I'm afraid it's a little bit late 🥴 could U explain me briefly why ? thanks Hanafunda (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why what? - Ahunt (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt we just start and train with some "light" modifications...no more.

All the texts in English seem to be definitely more accurate than the French ones except the "legends"...

Our (if possible) goal is to translate all wiki pages about WW2 japanese aircrafts and compare with the French version :) tell me if we are wrong 🙄 Hanafunda (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I think you need to talk to someone else, as I have no idea if that is worthwhile or not. - Ahunt (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, some French pages are lacking of references or content...

Could you precise why it's not suitable to add text on pictures ? Can't find the infos about "template info box ?" thanks. Hanafunda (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some other pictures legend have already been modified with the manufacturer name and the allied code added Hanafunda (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox aircraft type says The subject of the article. When naming aircraft and engines, please do not repeat the name of the manufacturer unless the name would be otherwise ambiguous. For example, "P-51 Mustang" does not need to have "North American" in front of it: the aircraft name is unambiguous and the manufacturer will be stated just a few lines down in the Type Infobox. as far as putting "reporting names" in the infobox, WP:AIRNATO explains Articles about Soviet aircraft with official NATO reporting names, or Japanese aircraft with Allied reporting names should display the reporting name in bold within parentheses in the first line, following the primary title, per the Wikipedia style guide on secondary names in lead sections. Reporting names should only be used in the first line, the variants section or in direct quotations from sources. So the info box only gets the aircraft type and official name, not the manufacturer's name and not the American reporting name. - Ahunt (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt Thanks very much for your informations, I will take the followings to correct what we had done Hanafunda (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted all the incorrect additions for you. BilCat (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat Thanks a lot !! I'm doing the same for the corresponding French pages Hanafunda (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding Short descriptions to articles. However, many of these descriptions have incorrectly started with a lower case letter and have exceeded the advised 40 character limit. Please read the guidelines at WP:SDFORMAT — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostInTheMachine thanks for your message, descriptions must start with lower case letter in the French Wiki..is it the contrary for the English version ? Hanafunda (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia has standardised on Short Descriptions that start with Upper Case except for a very limited number of cases – such as "iPad ...". In most cases, these Short Descriptions can be reworded to avoid an initial lower case letter. The English Wikipedia also has a requirement for a Short Description that is as near as possible to the 40 character limit. See WP:SDFORMAT — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostInTheMachine well, a French wiki adviser told me to fill up descriptions with lower case letters and avoid ponctuation at the end of the description, this is a point I will check  :).

On the other side, numerous descriptions exceed 40 characters on French Wiki, we always try to reduce the size but "historically speaking" this is rather difficult to make the differences at first glance (for our example) between japanese war criminals, who were executed, when they were executed, this is a very important point to help the people or to bring them reading the full text ...is it allowed in there particular cases to exceed 40 characters (or digits ?) thanks Hanafunda (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the French Wikipedia, so the practices will be different. Please read WP:SDNOTDEF and WP:SD40 — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 22:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Shigetarō Shimada exceeds the recommended SD limit of 40 characters (characters, not letters, and so it comes out to 42). Regarding your claim that him being a war criminal "must be present", you will also want to be aware of WP:SDNOTDEF, the SD is there for navigational purposes, not to serve as an extra concise version of the full article and its contents. Loafiewa (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Loafiewa already discussed with someone else abouth this subject, the mention War criminal is there for navigational purpose as mentionned...

for the 42 characters...sorry i'll take the () later. please do not interfere with a global project regarding real Japan History..not mangas :)) Hanafunda (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been told about SDLENGTH by two different people now, so why immediately after making this comment have you just gone on to increase the short descriptions above the 40 character limit in more articles? Loafiewa (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Loafiewa as I told you, I will take off the pair of ( ) to reduce the length Hanafunda (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that the limit of 40 is a strong recommendation, not an absolute law. A short description of 52 characters is definitely too long. A short description of 42 characters is a bit long, but is OK. The description needs to still make sense if it is truncated below 40 characters.
Remember too that the normal format of the SD for a (dead) person would be — Nationality profession or basic reason they are notable <left bracket>year of birth<ndash>year of death<right bracket> — for example: Japanese chemist (1925–2011) — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A short description of 52 characters is not too long if it is necessary or more useful to the reader. There is no hard upper limit on short description lengths that I am aware of. If you claim there is one, please link to it to support this claim. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I just want to clarify why those edits needed to be made. Labeling him a "nationalist" and "ideologue" runs contrary to MOS:LABEL. This does not mean that you cannot mention that he advocated for nationalism, etc., but it needs to be rewritten in such a way that it does not tilt the facts towards our own preferred biases. The idea is simply to let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader make up their own mind. Explaining to the reader what he advocated for rather than simply labeling him outright is simply better for factual accuracy and depth of presentation. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I have solicited a third opinion to help reach a compromise on Shūmei Ōkawa. You can find the entry here. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CurryTime7-24 I certainely dont waste my time in your "dispute".

I just wanted to protect the previous short description against vandalism or your "wiki-geeking" (?)

This page about Shūmei Ōkawa has to be protected because it's well written (neutral, informative..etc etc) by someone else. I cannot do anything for you if you dont understand the basic rules of History researches (outside Wikipedia) as a student or as a ordinary citizen.

So please, feel free to continue your vandalism, you just will play alone. Hanafunda (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your username sounds like the card type Nintendo used to make years ago, before they made video games, "hanafuda" which means "flower cards". Thanks for the thank yous on my edit reverts also! ButterCashier (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ButterCashier Hi, thanks for your message, my username is a just a private joke with some Japanese and europeans colleagues and this also came from a Japanese playing-cards game. (almost). Have a good day. Hanafunda (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please introduce who is David Askew? Please explain if you can and let me know why his source is unreliable.In short, please provide a fuller explanation.

By the way,if you didn't provide an explanation, I'd be confused why an account with only 1 edit would make the same edit as yours. Rastinition (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If @Miiyooh has seen this message, please respond. At least I don't want to see other IPs or new accounts repeat the same thing.

An explanation, that's all. Sufficient and reasonable explanation, delete the content.Insufficient and unreasonable explanation, keep the content. Rastinition (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

32,000 is a ridiculously low estimate for the civilian and soldier death toll at the Nanjing Massacre. What's more it's that it's from a source educated at a Japanese university, a country whose government refuses to recognize the severity of the massacre to this day. It's an unnecessary inclusion and from what looks to be a fairly biased source. Miiyooh (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you think Japanese sources are unreliable?I think that page records the common history of Japan and China, only deleting the source of Japan is against the spirit of WP:neutrality. Rastinition (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that 32,000 is reported virtually nowhere else? This just seems like random unrelated information and at best is distracting and at worse seems like an attempt to downplay the event. Miiyooh (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After read The Penguin History of Modern China: The Fall and Rise of a Great Power, 1850 to the Present .You can add different perspectives, or pick other passages from that book to add.To remind you that your actions also caused 40,000 to 300,000 to lose their sources.

I advise you not to go against the spirit of WP:NPOVHOW Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Rastinition (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Remove material when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." Miiyooh (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason is that Japan is unreliable and numbers are unreliable.But you don't have any reliable sources to back up your claims.

I don't think your personal opinion is a good reason.At least we will never agree to replace reliable sources with original research (your personal opinion).There must be a reliable source mentioning that number is unreliable, otherwise your claim is not reliable.

By the way, if you like to talk to me in the way of copy and paste, then I will paste this passagedo not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source(WP:SYNTH). Rastinition (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hanafunda @Miiyooh

From your response, I noticed that our discussion will focus on the country of the source and the author of the source.I guess my opinion is not wrong on the country part, so back to my original question, who is David Askew? Why is the author David Askew unreliable? Rastinition (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Comfort women. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Special Higher Police, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CurryTime7-24 I did not want to delete anything, I just try to add a comment Hanafunda (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]