User talk:Vivexdino

Welcome!

Hello, Vivexdino, and

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

]

Vivexdino, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Vivexdino! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! 78.26 (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 16:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply ]

About "Attack on Pearl Harbor"

This is my first time leaving a not on someone's page, and I'm not sure how to do it, but I want to ask you to please stop changing editing the "outcome" of the Attack on Pearl Harbor battle back and forth between "decisive" and "tactically decisive", it's ridiculous. The immediate effects of pearl harbor were clear, whereas the subsequent effects were inconclusive. It was indeed significant, but only in a tactical sense. It was originally listed as "major tactical japanese victory" yet you keep demanding it was decisive. We actually started calling it "tactically decisive" - which is correct, yet you changing it to "decisive", which is extremely unclear. Japan did not complete all it's immediate objectives - the American aircraft carriers escaped and the fuel depots were not bombed for instance - and the overall campaign to take the Eastern Pacific was not settled with the attack on pearl harbor. Even if it did accomplish it's objective, Japan's objectively were proven by history to be misguided (targeting battleships above all else). If you find a source that says Pearl Harbor definitely settled an entire campaign in Japan's favor, then please change it to "decisive". If not, please denote that the decisiveness was only in a tactical sense, otherwise the wording is unclear.

-zwifree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwifree (talk • contribs) 06:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japan completed its objectives in this particular battle, and the US gained no strategic advantages. This Eastern Pacific campaign is completely different from this attack, which would've have been over already. I changed it from a simple tactical victory to decisive, which is true. If you wanna keep "Decisive tactical Japanese victory", then fine. But stop adding strategically inconclusive when that's not the case. Vivexdino (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of Japan, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vivexdino-san. I have questions about your recent reversion on List of wars involving Japan. When we classify battles or incidents into "wars", what is the criteria? If you give me guideline, I will follow you.Sacchisachi (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, battles and incidents are usually not classified as "wars". I'd say they belong in the List of Japanese battles. Vivexdino (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. In the List of Japanese battles, there are some "war"s which isn't in the List of wars involving Japan. I will get down to them. Thank you very much.Sacchisachi (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All wars in List of Japanese battles, and all 戦争(wars) in List of Japanese battles of Japanese wikipedia were added to the list. So can we remove "incomplete list" tag? I would be very happy if you check the current list.Sacchisachi (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me. Yes, I think we can remove the "incomplete list" tag now. Vivexdino (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting the article! Sacchisachi (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Black Butler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miyagi. 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) 09:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vivexdino. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Attack on Pearl Harbor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Both of you have already violated

Hello, Vivexdino. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vivexdino, I am wondering about your rationale for this edit. You stated "Removed inaccurate map as that is not the extent of Imperial Japan." I am not sure what you are referring to as the inaccuracy here, though. Insofar as the reference is within the Japanese people article to regions where there was a form of Japanese nationality (not the extent of occupied regions or marginally independent regions), it appears accurate to me at first glance. Can you clarify your objection? Dekimasuよ! 20:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dekimasu:, my objection was mostly towards its caption, but I guess it can be restored with the caption that was there previously. Vivexdino (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this, there is a discussion going on at Talk:Naomi Osaka#Opening sentence. Perhaps you'd like to chip in. Scolaire (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do y’all try to erase her Haitian heritage. She isn’t just Japanese she Haitian and Japanese which is something very important to her. It should never just say that shes Japanese Mothermania (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's already on the page. It doesn't just say that. Nice try, though. Vivexdino (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this RFC is currently host to what I feel is going to be the WP community shooting itself in the foot. Naomi Osaka has dual Japanese and American citizenship (and was raised and lives in America.) Currently It seems there is an effort to remove that from the lede and merely describe her as Japanese only because she represents Japan in tennis. Since you've been a part of these edits, your comment would be valued. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vivexdino. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has started a deletion nomination for Sarah Knauss. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion discussion. 96.253.25.35 (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has started a