Your submission at Articles for creation
Your observations were valid ones. Personalluy I never had anything to do with the article in the first, but I decided to lend a helping hand. I believe the "Tag" can now be removed and since you placed it I'm giving you the honor of doing so. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC).
Formal mediation has been requested
Request for mediation rejected
Don't you take me to task for the sock puppet without any evidence. He has been blocked. So, why can I write here? If you think "Wingwrong = Anonymous sensible", you can use w:Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry.
I have to promote that the contents of the English Wikipedia is terrible in bulletin board of Japan. I believe that many Japanese well speak English come here. Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 19:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
If you care to read the uboat.net section, you will see that the source quotes two figures for the number of u-boats sunk by the B-24, the one that you have found, and the one that I quoted. I am an aviation historian - are you???? So you say that you are doing my work for me - this is bordering on facicious and I expect an apology. I will complain to Wikipefdia about your conduct.
- Flying Facts, your citation was entirely inadequate. If you cannot do a Wikipedia cite properly, so that a reader does not have to surf the url for himself to try to find the source of your figure, then you are hardly in a position to complain when someone who does take the time to try to run down the figure in order to do the citation properly finds a different figure. --Yaush (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I responded to your question on the page, but here it is re-pasted in case you wouldn't go back to look (plus containing a little clarification):
Generally the standard for IP users is that they must be actively breaching a final warning now, not one that has been placed in the past. It's to prevent current, ongoing sprees of vandalism. Long-term misuse from many IPs, being reallocated (such as at schools), is kind of inevitable, but individual stints thereof can be interrupted. In this case, warnings were given, they've stopped, there's nothing to interrupt. Blocks are likelier to affect unrelated students than the vandal in question at this point. If someone else starts, we can hit them while they're at it after they've been sufficiently warned and gone on to ignore it. - Vianello (Talk) 19:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
P-38 SHOT DOWN BY FIAT CR.42
You agree with Binksternet, all right, but you think is correct that you first delete a contribute and afterwards you suggest to move it to the talk page? I mean, who give you the authority to do so? I have the right to edit the article exactly like you have the right to delete others contributes if not more. The information is quoted by two Osprey books, and you agree that it is "trivia", so you think that Osprey publish trivia in its books? ANd who are you to state this? I complained about the behaviour of people like you and Binksternet, let's see what happens. Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
If you are going to make a correction to something you ought to be correct in what you are doing. The actual word is matériel, not materiel which is incorrect... Half-knowledge is as dangerous as no-knowledge... Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- "materiel" is a widely accepted variant; see, for example, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mat%C3%A9riel But this begs the question of why you didn't change it to matériel? --Yaush (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
For the discussion about Nanking, Snorri offered a new table which I can see many western historian who support the death figure range from 200,000 to 300,00. Thus I think current figure 40,000 to 200,000 is not Neutral. Hence, I proposal the number of deaths is contested among scholars, whose estimates range from 40,000 to 300,000
It is not unencyclopaedic to refer to Antony Preston as "well respected"! you only need to go to his own article on Wikipedia to see the extent of his knowledge and voluminous output of Naval publications. He has been the editor of books by both Jane's and Conway, who are both regarded as the bibles of naval history.The Dart (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- "The World's Worst Warships" was also co-authored by George Paloczi-Horvath, so it is not just one authors views that were quoted. As for POV, the reason for actually quoting Preston is to actually balance the negative views expressed by various anonymous non-expert critics of the "Nelson's" in the past. All of which are mentioned in various parts of the article. Can I suggest that if you are not well researched on the topic, then don't contribute to it.The Dart (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)