|
In reverting the exclusion of the flag icon from the various info. boxes, you provided the edit summary: The participation, if not a large scale, is obvious historical fact. Is there any standard that small participation must ignoring in template? Firstly, I am not 100% certain of the reliability of the only source provided; the provisional government participation is not corroborated by any other source, including some quite comprehensive works e.g Allen (Burma: the Longest War). Leaving that aside, the guideline in Template:Infobox military conflict is When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The Canadian participation (two squadrons of transport aircraft) has already been removed, despite this being "obvious historical fact". I am also very tempted to remove the comparatively trifling contribution from the Belgian Congo, and replace the multitude of flags of the various British African colonies with single flags for British West and East Africa, as the articles originally stood. Info. boxes are summaries, not cenotaphs. HLGallon ( talk) 13:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I see. Then, can the government's flag icon be remained in the Burma Campaign, Battle of Imphal's template? Like Belgian Congo and British African colonies? GBCKHQ ( talk) 13:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I also agree with HLGallon: the source you provided is of unclear reliability, and even if it is OK it does not indicate that the Provisional Government of Korea made a significant contribution to this campaign or its battles. Please do not re-add this material. Nick-D ( talk) 01:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I can't agree. i don't know what standard of reliable source you want. i also doubt your validity of confirming source.
And, how can remain Belgian Congo and the several British colony's flag icon? They also participated through the small scale(especially Belgian Congo's medical support) too. I think it was applyed double standard GBCKHQ ( talk) 04:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I can't agree. i don't know what standard of reliable source you want. i also doubt your validity of confirming source.
- See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Any tripe can be put on a website. A printed work (unless vanity published) will usually require some sort of fact checking by publishers. As for verification, I regard it as significant that no source I have to hand on the Burma Campaign (Allen, Bayly & Harper, Slim, Thompson) even mentions the word "Korea" in the index, except in the context of Korean conscripts in Japanese units. In most cases, the participation of British colonies can be verified by regimental histories, and constitutes a substantial part of those colonies' armed forces. HLGallon ( talk) 10:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your argument has two fallacy
1. Arugument from ignorance : Your argument is like "Information that i don't know can't be true"
2. Fallacy of generalization : Merely the reference that only you have seen and not including my information can't grasb my source's reliability.
Therefore, i think your argument is so subjective, unfair and not based on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I can't agree. GBCKHQ ( talk) 11:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your argument has two fallacy
- No; neither assertion of fallacy holds water. The printed sources I have mentioned are pretty well regarded as both reliable and comprehensive. If they do not corroborate information in a source not regarded by the relevant notice board as reliable (see this discussion) then the assertions made in the unreliable source must be regarded as suspect. Plase find a reliable source, as defined by Wikipedia, before adding your edits again, or the matter will be taken to the administrators. HLGallon ( talk) 12:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
Burma Campaign. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Murph9000 ( talk) 09:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
|
In reverting the exclusion of the flag icon from the various info. boxes, you provided the edit summary: The participation, if not a large scale, is obvious historical fact. Is there any standard that small participation must ignoring in template? Firstly, I am not 100% certain of the reliability of the only source provided; the provisional government participation is not corroborated by any other source, including some quite comprehensive works e.g Allen (Burma: the Longest War). Leaving that aside, the guideline in Template:Infobox military conflict is When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The Canadian participation (two squadrons of transport aircraft) has already been removed, despite this being "obvious historical fact". I am also very tempted to remove the comparatively trifling contribution from the Belgian Congo, and replace the multitude of flags of the various British African colonies with single flags for British West and East Africa, as the articles originally stood. Info. boxes are summaries, not cenotaphs. HLGallon ( talk) 13:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I see. Then, can the government's flag icon be remained in the Burma Campaign, Battle of Imphal's template? Like Belgian Congo and British African colonies? GBCKHQ ( talk) 13:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I also agree with HLGallon: the source you provided is of unclear reliability, and even if it is OK it does not indicate that the Provisional Government of Korea made a significant contribution to this campaign or its battles. Please do not re-add this material. Nick-D ( talk) 01:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I can't agree. i don't know what standard of reliable source you want. i also doubt your validity of confirming source.
And, how can remain Belgian Congo and the several British colony's flag icon? They also participated through the small scale(especially Belgian Congo's medical support) too. I think it was applyed double standard GBCKHQ ( talk) 04:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I can't agree. i don't know what standard of reliable source you want. i also doubt your validity of confirming source.
- See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Any tripe can be put on a website. A printed work (unless vanity published) will usually require some sort of fact checking by publishers. As for verification, I regard it as significant that no source I have to hand on the Burma Campaign (Allen, Bayly & Harper, Slim, Thompson) even mentions the word "Korea" in the index, except in the context of Korean conscripts in Japanese units. In most cases, the participation of British colonies can be verified by regimental histories, and constitutes a substantial part of those colonies' armed forces. HLGallon ( talk) 10:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your argument has two fallacy
1. Arugument from ignorance : Your argument is like "Information that i don't know can't be true"
2. Fallacy of generalization : Merely the reference that only you have seen and not including my information can't grasb my source's reliability.
Therefore, i think your argument is so subjective, unfair and not based on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I can't agree. GBCKHQ ( talk) 11:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your argument has two fallacy
- No; neither assertion of fallacy holds water. The printed sources I have mentioned are pretty well regarded as both reliable and comprehensive. If they do not corroborate information in a source not regarded by the relevant notice board as reliable (see this discussion) then the assertions made in the unreliable source must be regarded as suspect. Plase find a reliable source, as defined by Wikipedia, before adding your edits again, or the matter will be taken to the administrators. HLGallon ( talk) 12:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
Burma Campaign. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Murph9000 ( talk) 09:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)