User talk:StoneProphet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Battle of Stalingrad[edit]

Hello. Sorry, I didn't see it was a redundant template. Romanian military actions in World War II in the Battle of Stalingrad article. Hard to keep up with all the latest rephrasing of list/templates etc. I was wrong to revert you after examining what you did. Please accept my apology. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well its ok, but why dont you change your revert back then? I removed the template now again. ;) StoneProphet (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It's simpler for you to do it so the powers that be wont get upset. Sorry about that. I reverted an Administrator already and didn't want to get into a deeper pile than the one I am already in. I should just stick with writing new articles. hehe. Thanks man. You need something, give me a holler.

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires[edit]

Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

POV[edit]

Kindly stop adding POV to the Somalia article. The CIA is very clear that Somalia has a healthy informal economy; it says so in the opening sentence of the economy section of the CIA Factbook: "Despite the lack of effective national governance, Somalia has maintained a healthy informal economy, largely based on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, and telecommunications." The CIA also clearly explains that the civil war is happening in the southern parts of the country, not the autonomous northern Puntland and Somaliland regions, which are both actually doing quite well. Even in the south, business is healthy, as firms hire private security outfits for protection. All of this is already explained in the Economy of Somalia article, which for some strange reason you have chosen to ignore. Also note again that piracy (which has its origins in Puntland in the north, where there is not war, not the south) was not caused by the civil war in the south but by waste dumping & overfishing depriving local fishermen of their catches. Refer to the Piracy in Somalia article for the facts on that. Middayexpress (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That may be all true, but i didnt removed those statements. My additions are not related to the informal economy part (which i didnt touched), the are related to the overall comparison of the somali economy to the other countries and here are the rankings clear: Somalia has one of the worst economys of the world and it _has_ a poverty problem. This should be inside. Your stated reasons for the piracy could be also perfectly summed up as "poverty". StoneProphet (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
No, the notion that "Somalia has one of the worst economys of the world and it _has_ a poverty problem" is your POV, and yours alone. The CIA source that you were distorting clearly states that, "Despite the lack of effective national governance, Somalia has maintained a healthy informal economy, largely based on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, and telecommunications." And it does this in the relevant Economy section of the paper too. Nor is it the only source asserting this well-known fact, but just one of many. See the Economy of Somalia article for more, including this paper from the Wall Street Journal published just last month (note the reference to Somalia's "robust... private sector"). Again, stop with the POV. Middayexpress (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok changed it again according to offial UN sources. I also didnt touched your other statements. StoneProphet (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but that's where you messed up again. You see, the UN itself has recently come under fire for meddling in local politics, and for profiteering over the situation in southern Somalia and actually helping prolong and aggravate the conflict (e.g. 1, 2, 3). It is therefore hardly a reliable source on a conflict it itself helped (and is helping) aggravate and prolong. There are many such actors in the civil war, which is why an article such as Propaganda in the War in Somalia even exists. I suggest you give your schadenfreude a rest, and learn to accept facts. Middayexpress (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Your first statement was from the same source, so it seems you regarded the UN as a reliable source as long as it fits in your POV. ;) Well your 2007 source doesnt change the fact that the UN _is_ regarded as a reliable source on wikipedia, so i revert it back. Stop your WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and stop reverting sourced information. Dozens of UN sources + nearly all newspapers on the world (i could add 100s of newspaper articles on the humanitarian situaion in somalia) surly outwight a single 2007 article from a single private academic organization. Your POV of Somalia as a land of milk and honey is also still in the article, as i didnt touched it. I will also overlook your personal attack. StoneProphet (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a policy; it's an essay. Only actual policies determine what is or isn't permitted on Wikipedia. WP:QS, WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:CONFLICT, on the other hand, are all clear on the inadmissibility of sources directly tied to situations they are describing. And like it or not, that most certainly includes the UN. FYI, the UN was actually recently under investigation for this very issue, and found guilty of corruption. Refer to this Newsweek article where the UN itself admits in a leaked report to its negative involvement in the war in Somalia, specifically with regard to corruption by its own personnel and contractors. In case you hadn't noticed, I also replaced the UN source after your explanation with a more reliable, uninvolved one from the renowned Ludwig von Mises Institute. I'm sure you could indeed add hundreds of negative news-pieces from random journalists who cannot on their own conduct surveys of Somalia's economy, as could I in the other direction. However, none of those news articles would have the weight of the CIA, the World Bank, the Independent Institute and the Ludwig von Mises Institute (the latter of which specializes in economics, among other fields) -- authorities that, unlike the UN, are not involved in exacerbating the conflict in southern Somalia. And per WP:VER, "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available." By the way, I've moved this discussion over to the Somalia article's talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010[edit]

It seems that you and your opponent have both broken WP:3RR at WP:AN3#User:Middayexpress reported by User:StoneProphet (Result: ). You may be able to avoid sanctions if you will promise not to make any further controversial changes between now and August 1 at Somalia without *first* obtaining a consensus for your change on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you are accepting the deal, which puts both you and Middayexpress under an editing restriction on Somalia which lasts until August 1. Per his talk page Midday will do the same. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I have closed the 3RR case as 'Restricted' now that I perceive both you and Middayexpress have accepted the temporary editing restriction at Somalia, which will last until August 1. EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This revert is hard to understand if the content is truly not controversial. Blocks are possible if people do not take the restriction seriously. it would be better to propose your change first on talk, to see if anyone objects. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Well this is not about controversy, Middayexpress generally reverts the article if a foreign editor adds something, which i already pointed out in the 3rr case. He is doing this because he dont likes plain standard-facts which are in every country article in wikipedia (GDP numbers, death rates etc.), because they sound too negative for him. He only tolerates such facts if he can put it in a positve context, e.g. "has improved over the last years" and such things.
As i wrote on the talkpage he admitted himself that the health section need some work. He also said nothing when i proposed to add some factual numbers like the infant mortality rate. Because other editors had the same opinion, i actually added it. Nothing controversial in here. I also had good reasons to add it, because it makes no sense to add a statement like "Somalia was one of only three countries in Africa to increase its life expectancy by five years." without mentioning the _real_ life expectancy (which is still quite low and so he reverted it). Nevertheless he reverted it, only to read it 30 mins later again into the text (which clearly shows its not controversial), but now in a more positive light. Just read the Somalia talkpage then you see my reasons. And finally: look on the diff, do you really think this is a controversial edit? ;) StoneProphet (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Anything that you and Middayexpress disagree about should be considered controversial. If you propose changes on the talk page first, before making them, and wait for responses, you could avoid this entire problem. Consider opening up a WP:Request for comment if the two of you can't come to an agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I did indeed proposed changes on the talkpage, changes which other editors agreed on and Middayexpress did not disagree with them. His only statements about my proposals were that he agrees that the health section need some changes too. The matter is anyway over, Middayexpress edited the article to his own version (including those facts i added before and he reverted soon after), ofc without seeking any consenus (so maybe you should post the same on his talkpage too?). But i dont care anymore because i leave this article now anyway, since it is impossible to improve it as long as Middayexpress reigns over it. StoneProphet (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

consensus with the proposed edit[edit]

Please take a look at the edits I made on the List of conspiracy theories article to see if you agree with the edit or do not agree with the edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories The comments are here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&action=history More info on the subject is on my channel here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.120.47.10 The start of all this was to correct a untruth here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Water_fluoridation Where the article says have found no association with adverse effects. The 2 sources I cited that challenge that are http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571#toc and http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Mar/RL33280.pdf Please post on my channel if you agree and are in consensus with the proposed edit or not in consensus. The proposed edit is this. The 2006 National Research Council's report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards and the 2008 CRS Report for Congress Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues did find associations to adverse health effects with fluoride in drinking water.[54] [55] This can be seen here in the water fluoridation section.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=40471025 Please disregard claims that may arise that I am blocked in this effort to seek consensus with the proposed edit as I am not blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.120.47.10 (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Freedom5000, it's just this IP of yours that wasn't blocked yet. Many others of your sock usernames and IPs have already been blocked. Now this IP just been blocked for 48 hours. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
What the hell... o.O StoneProphet (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Montgomery quote[edit]

Can you please explain your rationale for removing the quote.

Calling it a rant is more your opinion than fact.

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well the quote of Montgomery in this article without balance from other sources makes it seem, that the failure of the BEF operations is to blame only on Gort. Not only that, it implicates that Gort was very incompetent. Montgomery is not a historian or scholar, so his personal opinion may be interesting, but it has definitely not enough weight to be the conclusive authority. Since there are assesments from other scholars and historians who asses the performance of Gort as commander of the BEF more differentiated and not so one-sided negative (e.g. some even praise him for his clear cut decisions in the wake of the french defeat), it is not appropriate to leave his opinion alone in this article. Therefore i removed it, because i dont think Montgomerys personal opinion about Gort, which seems to be somehow negative and biased, is that important for the overall article. If we really need some assesment of Gorts commandership, it would be better to include secondary sources from scholars and historians (some are already in the Gort article). I hope its clear what i want to say, its not that i am a fan of Gort or so. StoneProphet (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation Renntier[edit]

Yes, the correct modern spelling in German is Rentier. Unfortunately the older alternative spelling was used when the operation was planned. Or the one who wrote it down misspelled it. Either way, it's official name comes with two 'n':s. --Whiskey (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well i dont know. Google books gives results for both spellings, so i dont know which is right. I hope your source is good. StoneProphet (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, StoneProphet. You have new messages at Talk:World War I#Map.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Case Blue[edit]

Hi

I made some more additions. I hope you don't mind. It just tied up the loose end at the end of one particular chapter. Dapi89 (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. StoneProphet (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin[edit]

Please do not revert the Soviet estimate without any discussion, nor consensus reached. If you look at the discussion page for Talk:Battle of Berlin, you will see there were long sections of discussion on numbers; estimates and proposed additions as to troops. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

British Expedition to Tibet page[edit]

Thanks for the change. Tibetsnow (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Iraq and the Mufti[edit]

I noticed that your addition to th Iraq section of the Axis of World War II article got reverted on the claim it had nothing to do with Iraq. If you can find a cite to a reliable source showing that the Mufti significantly influenced the anti-British Iraqis, then I'll support you putting the material back. --Yaush (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This had been in the article for a long time it seems, but I am not the original author who added it. I nevertheless reverted the deletion, as it seems the mufti played a key role in the anglo-iraq war, so a sentence about his axis related whereabout is useful. StoneProphet (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I find that entirely believable, but we're gonna need a cite or it's likely to disappear again. --Yaush (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Its sourced in the article about the Mufti himself (Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni#Propaganda_and_recruitment). Most of the Axis Powers article is anyway just a summary and therefore unsourced, so i guess its fine. StoneProphet (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In Erich von Manstein, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Bexhill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for helping out with citations in the Battle of Bautzen (1945)! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 14:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks :) StoneProphet (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The reviewers have asked for foreign titles to be translated into English. I did so for the Polish ones, could you help with the German ones? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 12:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I did translate them. However, angled brackets did break up the refs somehow, so i changed it to round bracketes. I hope you dont mind. StoneProphet (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

German army group strengths[edit]

I did the exercise of looking at three German army group personnel strength quotations from various points in 1944 and 1945 and compared the number of division equivalents in each instance. The object was to figure out the average "slice" for the divisions. The figure varied more than I expected, but two of the figures run around 10,300 and 12,100. Running these figures against the number of divisions for Army Group B in the Bulge (29 division or division equivalents), the projected strength of Army Group B comes out at around 300,000 to about 350,000 -- kind of what we expected. (Note this does not include the divisions in the 15th Army). When I included 14 divisions that took part in the offensive into Alsace (Nordwind), then the figure jumps to a range of 440,000 to 520,000. Makes me think the "500,000" figure that has been quoted includes the strength of the 1st and 19th Army units that took part in Nordwind. Not anything rigorous enough for Wikipedia, but food for thought. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Stone, can you provide a citation for the 300,000 quote for Army Group B during the Bulge (you mentioned Mitcham; I am kind of wary of using Cole's average strength to derive a strength for the army group)? As a comment, I would prefer not to mix the strengths associated with Nordwind as the Bulge article really should only be about operations in the Ardennes. I have no issue with the 500,000 figure being edited as long as there is published source to back it up. I suspect some of the repetition of that number is just authors quoting each other without actually looking at anything like a wartime Iststärke report or something of the kind. W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well regarding Cole i am afraid to say this is indeed an assumption of the statement "29 divisions" and "10,000 men average per Division". Mitchham states (i already wrote it on the Bulge talkpage) "In total, the Germans committed about 250,000 men [...] while another 55,000 men with 561 tanks and assault guns waited just to the east". You can revert/change it, if you think its too shaky. Regarding the 500,000 men number i really think its for the Ardennes + Nordwind, since all clues point to that. Whether the Nordwind figures are inside the article or not, i dont care that much, but then they should be just correctly labeled. StoneProphet (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I think Mitcham can be used to point to the 300,000 figure with no issues then. I'll leave Nordwind figures out of the Bulge articles to keep it focused and to avoid any more confusion on this issue -- there is already too much mixing that had to be explained with a lengthy note regarding casualties. W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China article[edit]

Since you have previously discussed about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insights at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.49 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved![edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Operation Dragoon[edit]

Hi, StoneProphet. I'm trying to establish whether all German forces were out of Chambery, France before October 1944. Would your research allow you to answer that question? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.35.96 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Operation Dragoon was already finished at 15 September. I guess you mean Chambéry. I couldnt find the mentioning a battle for this city. Lyon was taken at the beginning of September, and Grenoble alraedy in mid/end August. This city lies nearby on the route of the US VI Corps and later the French I Corps which were advancing towards the Swiss border in mid-end September. So its likley that this city was taken by the Allies in early September/Mid September too, because by mid September when Operation Dragoon ended, the overall Allied advance was far east to Chambery close to the Italo-French border. Unfortunately the sources about Operation Dragoon dont deal with this eastern advance of the allied forces in Dragoon during the northern advance.StoneProphet (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I have been preparing a new account of Operation Dragoon which you can find here. While researching it, I found that: although Armeegruppe G is usually translated as "Army Group G", it was only formally upgraded to an Army Group (Heeresgruppe) on 8 September. See Boog, Krebs & Vogel 2006, p. 657. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you are really sure about that, then ok. StoneProphet (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
It really stopped me in my tracks, because an armeegruppe (which some translate as "operational group") is normally smaller than an army. I double-checked it against the German version. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Allies of World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East African Campaign (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

What OR ?[edit]

Stone,

Regarding this diff, there is no OR involved. The German author simply quotes German sources as if they completely irreproachable while doubting Soviet sources. Frankly, although the German work concerned is very useful and generally reliable, there are instances in their coverage of the Russo-German War where they seem to assume that German soldiers were a species of Boy Scouts who could be counted upon to accurately report their kills, when in fact German soldiers were as given to exaggeration as any other. I honestly see no reason to call the statement I wrote "OR" -- it is a simple statement of fact concerning the work's approach. As it is written now, one might assume the German work suffers from no flaws at all, an idea that I challenge. German historiography has come a long way since the generals' memoirs of the 1950's, but they still have some distance to cover when it comes to fairly describing the 1944-45 battles on the eastern front. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well i did this edit together with the removal of some Soviet claims from the infobox which is frequently added. This is part of a bigger problem. There is very long lasting conflict on eastern front articles regarding the usage of sources. There are some nationalist Russian editors (nothing against Russians ofc, there are some good Russian editors too) who occasionally jump in, and use Soviet sources from the 60s and 70s as some kind of "counterbalance" to the currently used reliable sources in those articles. Then they claim for the sake of NPOV that those 60s and 70s Soviet propaganda sources are equal to modern historic research (like Germany and the Second World War, or historians like Frieser did). I strongly disagree with this. For me this edit down below there seemed to be another attempt to somehow discredit reliable sources (which GatSWW is) to somehow bring back strange Soviet claims/sources through the back door. Thats why I labeled it as OR and toned it down.
OfC General memoirs are not a good source, but this is not the point here. When it comes to casualties, we should Soviet archival research for Soviet casualties (done e.g. by Krivosheev) and for German casualties we should sources which had dug in German archives (like people like Frieser did). Soviet claims to German casualties (except taken prisoners) are always ridiculous. Just as Nazi-German claims for Soviet casualties would be - but the usually nobody attempts to use the latter.
The version as it is now mentions both "claims", but does not discredit the more reliable source. Maybe a better edit summary would have been "toned down" or "more neutral". If we start to discuss the flaws of German data interpreted by modern historians for German casualties (there are surly some) in an article, we must definitely start to discuss the unreliability of Soviet claims for German casualties in an even larger way. But this article there is imo not the right place.
Short summary: I thought this formulation was not neutral as it seems to discredit the more reliable source of both (modern historic research vs contemporary wartime claims), which is ridicoulus, because those wartime Soviet claims are certainly far more unreliable. StoneProphet (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Stone, I agree (mostly) with your short summary, but the objective of the "historiography" section was to point that this is one of those battles that have been re-fought in writing, and often not with much honesty. The Germans have also committed errors in this regard; but I had no intent to say the modern German source is as flawed as the ideologically tainted Soviet works done earlier. The German author, though, I think fell into a common trap of assuming that "his side" was reporting more accurately. Frankly, I think all soldiers in the war with no army excepted were under great pressure to report positive results. What irritates about the modern German work is that the author takes the time to assail the Soviet figures but then makes no effort whatsoever to point out that German reports might not have been 100% accurate as they were compiled under the pressure of retrograde operations. If I seem to take some umbrage at the "OR" comment, it is because when I heavily edited this article, it was quite POV at that time, based on the older German sources and almost seemed to make the German experience in Korsun a victory. I took the article and put in the form it has presently, although plenty of small edits have been made since then. At the least, my edits gave a bit of face to the Soviet opponents of the Germans and brought out the fact that post-battle, both sides had issued misinformation about the battle -- and, believe me, it was not fun wading through the multiple German, Russian, Swedish, and U.S. viewpoints about this battle. We have collaborated on articles before (I think the last was the Battle of the Bulge article re: casualties) and I realize you are careful in your editing -- but I guess I would have appreciated an opportunity to discuss before this particular edit was made. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok I had wrote a lenghty answer detailing my point, but now I read again what was written there in the old version and what I had deleted. It seemed, based on the formulation/placement of the sentence and preoccupied with my mindset of Russian IPs jumping into the article giving credibilty to unrealistic Soviet claims I misinterpreted the sentence.
I thought this sentence somehow tries to discredit the German archival research for German cas numbers while it promotes the Soviet wartime claims for German casualties. This, as I wrote above is something I strongly disagree with. However the sentence I removed seemed to have dealt with German claims for Soviet casualties. Given how this sentence is placed directly after the discussion about German cas I came to a different impression. Well of course German wartime estimates for Soviet casualties are not a very good source. As I wrote above, using kill claims of the opposite side is always a bad idea and we shouldnt do that, this is out of question. Since usually only the opposite happens in WP (using Soviet war time claims for German casualties) I understood the sentence wrong. I dont have this volume of GatSWW here now so I cant check what is exactly written in there, but it still remeinas a reliable source. If you think your point this is right you can re-add the sentence. Maybe it should be altered to be a bit more clear and mb less reproachful. I also came to the impression that Soviet casualties were never a problem, and the only controversy is about German casualties, so the discussion of German wartime claims for Soviet cas is imo not really an important topic. I hope you get what I mean. This was a misunderstanding I apologize therefore for this. StoneProphet (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Stone, no need for an apology. If anything, I overreacted to a minor change and you have my regrets. I'll look at the German volume, post the text in question, and suggest a less awkward version of what I was trying to bring out. I understand "reacting to IP editors" -- while some of them are okay, it seems that a lot of them make controversial edits. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Frieser, on page 416, takes Soviet claims to task, stating that they are in the "realm of fantasy". Well, okay -- he is talking about Soviet-era claims, and I am well aware of the tendency to inflate claims, especially where totalitarian systems are in operation. But then, on page 417, he goes to extra length to praise German counts of Soviet armor losses, stating Da jedoch, wie immer, wenn empfindliche Panzerverluste zu beklagen waren, keine abgaben gemacht werden, müssen die deutschen Meldungen herangezogen werden, die in dieser Kriegsphase wegen der restriktiven Trefferanerkennung eine erstaunliche Zuverlässigkeit erlangten. - which I translate roughly as "the German counts are very reliable because of the high standard required for claiming a hit" -- with no discussion that the numbers might have even been just a bit inflated or that they were made under difficult battle conditions involving retreat over long distances. He then states as fact that 1,478 Soviet tanks and guns were "destroyed" between 4 and 18 February. This alone is a bit astounding, as the leap from "hits" to "kills" has been made -- a notoriously difficult relationship to reckon when one cannot be sure how many vehicles the enemy has recovered and quickly repaired, how many appeared to stop because of the hit but were in fact not that seriously damaged, etc. It was this sloppiness in the discussion of the German assessment of Soviet losses that I thought was notable in a discussion that looked at good and bad aspects of the historical accounts. So that is where my thoughts were when I wrote, Yet, while this work has no Soviet sources regarding the losses of Soviet AFVs and guns at Korsun, it presents tallies for these Soviet losses based upon German wartime claims without any discussion of the tendency of units in combat to overestimate their "kill counts" -- perhaps this sentence could be more professionally written as, Yet, while this work cites no Soviet (or modern Russian) sources regarding the losses of Soviet AFVs and guns at Korsun, it uncritically accepts German wartime claims regarding Soviet losses. Does this statement sound more acceptable ? Cheers (and sorry for the long posts), W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems he indeed takes the German wartime claims. Still he is a reliable researcher, so his assesment of the reliability of German wartime claims for Soviet AFV losses has probably its reasons, although I find this very shaky too. Why not something like this: However, while German casualties in this work are taken from German archives, it bases its assessment of Soviet AFV and gun losses (uncritically) on German wartime claims. StoneProphet (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
That will work as well. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Then feel free to add it please. ;) StoneProphet (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Thank you for your support!

Phead128 (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For updating the PP article; perhaps you could offer some more info on issues I raise at Talk:Pirate_Party_Germany#Please_update_for_2013? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 22:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 16:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress[edit]

I've just filed a RfC-U regarding Somali Armed Forces and Somali Civil War. Please take a look. The issues raised are serious and concern WP's fundamental rules, including NPOV. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)