User talk:Jaan

Belestin (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)==Mina== I see you're providing additional stuff on Mina article. Can I ask you to convert all albums titles in this format (say, in Italics). And single ones in "this format" (say, between "...")... if you've time. Thanks and good work.--Attilios 01:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Biased comments?

Hi, my name is Carlo. Thanks for writing.

Well, if the article on Barbra Straisand says that "She is considered one of the most successful female entertainers in modern entertainment history" (without any reference), I can't see why we couldn't write that Mina is "noted for her strong and acclaimed vocal talent". It doesn't seem to me that biased, nor bad. It is definitely true that her voice was (and still is) widely admired.

Either we apply the same rules to every artist (and therefore get rid of all comments without reference) or we have to generally accept them.

Regards, Carlo

Occupation of the Baltic states moved and split

There are now two different articles. Do not blindly revert. All content can be found between Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II and Baltic states and the Soviet Union‎

Copy edits

Hello, Jaan. You have new messages at Diannaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:Avril_Lavigne#Musical_style

Thanks for mentioning this; I moved your suggestion into a discussion of its own. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am agreed. But you must not believe german informations. Their losses were much higher. See Rüdiger Overmans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor Piryazev (talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

And dont believe german informations. read this.

By this time there are no enough the reliable figures of losses of German army received by direct statistical calculation. It speaks absence for various reasons authentic initial statistical materials about German losses.

More or the picture concerning number of prisoners of war вермахта on the Soviet-German front is less clear. On the Russian sources the Soviet armies had been captivated 3172300 soldiers вермахта, from them in camps of People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs there were 2388443 Germans. By estimates of German historians, in the Soviet prisoner-of-war camps only German military men there was about 3,1 million Divergence, as you can see, approximately in 0,7 million people this divergence distinctions in a death-roll estimation in a captivity of Germans Speaks: under the Russian archival documents, in Soviet to a captivity 356700 Germans were lost, and according to German researchers — about 1,1 million people It is represented that more authentic is the Russian figure of victims in a captivity of Germans, and missing 0,7 million Germans who have missing and not come back from a captivity actually were lost not in a captivity, and in the field of fight.

As to the lost soldiers вермахта and armies СС on the Soviet-German front then position is much worse.

Overwhelming majority of the publications devoted to calculations of fighting demographic losses вермахта and armies СС, lean against the data of the central bureau (department) of the account of losses of staff of the armed forces entering into the Joint Staff of general headquarters.« Чрезмерщики »estimate this data as absolutely authentic. But it has on closer examination appeared that the opinion on high reliability of data of this department is strongly exaggerated. So, the German historian R.Overmans in article« Human a victim of the Second World War in Germany »has come to a conclusion that«... Channels of receipt of the information in вермахте do not find out that degree of reliability which is attributed it by some authors ». As an example he informs that« one office conclusion of department of losses in a staff вермахта, concerning by 1944, has documentary confirmed that losses which have been suffered during the Polish, French and Norwegian campaigns and which revealing did not represent any technical difficulties, were almost twice above, than was originally informed ».

It is necessary to tell that unauthenticity of German messages on losses was obvious even during war. Some examples of understating by Germans of the losses result in the book «Wars and the population of Europe» B.Urlanis. In particular, he writes that on December, 11th, 1941 Hitler in рейхстаге has declared that from June, 22nd till December, 1st 1941г. The German army has lost 195648 killed and missing persons that ненамного, than is fixed in department of the account of losses of a staff вермахта (257900 killed and missing persons). «The new international year-book» for 1941 named these figures "extremely fantastic" and has resulted thus calculation of the American military observers on which for December, 11th, 1941 of loss of Germans by the killed were defined in 1300 That more than in 5 times exceeds the data вермахта. Even in Germany nobody trusted the official data about losses of the German army. B.Urlanis results endurance from article in the Swedish magazine "Vekku-zhurnalen", published in April, 1943 and in which it was marked: «Each German thinks that if official figures about the sizes of losses would be true struggle against the USSR would be finished for a long time already».

Obvious mistrust is caused by data of department of losses on a death-roll of German soldiers during defeat of armies of group "Center" by Red Army near Moscow: вермахта for December, 1941 and for January, 1942 almost in one and a half time it is less than figure of losses, than in July and August, 1941 when вермахт almost free moved on the Soviet earth.

And one more example. According to department of losses вермахта in January, 1943 was lost 37 thousand German soldiers, and the direct participant of Stalingradsky fight holding at that time high posts in German armies, including the chief of a staff of 17th army case, the major general G.Derr in the book «the Campaign on Stalingrad» (the collection «Fatal decisions») writes that «only from January, 24th on February, 2nd, 1943 was lost more than 100 thousand persons». Besides, the same days blockade of Leningrad has been broken through, and during fights one thousand soldiers вермахта was lost not.

As a whole data of department of losses вермахта cannot serve as the initial data for calculation of losses of armed forces of Germany in the Great Patriotic War.

There is other statistics of losses — statistics of burial places of soldiers вермахта. According to the appendix to the law of Germany «About preservation of places of a burial place» total number of the German soldiers who are in fixed burial places in territory of Soviet Union and the East Europe countries, makes 3 million 226 thousand people This figure can be accepted as initial for calculation of demographic losses вермахта, however it requires updating.

First, this figure considers only burial places of Germans, and in structure вермахта the great number of soldiers of other nationalities was at war: the Austrians (from them was lost 270 thousand people), судетские Germans and эльзасцы (was lost 230 thousand people) and representatives of other nationalities and the states (was lost 357 thousand people). From total number of the lost soldiers вермахта not on a share of the Soviet-German front 75—80 % are necessary a German nationality, i.e. 0,6-0,7 million people

Secondly, this figure concerns the beginning of 90th years of last century. For the past since then time search of German burial places in Russia, the CIS countries and countries of Eastern Europe proceeded. And messages appearing on this theme were insufficiently informative. So, for example, the Russian association of military memorials created in 1992, has informed that for 10 years of the existence has transferred to the German union on care of military burial places of data on burial places of 400 thousand soldiers вермахта. Whether However there were it again found out burial places or they are already considered in million 226 thousand figure 3 — not clearly. Unfortunately, the generalised statistics of again found out burial places of soldiers вермахта it was not possible to find. It is roughly possible to accept that the number of burial places of soldiers again found out over the last 10 years вермахта is in limits of 0,2-0,4 million people

Thirdly, many burial places of the lost soldiers вермахта on the Soviet earth have disappeared. For example, the participant of war Alexander Lebedintsev in the book "Fathers-commanders" results the story of one of local residents that forces on a burial place of German corpses after fights were not, therefore troupes dumped in a deep gully and, having brought down a gully wall, fell asleep them. In a spring high water a gully has washed away, and the rests of German burial places have carried away thawed snow in the river. Besides, as has noted Pohlebkin V.V. in the book «Great war and not taken place world», in woods and bogs of Novgorodchiny, Lithuania and Polesye till now exist hundred thousand anonymous tombs of the German soldiers who were lost in fights with Red Army, especially during spring approach of the Soviet armies in 1944 Roughly in such disappeared and anonymous tombs could be buried 0,4-0,6 million soldiers вермахта.

Fourthly, burial places of the German soldiers killed in fights with the Soviet armies in territory of Germany and the West European countries are not included in this data. According to R.Overmansa, only for last three spring months of war was lost an order of 1 million people As a whole on the German earth and in the West European countries in fights with Red Army was lost about 1,2-1,5 million soldiers вермахта.

At last, fifthly, the number of the buried included also soldiers вермахта, died "natural" death (0,1-0,2 million people).

As a whole demographic losses вермахта on the Soviet-German front make 5,4... 6,3 million people, from them 0,4 million were lost in a captivity.

This estimation will be co-ordinated with the figures resulted by Hitler on March, 16th, 1945 in рейхстаге: Germany in war has lost 12,5 million people, from them half killed. Considering that according to German historians of loss of German civilians victims by then made about 400 thousand foreheads, and on the Western front that has been killed about 300 thousand German soldiers, leaves that by March, 16th, 1945 on the Soviet-German front was lost about 5,5 million German soldiers

(see talk page of Kursk) --Igor Piryazev (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Mina

Hey there! 150.000 records in her complete career? This doesn't make sense at all! I bet she sold millions in such a long career and with so many albums to her credit. Maybe a mistake?! --LarkCGN (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Mogol-Battisti (1969–1973)

Mogol-Battisti's success encouraged Luigi Albertelli to copy Battisti's style in "Fiume azzurro", which earned a place in the Top 100 of annual record sales in Italy. is a wrong statement and it's a personal opinion, above all. It takes a little time to check that the music was composed by Enrico Riccardi, while Luigi Albertelli wrote the lyrics. The fact that the author of the source did find similarities between two styles is a personal opinion and should not simply be put in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.84.164.66 (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC) 82.84.164.66 (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Mina (singer) GA

Hello, Jaan. You have new messages at Talk:Mina (singer)/GA2.
Message added 04:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, in addition I have referred this rather cursory review and pass for coimmunity reassessment at WP:Good article reassessment/Mina (singer)/1. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dusty Springfield GA Review

Hi Erikupoeg. The GA Review of the Dusty Springfield has started and is on hold to allow improvements to be made. Please go to Talk:Dusty Springfield/GA1 to see fuller comments. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Attention

- Please refrain from senseless editing.Rubikonchik (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC

AfD nomination of List of battles by casualties

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of battles by casualties, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by casualties. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rubikonchik (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bobbie Gentry2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bobbie Gentry2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Samantha Jones.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Samantha Jones.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Carmen Villani.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Carmen Villani.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mina1972.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mina1972.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Mina Letter

Heya, sorry about the delay & here is the translation. My friend says it is not perfect as she is out of practice :) but that it's not (from an italian perspective) a complex piece of text so it should make sense. Let me know how it goes! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Letter

Gentile Staff di minamazzini.com,

Scriviamo a nome di Wikimedia Foundation. Attualmente a Wikimedia mancano delle immagini di Mina le quali possiamo usare nei articoli che le parlano.

È la nostra politica di usare solamente le immagini che sono autorizzate liberamente. Per esempio, le foto che sono libere a tutti da copiare, distribuire e trasmettere.

Il procedimento standard per i proprietari delle foto è di liberare queste foto sotto la 'Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. Potete trovare i dettagli su http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ .

Vi chiediamo gentilmente per una donazione con la liberazione delle immagini di Mina sotto la licenza le quali darano il sostegno al commento critico della sua apparenza e della sua immagine nel articolo su Mina di Wikipedia (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/Mina (singer)).

Il lavoro sarà attribuito nel modo in cui volete come autore (ma non in un modo che suggerisce che fate pubblicità a Wikimedia Foundation.

Per più informazioni vi preghiamo di non esitare di contattarci.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review

You may not be aware of it, but I've started a review of your article at Talk:Tallinn Offensive/GA2.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to be able to address the points about completeness I made in the review? If so I'll wait another week.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's right, I will try to address these within a week. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but if you could add page numbers for cite #7, I'd pass the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Dusty Springfield - the cover!

Oh, yes! It is awkward when there are two different covers of an album - one American, and one British. The American readers wish to see the cover they recognise, and the British readers wish to see the cover they recognise. What to do? The general guidance is that where the topic has ties to a particular country, and there are alternative spellings, phrases, grammar, terminology, etc, that the choice should be the usage that is most associated with that country. There is a template that can be placed on the talkpage - {{British English}}. While I don't think there is a specific guideline regarding which album cover version to use, the ethos is that if there are two versions, then use the one most appropriate for the topic. I assumed from your edit summary that your change to the American cover was done thinking that the British cover was actually a later CD resissue. My restoring of the original British cover was done because I thought you had made a mistake, and also because the use of the British cover appears to me to be the most appropriate and falls within Wikipedia ethos, guidelines and consensus. It wasn't done out of malice or anything! I assumed I was simply correcting a small error. I am also aware that Wikipedia:Systemic bias sometimes means that non-American topics can can be dealt with from an American perspective, which erodes national identity, so I am always a little concerned when I see some topics being too Americanised. Just a little though. It's a quiet awareness, not anything I will rampage about!

On the GA front, I am hoping to complete this soon. It has taken much, much longer than I had originally anticipated, and has become something of an albatross around my neck! I am determined, however, to pass the article, and will plough on, checking the statements, and ensuring broad coverage. Regards as always. SilkTork *^YES! 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Omakaitse

Hi, per guidelines you shouldn't make manual (copy-paste) moves when moving a page for a new title. I couldn't move it to the other direction by the usual practice before (both versions of a possible title have a page history), I know it is troublesome but so a sysop must be contacted to do the job. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 15:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Dusty Springfield

I really wanted to take this all the way to GA status, but it is taking too long, and I have to move on now. There are still sourcing issues to be dealt with, and coverage of Springfield's life and career needs more attention. I am still keen to help out and intend to return to the article when I have time so that the article can be listed as a good article sometime in the future (not too far hopefully!). Good luck with the article, and thanks for your patience. SilkTork *^YES! 13:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the effort. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Front

I changed your last edits to this[1]. By stressing the fact that the Baltic states were annexed illegally, you imply that other territories were annexed legally, which was not always the case. Since the infoboxes are not supposed to discuss such nuances, I suggest to leave this issue beyond the scope of this infobox, because the links to appropriate articles are already there, so the reader will be able to obtain all needed information by himself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As I explained, the plain term 'annexation' is incorrect for the Baltic case as it implies a de jure incorporation. I don't have enough knowledge for the Polish and Bessarabian cases. If any of the incorporations was illegal, the infobox should not claim it was simply an annexation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

De jure non necessarily means "legal". Thus, the USSR incorporated both Kresy and Estonia de jure: both these territories became a part of the USSR: their status was the same as that of other Soviet territories, Soviet laws acted there without restrictions, Soviet citizenship was granted to the population of newly annexed lands (although, as a rule, against their will). By all possible criteria it was incorporation de jure. However, many foreign states did not recognise this de jure incorporation as legal, and, according to the Malksoo's analysis we can speak about violation of the international laws here. By separating the Baltic case from other Soviet annexations you imply that the latters were made in accordance with international laws, which is not always correct. I suggest you to self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

De jure "means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact"". The Baltics became part of the Soviet Union de facto, meaning their legal status was internationally different from other territories of the Soviet Union, the Soviet laws acted there illegally and the population retained the citizenship of their native countries throughout the illegal annexation. According to every international convention, court of human rights and scholar of law, the Baltics were never de jure part of the Soviet Union. That is exactly why the Baltics are separated in the infobox. As I said, I am not familiar with the other cases in the infobox. If you feel the Soviet incorporation of the other listed regions is wrong, feel free to fix them. The Baltic states concerned, the term "illegal annexation" is the correct one, whereas plain "annexation" is false. Please consult Mälksoo's works for the terms. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@Paul and "Thus, the USSR incorporated both Kresy and Estonia de jure: both these territories became a part of the USSR...", no this contention is completely incorrect. For the incorporation to be de jure, it has to be lawful under:

• the country to which sovereignty is being acceded (this would be your point re: USSR)
• the country ceding sovereignty—not the case for any of the Baltic states, all patently illegal acts by puppet governments installed by an occupying power, that includes illegal and not in keeping with the constitutions of those states, e.g., Latvia required a direct plebiscite
• lawful according to all international treaties and accords whether bilateral or multilateral—again, not the case for the Baltic states as the USSR abrogated numerous treaties

So, in the case of the incorporation of the Baltic states, only one out of three conditions (that is, the occupying/annexing power considered the incorporation legal according to its rules) were "satisfied" to consider the incorporations legal. I suggest you read up on your understanding of international law. By no criteria were the incorporations legal under international law. (Indeed, even the pacts of mutual assistance are considered illegal as they were coerced, although "technically" legal, but another topic.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Latvian independence war

Eesti peab olema Lätist "ees" samal põhjusel miks Vene SSR on Läti SSRist ees selles tabelis. Peamine võitlus oli Eesti väed versus Vene/Läti punased ja saksalased. Lätlased muidugi aitasid ka aga olid sekundaared, hea näitena toon Võnnu lahingu.

Oleme ajalooliselt korrektsed ja paneme "Estonia" ette ja "Latvia" teiseks. Sellepärast, et see oli "Läti vabadussõda", ei tähenda, et nemad seal peamist rolli mängisid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl The Estonian (talk • contribs) 17:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

A totally incorrect, Estonian POV. The Estonians dominated in the war only from April to July 1919 acting not independently but under the auspices of the Latvian government. In the next thirteen months of warfare from July 1919 to August 1920, the Estonian forces were insignificant, with the Battle of Riga in October as the only battle they participated in, while the Latvian army played the main role instead. A fortiori, the Landeswehr-Estonian war concluded by the battle of Wenden (1919) did not even decide the conflict between the Latvian government and the pro-German forces as the latter remained active until the conclusive battle of Riga and the final battles in November 1919. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree with me, if I say that Latvia would not have gained independence, without Estonian interference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl The Estonian (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I do but Latvian inteference was even more crucial. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:035 Dusty Springfield - You Don't Have To Say You Love Me.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:035 Dusty Springfield - You Don't Have To Say You Love Me.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Leningrad and Baltics 1941-1944

In this book:

• Glantz, David M. (2002). The Battle for Leningrad 1941–1944. Kansas University Press. ISBN 0-7006-1208-4.

p. 410: The Leningrad, Volkhov and 2nd Baltic Front's Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive was immensely significant. [...] During the course of 45 days.

In Krivosheev's casualties book:

• Krivosheev, Grigoriy. "Россия и СССР в войнах XX века: Потери вооруженных сил: Статистическое исследование" (in Russian). {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) Google translation

The offensive is also written as lasting until March 1.D2306 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of that. What you are missing is that the Kingisepp wing of the offensive was over already by 2 February when the 2nd Shock Army captured the town and established the bridgeheads across the Narva river. Just follow this map. The rest of the offensive continued mainly towards Pskov. The Narva offensive of 15-28 February is not included either in the Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll take your point.D2306 (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's best then to combine all the Narva fighting into one link from the Leningrad&Baltic template and create a new Narva campaign template. All I am trying to do is to make the Leningrad campaignbox less clogged-up. D2306 (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Problem with File:Livonia in 1534 (Engilsh).PNG

Ingliskeelne kirjeldus lisatud Commonsisse. Athanasius Soter (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you deserve this ;-)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For you integrity and outstanding neutrality when dealing with very sensitive national POV issues related to the history of the Baltic states. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You! --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey!

Где же я вас обыдел? Это известний факт, что бытва за Цесис была самой большой бытвой для Эстонской армии во время её воыни за независомость. Наверника потому и вы так дрожити про эту тему)) Нейтральность это святое дело если вы пишите про историю, так что не нада смотреть на эту тему через прызму эмоций... --Kurlandlegionar (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Someri

I saw you deleted a section from the text.. Main reference to the naval engagement as actually one being fought between navies. And not of convoy escaping under air attacks through minefield. It is true that Tallinn evacuation (or even Hanko evacuation) was order of magnitude larger than the battle fought at Someri. But those were not really surface naval engagements. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There were torpedo boats enaged in 1941, so it is unfair not to call it a naval battle. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Latvian independence war

I find listing Latvians and Germans as being on the same side highly questionable. May I suggest you list sides according to their aims and loyalities, rather than by who fought with whom? AFAIK the union between Latvian and German forces was forced by international politics and was not in their own best interests - just because they weren't openly fighting each other dosen't mean they were on the same side. Also less openly Germans overthrew Latvian government and according to some speculations shot Kalpaks on purpose. The way you have it Latvian army supported it untill some treaty suddenly made them change their mind. ~~Xil (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The 1st Independent Latvian Brigade (South Latvian Brigade) commanded by Kalpaks and later Balodis was not just fighting on the same side with the German forces but placed under the direct command of the VI Reserve Corps until 2 July 1919. This means even after the German coup d'état on 16 April, the Latvian brigade's subordination remained the same. It makes it really hard to exclude the Latvian unit that took direct orders from the German headquarters. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe infobox should explain general situation, so reader can have information at glance, instead of reading the whole thing. By being overly precise you create wrong impresion, therefore I think it would be way more usefull to use de facto situation, instead of de iure. Even if they were formaly under German command, there was infighting and Balodis never attacked other Latvian forces. Besides Balodis was commander of Latvian army in later stages of war, which previosuly was reflected. ~~Xil (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing overly specific or complicated here. The 1st Latvian Independent Brigade operated de facto as part of the German army group from 6 February to 2 July 1919. The Latvian brigade was instrumental in the capture of Jelgava in the German offensive in 3-13 March 1919, attacking it together with the Iron Brigade and the battle group of Prince Lieven. Regardless of the German coup d'etat on 16 April, the Latvian brigade participated in the German capture of Riga on 22 May. Subsequently the German headquarters ordered the deployment of the brigade to the Liela Jugla River alongside Prince Lieven, with its manoeuvers creating an embarrassing situation for the 3rd Estonian Division and its subject Latvian 2nd Cesis Regiment (as reported by Major General Reek). On 3 June Colonel Zemitans requested colonel Balodis to join the North Latvian Brigade, with no answer. Hence they were not just formally under the German command but participated actively in their operations.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, it might be more usefull to find an option to divide infobox in stages, given that way Germans constantly swiched sides ~~Xil (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This is entirely false. The German headquarters never switched side nor even policy, they were straightforwardly pro-German, and anti-Soviet and anti-Latvian throughout the war, fighting the Soviets and executing a hostile policy towards the national Provisional Government of Latvia from the very beginning to the end. If ever there was a switch of side then it was the 1st Latvian Independent Brigade which switched from the German side to the North Latvian Brigade's, as first requested by Colonel Zemitans and later sanctioned by the Treaty of Strazdumuiža. As far as the Provisional Government of Ulmanis is concerned, after the coup d'etat, they remained passive, refusing to cooperate with the Estonian Commander in Chief and hoping for an agreement with the German headquarters (as reported by Major General Soots). --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, my point exactly - why do you want them allied with Latvians when it is clear that this alience was only formal? If Southern forces were uncertain what to do, it dosen`t mean they fought against their own country - such details can be explained in text and if you want it in infobx, you can very well write in there that Latvian forces were split in two parts, instead of moving them to other side ~~Xil (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The alliance was far from being just formal, as the Latvian brigade participated actively in the German operations subordinated to their headquarters, and played an important part in the victory over the Soviets. The alliance had a clear termination when the Latvian brigade was released from the German command and switched over to the Allied side. The infobox is not necessarily claiming Latvia fought against Latvia, just like it is not claiming Poland fought against the German corps, nevertheless it lists Poland and the German forces on separate belligerent sides. The infobox is merely stating the fact that the Latvian army fought on the German side until 2 July. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The box was designed as having three sides - pro-soviet, pro-german and pro(or atleast not anti-)-latvian. Your method is counter-intuitive and I still fail to see its advantages over what we had before. If we would list all sides in accordance with who was under whose command we will end up with many more sides. You say that having units on diffrent sides dosen't mean they fought against each other, so why can't it be that on some occasions different sides fought together? ~~Xil (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

All I am saying is it is false not to list a force that took part in two German offensives, placed under the German command for five months. The 1st Latvian Independent brigade was notable enough to warrant a listing in the infobox and not just an ally of the German side, but furthermore its subject. We could consider what you are proposing ("on some occasions different sides fought together") if the Latvian brigade defected or resisted the German side after the coup d'etat on 16 April. However, this was not the case as they remained under the German command until 2 July hence showing no separate will in their actions. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Gosh... Estonians would make perfect spies, you know - it is imposible to get out information needed from you guys :) We can argue endlesly as to why they didn't feel like attacking Germans right away (got some good theories there), but what I've been trying to find out - what is wrong with listing them according to their loyalities in the infobox and explaining that they fought Soviets together in article? The way you have it we could divide it in even more sides (probably British, Poles and what not weren't under command of these sides) or we could merge it in two sides (which would look confusing, but is basicly the same thing - just instead of moving Latvians under Germans, you move Germans over to our side) ~~Xil (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What would be wrong with excluding the 1st Latvian Independent Brigade from the German allies would be that it would not accord to the fact that the brigade was subordinated to the German side. I don't see what is so complicated about it. Ulmanis kept open two doors: the Allied and the German side, allowing the 1st Independent Latvian Brigade to operate under German command and simultaneously allowing the North Latvian Brigade to be created on the Allied side. Both of the brigades were loyal to the Ulmanis government, just one of them fought as part of the Estonian army and the other one as part of the German force. On 2 July 1919 the South Latvian Brigade crossed over to the Allied side. These are the facts the infobox conveys right now. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see - you interpret it as having Estonian side and German side. There is major problem with that - everyone was allied against Soviets, Latvians didn't cross to that side, Germans just chose to ignore allies in favour of their own interests. Estonians merely helped form the northen army and took part in one major battle. This was Latvian war, not Estonian. ~~Xil (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The German army and Estonia were enemies throughout the war. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop and think - was Latvian independence war fought by Estonians or by Latvians? I believe your army was there on agreement with our government and pretty much ended to take part after securing their own country in battle of Cēsis. Up to that point Estonians also were forlmaly allied to Germans ~~Xil (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the source for this outrageous claim? "Formally allied to Germans"? What kind of formal agreement are you talking about? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, have you ever read Wikipedia:Edit warring? You just crossed the 3rr line, so this is the last warning before I report you. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A highschool history book - "Estonians had allready occupied Cēsis and refused to let their German allies enter". Entente had intended for Germans to stay in Baltics to help locals fight off Soviets - don't they teach you that in Estonia? And also IMO it would make no sense for Germans to have coup d'etat if Latvian army would have been able to fight them - it probably was more sane for them to remain with Germans and fight Soviets at that point. And I reverted you only once due to edit conflict, first time dosen't count as revert within 24 hours as you changed infobox two days ago and the second time I was changing something else and didn't notice you reverted me. At any rate I am still hoping that you will realise that you are wrong on your own and revert yourself ~~Xil (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has drifted far off the topic. If you feel like adding Germany as an ally of the Entente until 5 June 1919 when open warfare broke out against Estonia - go ahead, try how it works out. But that does not change the fact that the Latvian brigade participated in the German campaigns in spring. Please prove the contrary or restore the sourced facts. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Leningrad

IMHO this[2] was not cleanup. You replaced "Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg)", which was ugly but perfectly sufficient, by a single link to a disambiguation page. There are no links to the city in the lead text after your edits, make such things more carefully next time. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and restore the content. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Some clarification

I am a bit surprised at your points of view at the Mila Kunis talkpage... I thought everybody in Estonia will do anything to displease the Soviet Union leadership; including it's attempts of Russification... I'm sure you are well aware that if the Kremlin would have treated Ukrainian in the Ukrainian SSR as a language equal (thus as a second language in reality and not only in name) to Russian Mila would be able to speak Ukrainian now... Anyhow are Estonians not that anti-Soviet any more? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to put national feelings aside in Wikipedia. It is not about what would be but what is. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not always that simple... Your reasoning was based on what de-facto was, mine an what was de-jure... (since Ukrainian was an official language in the USSR). But I agree with the principal. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Estonian cyclists

Hi Jaan, do you have a source for the edit[3] at 2011 Estonian cyclists abduction that says Martin Metspalu is a dentist? AFP was saying he's a university lecturer: "One victim was identified by his father as Martin Metspalu, a leading scientist who heads the biotechnology department at the University of Tartu in southeast Estonia."[4] Please add a source for the dentist edit if there's one in English. Thanks.—Biosketch (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw that you added a source. Great.—Biosketch (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Andres Metspalu leads the Dept. of Biotechnology at the University of Tartu, not his son, who is a dentist. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Continuation War

Пишу по-русски, так как знаю его много лучше чем английский, и вы говорите, что знаете русский язык. Мне понятна ваша приверженность подачи истории в варианте, как её подавали в СССР, где старались максимально приуменьшить значение Финляндии в войне. Но факты – есть факты. Финляндия перешла границу 1918-1939 годов (даже на Карельском перешейке), оккупировала территории, которые никогда ей не принадлежали (Петрозаводск, Олонец…), вместе с Германией участвовала в блокаде Ленинграда, перерезав множество коммуникаций. Жертвы блокады – результат действий осаждавших, как Германии, так и Финляндии. Это ни хорошо и ни плохо, просто отражение факта, и к национализму не относится.--Germash19 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I can read Russian, that is fine, but I can not answer in Russian.

Along the Vyborg-Leningrad railway and highway, Finland stopped exactly at its pre-war border (see File:Continuation-War-defensive-lines.png). In the rest of the Karelian Isthmus, Finland merely stood at the straight line between pre-war border crossings at the Baltic and Ladoga. And how were Petrozavodsk and Olonets strategically important for Leningrad? Germany cut the Volkhov railway, so the Finnish occupation of Petrozavodsk had not a slightest impact on the siege. If you want facts, then a fact is that Finland had no military goals beyond the Finnish borders and Karelia. You cannot call standing before your border, which was the case in the Vyborg-Leningrad line, active participation in the siege. Otherwise you can include Sweden as an active participant in the siege as well. The only part when Finland actively participated, was during the start of the war, which the Finnish headquarters coordinated with the German command.

You are trying to erase a sourced fact: "A two and a half year standstill followed, during which Finland refused to actively participate in the siege of Leningrad and to cut the Murmansk railway...". In order to do that, bring forward reliable sources that discuss the Finnish participation after the campaign of 1941. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Границу 1918 года Финляндия перешла повсеместно, а могла этого не делать. На Карельском перешейке можно было спрямить линию обороны, не переходя границы. Финское спрямление повторяет линию Карельского укреп. района. Что вы хотели сказать, упоминая границу на Карельском перешейке, что Финляндия не участвовала в блокаде? Я говорил о железных дорогах, не автомобильных (у них была небольшая пропускная способность). По суше Ленинград мог снабжаться по железным дорогам, две из них шли через Петрозаводск: одна севернее Ладожского озера, другая – южнее. Обе оказались перерезаны войсками Финляндии. Были перерезаны White Sea – Baltic Canal и Volga–Baltic Waterway (основной довоенный маршрут доставки грузов водой в Ленинград). Ну и морская блокада города – без неё суда нейтральных стран (например Швеции) в нейтральных водах могли дойти почти до Ленинграда. Блокада вообще не предполагает активных действий, здесь важно сдерживание противника – Финляндия не вела активных действий в блокаду потому, что СССР не вёл активных действий против финнов. То, что Финляндия, возможно, отказывалась от активных действий типа наступления, атаки против СССР ( не Ленинграда) вопрос отдельный. От того как воевала Финляндия – активно или пассивно количество погибших в Ленинграде не уменьшится. В данном виде формулировка не нейтральна, и будет изменена. Повторяю, Финляндия перерезала Кировскую ж. д. (Мурманскую) в 1941 году. В статье достаточно источников, где сказано, что до 1944 года Финляндия не освободила оккупированные территории, и не сняла (со своей стороны) блокаду Ленинграда.--Germash19 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Finland did not cross its pre-war border on neither the Vyborg-Leningrad railway nor the Ladoga coast. Are you seriously saying the capture of the Steklyanny village, which was the only large borough Finland captured beyond the border in the Isthmus, had an strategic impact on Leningrad? Please support your case with reliable sources.

Finnish occupation of Petrozavodsk had no impact on the railway connections with Leningrad, as Germany cut the railway between Leningrad and Volkhov, in the southern coast of Ladoga. With or without the Finnish army, the German railway blockade was there.

As for the sea blockade, until you provide reliable sources for your case, it is your WP:OR. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Финляндия – страна-агрессор (как СССР в 1939 году) перешла границы как 1940, так и 1918 годов. Конечно, вы можете считать нормальным, если сейчас Россия завоюет Финляндию или Эстонию, не переходя при этом старых границ Российской империи. Я уважаю вашу позицию, но не стоит её навязывать другим. В осаде стратегическое значение имеет нарушение коммуникаций. Финны прекрасно это делали 3 года. Я говорил о ж. д. именно севернее Ладожского озера, через Suoyarvi на Петрозаводск. Возможно, у вас есть источники подтверждающие, что перерезание Финляндией коммуникаций не повлияло на снабжение Ленинграда? Их следует представить в статье, иначе это ваш WP:OR.--Germash19 (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your recent revert... See ru::Кировская_железная_дорога.. Сентябрь 1941 г. в эксплуатацию сдан участок Сорокская — Обозерская.. At least ru wiki seems to think the Murmansk railway was redirected/rerouted so that though Finns cut a rail leading to Murmansk they did not cut the Murmansk railway which now run from Murmansk to Sorokka and from there to Obozerskaya where it linked to Arhangelsk rail. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Again regarding your recent revert... The result of the war was Finnish capitulation, so how was the army never defeated?. Finland and Soviet union signed a peace treaty after negoatiations - by keeping that in mind it is equally valid to call it a Soviet capitulation as it is to call it a Finnish capitulation - however best would be to call it as it was, a negotiated peace treaty. Finns chose to exit the war since it had became apparent that Germany would fall sooner or later. As it was also apparent that any war which unsupported Finland and Soviet Union would fight would eventually end in Soviet victory Finns chose to exit the war before being defeated especially after the problems of the Spring 1944 negoatiations (ie. time limit for expulsing Germans and cutting the war reparations to half) and Summer 1944 'negotiations' (ie. the one which Finns understood that demand for unconditional surrender) had been rectified. Saying that the Red Army defeated the Finnish Army is factually wrong as the 'defeated' Finnish Army was perfectly capable of repulsing and even driving back Soviet attacks. In fact the Finnish Army had never been stronger than after the Soviet offensive. What is true is that Red Army defeated some units of the Finnish Army, however it failed to defeat the Finnish Army. - 80.220.36.118 (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Words in alphanumeric order......

You're No Fun Anymore...
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)