User talk:W. B. Wilson

Archives #1 1/07 - 2/08, #2 2/08 - 12/09, #3 1/10 - 12/10

36th Infantry division

I see that your edit of 10 Dec 2010 at 1732 has the division still in France until January 1945, (changing it from October 1944); have you any sources to back this up as I always thought that there were no German troops still on French soil at this time?
Regards
RASAM (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Lineage for the Bundeswehr

Thanks so much Mr Wilson - I really appreciate it. Kind regards and Happy New Year 2011! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

36th Inf Div in 1945

I'd completely forgotten about the Atlantic ports, doh ! As for Operation Nordwind, I thought (for some strange reason) that it took place east of the Rhine - obviously not ! Thanks for putting me straight and writing such a prompt reply.
Regards
RASAM (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ramcke

I see the "nazi", not a nazi issue popped up again. I have to say I think that you did an excellent and professional job of re-editing the earlier contribution (even if we differ a bit on the man). You incorporated that editor's information in a more logical and structured way and removed opinion.

Along those lines though: are you sure that you want to use the "strongly indicative of" phrasing? It seems to me those orders are blatant Nazi propaganda. Might as well say it (as the other editor apparently felt). I would also humbly suggest that he/she had a good idea in that you perhaps reduce the degree of attribution to Ramcke, as those words were read by many commanders on multiple fronts and would have originated at the propaganda ministry. While a historian recognizes that aspect of daily orders in every army, the middle-school students using wikipedia may not. (Just as backing, I would point out that Ramcke's actions in captivity and after the war are counterindicative of personally holding the views expressed in his orders. Specifically, he maintained cordial relationships with Americans such as Middleton, had his son emmigrate to America to raise his grandkids, and interacted with African-american laborers at the prison camp whom some racist white Americans working there considered themselves too good to speak to in 1945.)

I looked at your source for "released due to old age". This conflicts with other sources that indicate he was released due to time served (5 year sentence, 7 years in captivity). Also, he was not THAT old - and his then recent escape indicated that neither age nor extremily harsh conditions and weight loss had in any way rendered him infirm. I suspect that the source of the "released due to age" was in error. --Rwberndt (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I do agree that balance is required. I like your proposed rephrasing of "reflect the peculiarly racist outlook of the Third Reich" as racist is a fact, peculiar, relative to the bulk of human governments, is a fact, etc. Would you care to make the final edit ?

As for attribution, while I cannot find a record of the original author of the orders, I would think it reasonable to say something along the lines of "Daily orders for Ramcke's command on <forgot the date> included" and then not further attribute to him by name, just let the text stand as it would have been published to the troops. I think that would be accurate and objective.

As you point out, my knowledge of unpublished source documents cannot be used in this piece. But I can offer these items with regard to his post-war view of America: I was able to use the date of the 1945 letter recently cited in the article to pull-up a copy of it on the web at http://www.kilroywashere.org/004-Pages/JAN-Area/04-D-JAN-POW-Ramcke.html (should this be added to the ref ?). As I thought I recalled, it demonstrates his interaction with African-americans as a source of information. His book, Damals und Danach also speaks to his cordial relations with Americans while in captivity such as Middleton. The issue of entrusting family to our culture is hard to cite a 3rd party for - does the phone book count ?

Two sources I found quickly for "released due to time served", beyond his own statement in Damals und Danach, are a paratrooper website, specifically the page http://www.fallschirmjager.biz/info_persons_001.htm, and also page 201 of Troy H Middleton: A Biography, by Frank J. Price, published by Louisiana State University Press in 1974 and on Google Books. (Which also gives further evidence of Ramcke's lack of demonstrating any anti-american bias).

I think some edits would benefit future readers. Which of us should attempt them ?--Rwberndt (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Per your suggestion I have taken a shot a the edits. I did not feel comfortable including anything on his views of Americans because of the lack of solid 3rd-party documentation. I do think you are correct when you speculate he was not aware of the behavior of other German commanders. His reputation in Germany after the war (pre-comments) was partially due to the unique, though he did not realize it, way he had conducted himself and treated his command. He was from a diferent generation and what was done by fellow commanders in the Third Reich was probably inconcievable to him - He may not have believed some of it. As for the evolution of his politics to the right: when he returned from France, he may have been physically OK, but mentally, he was bitter, frustrated and resentful. As he saw his actions as legal and honorable (with considerable basis in law) and wrongly transposed that conduct onto all others wearing the uniform, he felt that Germans were being falsely persecuted as they had been after WWI. I think that his statement in the 1945 letter is indicative of this misconception (all others acted the same). I should note that his treatment was slightly harsher compared to how he had treated prisoners, so again, he wrongly assumes that all prisoners had been well treated by Germans (though some of that text is also political manipulation of the civilian reader I think). I think the Adenauer quote best assesses the situation with his remarks shortly after his release : "foolish" and not beneficial to the cause of those still imprisoned. His own writing in Damals und Danach also reflects the bitterness and anger he has at this point of time. I have to wonder what he would have said a decade later once he had healed a bit - but he was done publishing and speaking by then (for obvious reasons).--Rwberndt (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the last couple days, particularly the professional tenor of your "wordsmithing" has been of great benefit to the quality of this article. I happen to have read some of the correspondence you added the mention of, so I am thrilled to see you noticed a reference for that relationship. I had left "ail" in the quote because Ramcke mis-spelled all in the actual letter, but perhaps it is better corrected. Thanks for your efforts !--Rwberndt (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Another question on military history

Looking at your work, you seem to be a military historian. Another individual has undertaken the daunting (seeming overwhelming) task of creating articles for all ships of the Germanic WWI fleet. His (parsecboy) work is remarkable, but an article on the SMS Prinz Adalbert cites a reasonable reference (now) that states there were 3 survivors of her sinking. General Ramcke, who was in some ways closer to his military comrades than his family (he saw his family a lot less) relates in his autobiography the military notice that the ship was lost (to the wrong english ship) with all hands. It seems that, given his closeness with other servicemen, that if any had survived he would have known and mentioned it in the book. He had 2+ decades to learn of and seek them out. Yet he said lost with "the entire crew". He even kept a flag I believe to have been from the ship as a rememberance for the rest of his life. Which reference is right ? Do you know of resources that can clarify this disconnect between two 3rd-party sources ?--Rwberndt (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that ref. It is perfect. I have edited the Ramcke page and included it. It appears Ramcke missed that detail.--Rwberndt (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Debrecen order of battle 2

Hi W. B. Wilson, thanks for the message. I wasn't really sure what all the article entailed, but assumed it was a work in progress that you would be returning to shortly. Have yourself a great weekend, and happy editing :).  -- WikHead (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to this. It was obviously gotten to by someone else anyone. Thankyou for doing Operation Solstice and 47th Army; that's really helpful. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Tricolore vs Tricoleur

W.B. Wilson,

Thanks for your thanks. Well, I did not correct your "Tricoleur", I simply added my "Tricolore".

Your spelling ending in "leur" looks lovely to my French eyes. Cordialement,

--Frania W. (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

30th Grenadier SS

Thanks for the heads-up, and the 5th and 6th Guards army articles. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Souvenir de Namur

Merci. Je ne connaissais pas cette plaque à la mémoire des quatre zouaves.

+ Have been very busy outside Wikiland & will be for he next few months; however, your msgs are always welcome.

Cordialement,

--Frania W. (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons

Hey Wilson: I uploaded the file AT4 image.jpg to Wikimedia Commons to use it in an article about AT-4 laucher. This is the link to the file in Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AT4_image.jpg . SLRTDM (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey Mr Wilson, In recognition of all your immensely hard work on wikipedia, and to note this new Wikilove feature, this barnstar recognises your intricate work on World War II operations, both U.S European campaign, French, and Soviet. Congrats ! Buckshot06 (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, we're trying to make Wikipedia more friendly... why don't you select someone who really deserves recognition for long and hard work yourself and barnstar them ?? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mr Wilson. You probably know the Polish military articles are incredibly fragmented. The People's Army of Poland article is actually just part of the history of the overall Polish Armed Forces. I would like to merge the article into the Polish Armed Forces article, without prejudice to recreation if necessary at a later date. What do you think? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Per your input on Talk:M39 cannon#manufacturers, thank you~! I've been exonerated~! Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:

Sorry mate, am use to the Bot fixing the cite errors quicker; ill keep an eye out for that in the future though. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Second Street Studio 01:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

:Re: Battle of Clervaux

Thank you for the useful information. By all means, please add it to the article, I by no means think I "own" it, and love to see others improving something I started. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

East European armies

Thanks for noting this situation. I believe we should amalgamate according to states, thus the Czechoslovak and Yugoslavian armed forces should have separate pages, and the Polish should be amalgamated into the main Polish Armed Forces article. Do you (a) agree, and if so (b) think we need to consult more widely before we amalgamate the Polish and Yugoslav armed forces entries ?

Thanks Mr Wilson. Right, what I intend to do is this. I will first amalgamate the least controversial country, according to your opinion, P or Y, and then we'll wait, tidy up, and consider other opinions before moving on to the other. I will also alert User:Nick-D. I will add the pages in question to my watchlist. Which should we do first? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Mr Wilson. You may consider now watchlisting People's Army of Poland now I've merged the page into Polish Armed Forces. Would appreciate your general watching these pages as well. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the source for the PPA order of battle ? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The 'representing' goes to an official Polish MOD link I cannot load. I think I'll remove all the [19]s, to be honest. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the 1st Mechanised Division article. I had been preparing all the links for 1st Warsaw Mechanised Division, but the title doesn't matter too much. Next priority I think should you wish to assist me with it is the 11th Armoured Cavalry Division, which doesn't need any disambiguation - only armoured cavalry division I know of. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Initial makings of the 11th Armoured Cavalry Division article are at the end of 11th Infantry Division (Poland). Buckshot06 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, as you like. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem - I actually read what you meant, because my mind was expecting to read that ;) Buckshot06 (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice maps. What is the program(me) you are using? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't actually see the edits or programming that you're using - one worked example would be great. CAn you set up a direct link ? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from my sandbox changes, the German government have been very inconsiderate in locating all their divisions near to each other in south Germany! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant. Increasing the size of the map and switching left/right captions appears to do it. Now before we roll this out beyond Poland, Belgium, and Germany, do you know if the mapmakers can do us a series of standard APP-6 symbols to replace the pushpins / triangles ? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be right. Oh well. If you are aware of a way of sticking Brest back into Belarus, take a look at Armed Forces of Belarus. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What can you dig up on the 120th 'Rogachev' Guards Rifle Division / 120th Guards Motor Rifle Division? As the premiere units of the Belarussian GRound Forces, I think this brigade should have an article. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What about maps by military district? Can we get maps by military district? That would make it meaningful. Yes for a full countrywide map only army level would really be workable. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not being clear. I mean four separate maps, one each for the Western Military District, the Southern Military District, the Central Military District and the Eastern Military District. Check the NCMD page - there used to be a reasonable map for each MD before the 2010 reorganisation. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

(od) My mistake. I thought the MD maps were only of the MD areas. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Noclador deserves our thanks. He's done several maps for the Italian Army- see my talk. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:14th Zouaves.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:14th Zouaves.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've alerted WT:MILHIST to this, and will talk also to User:Moonriddengirl. One other thing; might you be able at some point to investigate the WW 2 history of 160th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Brigade (Ukraine)? Would be great to get one bluelink on all the scrolling, scrolling, scrolling lists of smaller units in the Red Army WW 2 OOBs. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot actually intervene in that process; I'm not a Commons administrator. Sorry about this.... Buckshot06 (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, as I've been involved, I should not close the discussion - either way. Hope all else goes well.. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Schoenfeld

I'm posting this message on your talk page because I noticed that you've recently created the new article Battle of Schoenfeld--Amy Z (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

W. B. Wilson, it's good to see we can work together. The Battle of Schoenfeld should be close to becoming "Start" class. Would love to see a picture of either side during the battle if one can be found and be used on Wikipedia for the article. Adamdaley (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

47th Army

W. B. Wilson,

Article: 47th Army.

The current Coordinators at WikiProject Military encourage you to improve the above article since you have contributed significantly to it. "We" (the Coordinators) would like to see it go from it's current assessment to a "B class" or higher assessment. Once again I would like to personally encourage you with this and other related articles on WikiProject Military History to do the same. Adamdaley (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mr Wilson, re the list of units for the first period of 47th Army, I don't know all the Russian abbreviations; please take a look and fix if you can.. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to commend your continuing work on military location maps - really useful! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Rzeczpospolita map

Here you go :)

Sadly, I can't seem to find the layered version of the svg file. I know it must be somewhere, but no idea where actually. I could easily find the layered file of the original .png version, which was much inferior to the .svg version, but still could do for the purpose of locator maps. Anyway, I simply erased all names and bullets from the map and re-uploaded it as File:Rzeczpospolita 1939 noname.svg. Let me know if that's what you needed.

BTW, take note that while rivers and borders are traced quite nice in the western part of the map, those in USSR are much, much less accurate. That shouldn't be a problem in case of locator maps, but still in theory it could at times produce weird results, as for instance towns not located on the rivers they are located IRL. //Halibutt 19:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ghana

Hi Mr Wilson, would like to ask for your help as I'm at my wit's end. I cannot work out what I've done wrong re the Ghana Army infantry battalions. The maps and tries are in my contributions history and in my sandbox - would you mind taking a look? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

National Armed Forces of Cote d'Ivoire: I've been trying to research them recently without much success (cannot get hold of the LOC Country Studies and Area Handbooks). If you have Jane's data, can you send it to me? I can certainly update the 1987(!) orbat we have in the text with newer data. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand what I meant. Check the further reading I added: I was looking for the 1962 and 1971 Area Handbooks, but, again, even though the Jane's data is 2008, I would still appreciate you sending me the document. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as you may have seen, I've now done Sierra Leone and Nigeria in addition to Ghana. On Keegan, you don't mean you have World Armies do you? That's pretty gold-standard. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Thing is, you have the ISBN and page numbers. Would you mind working the data in? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Wilson - that's good. Given that I've taken out the unsourced army equipment list, I suggest you do go ahead and take out the unsourced aircraft list. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Germany 1937.png

Why not upload it to Commons directly? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

6th Guards Army

That was a massive expansion of that article - really good work!! Unfortunately I've had to take out Andy Johnson's 1988 guesses about where the army might be - they were totally inaccurate. The army disbanded in the Baltic region in 1947, as Feskov et al makes quite clear. Would you mind please e-mailing me through the emailthisuser function? I'll send you Feskov so you can look up fates of Soviet units after the war. Best regards Buckshot06 (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Polish Armed Forces

As you've contributed to this page recently, would you kindly take a look at the recent series of edits and perhaps give your opinions on the talk page ? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on 'too many articles' struck a chord with me. I intend to merge Polish I Corps in the West to Polish Armed Forces in the West, given that it's a short stub and never fought as a corps, but are there other articles that you think might usefully be merged? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted such move. Please do not merge such articles without a discussion at talk and notifying WP:POLAND. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

16th: that is interesting. Do you intend to create a page for this? This is because it appears to be a direct reorganisation of the 1941 34th Tank Division. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I created that page to avoid confusion between 10th Tank Corps and 10th Guards Tank Corps. It refers to the 34th Tank Div (Second Formation). Do the 1941 tank divisions belong in the same page as the 1945 and after tank divisions? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, are you interested in the Feskov book? It would be really helpful for post-45 unit fates. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Somebody is looking for a use for a photo from the Bundesarchiv, would be my guess. Not enough of an issue to get concerned about, IMHO. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Anonymity

What do you think of [[User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_the_perils_of_anonymity - Solution? Are you interested in pushing for it? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Note ping

Although I am sure you'd see it anyway: request. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Belgian commandos memorial.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Belgian commandos memorial.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 00:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Belgium, which appears to have a loophole in that this memorial could be argued not to be a 'work of art', and if you want to take that route, talk to User:Moonriddengirl and if useful use my name liberally. Also be aware you can reupload them in the '71st year'. Also, e-mail the Belgian Commandos' regimental headquarters and strike up a conversation, they would probably send you heaps of authorised stuff... I'm going back to Belgium in the new year; pave the way for me and I'll visit the regimental historian for you. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

We're friends, and if you can't vent to your friends, what can you do? Just look out for Belgian Force publique / ANC / FAZ documents/photos/data/links/anything, that's all I ask. What are your priority information requirements so I can look for them? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm whacking the maps. If you come across a full OB of the Force publique post 1940, please copy it; I'm tearing my hair out trying to locate one!! Buckshot06 (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm actually looking for a more detailed battalion level OB really for after the war, but thankyou very much anyway; everything helps with the context. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked at one of them in mid October and the other on Friday. Neither has the full 1945-1960 orbat I'm looking for: JAnssens' book has the list of combat battalions in the late 1940s which I mounted at the Force publique article; the other stops in 1914. I was so annoyed when having brought it back to my place in the library, I realise that it did not go to 1952, but merely was published in 1952! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any details in Keegan, World Armies about the Moroccan troops sent to Zaire during Shaba I? Buckshot06 (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Wilson. Appreciate you looking anyway. I found a couple of details, thanks to Google Books. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I should have thought of that CGSC study. King Hassan offered a 'combat experienced paratroop brigade' - good guessing!! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Liberate versus conquer

This sounds like the blocked editor User:Mrg3105. Feel free to rollback the edits. As for the American Free Corps, the articles needs to be taken to WP:Articles for deletion and a note included in the SS foreign volunteer article you've been improving. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Polish Armed Forces

Would you be able to consider the recent series of edits to this article regarding pictures and either make edits or comment on talkpages as appropriate? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Image

You and Buckshot06, need to stop this nonsense. It is clear that you are being disruptive. Why are you trying to add this photo to this discussion page. I was about the Eisenhower\Spychalski image, and whether to keep it or not (it was taken down due to Buckshot06 claim that there was too many pic files on the page, not to replace it). Yet you and Buckshot06 keep adding this image to everything. It is becoming very apparent that serious editing is not you main priority here. --76.118.227.161 (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The next time you make such insinuations (about 'serious editing'; about 'Guard Sign Soviet Army' etc etc) I will block you for personal attacks. Yes, we have a disagreement about the use of a photo. But we must discuss this is a civilised fashion. Wikipedia prohibits this; Wikipedia:No personal attacks. We can discuss this without personally attacking each other, and you would be well advised to admit that our arguments might be valid - as yours might be. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• This issue is clear, the disputed photo in that discussion was Eisenhower\Spychalski. Yet, you make personal attacks, calling me a vandal. --76.118.227.161 (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Microedt, these attempts by you to redefine the history of discussions are both useless and provocative. Yes, the E/S photo was one that was discussed. However, the photo of the Polish troops in 1951 is also under discussion and there is a dispute about its use. Stop pretending otherwise, stop making unwarranted assumptions, stop unilaterally deleting images, and cease making insinuations about people whom you know nothing about. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Double accounts

I do not know whether double accounts are permitted. I think that if it's clear that the account(s) are operated by the same person, it is allowed. But you'd have to look up the rules.. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

At the moment I do not believe we should hold this against the user in question. Could easily be familiarity with the anon IP and a slow transition to account-based editing. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

reverse image search

Hi, the tool to find the site where images where taken from is: www.tineye.com. Just insert the url of the image or upload the image and tineye will find the original, even if it has a different size. best regards, noclador (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

you're welcome :-) noclador (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Soviet musings

I think these should be referenced and be gradually incorporated into articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Mr Wilson. Please, for the future, make me aware of any articles I'm involved with heavily that seem to be repetitive in line with the issue you identify. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Korsun-Cherkassy

Two queries; should you insert the historians' names who you're quoting in the final assessment? Secondly, in accordance with Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_106#German_formations, I think we've decided to use 'Panzer' and 'Panzer Grenadier' instead of 'Armoured' for German units, in accordance with WP:UE and WP:Commonname in English. Thoughts welcome. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I do mean the assessment paragraph, and it sounds like you should requote the German official history, for what it's worth, based on what you wrote. Second I agree on III Panzer Corps, but not III Panzerkorps, definitely not a usage that's workable.. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realise you were really thinking about III Corps specifically; thought you were using it as a metaphorical example. We now have III Corps (Bundeswehr), thanks to some of my work and Google Translate; I've removed the Bundeswehr Heer line from the other article.

U.S. light armored division diagram

Hi, W.B. thanks for pointing out the errors and details in the U.S. light armored division diagram - I did an update with your information and hope that now it is more clear that the Combat Commands did not have a fixed structure. Furthermore I added the HHB Division Artillery as I saw that most of the Light Divisions had one. I hope now the graphic is ok - but please if there need to be made any more changes, let me know! :-) I also intend to do the diagrams of the US Army Infantry, Airborne and Air Assault Div. of WII (Also the British, Italian, German, Japanese and Soviet division structures (maybe also French, Finish and Polish if info can be found)). When I have done these may I show them to you to check them for accuracy? thanks, best regards noclador (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Light new version

7th Guards Airborne Division

It's really confusing, but http://desantura.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=8679 (which I found through the Russian wikipedia page) indicates the division was formed by expansion of the 322nd Guards Airborne Regiment (may have been Guards Rifle) of the 103rd Guards Airborne or Guards Rifle Division in c.1948. The clue is in the army affiliation of the 322 Regiment, listed in the start of our article - it's listed as being with 9th Guards Army, the army of airborne forces divisions in May 1945. 7th Guards Airborne (I Formation, war-formed) as you said was with 4th Guards Army at roughly the same time. My guess is that 7th Guards Airborne was disbanded relatively quickly after the war, but you have Feskov et al yourself now and should be able to check- there's that handy table of division disbandments in 1945-46. However if I remember correctly only 2nd Guards Airborne was disbanded about this time, seemingly for losing its' colours. More questions ;) ! Hope you had a happy Christmas ! Cheers and best wishes Buckshot06 (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for finding that thrice-dratted general's meeting citation !! Thankyou very much !! And yes, I have a strong suspicion that the General Staff was being deliberately confusing (maskirovka) with some of these redesignations; they didn't want to hand the allies their OrBat unchanged in 45-46. But I've also come across (in GTranslate) Russian military forum chat where they wonder at the reasons of the General Staff, being equally uncomprehending. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Best course from here is to look into Russian-language further reading on the VDV that would shed some more light on the post-45 reorganisation. The further reading section in the Russian VDV article would be the proper start point, but I'm not sure whether there is anything there. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)