User talk:The Pittsburgher

The Pittsburgher, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi The Pittsburgher! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 17:49, Tuesday, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

Hara kiri

 * Geez, no, don't add a cite for every single ship! (As said, leave 'em off entirely. It really adds nothing & belongs in the text, not the infobox, anyhow.) Take a look at the page history (use the link). Compare yours & mine. You'll see the Hara JDC cite is different: that's what I added, which is what I meant. If you have a copy of JDC, will you check the edition is the same? If not, change the publisher, place, & date to match the page. Be sure you add them, plus author's given name (& any co-authors...), next time?
 * Will you be sure & sign talk pages ~ & not ? Otherwise, it goes to a redirect to a newspaper...
 * Any other questions you've got, feel free to ask. TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 14:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Thx. If it tabulates IJN & USN losses, a fn for those pages would be good.
 * One other note: for readability, when you're answering, adding indent for a second or later remark is a good idea. Start with ":" (or "::", or whatever), & check the amount with preview. Looking at mine, you get ":Nice work." Clear? (You get used to it pretty fast. :) )  Cheers.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 16:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ♠Glad to help. :D
 * ♠As for losses, absent mentioning every loss by all powers, which IMO is extreme & trivial (not to mention a scary amount of work), I'd say leave it all off. The major losses are mentioned; the others won't interest anybody who's not a specialist anyhow. TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 22:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ♠No apologies needed for "clogging" anything; that's what talk pages are for. (Just look at this, for one. Or this.)
 * ♠On losses, if they're on the page (& it's been ages since I read the whole thing), leave them be. I only meant putting them all in the infobox is too much. The big ones will be on the page; the rest won't matter much, as noted, except to specialists (like me ;p).
 * ♠That said, when you get a minute (& if you're at all interested), have a look at custom car, hot rod, Hirohata Merc, Ala Kart, and California Kid. Thoughts, & especially better sourcing, would be welcome. (Especially on the last 2, even though they're mine; I've got Hot Rod with articles on them both in storage, & can't get to them... : TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 01:42 & 01:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Downfall, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages First Army, Eighth Army and Tenth Army. 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) 09:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Battle of Mutanchiang has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Battle of Mutanchiang. Thanks! Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 18:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Mutanchiang has been accepted
 Battle of Mutanchiang, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! <font color="#009933">My<font color="#009933">name <font color="#009933">is<font color="4000FF"> not <font color="#009933">dave (talk/contribs) 17:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Battle_of_Mutanchiang help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Disambiguation link notification for October 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most lethal American battles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Guam. 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) 11:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ho
Good catch, I missed that one. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You may find this Chinese website of interest, You can translate it using Google translate. The data in the article by Bianxiu Yue includes 3 tables with the Chinese Nationalist estimates of casualties made in 1947. The 4th table at the bottom breaks out Bianxiu Yue's 2005 estimate of 20.6 million war dead. I have put these figures on an Excel spreadsheet, contact me by Wikimail and I will send the spreadsheet to you. Unfortunately this Chinese website is not a reliable source for English Wikipedia. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you read Chinese? My Chinese is limited but I can navigate in the Chinese internet and do translation using a dictionary. An important point to remember is that Google translate from Chinese to English is not reliable. A Google translation is only a rough approximation of the meaning in Chinese, and sometimes just plain wrong.To prepare those schedules I had to use a Chinese dictionary to correct the Google mistakes. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2015 (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) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=696940380 your edit] to Operation Downfall may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge
Hello,

The given strengh of German tanks in the infobox seems to be wrong or atleast outdated. According to "Panzertruppen Vol.2 - Germany's Tank Force 1943-45" 1996, p.202, following tanks were operational, before, during, and following the offensive: (to German reports)


 * 15 Dec. : 410 StuG's, 391 Pz.IV's(*), 336 Pz.V, and 79 Pz.VI(*)
 * 30 Dec. : 335 StuG's, 345 Pz.IV's(*), 240 Pz.V, and 58 Pz.VI(*)
 * 15 Jan. : 340 StuG's, 330 Pz.IV's(*), 221 Pz.V, and 64 Pz.VI(*)

(*) Includes sub-variants:
 * Next to Pz.IV's: PanzerIV/70(V), PanzerIV/70(A), FlakpzlV (2V and 37V anti-aircraft tanks) and Sturmpanzer.
 * Next to Pz.VI's: Tiger I, Tiger II, Sturmtlger, Sturmmoerser.

That means, the Germans forces had 410 tank destroyers and assault guns and 810 tanks and sub-variants ready at 15. Dec. 1944. A total of 1220 of all types; Infobox giving 1224. At 30 Dec. a total of 978, versus 1031 on the infobox. On 15 Jan. the Germans had a strength of 955, versus 630 tanks given at the infobox.

The complete Panzer Unit strengh is listed at pp.197-201 individually, with exact numbers of operational tanks, SPG's and with other sub-variants of different types.

Could you please update the infobox? Guest01234 (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Japanese death in Manchuria
I think the Japanese death in Manchuria was not all killed by Soviet red army. Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army and Anti-Japanese volunteer armies, which at peak was 300,000 soldiers, was active in that area. Based on the estimation of Yasukuni Shrine, about 17,176 dead in Manchuria from 1931 to 1937 which was largely killed by these two forces. After 1937, Japan just estimated the total death in Manchuria. I did not find the source to estimate the accurate data but I guess these two forces should caused at least several thousands dead or casualties. Then about 10,000 combined Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army and Anti-Japanese volunteer armies joined the Soviet red army and fight in invasion of Manchuria. Hence, we cannot consider the death in Manchuria from source were all caused by Soviet red army and Mongolian troops. Also, I think Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army and Anti-Japanese volunteer armies can be consider as one of belligerents even though it has only about 10,000 soldiers (Mongolia offer about 10,000 soldiers too) Miracle dream (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2016‎

About some battles in China
I see you edited the casualties data for Battle of Shanghai, Battle of Changsha (1942) and Battle of Changde. However, most of you citation is based on the Japanese sources. For example, the Chinese sources about Japanese casualties in Battle of Shanghai is more than 60,000 (This casualties included the fight in the road from shanghai to Nanking) based on the book "中國抗日戰爭圖誌". This data is also used in Chinese wiki. Based on the Chinese source, the Japanese casualties of Battle of Changsha is 33941 dead, 23003 wounded and 139 pow from "国民革命战史第三部-抗日御侮-第八卷". For the battle of Changde, many western sources claimed it was a major Chinese victory (See sources: The "American Year Book",  "Russia's race for Asia"). It even was known by Roosevelt during the Cairo Conference. Now I know the Japanese sources claim only several thousands casualties in all of these battles. However, if all of these major battles only caused several thousands casualties for Japanese, how did more than 450,000 Japanese soldiers die in China even based the official Japanese sources? In my memory, you thought the official Chinese sources about Chinese total military casualties of the Second Sino-Japanese War was too low to believe. I think there may be the same problem for Japanese sources in each battle. Miracle dream (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2016‎

Philippines Campaign
There are some difference about loss data between the Japanese source and current wiki page. At first, in the Philippines Campaign (1941–42), based on the Japanese official source, IJA has 4,130 dead by all cause and 6,808 wounded, plus 287 missing. However, current wiki page for this campaign claimed about 9000 KIA, 13,200 WIA and 500 missing which is twice of the official Japanese data. We can see the same problem in page Battle of Bataan. This page claimed about 7000 KIA and 12000 WIA which is higher than total loss of whole Philippines Campaign based on the Japanese source. Another campaign like Borneo campaign (1945), Japanese source is about 4000 casualties. Miracle dream (talk)

Battle of Zaoyang–Yichang
JACAR(アジア歴史資料センター)Ref.C11110494300、昭和１６年１月に於ける支那総軍統計（附図７枚入り）　昭和１６年１月(防衛省防衛研究所). This is first hand document, even it has some part unclear, I think it have some valueable, sorry my English is no good — Preceding unsigned comment added by JassonTodd (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. So which claims do you wish to make using it?
 * Sincerely, The Pittsburgher (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kantokuen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Truk. 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) 10:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Philippines Campaign question
Hey Pittsburgher, I noticed that you added this figure to the Philippines Campaign (1944–1945) page. However, an IP recently said "There is no mention of the 10,000 Leyte Gulf casualties in the specific page referenced in the source." Can you clarify on this? The source is pretty hard to navigate. Fortunatestars (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Fortunatestars,
 * Very sorry I missed your message, the source for Japanese casualties at Leyte Gulf is "American Battles and Campaigns: A Chronicle from 1622 to 2010 by Chris McNab, p. 184. This figure, along with anywhere between 2,800 and 3,500 American dead, are repeated throughout a number of other sources of varying quality on-line and in print. The Pittsburgher (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll re-add it. Fortunatestars (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Was the 10,000 Leyte Gulf casualties also mentioned in the source you added? Fortunatestars (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe it was. I'll check back with you when I can; either way the figure is sourced on multiple levels. The Pittsburgher (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Fortunatestars, I checked the annex and it just seems like it's a tabulation of repatriates - don't see any Leyte casualties mentioned. Must have been a mistake on my part, editing too fast and forgetting to put a citation. Anyway, the figure's sourced now. The Pittsburgher (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone will say I was too mean...
User talk:2605:8D80:5A0:5676:AD3C:6BFE:7ADE:783C You saw things I hadn't
 * Thank you. I honestly thought he/she was acting in good faith, but it was a real nightmare searching out all those spelling mistakes. The Pittsburgher (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)