User talk:159.18.26.14

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

June 2009[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Yoga, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Priyanath talk 17:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

April 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Habesha people, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gyrofrog (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2011[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Queen's University, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  BC  talk to me 14:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please register and take part in discussions[edit]

Issues such as the naming of Jogaila/Jagiello have been discussed in the past on article's talk page. Please register and restart the discussion if you think it is an important issue. Making controversial changes such as renaming the article without the discussion is just going to be reverted by others under the old consensus. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

August 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Dodger67. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. The removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Roger (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm Shadowjams. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Sir William Gage Middle School that seemed to be a test. Your test worked! If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Shadowjams (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Toronto Hydro[edit]

Hi! I've noticed your changes to Toronto Hydro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It would be great if you added the source for the chronology you just added to the article. Have a nice day. Bouchecl (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi bouchec1, I work at Toronto Hydro in the communcations department, my boss sent me a text file with information to be updated, because most of the ontent on the page was outdated.
I understand that and I thought you were probably associated with the subject. Ah! PR guys...
Your problem is twofold: we have guidelines on conflict of interest, on verifiability and sourcing. According to house rules I should revert your edits, but I don't really want to do that. It would help me it you could find publicly-available (on the Web, in newspaper clippings or in a library) documentation to support the statements in the chronology, so people could build upon your contribution. To find sources, check articles such as Hydro-Québec which is based on a mix of books, peer-reviewed litterature, newspaper articles, company filings and publications. Bouchecl (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, im in the process of finding links for you. But as it stands all of this information can be verified via sources like:
  • Spectrum-Toronto Hydro News Magazine
  • Toronto Hydro Annual Report
  • City of Toronto Archives

August 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Ginsuloft. An edit that you recently made to Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98) seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please 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! Ginsuloft (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait for you[edit]

Please see the talk page [1] --Juzumaru (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to PSG College of Technology 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:
  • *[[Raghu Raman AmmaiAppa Mudaliar], Industrialist

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Thus the problem is all battles has been mentioned in previous section. Why create a new section to mention these three battles again. Then the actually the reference in section Siege of Suncheon never mentioned 50,000 troops and Suncheon. Actually this reference just showed the things 100,000 in three battles. Where does the Suncheon and 50,000 come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracle dream (talkcontribs) 17:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, this section is not added by me. What I do is I found the contents of this section is totally difference with the reference. I try to correct it based on the reference. If all things mentioned before and others are non-reference, I prefer to delete it.

There is another thing which need to clarify. Actually, the section Death of Hideyoshi is also totally non-reference. The reference in this section is also about the battles which has been mentioned earlier. Can you give the reference about it or I do not want to keep this non-reference thing.

Thus, I will do some changes for section Death of Hideyoshi instead of delete it.You can check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracle dream (talkcontribs) 18:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thus,previous edits are 260,000 to 1,000,000. It means at least 260,000 because of military causalities and up bound is 1,000,000. Use a range shows this is a uncertain thing because of no reference. The fact we know is the military casualties are 260,000 and cannot just use 300,000 based on conjecture. It has been a uncertain thing. Use a conjecture number will make the data more confused.
Another thing is 100,000+ killed should be all soldiers. Two reason: 1. The reference shows 100,000 soldiers killed. 2. This war happened in Korea, Japan will not take its civilian here and how Korean or Chinese forces killed the civilian of Japan?

I see someone delete lots of no reference casualties data in many articles related to Korea Japanese war in 1592. He just deleted the no reference data to unknown even the previous data has been tagged citation needed. I think should not just delete lots of important data which has been tagged citation needed. Probably the data of 4 or 5 articles has been deleted for one-side.Can you check these articles and give a applicable edition?

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to USS Saratoga (CV-60) 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:
  • the Mediterranean, but also participated during the [[Vietnam War]], receiving one [[battle star]]] for her service. One of her last operational duties was to participate in [[Operation Desert Storm]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm Kmg90. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98), because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kmg90 (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Victories, decisive and otherwise[edit]

Please read the article Decisive victory, particularly paying attention to the first sentence. As I said in my earlier edit summary, it does not mean that the victory was lopsided, it means the issue in contest was decided in favor of one side or another. The first battle in a 6-month campaign is by definition not decisive, since nothing was decided (apart from which ships were afloat and which weren't). Kindly stop reverting, thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


I did, and that's why I don't understand where we disagree on this issue. From Wiki: "The term decisive victory refers to a military victory in battle that definitively resolves the objective being fought over, ending one stage of the conflict". Examples provided include things as small as the battle for "Pavlovs House" during Stalingrad - which certainly was one minor engagement in a very lengthy campaign.

In my mind, this victory was a decisive victory in this "one stage" of the conflict (i.e. this first naval stage). The victory definitively dispersed the US navy giving Japan temporary (i.e. tactical) control of the area (which was the immediate objective of the battle and was decisively attained). The fact that they didn't pursue their advantage afterwards (and that other battles occurred afterwards) doesn't seem relevant to the result of this battle on a tactical level.

Pavlov's house was decisive because it stopped further German advance (which is to say it represents the decisive turning point of the battle, when initiative changed hands) - by the time fighting at the house ended, the Soviets had already launched Uranus. Mikawa's victory did nothing to change the course of the battle. Parsecboy (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I still think this is somewhat ambiguous - that is, to what level of operation (and to what extent) does a tactical action need to be decisive? Using the Pavlov's House example: it stopped the German advance in one particular section of the city, but it's not the case that the German failure to capture Pavlov's house was the reason for the Stalingrad failure, or even the reason they went over to the defensive in late November along the entire Stalingrad front (they had many similar reversals in many other sectors). In any case, while I still think this may need some thought (and standardization across Wiki as to how its applied), given the explanation behind your logic I'm happy to drop the issue in this instance. Thanks again. 159.18.26.14 (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The ambiguity is part of the problem - different writers have used different definitions over the years, apart from how Creasy originally defined it. The question was discussed at some length a couple years ago over at the MILHIST project a couple years ago though no strong consensus emerged. Parsecboy (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)