figures. An example is the deaths in the Atomic Bomb attacks on Japan, according to the Japanese government 210,000 died and the US Strategic Bombing Survey figure is 105-115,000. On Wikipedia we should present both official figures. You can find many different conflicting figures from non-official unreliable sources WP:RS for the Atomic Bomb attacks posted on the internet and in tertiary sources.--Woogie10w (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I will get a notice from the library this week when the books are taken from storage. They may not have the information we are looking for there is a possibility that the information is not available.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The official US Coast Guard report is online. They did not breakout losses bewtween Atlantic and Pacific. In any case I suspect that almost all losses were in the Atlantic. The US official reports do not always tell us the details of casualties.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


See the Guam Organic Act of 1950. The Chamorro's became US citizens in 1950--Woogie10w (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

We could put Guam on a new line, but IMO keep them with the US since they were US subjects at the time and later became citizens. Today we view them as Americans. --Woogie10w (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The figure of 5 to 10% of the civilian population dead on Guam is a grim statistic. That is the same as the percentage of the ethnic Poles killed during the German occupation.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Good but if that's the case, then what about the Philippines? The Philippines was a U.S. colony at the time in World War II and Filipinos were considered U.S. nationals but they were never included as U.S. civilian casualties list since millions of them were killed under Japan's occupation. I'm just saying this because I don't want mix with confusions.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
You wrote. Did you get my message yet? I was asleep, I suspect you are on the other side of the planet.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I found the official US report that answered the question re: civilian dead in Dec 1941--Woogie10w (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, where's the link? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
its cited on the WW2 casualties page See section deceased [2]--Woogie10w (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The source I cited that listed 1 US civilian killed is correct. On Wikipedia you cannot change the figure to 13 and leave the same link as its source. I added the source you cited and added the figure of 13. The sources cited must agree to the numbers we post on the page. We cannot change numbers we don't agree with and leave the original source on the page! --Woogie10w (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


In future if you are searching for sources re: casualties, I may be able to help. I have been on Wikipedia for ten years and appreciate input from other editors, regards.

A cup of coffee A cup of coffee Bejgli1.jpg

regards. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


I am sorry but I have no figures on the sinking of the Ancona, but I do have the official Italian government statistics for total deaths due attacks on merchant shipping. In total there were 2,293 lost (1,361 crew and 932 passengers), in 1915 the losses were 119 crew and 206 passengers. I have an extensive library [3], the books on World War do not have a word about the Ancona.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Keeping track of American civilian casualties overseas during both World Wars is complicated. My fathers grandmother( a naturalized American citizen) returned to Germany (Prussia) in 1913 after the death of her husband in the Pennsylvania coal mines. The family lost contact with her during the war, the assumption here in US was that she was killed during in the war.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not all American war dead were American citizens [4]--Woogie10w (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prisoner-of-war camp may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • for dealing with large numbers of captured troops early in the [[American Civil War]], the [[Union (American Civil War|Union]] and [[Confederate States of America|Confederate]] governments relied on
  • za drutami, Zwycięzcy|title=Jeńcy polscy w niewoli (1919–1922) Dokumenty i materiały (Victors behind the fences. Polish POWs (1919–1922) Documents and materials|publisher=Wydawnictwo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki[edit]

Hi. I asked you to separate content changes from text reorganisation so we can see what you are doing, but this next edit has obviously moved content around despite the edit summary of "Adding reference." Such an inaccurate edit summary is disruptive. I've no idea what you have changed and will have to revert again. Please make whatever changes you want in a series of edits with each difference easily understood and clearly related to the edit summary. Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? separate content changes XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi! If you look at the differences for either of your two most recent edits, you will notice that when you move blocks of text around in the article, it becomes impossible to see what else has been changed. So if you move blocks of text around, you should not make any other changes in the same edit. This is particularly important in a case like this where your first edit summary implies you want to halve the casualty figures stated in the article. We must be able to see that change in an edit without any other complications. --Mirokado (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, still don't understand. I need to see a bigger picture. So you're saying I should keep the blocks the same way it was days earlier, only except adding a small part.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, you can change the blocks around if you think that will make the article more readable or whatever, just do it in an edit which makes no other changes and has a clear edit summary such as "reorganise for readability, no other content change". If you also want to change the content (such as changing casualty numbers, adding a reference) do that in a different edit, again with a clear edit summary. I always check the difference view before saving to make sure that others will be able to evaluate what I have done. (Incidentally, you only need to indent once when replying...) --Mirokado (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Different edit, such as? As if I edit the whole article then find the section to change it? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Each time we "edit", we click "Edit source" or whatever, make some changes, check them carefully using the "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons, write an accurate and informative edit summary, check that by saying "Show changes" again and then hit "Save page". Once we have saved the page, there is a new version of the article. By "a separate edit" I meant "further changes doing something else after I have saved my previous changes". --Mirokado (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please see also Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Counting the deaths at Nagasaki, just started by user:Binksternet. I suggest you join that conversation to sort out any change to the article casualty numbers which may be needed, rather than changing the numbers unilaterally, which is not a good idea once a thread discussing a change has started. --Mirokado (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)