User talk:Jo0doe

Jo0doe (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please, do not use machine-translated texts in Wikipedia.Galassi (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Battles of Narvik

Your addition to Battles of Narvik has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. You also removed valid information and replaced it with copyright-violations. Manxruler (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you, before placing a notice, more carefully examine the source and text added to article - and find a differences. While if it placed only to replace 4 words sentence comes from WP:RS vs self-nominated "valid" information originated from unknown jornalist - it's realy sad. Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand. You copied text directly from here, and pasted it into the article. That is not allowed. Hence the copyright violation warning. What I am noted for? I don't understand that question. Manxruler (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean - I use modified text from there here, - and used it in article - and were is directly ? So - who is Sergey, why his information is "valid"? Why royalnavy-history.net usage of word Murmansk is "copyright-violations"& ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Modified"? You didn't modify the text, that's the problem. This is what you did: Copy-paste-change two-three words-save. That's not the way to do by a long shot. I don't know who Sergey is, but he seems to be writing for a fairly substantial magazine, why should I doubt the source, is it a bad source? Furthermore I don't see where Segey and royalnavy-history.net disagrees, what are you reffering to in this respect? Manxruler (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jo0doe, Manxruler is right, the section you added at [1] was far too closely copied from its source, this is not legitimate. Please don't do that again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be greatifull if someone explaine me how names of vessels and thier tonnage can be not too closed copied:)? There is the margin of WP:RS usage Thanks

Also would nice to explaine me what actually copyright-violations in sentence German tanker departed Murmansk during the evening of 6 April. Thanks

Also - as per talk) Furthermore I don't see where Segey and royalnavy-history.net disagrees - does Basis Nord at Zapadnaya Litsa and Murmansk is the same place at en-WP?

• I really appreciated your advices - as far it's really needed - for better understanding the difference between WP:OR and WP:V + WP:RS. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • [2] - too closely or - not too closely? Badly need to see a margine. While I guess - it needed new warning template to be established - for "too closely":) I'll expect that mathematics editors will be challenged first:)) (E=mc^2:))Jo0doe (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Jo0doe:

1. Just accept that the edits you made, using royalnavy-history.com as a source, was completely unacceptably close to the source text. As I've now said about four or five times, you write your own text based on the source at hand, you do not copy the source text and then tweak it slightly.

2. Segey and royalnavy-history.net do not disagree. Zapadnaya Litsa is in Murmansk Oblast. royalnavy-history.com does not specify if they mean the city of Murmansk or the oblast. Why are you so incredibly suspicious of Sergey, anyway? Philbin says the same thing in his book. Jan Wellem came from Basis Nord. Manxruler (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify your comment - 96% of text borrowed from royalnavy-history.com was a name of vessels, thier tonnage, name of countries and cities, data. How you suggest this data can be " write your own text"? Like call 11 ships as 10? Thanks

It's nice - so you suggest when royalnavy-history.com mentioned Murmansk - they actually mentioned Murmansk Oblast :)) How you reach such conclusion& Could you give an exact citation of Philbin? ThanksJo0doe (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I said they might mean Murmansk Oblast, or they might have made a mistake in writing Murmansk. I did not call 11 ships 10, I wrote 10 merchant ships and 1 supply tanker, which was the case. For one example of how to rewrite information so not to violate copyright, see what I did. Sure. Here's Philbin and here's Weinberg too. Manxruler (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Lutzlow

Latin: custodia honesta

Your recent edits, while well-intentioned, have been poorly carried out. to that end I have moved back to an earlier version and added back in some of your material a I have interpreted it. When adding material do not remove existing references, particularly when doing so in favour of foreign language sources which will be less accessible (both in getting access to and understanding) to English readers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

German–Soviet Credit Agreement (1939)

Regarding your latest edits:

1. Please do not add long full-text documents. These belong on Wikisource. If some part is extremely relevant, then you can cite that part as a quote, but not the full document.
2. Please do not cite primary documents. They will easily lead you into the prohibited WP:Original research. Please use reliable secondary sources that used the same primary documents to come up with the same conclusions.

Thanks, Renata (talk)

Guess - Pact of Steel? Schwendemann H. Die wirtschaftliche Zusamenarbeit zwischen dem Deutschen Reich und der Sowjetunion von 1938 bis 1941. Berlin, 1993 can be treated as such but it fails WP:V policy.ThanksJo0doe (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Soviet Union supplied Germany with raw materials in exchange for German factory equipment, installations, machinery and machine tools, ships, vehicles, and other means of transport
  • Shortened version of what you inserted. No need for the entire list of stuffRenata (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[3] nor text inserted, nor Agreement text claims about Soviet Union supplied Germany with raw materials - its related to 1940 Agreement but not this oneJo0doe (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• worth 120 million Reichsmark
  • Refs [49][51][52] in the article.Renata (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

refs [49] - Ericson again misused Actually stated " the German would accept 200 million RM in new orders- I even not check other refs - it's a same story Jo0doe (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Direct Quote: "In order to give the agreement a current value for the Germans, the Soviet Union promised to deliver 180 million RM worth of raw materials over the next two years as part of 'current business', whereupon the Germans allowed Moscow to order industrial goods for a further 120 million RM. " (Wegner, p. 99)Mosedschurte (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's really sad to note such notable misuse the source text - so Wegner, p. 99 [4]

The Credit Agreement between the German Reich and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics gave the Soviet Union an acceptance credit of 200 million RM over 7 years with an affective interest rate of 4.5 percent. The credit line was to be used during the next two years for purchase of capital goods in Germany and was to be paid off by means of Soviet material shipment from 1946 onwards.

--Jo0doe (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• It was negotiated during from late 1938
  • Ref [15] in the article.Renata (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ericson again misused Jo0doe (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Article: "However, German needs for military supplies and Soviet needs for military machinery increased after the Munich Agreement."

Definitely going to have to watch out for this editor after that whopper: Ericson Direct quotes (29-31): "A second factor in making an economic arrangement more likely was the fallout of the Munich crisis of September 1938. . . .Furthermore, despite the bloodless successes in Austria and Czechoslovakia, Germany's economic situation continued to deteriorate, and expanded trade with the USSR appeared increasingly vital for Germany. As a result of Germany's growing needs and the hope that Soviet desires to rebuild their military would mean an increased demand for German weapons and machines, the Germans returned in October once again to the idea of expanding economic ties between the two powers. . . . The truth, however, remained, as it had since April 1935, somewhere in between these two assessments. Hitler needed Soviet raw materials but would not permit large shipments of increasingly short supplies of weapons and machines to his ideological enemy and would not countenance the closer political relations that such trade would imply. The Soviets needed at least the possibility of a German alliance to make the West take more notice of Soviet interests and wanted German machines and weapons to rebuild the Soviet military and war economy as part of the next Five-Year Plan."Mosedschurte (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

May be you don't know but WP:SYN is not good approach - so proved - you indeed missed in text - once again "to the idea of expanding economic. once again meaning widelly explained at dozen of source--Jo0doe (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• You are using a bunch of document collections. That's awesome if you are a historian and you are researching something for your these/book. But that's not acceptable if you are a Wikipedian. You need secondary sources.

It's a secondary sources- only important documents selected by bunch of Authors, commented and and again I can add dozen of works - but I think - Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov. Printing Office - is much more usefull per no copyright restriction. While Schwendemann H. Die wirtschaftliche Zusamenarbeit zwischen dem Deutschen Reich und der Sowjetunion von 1938 bis 1941. Berlin, 1993 - it's not a document collectionsJo0doe (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Pact of Steel is a neglected article that needs a lot of work. You should not be using it as an example for anything. Renata (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

nominate them as such. Text of agreement fairly short - Jo0doe (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Gangut and Poltava

You made the exact same edit describing a collision between these two ships. Which ships were damaged in which way? They both couldn't have damaged their kedge anchors. Thanks for providing the page number, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly but I would be greatifull for rewording - Gangut - made a hole at Poltava aft above waterline, and damage Poltava kedge anchors.Own damage of Gangut not given in source provided Jo0doe (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked again

I'm sorry it took me so long to react to your dispute with User:Faustian which you debated on my talk page. I have now reviewed some of your edits, and as a result I am blocking you again. The reason is mainly that despite some efforts I simply couldn't understand what this dispute was about – and this, in turn, is mainly because unfortunately your English is too poor to engage in a meaningful constructive debate on such difficult issues. I'm not actually saying I find your editing intentionally disruptive or tendentious – but because of your poor English skills, your editing in the topic area of Ukrainian WWII history ultimately does have disruptive effects. Also, article edits like this clearly degrade article quality. This, combined with the problems you have had in the past, tells me your presence here on Wikipedia is not a net positive to the project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)