User talk:Reaper1945

Welcome to Wikipedia, Reaper1945! Thank you for your contributions. I am Destroyeraa and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. If you wish to contact me on this page, please use {{Ping|Destroyeraa}} such that I get notified of your request. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• The Teahouse, our help forum for new users
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Orders of magnitude (power), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. If reinstating material about the 2004 Indian ocean earthquake, please be sure to cite a source on the power output, as otherwise the added content is considered original research. Ionmars10 (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't exactly call it original research, it's stated that the time in which the quake lasted was 10 minutes, and in order to calculate watts you divide watt-hours by time. Reaper1945 (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, excuse any mistakes I make or delay in response, I'm getting use to some of the processes on here. Reaper1945 (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Scholarly Barnstar
		message DishingMachine (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Mathsci (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your second warning within an hour for the same behavior on the same page. (I see that you've just deleted our notices.) After being warned by NightHeron, you went and continued edit warring over the same content. If you continue with this behavior I will not warn you again before proceeding to ANE. Generalrelative (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check your own behavior before you lash out at others, you coming to the defense of an editor after a large discussion in another section shows your bias in the conversation at hand. Refrain from being irrational. Reaper1945 (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on School discipline; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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.

Note that per WP:ONUS The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Generalrelative (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi – I just undid this edit you made in Champions Chess Tour 2021. I believe the points were correct as previously stated. You can see the points awarded for the FTX Crypto Cup at 5:01:30 in the commentary stream with Leko and Sachdev. (Wikipedia doesn't let me post the YouTube link here, but you can find it under "day 2 finals ftx crypto".) If you disagree, please explain why (here or on the talk page). Joriki (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at the point system, yours is most likely the correct version, looked at the point table from Chess24.com, they had it as 88 for Carlsen, 56 for So, but later corrected it to the version put in currently. Was a mistake. ---- Reaper1945 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't even provided an edit summary here (something which you should definitively do when you revert a good-faith edit). Please then take the opportunity here to explain why you think the material you re-instated should be included: as I said, it's an obvious example of WP:NOTDATABASE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off, don't use my talk page to harass or complain, there's a thousand other places. Second off, every fighter, whether MMA or boxing has their fights and results listed near the bottom of their pages, don't know why you randomly targeted Whittaker's page for really no reason when it has already been established. Reaper1945 (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are exactly there to point out issues with edits. As to your second point, is this some form of Wikiproject WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? Because clearly that would be the only explanation why material which is so obviously WP:NOTDATABASE is there (and it still wouldn't be a good reason not to remove it: rather, it would be grounds to go and overhaul whatever the Wikiproject guidelines are). We don't have play-by-play accounts for any other sport, nor do footballers, or even participants in other individual sports (like fencing) get a match-by-match database listing in their articles. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the talk page of the page in question. I'm not the person to ask about it, the information about their fights and results have been there for years, it's not some idea that was created over night. Results for fights and competitions are listed for wrestlers, boxers and MMA fighters. Reaper1945 (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Reaper1945 Please don't forget to source your edits per WP:CITE and WP:RS Thank you Lewolka (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of current UFC fighters, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 09:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this information has been rejected on the talkpage, and the IP started a povpushing edit war instead. Please do not participate. Beibler (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Erling Haaland, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Erling Haaland, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions were not quite right. When updating statistics within the infobox of a footballer, please make sure you update the timestamp at the same time, so that both readers and fellow editors know when the information was last updated.

You can do this by replacing the existing timestamp within the |club-update= or |pcupdate= parameter for club stats, or the |nationalteam-update= or |ntupdate= parameter for international stats. For articles that use a DMY date format, use five tildes (~~~~~), or for MDY dates, use {{subst:mdytime}}. This will generate the specific time the update was made.

If you have any questions about this, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Erling Haaland, you may be blocked from editing. Several prior warnings for unsourced content, please start using references for your edits. TylerBurden (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to restore absurd material like this [[1]] in which the victorious side is supposed to have had 500% more tank losses, then at least provide a RS. The citation you added has a URL which includes nationalinterest.org/blog. If you are familiar with Wiki, you should know blogs are not considered to be RS. This blog author does not even know that Germany was fighting the Soviet Union and not Russia when he writes "Germany had a choice: wait to be hammered by another offensive from the Russian steamroller".

There are a ton of books by Western authors which have ridiculous Soviet casualty figures, you may be able to find one which says 1:6. JS (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "It's quite obvious from the casualties section that the Soviet Union suffered far greater losses. Instead of removing it, provide a source which actually debunks it." This is not how it works.

1) One does not add stuff and then say "find something to contradict it or let it stay".

2) If you *infer* from the casualties section that the Soviet tank losses were 500% greater, you are doing original research. You can't do that, you have to find an actual RS which says that.

3) When it comes to wars and casualties, authors lie through their teeth (just see what if currently happening in Ukraine), but we Wiki editors can exercise a bit of judgement. The blog you cite has the text "historians David Glantz and Jonathan House estimate the Germans lost 323 tanks destroyed, or about 10 percent of the tanks committed to the offensive (and a fraction of the 12,000 tanks and self-propelled guns the Third Reich built in 1943)." Really? The entire German HQ understood that Kursk was their last chance to do serious damage to the Red Army, and a loss there meant the war was lost. You think they would call off the attack "Just as the SS Panzers were about to achieve a decisive breakthrough" if they had only lost 2.7% of one year's production. Even if they did "breakthrough" it would not have been "decisive" they would still have to deal Soviet reserves.

Guderian is himself quoted as saying "With the failure of Zitadelle we have suffered a decisive defeat. The armoured formations, reformed and re-equipped with so much effort, had lost heavily in both men and equipment and would now be unemployable for a long time to come". You think the loss of 2.7% of one year's production equals "lost heavily in both men and equipment and would now be unemployable for a long time to come"? Ridiculous blog!

JS (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gareth Bale, you may be blocked from editing. Seasider53 (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Seasider53 (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

• Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
  • The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
• Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 22:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have some wrong in Battle of Stalingrad. Walsh's numbers including 494,374 German’s allied casualties, and 400,000 German casualties. Thus, total number is 894,374, not 794,374123.18.99.55 (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Walsh "The combined German losses of 6th Army and 4th Panzer were over 300,000 men", and if expanded to included the date of 28 June and Army Group A, it would be 600,000, which is not an accurate number. Reaper1945 (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the policy on undue weight, which is that not all sources and theories are equal. Some sources have higher levels of journalistic integrity and fact checking than others, and sources such as Associated Press and Reuters are gold standards. We have literally hundreds of articles on one side, versus a single one from a Russian source. Until the high quality sources take this theory seriously, it is simply undue to include it. Our loyalty are to our readers to give them the best information possible, not to include all possible theories and viewpoints, irrespective of the quality of said theories.

For Russian sources specifically, the country lacks a fully free press. They are ranked 164 on the World Press Freedom Index and the deterioration of the free press in Russia is well documented. Russian sources should not be cited in a proper encyclopedia article as of now. Furthermore, Ukrainian press should not be cited either. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TylerBurden (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Chasiv Yar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chasiv Yar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Super Ψ Dro 00:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. (t · c) buidhe 22:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. (t · c) buidhe 02:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  EvergreenFir (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Reaper1945 and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• The project Academy has lots of useful information about editing and writing military history articles. One very useful introductory course to get you started is Writing a good stub.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Reaper1945,

Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When adding citations, please adhere to the format used on the rest of the page, as otherwise, it creates unnecessary work for other editors. When a solid academic source has already been cited, it's often superfluous to add more citations. Better editorial time can be spent on articles in need of attention. For instance, there's not much value added/dropping citations in an article like Operations Barbarossa, which is thoroughly researched and appropriately cited. If new information shows up or you're adding a source for a contentious statement where academic consensus has not been established, it may make sense. Thanks and happy editing. Obenritter (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Loli Bahia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to John Haack has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. Given your comment about 'bourda', you know full well that the use of dust suppression spray was widespread during the liquidation phase, yet you *still* removed the paragraph. That is textbook bad faith editing. Replace the source with a "Citation Needed" tag if you like, but do not remove information which you know to be true. I see that your talk page contains numerous warnings for engaging in edit warring behavior like this, so this is my last request to follow proper practices. I will certainly reach out to third parties for assistance if I needed to.

P.S., while 'bourda' is popular spelling, 'barda' (барда) is the original and correct term, as used by the scientists who developed its use in the Zone.Sredmash (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sredmash If you want to keep the information that badly on the page, then it is your job as the defending editor to find an adequate source, there's a reason another editor put dubious source there, so it is not just me. By the way, "bourda" is by far the most common spelling, not "barda", again, provide sources instead of trying to attack somrone and doing nothing to actually back up your defense besides "bad faith", and not giving an actual scientific or legitimate source other than Getty Images, which is not a scientific source nor adequate storage of good information. Reaper1945 (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person who put the dubious source tag was me. Because that is the correct response to a dubious source. The onus is on you the remover to demonstrate that the information should be removed. Lack of a good source is not grounds for removal of common knowledge and basic facts. 'Bourda' may be more common in certain circles, but is virtually unheard-of in reputable scientific and institutional sources, especially those dating to the Soviet period. The Kurchatov Institute and other MinSredMash organizations refer to barda in formal documents.Sredmash (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The use of bourda is not a common fact, considering that's why the source was Getty Images and there was only one sentence about it. If you put the dubious source, then should you not have provided a more adequate source in the first place? Reaper1945 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your contributions to the battle of shanghai and stalingrad articlesWahreit (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also, as someone who is interested in urban warfare, would you have any good reads for the battles of shanghai? appreciate it. Wahreit (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wahreit Thanks for the Barnstar. Regarding your question, I think there's a few good ones, the best probably being the book "Shanghai 1937: Stalingrad on the Yangtze" by Peter Harmsen. The battle isn't usually covered in singular books, but for one that does, Harmsen covers it best. A lot of books that cover the Second Sino-Japanese War will also talk about it, though to varying degrees. Reaper1945 (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. i'd also rec you check out nanjing 1937, battle for a doomed city if you haven't read it already. you can access it for free on internet archive. also, if you are interested in stalingrad, check out chris bellamy's absolute war. Wahreit (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also, just to clear a possible point of contention on the battle of shanghai page, it seems the japanese did deploy poison gas at Shanghai, at least according to scm paine's book. harmsen says differently though, what do you think? Wahreit (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wahreit Could put that it's contested, as the authors are competing, may need multiple sources to give more evidence to either side. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

gotcha. i'll look a bit more into it. Wahreit (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi Reaper1945, hope everything's been well with you. reaching out again as another military history buff, would it be possible if you could check the defense of sihang warehouse page (and history and talk page) some time? i've been making periodic edits there for a while, but it's caused quite a ruckus every time. your input on the info would be much appreciated, thanks partner. Wahreit (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wahreit I can check it out no problem, hope everything is well with you too. Reaper1945 (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

appreciate you. 🙏 Wahreit (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Reaper1945. just following up to see what you think of the situation on the sihang warehouse page. it seems there's a quite some controversy there. (also harmsen did write a chapter about sihang warehouse in his book, just to lyk) Wahreit (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to look more into it, as a lot of sources are mentioned as well, not to mention conflicting accounts about units apparently. Reaper1945 (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm undeadmerc3. I noticed you editted the death toll on Japans war crimes from 10-30 million to exclusively 30 million. You mentioned that the 10-14 estimate is from a history forum however the source on the forum is Sterling Seagrave whom alongside his wife has written numerous books about Japans aggression. It's also worth mentioning that Sterling Seagrave is not the only historian whom has put the body count at at least 10 million. M.R.D Foot puts the estimate at 10-20 million with the latter estimate being cited by Herbert Blix and John Dower. As for the history forum that was cited it was an online interview with Sterling Seagrave himself. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9196

I'd like to discuss reverting the death toll back as there are many folks on the discussion page of Japans war crimes discussion page whom have debated the numbers.

Undeadmerc3 — Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Undeadmerc3 I'm not the editor who removed the forum source, and regardless, a forum with random users is not a reliable source by any means on Wikipedia. If you have a reliable source which gives a figure and or calculates it like Craig does in his scoping book which covers all of it and further calculates it, along with being the most recent source on the topic itself, then it can be added. Reaper1945 (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Undeadmerc3 Bryan Mark Rigg, regardless of his criticisms, which all historians and authors get, his book on Japan has been praised and is very-well cited. Also the 30,000,000 million killed by Japan is not exclusive to World War 2, it extends back to 1927. If you want to include Seagrave then cite one of his books, as even if you wanted to include the forum citation, it wouldn't stand because Wikipedia doesn't really allow for it. Is there a book or anything to cite? Reaper1945 (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the reviews on Amazon. I don't think 3.5 of an average score is well praised. The point still remains that multiple sources an estimates need to be included. M.R.D. Foot for example includes the death toll at 10-20 million and Herbert Blix and John Dower include 20 million. Undeadmerc3 (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Undeadmerc3 Amazon reviews aren't exactly that reliable of a source, one of the reviews quite literally denies the Nanjing massacre as being that bad and downplays the war crimes. Wherever you get your sources, you need to give a citation regardless. Reaper1945 (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, I took a look at the reviews after my last comment, and i'm sorry I didn't do so before. However, respectfully speaking, I don't see this conversation going anywhere. The point is part of wikipedia standards involves using as many sources as possible. I would like to discuss this with the main editor. Thank you for your time. Undeadmerc3 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Undeadmerc3 That's fine, but regardless, if you want to put a number in, just cite a source beyond a forum and it should be fine. Reaper1945 (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm new to Wikipedia. Can you tell me who the main editor for the page on Japans war crimes is. I went to the talk page there, but I can't seem to find the who seems to be in charge of moderating editing on that page. Undeadmerc3 (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no main editor for any single page. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what admin oversees the page on Japans war crimes? I'd like to chat with him if you do. Thanks. Undeadmerc3 (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Undeadmerc3 There is none, it's just open to editors. The person who removed the forum citation is @LilAhok. Reaper1945 (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 76.108.108.12 (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But they aren't random users. If you checked the source I provided above it's an interview with Sterling Seagrave himself. As for other estimates they are listed here. As for "Craig" who are you referring to? The only two sources I found are Mark Felton who despite being a respectable historian somehow didn't cite his source in his video and Bryan Mark Rigg whom has been under fire and criticized for his work as not being a historian. Make no mistake. I'm open to anything, but I typed Craig in the search bar on the page and all I got was some citation of a guy named "Craig Symonds," however the link was broken. It's acceptable to include 30 million, but there are so many perspectives on how many died citing them all is part of Wikipedia standards. 50-55 million civilians died during world war 2 and the 30 million estimate on Japans part needs to be put into perspective. It's fine to include the 30 million estimate, but the numbers are all over the place and part of Wikipedia policy involves citing many perspectives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Mass_killings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Mark_Rigg#Criticism

Undeadmerc3

I don't wanna sound like the bad guy here and I understand that RJ Rummels estimate on Japans body count is too low and dated, but the way you edited his source out of the Japanese war crimes page sounded like Mark Rigg's estimate is the end all be all estimate despite the fact that Riggs is known for relaying on sensationalism and controversy over historical accuracy. https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/in-the-wolfs-mouth-6386054

https://www.chronicle.com/article/were-there-jews-in-the-nazi-army/

https://networks.h-net.org/node/35008/reviews/43906/fine-rigg-hitlers-jewish-soldiers-untold-story-nazi-racial-laws-and-men

Despite having research access from 6 institutions China and Japan both feed off of one anthers historical negationism since China has a bad habit of adding Mao's body count to Japans body count the same why denialists of the nanking massacre add to Mao's body count. It wasn't till the 1970's and 80's when Japan was pressurized on this sort of thing. Till then Mao actually suppressed movements in China that wanted Japan to apologize during the Anti Rightist campaign and even falsely told Japanese law makers in 1955 that they "already apologized" when in reality Mao was more interested in building soft power in Japan as evidenced by the 1960's protests in Japan. These first two citations below speak for themselves, but the rest actually are telling on how China and Japan feed off one anothers historical negationism(for a citation of how China rewrites world war 2, see the last citation before the next paragraph). Granted many history groups in China will show the Kuomintang fighting the Japanese, but are these groups independent enough? Don't get me wrong. Japan has a serious problem with revisionism especially these days with the geo political situation. It's a cycle of denialism that feed the beast. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/china-japan-world-war-ii-tokyo-trial/675660/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzRWPGSaKDk

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335491510_There_Is_No_Crisis_and_It_Is_Going_to_Go_Away_Soon_Anyhow_-Propaganda_Denialism_and_Revisionism_in_Debating_the_Great_Leap_Forward_Famine

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-06-24/china-world-history-erasure-youth-censorship

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/27/china-again-whitewashes-history

https://uselesstree.typepad.com/useless_tree/2013/02/great-leap-famine-denial.html

https://lawliberty.org/book-review/chinas-regime-rewrites-world-war-ii-history/

One of the more questionable claims in Mark Riggs books his he claims that Japanese soldiers didn't have psychosis's when committing atrocities which is likely misleading given the fact that 60 percent of all military deaths during Japans aggression was due to famine and disease given how poorly feed they were. It's something that is downplayed as a likely motive on why the atrocities we so brutal. I seriously think that Japanese mental health institutions were over crowded at the end of the war with former soldiers.

https://asian.fiu.edu/jsr/baba-junko-revision-7.10-corrections-added.pdf

Undeadmerc3 — Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer here please? Undeadmerc3 (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rummel's estimate is decades old and a lownballing of the actual death toll. Rigg, despite claims of sensationalism, is still a reliable source and the most recent available, dating from 2024. Adding a bunch of random websites that chalk up their own numbers isn't adding anything to the death toll, there's too many estimates in the given infobox and just crowding it unnecessarily. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that Rummel is not without his critics so i'll swallow my pride and let that sit out, but sensationalism isn't the only critique that has been given towards Riggs. I do have a more direct critique given towards Riggs book based on a teacher who interviewed him. It contains a list of connected comments on some of the methods he uses. The second link below is a link to the interview.

https://x.com/AndrewinFukuoka/status/1798947038807351781

https://newbooksnetwork.com/japans-holocaust Undeadmerc3 (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For one of the sources listed in the infobox, it's just a link to buy the book, it's not even a proper citation, no page number or anything. The casualty section of the infobox is crowded with four different estimates, not even done correctly. I'll look into what other issues with Riggs, but he's credible and most recent. Reaper1945 (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the right of the above link is a play button for the interview. That's what I was referring to.

I acknowledge the overwhelming likelyness that Japans body count is likely higher than Germany for a multitude of reasons. It isn't my intention to debate that so I will admit that adding Rummels estimate despite my aims at putting in multiple sources, was inaccurate. However both Japan and China do exploit their own negationism be it denialism of Japans body count on Japans side and mitigation of Mao Zedoungs body count. It's important to remember that it wasn't till after Mao died and Dong Zo Ping took over China when China started to push Japan on this subject. By that time so many people died at the hands of the Maoist regime. Sorry for all this hassle. Politics is part of Wikipedia editing at times.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/china-japan-world-war-ii-tokyo-trial/675660/#:~:text=When%20Chinese%20officials%20and%20elites,their%20country%20in%20the%201930s. Undeadmerc3 (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. I misread the tweet that I included. The interview wasn't by the same person who made the tweet and that means alot considering that the tweet points out the flaws in Riggs methods(not that Japan is excused considering that it killed more than the Germans). Sorry to sound like i'm bombarding with multiple messages. I don't think I can edit comments. I've only been on this site a few months. Undeadmerc3 (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was able to appreciate your degree of precision and the extent of your knowledge concerning the Second World War and the Holocaust. I wrote the article on the French equivalent of Alois Hudal, François-Louis Auvity. However, I only found academic references produced by French scholars. Are there any American references about him, or is this character too insignificant for anyone to have ever cared about him on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean? Thank you very much in advance for your answer (and pardon my English). Mémoiredumaquis (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the question, I haven't studied the individual you mention, but I'm sure there's some source of him to some degree that talk about him. I'll check if there are any reliable or decent sources that go into any depth about him. Reaper1945 (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be waiting to hear back from you, then. I'm much obliged for your invaluable help! Mémoiredumaquis (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...for your edit about Euler and Virgil's Aeneid. That is a fascinating fact which I had never come across. JBW (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trial of Geoffrey Fieger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Times-News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you uploaded c:File:Tim-dahlberg-mike-tyson.jpg to Commons but I checked the source link and it doesn't say the image is CC-SA licensed. As such it is probably copyrighted and not suitableto host. If this is the case, please place {{copyvio|I was confused about the licence}} on the file description page at Commons to get it deleted. Commander Keane (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reaper1945, Good day. I understand your point/intention. I watched the fight and "think" Hendrick won the fight. However, this is Wikipedia and we have to stick to the source, writing the article in neutral point of view. Pls note that we dont "Retrospective" of a bout. We state what the source state in neutral point of view. We can state what media score the fight in MMA decision, (if majority of the media score for Hendricks, then we can put it is a controversy) the result of the bout and if needed, (not all the times) state a few "play by play" of the bout. Thank you and stay safe. Cassiopeia talk 03:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassiopeia Thanks for the concern, my edit was to show the controversy as to why it appears St-Pierre did not win. For example, Ben Fowlkes states that "Hendricks won his rounds by a wide margin, while St-Pierre just sort of eked out his", making it seem as that why it was close despite St-Pierre winning 3 rounds. Another thing is Dana's outburst at the post-fight conference saying Hendricks won, but then reportedly rewatched the bout and called GSP to tell him he did win. So, my edit was to explain the controversy due to the scoring, not change NPOV. Reaper1945 (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reaper1945, We dont take what Dana's said/says as he is not a reliable nor independent source (the publisher might be a reliable, independent source, but the content is based on what Dana's opion that makes the source not reliable nor independent). We state the results of the fight and we can add the word "controversy" as per MMA decision media score. The viewers can click on the sources and read the sources for more info. MMA decision media scores is the usual source we take to indicate a bout result is not in agreement with the judges / it was a controversy result. I have added sources and change the wording slightly. If you want, pls reword it better - see HERE. Stays safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 03:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]