User talk:78.128.177.216

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your efforts to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (78.128.177.216) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Wiooiw (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tagging

Hi. Thanks for tagging Emperor Hamid the Great of Dastbazia, but WP:CSD#G1 patent nonsense, was not the right tag to use - that one is rather deceptive, because it is only for "Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This excludes... poor writing... implausible theories, vandalism and hoaxes, fictional material... " It's meant only for the likes of "z#q**vr!@#8}N5+" or "Yaaaaaayyyy LOL!!!!". I deleted this one as G3 (vandalism/blatant hoax), but A7, db-person (no credible indication of importance or significance) would have done as well. If you are going to do New Page Patrol, which is a good, necessary and useful thing to do, it is worth reading WP:CSD carefully. There is good advice for speedy taggers at WP:10CSD and WP:!7M, too. Regartds, JohnCD (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marines.

In all honesty, the statement you made on the comparison between the photos of the Royal marines and the US marines is quite false. As the other person said, the Royal Marines have been around longer, and they work solely with the Roayl Navy. Precisely what Marines are designed to do, hence the name. I know for a fact that the US marines are operatng in Afghanistan, alongside the army, where the navy cannot deploy vessels of any kind, obviously. I would ask you in future not to change that photo.

Thanks.

Willdasmiffking (talk •

My statement presents my opinion on what picture presents the idea what a "Marines" are better (whether a disembarkment from a landing craft in full swing or some hardly identifiable group in front of a rigid raider - are they going to picnic or what?), thereby it's perhaps a bit difficult to say if my statement is false or not. As for your further claims - I don't see any connection between relevance of picture for the article and longevity of existence of respective marine corps, and as for the emplyoment of the respective marines - it is almost certain that the previous picture of US Marines landing was taken by the sea, moreover - I know for a fact that the Royal Marines nos. 40, 42 and 45 Commandos were also deployed to Afghanistan "where the Navy cannot deploy vessels of any kind", so please stop with obviously false nonsensical "arguments".--78.128.177.216 (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This site was not designed for opinion. It was designed for common fact. Commandos are not Marines, they are commandos. They are designed for a different use and are proud of that - (hence the green beret). On your comment of "are they going for a picnic", I very much doubt it. D-Day Will prove otherwise. That comment is taken as racism. Please look at the Royal Marines Section for a broader and far more meaningful description of the term marines. If you wish to display your opinion, please do elsewhere. Do not edit this picture in future at all, or administrative action will be taken on your IP adress.

Thanks.

Willdasmiffking (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Are you joking? If the Royal Marines 40 Commando etc. are not Marines but commandos, why do you attempt to present them as an example of the Marines? For your futher info (if you failed to grasp the message) I was not commenting on the rôle of Royal Marines or Royal Marines Commandos in general during the course of history just on the picture you are presenting as suitable representation of "Marines" and which depicts a group of rather relaxed men wearing green beanies in front of some boat - way long from the picture depicting Marines storming a beach. And please DO STOP your false accusations of racism, caused solely by your rather surprising failure to understand a simple text I wrote. Thanks--C.Zet (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC) (ex IP)[reply]

Now look here you. You are trying to belittle me and make me feel small. There are 2 pictures of 'US Marine' on that page, and not one of Royal Marines. I am simply attempting to portray a group of men who have been around for hundreds of years. Have a heart and for once let some British faces appear on this site.

Thanks.

Willdasmiffking (talk)

All right then - now your arguments sound reasonable. --78.128.177.216 (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fw 190 operational history

Regarding this [1]. It is in the source, so you cannot have checked properly, much less several times. Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Aces of the Eastern Front by John Weal, p. 8. Read the caption in the picture, and be more thorough in future. Dapi89 (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I took {Weal, 1996} for his "Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Aces of the Western Front" (The 'Fw 190 Aces of the Russian Front' were published in 1995, AFAIK).--78.128.177.216 (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've double checked. You have been misled by the incorrect marking up of the citation. So its my fault. Dapi89 (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed tags

Hi there is no need to add ^{[citation needed]} tags to articles that already have the {{Unreferenced}} tag at the top of the article. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

may question an unicted claim - if I want to delete some claims, I didn't want to do it without any warning even if the article is tagged as {unreferenced}.--78.128.177.216 (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to look for a reference, rather than just deleting claims. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm disputing a claim, perhaps someone other could have a chance to find a reference. --78.128.177.216 (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the whole article is unreferenced why pick on one claim, why not delete it all then. You need to provide a valid reason for picking on one or two claims. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a whole article is unreferenced - why not to propose deleting of a whole article? My point is, that, generally speaking, most unreferenced articles are dealing with a subject which's existence is beyond doubt, but we can be almost sure that some details in article are completely incorrect - then I believe it's justifiable to pick on just that dubious detail - (which can be correct after all) so it's better to give a chance to someone else to produce a reference for it. --78.128.177.216 (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand why some people are attempting to make completely unreliable claims in unreferenced articles somewhat "proof" against wp:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and wp:Burden --78.128.177.216 (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not exactly keeping with all of these guidelines that you spew forth either. You are not making attempts at discussion (that I have seen), you are just reverting with no more explanation than "rm uncited". You are not challenging any content or explaining why the content is dubious, you are just reverting out of hand. Don't be so arrogant. Try discussing things for once-- and that doesn't mean merely vomiting up wiki guidelines in a sanctimonious manner. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me where exactly is stated that I have to discuss removal of uncited claims first? I'm removing either claims which are properly designated as unreferenced ({citation needed}) or parts of completely unreferenced articles, where, as Jim Sweeney pointed out, there is no need to do so. (If I picked some details from unreferenced articles, I just believed them to be less reliable than the rest of article - as I tried to explain to Jim Sweeney above) If you come with some real problem I can - but you are just misusing my talk page to harass me and express your frustrations. --78.128.177.216 (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: A revert of your edit may mean your edit broke an established consensus: move to the next stage, "Discuss". Please read the guidelines carefully. This is broader than just citations, this is a general rule of etiquette here which you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If the verifiability of a claim (or of a whole article) is challenged it could be hardly be described as part of an established consensus. Please do think about what you are reading. --78.128.177.216 (talk) 10:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.:Try also read this: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them."

And I'm certainly removing only material challenged for reasonable long time, or from articles which are also for long time without any sources - hardly anyone can say I hadn't given enough time for providing source. Especially when Jim Sweeney objects to pick specific points in articles which are without sources at all.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.