- 1 Your submission at Articles for creation
- 2 Truman article
- 3 Formal mediation has been requested
- 4 Request for mediation rejected
- 5 Sock Puppet
- 6 Re: WP:AIV
- 7 Malkin Source
- 8 P-38 SHOT DOWN BY FIAT CR.42
- 9 Liberty ship
- 10 Antony Preston
- 11 Thank you for your interest in my opinion
- 12 Japanese atomic bomb program
- 13 Battle of Nanking
- 14 Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
- 15 January 2015
- 16 Griffon vulture
- 17 February 2015
- 18 Combat stress reaction
- 19 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 20 good riddance -
- 21 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 22 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
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)
- I'm opening this for discussion at the Nelson article, which is the correct place to resolve this dispute. --Yaush (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in my opinion
Thank you for your interest in my opinion. Please check the mistake in Mr. Binksternet's opinion which I poited out in my opinion, please read Recreation and Amusement Association and Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military again, and please write your opinion in detail. Thank you.NiceDay (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Japanese atomic bomb program
I do not understand why you, Yaush, deleted the reference I entered as a reference for the Japanese Atomic Bomb program. It is a legitimate article, well researched and documented with numerous foot notes and references. The document makes a legitimate contribution to history and reveal heretofore unknown information about the surrender of Japan and the days leading up to that event. I will be filing further protests. Dwight
- Please carefully study WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:SPAM. You linked your own article, which did not appear to have ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal or academic press. Self-published sources of this kind are not regarded as reliable for Wikipedia, regardless of the number of footnotes or the effort and care the author claims to have put into them. In addition, when an author links his own article in a Wikipedia article, this creates the appearance of a conflict of interest (WP:COS). --Yaush (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Battle of Nanking
Some controversy is being generated by the Nanking Massacre death toll estimates used in this article which you commented on recently. MtBell has stated on the talk page of another user that I am violating consensus, but I don't understand on what basis that claim has been made and I have rebutted it here.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, 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. Thank you. MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Yaush, I didn't understand your edit of Rolls-Royce Griffon where your edit summary was "T'aint a species". The griffon vulture is a species of bird, and according to MOS:LIFE the common names of species should generally be lower case. Could you explain? Thank you. 22:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. The article references the Griffon Vulture aircraft engine, not the griffon vulture species of bird. --Yaush (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User_talk:Knight_of_BAAWA. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Edit war/3RR does NOT apply to the removal of vandalism. This is stated in the Wikipolicy. Do not misuse warning templates. Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- You are involved in a content dispute with User:Binksternet. His changes may be wrong; I have no particular opinion on that. But they are decidedly not vandalism. Hence my warning to you. Which you have chosen to respond to in the most childish manner conceivable. --Yaush (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If the hyphenated form of "posttraumatic stress disorder" is more common, then why isn't the name of the Posttraumatic stress disorder page "Post-traumatic stress disorder" instead? --WikiWinters (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&diff=648208239&oldid=648204848 --WikiWinters (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm working with my wife, a historian, on the differences between the United States' and Britain's reaction to combat stress reaction/shell shock in WWI. It's dismaying that there is so little information to be found on the U.S. side. Most American articles I find talk about the British work. I can't even find U.S. Army statistics on the World War I phenomenon, let alone policy discussions. There's lots on WW2, but WWI is a wasteland. Do you have any sources you could point me to? DelbertPGH (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure I can help much. There are, as you say, some good references for WW2, but I'm not acquainted with any good U.S.-centric sources for WW1. --Yaush (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)