User talk:NAKFANS

 Hi NAKFANS, and Please excuse this intrusion as you have been around a bit already but if no one has said it before: Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction and check the Teahouse to contact Wikipedians who are available for assistance, or even for a chat. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia... Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.


 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

 Good luck, and have fun. FWIW, Bzuk (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

Interwikilinks on ZSU-23-4
Hi, I reverted your addition of interwikilinks on ZSU-23-4 since those links are now handled by Wikidata. Thomas.W (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at ZSU-23-4. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Please note that interwikilinks are now handled by Wikidata and should not be added directly to the article, especially not repeatedly and without explanation. Thomas.W (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at ZSU-23-4, you may be blocked from editing. Interwikilinks are now handled by Wikidata, so do not add them back to the article! Thomas.W (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thomas.W (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Shoki
Hello NAKFANS, the recent edits you have made to Nakajima Ki-44 referring to the meaning of the name Shoki include dubious uncited information. It is hard to believe that the Japanese referred to the Americans as "ghosts" when the word you link to is a Cantonese term. The information cannot be considered true until a source is provided which states that the Japanese also used the word ghost to refer to Americans. Kbog (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

World War II
Hi, Rather than keep adding material without any supporting reference and additional photos without providing a rationale, can you please discuss your suggested changes at Talk:World War II? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you actually do this? Edit warring photos into the article is pretty unhelpful. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rogue state. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Drmies with this edit, you may be blocked from editing.  Eye snore  Summer! (PC) 04:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Make one more anti-Japan edit (or anti-anything, really) like that ridiculous, all-caps, nationalist, and grammatically challenged rant on my talk page, and you're blocked indefinitely. Your account seems to have a negative balance on positive edits anyway. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

WWII Chinese aircraft
You may be interested in Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_11 and User_talk:MilborneOne  Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your edits on Gewehr 98
Hello. Bore and chamber are totally different things, with bore being the correct term in the article. Don't change things if you don't even know what the words/terms mean. Also don't add material without providing reliable sources supporting your edits. Thank you. Thomas.W talk 09:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Flying Tigers
Flying Tigers were a volunteer group absorbed by official American armed forces when The U.S. entered WW2b in 1942 - they were equipped with P-40 fighters, not P-51s. Mention it as you keep trying to add a reference to the Flying Tigers to the P-51 article. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Henschel Hs 123. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Henschel Hs 123 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BilCat (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You will be blocked if you continue your current conduct of adding an irrelevant point to the Henschel Hs 123 and attacking the editor who is - quite rightly - removing this. Nick-D (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Henschel Hs 123 edit-war
You evidently believe that the Marco Polo Bridge Incident in 1937 marked the beginning of World War II. Since 20th April you have been attempting to insert this point of view into the article on the Henschel Hs 123. You have done this four times, and each time been reverted. I reverted because it is not the generally accepted point of view; the other editor reverted partly because it seemed like "silliness" to him/her, and partly because "it's not a world war when it's only between 2 countries". The advice I gave you on 21 April was that if you think that the Second Sino-Japanese War should be considered as part of World War II, you should raise this issue at Talk:World War II.

The article on the Henschel Hs 123 is an article about an aeroplane, and the use that was made of it. It is not an appropriate place to insert revisionist ideas about the scope of World War II.

Please do not assume that just because people disagree with you, they are ignorant.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

December 2018
Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Pincrete may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Nanking Massacre
NAKFANS, the simple answer to your rhetorical question on my talk page is that the article is called genocide - not war crimes. The Nanking Massacre may have been a terrible event, and a war crime, but it is not generally regarded as genocide (the deliberate destruction of an entire race of people). Pincrete (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Genocide. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User talk:Thomas.W in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. If you cannot provide a translation, please go to the list of Wikipedias, look in the list for a Wikipedia that is in your language, and edit there instead of here. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you.  General Ization Talk  20:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

In response to your (machine translated) comment:


 * "The Japanese army invaded China and slaughtered the Chinese people. It is like a mountain. If this is not a genocide (Genocide), what is it?
 * "In China, this is a well-known thing. How can there be no source? This is just the prejudice of your Westerners!"

We require the citation of reliable, published sources for inclusion of statements in the encyclopedia, including statements you may think are obvious or well-known. Editors who repeatedly fail to provide published sources, especially once challenged to do so, will eventually be blocked from editing. Please immediately stop harassing editor for enforcing this policy.  General Ization Talk  20:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User talk:Thomas.W.  General Ization Talk  20:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Genocide.  General Ization Talk  20:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 20:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)