Welcome to Wikipedia, Robertmossing! Thank you for your contributions. I am Theopolisme and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type ((helpme)) at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Theopolisme _TALK 15:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Glad you're here on Wikipedia! Just reaching out with a quick note - please do not use excessive capitalization on Wikipedia, whether in articles, talk pages, or edit summaries (as you did). It's rather hard to read, and is against this policy. Just letting you know, and again, thanks for editing! Leave me a personal message on my talk page if you ever need anything, and I'll be glad to help! :) Theopolisme _TALK 15:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your changes at Talk:Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am concerned about the way you are using primary sources to put forward your preferred interpretation. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PRIMARY to get a sense of the (very limited) way that primary sources can be used on Wikipedia. Articles such as the debate about atomic bombs cannot be based on primary documents; the whole article is about the debate, not about the facts. Do not try to establish hard facts about international law or the bombing. Rather, you should add reliable WP:SECONDARY sources which discuss the debate. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I donot see that I have violated WP:PRIMARY. On the contrary I have quoted Tsuyoshi Hasegawa CORRECTLY. That the WChurchill quotation - as a primary source - is far out cannot be confirmed by a secondary source for the simple reason that it does not exist - to my knowledge. Or you expect me to find a quotation from PM Atlee stating "Winston you're bitter - and drunk."? My interpretation that he is 'in chock' goes out with the far fetched quotation. To me it seems you turn the 'burden of proof' upside down. I have to prove that a statement has little foundation in reality - not the other way around. Talking about secondary sources Richard B. Frank has never - to my knowledge - published a Peer reviewed article. kindly--Robertmossing (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It looks like you have re-added material and undid things two times. If you do this a third time, you may be in violation of WP:3RR and you may be blocked for edit warring. Please actively seek consensus on the page before undoing edits again that remove material you added with out apparent consensus. --LauraHale (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robertmossing. You have new messages at Theopolisme's talk page.
Message added 17:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Replied to your msg. Theopolisme _TALK 17:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —slakr^\ talk / 21:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When Theopolisme informed me about the three reverts rule on a single page I have not violated it. --Robertmossing (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you are still having conflicts over that pesky old article. Why not take a little Wikibreak to cool off? That's no hurry... The world will wait. :) Theopolisme _TALK 22:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robertmossing. You have new messages at Nick-D's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

• Since this is way OT for the Bombing debate talk...
• We're agreed the war could've ended sooner. Some of that can be laid on FDR, who, apparently, ran foreign affairs so much himself, nobody knew his postwar plans. He died at exactly the wrong time: just as Japan was beginning to look for a way out, in April '45. (Fair to blame him for Vietnam War, too. And for Korea, since he made the decision to push the Sovs to come into the war, even after it was demonstrably unnecessary, which led to partition of Korea. And for China going Communist, since I've read the war materiel the Red Army left behind after invading Manchuria was crucial in Mao's victory...)
• We're agreed on Hirohito, too; he should've gone to the gallows along with the others IMO. That, however, is a POV after a successful, & very peaceful, Occupation; had he done, what would the Occupation have looked like? MacArthur may've been right to engineer his immunity. Even forcing him to step aside could have had unfortunate consequences. (That said, Japanese had, have, an odd viewpoint, to Western eyes: they saw the U.S. as a demon, & demons, while enormously powerful, aren't necessarily evil, so being overpowered by an ultimately benevolent or harmless demon would not have been out of the question, provided Japan got to keep her system of government...& removal even of a shogun would not be beyond the pale: if all involved could paint it as "honorable death"....)
• As for Truman, also agreed, I don't think he was. FWI read, it was Byrnes, not Truman, & Truman was so in debt to him, Byrnes'd get his way. As, it seems, he did on this. (That said, I claim no particular expertise on Truman...& please don't ask the source, I don't recall. It may be Hasegawa, at that--but I completely disagree with the proposition "revenge" was involved.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't seem to be aware of this: the use of ALL CAPS LIKE THIS is generally deemed the internet equivalent of shouting. The use of all-caps in what is intended to be a serious discussion is going to undercut your arguments and concerns, however cogent they may be. If emphasis is genuinely needed, consider the use of italics (flank the text to be italicised with sets of two singleton tick marks thus '' '') or even boldface (flank the text to be bolded with sets of three tick marks thus ''' ''') instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orange, thanks for the friendly advice.--Robertmossing (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.

Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --LauraHale (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reviewing a report at WP:AN3#User:Robertmossing reported by User:LauraHale (Result: ). Though it does not seem you broke the WP:3RR rule, you have reverted 17 times in the last three weeks on Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. An admin could choose to block you for long-term edit warring. It would be in your interest to join the discussion at WP:AN3 and promise not to revert again until you have obtained consensus on the talk page for your changes. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit here. Please be careful with your use of the term "vandalism", which, for our purposes here only applies to deliberate attempts to compromise the quality of the encyclopedia. The content dispute you have been having does not fall into this area. I see you have also been warned about edit-warring; I understand your frustration if you are trying to change an article and being obstructed by what may seem like concerted opposition. If you would like some advice on what to do next, I may be able to give you some. Please don't edit-war and please don't misuse the term vandalism. Best wishes, --John (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you were a recent participant in an edit war at the above-named article I am taking the opportunity to warn you formally that the article is now under a no-reverts rule. This means that from now on anyone making a revert will be blocked instantly without further warning, except in cases of really obvious vandalism. Instead of reverting, you should consider trying for compromise either by drafting a good-faith compromise in the article, or discussing towards one in talk. Edit-warring deters other editors and poisons the atmosphere that we need to edit constructively. Please do not do it. --John (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]