Jump to content

User talk:Nihlus1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wrant (talk | contribs) at 13:59, 26 December 2016 (→Figures @ German casualties). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Nihlus1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battles of Khalkhin Gol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armored cars (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) 12:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pacific War 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:
  • //books.google.com/books?id=ow5Wlmu9MPQC&q=27%2C000#v=snippet&q=27%2C000&f=false|1]]</REF>, around 9,400 Dutch killed including 8,500 who died in captivity (likely not including

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 26 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Grozny (August 1996), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page APC (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) 10:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Casualties in WW2

Hi, You may find this of interest. the author is Bianxiu Yue who has done work on China's war losses. [1] I used Google translate to read it. Also I have put the numerical data on an Excel spreadsheet. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


You may find this of interest: John Dower cited this source for Japanese casualties (see pages 22/23)

昭和財政史　終戦から講和まで　第１９巻 Shōwa zaiseishi : shūsen kara kōwa made. Dai 19-kan, Tōkei 昭和財政史 : 終戦から講和まで. 第19卷, 統計 / Shōwa zaiseishi : shūsen kara kōwa made. Dai 19-kan, Tōkei Author: 大蔵省財政史室編. ; ; Japan. Ōkurashō. Zaiseishishitsu, Publisher: 東洋経済新報社, Tōkyō-to Chūō-ku : Tōyō Keizai Shinpōsha, Shōwa 53 [1978]

Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dower also cited this Japanese source (page 241) for Sino Japanese war casualties- Showa Shi (昭和史)– 1959 by Shigeki Toyama (外山, 茂樹) (Author), Seiichi Imai (Author), Akira Fujiwara (Author)

Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history.
FYI, your edit, here, caused a lot of red error messages in the references section. Please take a look to see how it can be fixed 220 of Borg 11:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Torch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian campaign (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) 11:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hi, Nihlus1. I'm leaving this brief note to inform you that I am heading over to the Edit Warring page to report you for repeatedly deleting reliably-sourced content. It will take me a couple minutes to complete the report, which should give you time to self-revert your deletion. Just so you know, if you personally disagree with sourced content, you need to explain your concerns on the article Talk page, rather than try to just edit-war content out of the article. If you feel PBS "made up" the number, as your last edit summary says, you need to explain why on the Talk page. As far as I know, that PBS source is generally considered reliable. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xeno. Looking at the page now, I realize my mistake- I thought that Rummel and Tucker were being cited as the source for civilian casualties, while the PBS citation was just for the number of lost aircraft. Tucker gave 52,000 civilians as the number killed during the operation, with the CIA giving the number as 72,000, while Rummel gave 90,000 - 180,000 as the number killed by American and South Vietnamese bombing and shelling for the entire war.--Nihlus1 (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refrain from submitting the WP:AN3 report on the 4 deletions in under 12 hours. Mistakes happen. I suspected you might not be looking at the right citation (hence my suggestion to look at the end of the cited sentence). Casualty estimates will always be varied, sometimes with a significant variance between high and low estimates. The PBS estimate isn't even the highest estimate out there for civilian deaths during Rolling Thunder. Will you be reverting your latest deletion of the 182,000 figure, or will you be disputing that estimate? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll revert it. I don't feel like disputing sources for the Vietnam War.--Nihlus1 (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 21 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burma Campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bengal famine (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) 11:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 1 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foreign Legion (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) 10:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Guards article

any reply? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terrorism in China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Han (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) 09:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pacific War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Timorese (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) 09:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eastern Front (World War II), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heer (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) 09:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eastern Front (World War II), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heer (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) 09:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction at WW2 Casualties

According to the source cited Congressional Research Report – American War and Military Operations Casualties [2] Army deaths in WW2 were 318,274 (234,874 battle, 83,400 nonbattle), The Congressional Research Report has the official U.S. government casualty figures. I don't where you found the numbers you posted, but they are wrong!--Woogie10w (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited by the Congressional Research Service is the US Dept. of Defense, Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS). You can check their data at [3]--Woogie10w (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was using "US ARMY BATTLE AND NONBATTLE DEATHS IN WORLD WAR 2: FINAL REPORT", pages 96-98.--Nihlus1 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nihlus1 the difference of 9,256 are those deaths of POW and those listed as MIA. See page 7 of US ARMY BATTLE AND NONBATTLE DEATHS IN WORLD WAR 2: FINAL REPORT". For official US-DOD purposes the battle casualties are 234,874. Most of the POW deaths were in Japanese captivity. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also Nihlus1 I have been on Wikipedia for ten years and obey the rules. I noticed that you changed the figures at WW2 Casualties and left the same source, the Congressional Research Service report. The credibility of Wikipedia is on the line when the source cited does not agree with the information posted. I always check my postings and make sure that it is backed up by a reliable source that can be verified. As a rule of thumb I keep a hard copy of my sources. If there is a dispute or need for verification, I will provide a jpg via email. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Sorry, I thought the numbers were the same between both official records (that report is also cited on the page) and someone had made a small error in the listing.--Nihlus1 (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nihlus1, I appreciate your corrections, but please try to be more carefully. Your recent edit at Western Allied invasion of Germany: here is flawed. For the monthly casualty rate, Overmans included dead POWs but excluded the living POW held. He listed for the entire year 1945 a total loss of 1,230,045 in the final battles; 57,495 in other theaters and 252,188 POWs. If you summ up the loss rates from Jan. to May in the monthly table, you receive:
Year January February March April May Total
1945 451,742 294,772 284,442 281,848 94,528 1,407,332
As it was stated before, the total loss for the Final Battle in 1945 is 1,230,045. So you have to subtract it, which would then give 177,287 death POWs and probably also include a number of losses to other theatre. So, your given loss of ~220,000 is not correct and likely to be much lower. BeansHere (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the number should be a bit lower; the three month (March, April, May) death tolls I used were for total deaths and would include POW deaths and deaths in other theaters, as you said. However, I don't think the toll would be "much lower". I was aware it wasn't 100% accurate, hence the "~", but given the small difference (13%) between the deaths in those months when just counting battles in Germany (1,230,045) and counting everything (1,407,332), I don't think the difference would be that big. So I think the number on there is reasonably accurate and much better than not putting any of Overmans' data there at all. I don't actually own that book, I was basically just copying info from one page onto another, so maybe it actually does break down the deaths specifically in Germany by month, but I doubt it.--Nihlus1 (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that it is better than nothing, the number appear to high. If you subtract it, the loss of POW and the number for other theatres would rank up to 177,287 in total, 35,457 per month or 106,372 for 3 months. That gives an estimated of 113,628 dead to the previous 220,000, a very significant difference. However, considering the estimated loss represented by Zaloga and Dennis in the lead of the article, 120,000 dead, 280,000 captured, I think we are somewhat close to what we could expect.
Something else I have noted in the same article. Since you don't own the book, why you stated that Overmans would not include naval and air losses? (here). However, Woogie10w was so kindly and generous to offer me the relevant pages after request. It is by now clear, that Overmans does include them, as he declared to account all the casualties of each service branch from 1 January 1945 onwards. Regards BeansHere (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I declared he does not count naval and air losses, because that is what the Wikipedia page said. German casualties in World War II has a category of "Other" on that Overmans table, which it said included naval and air losses in the war above/around Germany. It does not appear to say that anymore, so that was probably just some error a guy made way back when that stuck there for a while; but that is making me wonder about what IS included in the "Other" category, since it clearly doesn't overlap with the "final battles in Germany" category (right now it's listed as "Germany, naval, Poland, etc."; which is confusing). I would note that the estimate by Zaloga and Dennis is not for the campaign specified on the page, but rather for parts of it (Plunder and Lumberjack) in early March prior to the main thrust; all it really says is that the casualties must be much, much higher than that. Now, on POW deaths, it appears you made a mistake; you subtracted the 106,372 all from the Western Allied invasion numbers rather than for the German numbers as a whole. That'd mean, discounting POWs and other theaters, 554,446 German soldiers were killed in action in those three months (284,442 + 281,848 + 94,528 = 660,818, 660,818 - 106,372 = 554,446). 1/3 of those were attributable to the Western Allies, putting the German military's death toll from the invasion at ~185,000. I just hope that's not considered too much extrapolation, because Overmans' data is by far the best we have.
On another issue related to Overmans' study, Woogie10w, I have to ask: you said that Overmans said that total losses in the west were 1 million, compared to 4 million in the east. I'm almost 100% certain that he's just referring to deaths there, not overall losses including wounded, as you said on the German casualties in World War II page and Western Front (World War II) page. Mostly because that would imply that, one, pretty much no troops were wounded without being killed on the Eastern Front (2,742,909 killed until 12/31/44, 820,000 in Germany, ~350,000 as POWs, tens of thousands more in German-Soviet battles in the Balkans and Finland), and two, that the Germans had one of the highest killed vs wounded ratios in history on the Western Front at 1:3. Then again I suppose a lot of the prisoners taken were wounded too, and wouldn't be double counted as also being wounded casualties...? What's the deal?--Nihlus1 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed confusing, but as I recall, the naval (infantry) casualties in "Other" category, are mainly attributed to the evacuations in East Prussia, as Overmans stated. However, sea and air casualties should be included in the Final Battle aswell. Yes, your right, the correct number would be around 185,000.
Overmans gives a ratio of approx. 1:4 for the causalties for West and East. Yes, he is referring to deaths only. The problem was, that I did not have all the relevant pages accessible on GBS (Google Book Search) when I made that suggestion. Overmans spoked about included wounded, but the exact context was missing. After requesting Woogie10w for assistance, I know it better. Overmans included those which died of their wounds, during transportation, illness, infections, suicide etc. As those status reports on the wounded, do not list their fate or that they would have died later on. Regards. BeansHere (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, though, shouldn't the "Others" not include deaths caused by the naval and air war? I can't see any other way that "Other" can include "Germany, naval, etc.". The "Final Battles" category and "Other" category are clearly counted separately there...
Hmmmm. So in that case, the Western Front (World War II) page should say 1 million German soldiers were killed, not killed or wounded (the Allied total includes people who died of wounds or illnesses in the theater). Wounded numbers remain unknown (unless he lists them somewhere too?) but should probably be around 2 million going by the normal killed to wounded ratio. However, I have to ask: does that number include Italy, naval battles, and German military deaths caused by the air war, especially by strategic bombing?--Nihlus1 (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overmans stated that the "Others" category included all Operations with either marginal casualties, which separate assignment would not make much sense, or contained cases of dead sentences which could no be assigned (Marine).

In German: "Die Kategorie "Restliche Kriegschauplätze" ist dagegen heterogen - hier wurden alle Operationen zusammengefasst, bei denen die Verluste so gering waren dass die seperate Ausweisung kaum aussagekräftigen Ergebnissen führen würde. Hinzu kommen Fälle, die sich kein Land-Kriegschauplatz zuordnen lassen, vor allem also solche von Marinenangehörigen" p.174

However, he still breaks down the "Others" category with following percentages:

  • over 50% Volksturm, + an unknown percentage of Police and other paramilitary forces in homedefense.
  • 20% POW casualties
  • 22% Navy (19% Infantry deployment for evacuation in East Prussia, plus 3% sea casualties of unknown dead sentences)

In German: "Deutlich grösser ist der Anteil der Kategorie "Sonstige" worunter hier der Volkssturm, die Polizei und die paramilitärischen Verbände zusammengefasst werden. Es ist vor allem auf den Volkssturm zurückzuführen, dass in dieser Guppe mehr als 50% Przent aller Verluste auf die Endkämpfe entfällt, aber dass diese Gruppe mit ca. 20 Prozent Todesfällen in Kriegsgefangenschaft [...]

"Ähnlich verhält es sich bei der Marine. Der hohe Anteil an Marineverlusten auf den "Sonstigen" Kriegschauplätzen is erfassungstechnisch bedingt - die Marinelverluste sind insgesamt so gering, das eine differenzierte Ausweisung keine aussagekräftigen Ergebnisse liefern könnte. Erstaunen mag auch die mit ca. 19 Prozent relative grosse Bedeutung der Endkäpmfe für die Marine - es handelt sich dabei vor allem um Todesfälle im zusammenhang von der Evakuierung aus Ostpreussen und die Verluste im Infanterieeinatz. Trotzdem, mit einem Gesamtanteil von weniger als 3 Prozent is die Bedeutung der Marine unter Verlustaspekten marginal." p.268

For the Luftwaffe, (Luftabwehr, Flakdivisionen, Luftwaffenfelddivisionen, fliegende Verbände) he does not give a concrete percentage but stated that the majority was for infantry deployment, whereas all personel were assigned, regardless of whether they were trained and or equipped.

For the Western Front (World War II) page, I would describe the ~ 1 Million, as per killed, missing, died of wounds and illnesses, and with other dead sentences included. Unfortunately, Overmans do not list wounded, but put those which died of their wounds at 500,165. See table "Cause of Death" here: German casualties in World War II

Since I don't own the book either, I can't say if some of the causualties esp. in the Final Batlle, Italy, Naval were caused by by strategic bombing. Maybe Woogie10w can give you some further explaination, but for now, thats all what I can say. I hope it helps. Regards BeansHere (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nihlus1, I have refined German casualties on Western Allied invasion of Germany, according to our extrapolation of around 185,000 death. Seems you have missed it. Hope it's alright, feel free to make further corrections. Regards BeansHere (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drone strikes in Pakistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Militant (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) 09:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 22 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring

Hello, Given that you haven't obtained consensus for those changes to the infobox at Talk:European theatre of World War II, making the same change at Defence of the Reich with an edit summary explicitly carrying that dispute across [4] wasn't well considered. It would be good if you didn't do this again, as it's disruptive and really not good practice. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that you were also edit warring in the European theatre of World War II article by remaking that change while the discussion was still ongoing [5]. Please stop this. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Isn't it only edit warring if I'm changing the status quo without consensus? Because that page had been that way for about a month, since I posted my explanation with citations in the talk back in February. I assumed that since there was no objection until today, it was fine? Thanks.--Nihlus1 (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at Talk:European theatre of World War II is obviously ongoing, with you and Colonialmarine9 swapping vast talk page posts from about 2 days ago to today: [6], [7], [8], [9]. See WP:DR if you want advice on how to handle disputes - declaring victory and edit warring across articles isn't it. Re: New Guinea campaign‎: the same kind of things hold. If you want to make an argument that the USN played a larger role in that campaign through its operations in waters distant from New Guinea, please provide sources which argue this. The sources I'm familiar with stress that this was an Australian-US campaign involving all the services of both countries in key roles. The large-scale Japanese casualties mainly occurred after the Allied ground and air forces had completed their movements along the coast of New Guinea, with the Japanese being isolated in the centre of the island and its west. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is, it's only an ongoing dispute as of the last 24 hours. For the past month or so my February edit stuck with no objection after I posted my logic, so shouldn't it be the other guy who's guilty of edit warring and in need of a warning? Also, on the New Guinea page, I provided a source which says most Japanese troops who died there, died of disease due to the naval blockade, without ever seeing an enemy. Or is "playing a larger role" not defined by how many enemy deaths you cause?--Nihlus1 (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This proves that you made stuff up here to excuse your continued edit warring - your "weeks" weren't even a month, and you provided no sources to substantiate your claim. I will report you for this if it continues. Nick-D (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but did you even look at the edit reasoning in question? I did give a source weeks ago: the United States Strategic Bombing Survey on the "Strategic Bombing during World War II" page. And it was "weeks" ago (about 3), I don't see what it not being more than four has to do with anything. No one else has provided any other source or reasoning.--Nihlus1 (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Per a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Nihlus1 reported by User:Nick-D (Result: Blocked). If this matter is important to you, consider using an WP:RFC or other method of WP:Dispute resolution. Continuing to revert is not an option. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian casualties

The latest overall SOHR toll from today [10] states that Iranian combatants are counted among the non-Syrian pro-government forces. So, the Iranian dead figure needs to go beside that number, in brackets, otherwise it would be double-counting to separate them. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nihlus1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

East African Campaign (World War I)

I altered your citation to the usual format but couldn't find the statistical information on money following the url you added, where did I go wrong? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see 2016 and a link to measuring worth . c o m but that's it.Keith-264 (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what's up on your end. Maybe try just going to http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ and selecting the year 1914? It's the first website that comes up when you google "UK Public Spending".
Found it! It had been coming up 2016 earlier, rather than 1914, thanks Keith-264 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable edits

Can you explain why you changed referenced figures in this article? When clearly the Spencer Tucker source states 20,000 Ottoman casualties and 12,000 Russian casualties.

Do you have evidence that the figures you changed in this article are supported by Tucker, Spencer. "World War 1: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection". ABC-CLIO, Page 1079? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 20,000 VS 12,000 figures were specifically for the Battle of Koprukoy, as stated in Allen and Paul Muratoff's "Caucasian Battlefields", page 342, and Wikipedia lists that as only part of the Erzurum Offensive. In addition to that were 9,000 casualties for the Russians and 15,000 for the Ottomans in the taking of the fortress of Erzurum itself, as stated on "Caucasian Battlefields" page 363. This puts casualties for those two battles at 21,000 Russian (17,000 if you don't include disease/frostbite cases) vs 35,000 Ottomann. This was cited in the body of the article. You also didn't appear to read fully the Tucker source, which reiterates that the Russians and Ottomans took 9,000 and 15,000 casualties respectively in the taking of the fortress of Erzurum in addition to the previously mentioned 12,000 and 20,000 figures. Page 648.--Nihlus1 (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So let me see if I have this correct. You first changed the figures, without any explanation in the edit summary. Then removed said references again without explanation.
  • "You also didn't appear to read fully the Tucker source...."
No, I simply read the page which was referenced, since there was no explanation as to why it was removed or why the figures were changed. Considering you have been blocked for edit warring, you might start explaining your edits. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extra scripts for editing

If you like adding wikilinks it might help if you set up a page like User:Keith-264/common.js and install importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); so you can check if you've duplicated them in error. importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); is also very useful. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Figures @ German casualties

Please note well that the figure of U.S. 202k deadin the 1945 Marshall report are for the Army in combat only, the higher figure from 1956 of 407k also includes the Navy and Marine Corps as well as non combat dead ie. accidents and natural causes while in service Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Also Italian fascist forces fought in the Italian campaign until the end of the war . See Italian Social Republic. The 1945 Marshall report is correct to include Italians!!--Woogie10w (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Problem; the figures given in the report clearly only refer to Germans. For example it lists 7,100 POWs as being taken on Siciliy and 130,000 in Tunisia. Yet earlier in the same document, it said 252,000 Germans and Italians combined were taken prisoner in Tunisia. But 130,000 does perfectly match other figures for German POWs. Thus, the numbers can only be referring to the Germans in all cases.--Nihlus1 (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem the source says Italians and includes killled as well POW. There is a note there that says 100,000 Italians were released.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note well: on Wikipedia we report what a source says, not what we believe to be correct--Woogie10w (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That still wouldn't fit the figures. Also refer to the 7,100 POW figure given for the Allied invasion of Sicily; that cannot possibly refer to Italians. But, like the figure for Tunisia, matches the German figures perfectly.--Nihlus1 (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nihlus1 there is no problem. Please see the note below the table (A) 252,415 Germans and Italians were captured in Tunisia .According to the Imperial War Museum Following the Italian surrender in 1943, 100,000 Italians volunteered to work as 'co-operators'. They were given considerable freedom and mixed with local people. Italian fascist forces fought in the Italian campaign until the end of the war with the Italian Social Republic. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nihlus1 I have been on Wikipedia 11 years. When I started to edit my goal was to put the correct data @ WW2 casualties. I realized that there were no correct figures for WW2 casualties, only reliable sources that contradict one another. In any case I would not be surprised if the spouses of many historians balance the family checkbook, the single historians are in bankruptcy court--Woogie10w (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning Edit warring Syria intervention

I want to remind you that you should restrain yourself in editing articles without consulting the talk page. I've undone your edit as it was open for discussion. --Wrant (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nihlus1&oldid=756735874"