User talk:Mrg3105

Welcome!

Hello, Mrg3105, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Thanks for the numerous edits you have contributed already. I am not familiar with the subject matter at War, so I can't really comment on that aspect, but from what I can see, your well-written edits are more than welcome. Just a bit of advice, concerning your edits at Clash, Wikipedia generally does not list dictionary definitions at disambiguation pages. Not a big deal, I'm sure you'll pick up these conventions as you go. Also, when editing, if you enter a short (few words) summary of changes in the "Edit Summary" box beneath where you enter the actual edits, it would be much appreciated. This just helps people keep track of things from the "History" and "Recent Changes" pages, etc. If you need any more help, don't hesitate to reply or leave a message on my talk page. Once again, thanks for the contributions and welcome to Wikipedia! -postglock 02:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Kinburn (1787)

Thanks for your article. It is very informative. We need more entries like this one. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Entex

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Entex, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Entex/index.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 05:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

==Entex==

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Entex, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 05:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Hans Jordan

A tag has been placed on Hans Jordan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pumpmeup 09:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Walter Weiss

A tag has been placed on Walter Weiss requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your comments

Hi Mrg3105. Thanks for you comments here. Believe me, I don't feel in any way "pumped" or special by tagging articles. I'm sorry if you feel this way. What I do is try to ensure Wikipedia stays legal and doesn't violate copyright holder's rights off when tagging pages as such. However in this case I may be in error, though another administrator also thought that the article was an unreasonable copyright violation. Nonetheless I invite you to re-create the aforementioned articles, utilizing the service statistics, etc provided the majority of the text is your creation. Things like what they may have accomplished in service, etc will make it less likely someone similar to myself will feel the article is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I've offended you or caused you hassle. Cheers, Pumpmeup 10:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I always try to assume good faith, maybe something you need to consider. I appreciate the fact there is often mounds of red tape around many things in Wikipedia, and I sympathize with many of the points you've raised. By all means, ignore all the rules and make Wikipedia a better place, your contributions may not always be recognized positively but are appreciated and valuable. Happy editing :-) Pumpmeup 10:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

These things happen. Most of the time people like us that try to deal with the flood of ne'er do wells that want a cheap thrill out of Wikipedia or a pushing an agenda are worn down by the onslaught of such edits. Occasionally when someone such as yourself makes an honest attempt to add valuable information to the project imperfectly, we mindlessly trash their contributions - it's bound to happen and it's always good when editors raise the point instead of taking quiet offense to it and never contributing again. The whole article building process is never helped by the fact we often have too many maintainers of the "structure" and too few actual contributors. I'm glad we've not come to loggerheads and I hope you continue making valuable contributions well into the future. Regards, Pumpmeup 11:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole idea of a Wikipedian community is that we're all equals. Stuff like that is unlikely to become policy, but anyone can propose it to become a policy. It will likely just remain an essay. Pumpmeup 11:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Red Army's tactics in World War II

Noticed your really good improvements to the Red Army tactics in WW2. Would you mind adding some references to them - which books you got the material out of, with footnotes? (Wikipedia:Footnotes#How to use). Otherwise it's very difficult to be sure of how good the information is, and it will be difficult to rate the article higher. If you need help, I'd gladly help you with how to put in footnotes. Thanks very much, and happy holidays! Buckshot06 (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I will try. I have to get some books out of storage, and it will take time since I wasn't even working on that article to start with.--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Saw your note at V Corps (United Kingdom) talk about no article for British First Army etc. Nobody usually says however, that there were 50-odd Soviet armies, at least 100 Soviet corps, and maybe 300+ Soviet divisions without articles!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You asked how to contact the creator of a page - specifically the German 18th Inf Div. If you click the 'history' button at the top of the article page, you'll be able to see all the editors that have worked on that page since it was created - including the page creator. Hope that helps, Buckshot06 (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Buckshot06. I'm determined to resist trying to learn about Wikipedia navigation and markup nad stay focused on writing/editing. As a result I screwed up my user page when trying to insert a sandbox. Its not that I'm technologically incompetent. I just have too much to read as it is. I take your point on the British Army, and the Soviet one. My other project is assisting with translation of the complete OOB for the Red Army for WW2. Yes, all 36 volumes of it. I am well aware of the magnitude of the task, and so I'm also trying to find a way to solve this using technology. Currently it stands at about AU$300 in software. After that is under way, I hope to substantially enlarge the entries in Wikipedia :) I'm also a member of the Australian part of RUSI (NSW branch), so can contribute to Australian and Commonwealth Military History.--Mrg3105 (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're determined not to learn about markup, please at least put your sources in the text (Book X, page Y) otherwise I keep have to insert {{sources}} all over the place and people will have to hunt for sources years later. The complete OOB? Do you mean BSSA - if so, please say so, and we can cite it - I assume you mean the www.tashv.nm.ru site, which I'm using myself at places like Russian 102nd Military Base. If you wanting to insert redlinks for formations, please check out Army (Soviet Army) and Divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-1945 where everything is master-linked, as best user:W. B. Wilson and I can. The convention we're using is 29th Army (Soviet Union) per WP:MILHIST guidelines, and for divisions 5th Rifle Division (Soviet Union).

Great thought also on listing all the campaign Soviet style - if there's a central listing somewhere, that would mean we can take stock and see which ones don't have articles, as well as being able to link every written-about campaign/operation with the units that took part that already have articles. Tell me what you want me to do and I'll pitch in - but please PLEASE note your sources as you go, otherwise FA-quality articles take so much longer. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Buckshot06 I am heeding your advice, but to kep it moving I will keep myself to only two Soviet sources for now, ok. People can talk about it and dispute later. The important thing is to create at a good pace--Mrg3105 (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06. Are you not translating some of the Russian stuff? The TO&E for the 102 MB is all in Russian. Do you want it in English?--Mrg3105 (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's me being lazy. My ability to transliterate Russian is limited, and I give the main lines without doing all of it. 6 gage - no. Try No. 1 Squadron RAAF's callsign - but I'm a Kiwi.

Ah, well, I should know but I didn't about RAAF. I do know there are quite a few Kiwis flying in the RAAF though. At least we are moderately in the same time zone :o) If you need translating I can help, but right now somewhat overloaded --Mrg3105 (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

G'day Buckshot06 (6 gage?!). Please read my comments in the Barbarossa discussion. I appreciate the importance of sources and references, but I think it is far more important to define and create a stable article structure first. My thinking is that a house is built by first digging a hole (a bit f destruction), and then erecting a frame (seemingly nothing there), and only after that does all the important stuff go in. Sources and references are really the detail work that much of the editing is concerned with in the same way interior decorating works (except in Wikipedia its incessant!). I would like to first define the article structure which IMHO currently sucks. I would like help, because a) this is really my first attempt at a significant article, and b) two heads are better then one, and the more the merrier :) Seriously though, I would like to talk to others and see what they think before doing 'major surgery'. There is much 'fat' there that can be taken to other articles (so I see others gradually getting involved as they discover bits of Barbarossa offered for 'adoption' over time :) I'm not sure why, but some of the German commanders and one Soviet are not linking properly although I added the 'von' and checked they are there (confused!). I also though that the Soviet Armies had separate article links from your lists, but apparently not.

I'm working from the scans I got from the www.pobeda.com.ru (I think). Craig Crofoot is already several documents into the thing, and did the Fronts and Front HQs.
here is what he says:
Gentlemen,

I am going to describe what is available on the Internet as far as the order of battle of the Soviet Armed Forces goes. This is a general summary and not specific details. If there are specific details that you know about, please let me know.

1) In the 1985 Robert Poirer and Albert Conner wrote ‘The Red Army Order of Battle in the Great Patriotic War”(Presidio Press) which for the first time dealt with the unit histories of major Red Army combat formations (its still available through amazon.com [1]). Although general in make-up and based primarily on the German Army’s Fremde Heeres Ost records, it did provide something. In the 1990’s the authors attempted to have published a second edition, but due to its size and the publishers unwillingness to have two volumes, this was dropped (per telephone call with Mr. Conner). Given the fact of the huge amount of information now available from Russia, I would consider this severly dated material and would recommend acquiring a copy of the book only as a collector’s item.

2) From 1995 to 1998, Charles Sharp wrote and had published through The Nafziger Collection (http://home.fuse.net/nafziger/WW2_ARMY.HTM) a 12 volume series detailing the unit histories of the ground formations of the Soviet Army and NKVD during the war. Portions of them were based on Poirer and Conner’s book, some on the original German FHO records, but then a new source was mentioned. It was the official order of battle of the Soviet Army as published by the Soviet Ministry of Defense from 1956 to 1990. It was relatively unknown until the early 1990s because the Ministry of Defense had classified all of them SECRET. The problem with them is they only detail the combat forces and not the support forces. Eastview Publishing originally was the sole source of them, but in my opinion because of the high price they were charging, several Russians were upset and began obtaining copies of them through their own sources and put them out on the Internet. Igor Ivlev at soldat.ru used the version put out by the Russian Ministry of Defense to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the war, but this was poorly done since the Ministry only put out 1 for each quarter. Two other sites put their versions out, one in PDF and the other in html (see below for links). In my opinion, download both and compare.
3) Approximately 5-6 years ago, word began seeping out of the Russian Federation that there was a much larger series of books detailing not only the combat units, but also the combat support and combat service support units of the Army, Navy, Air Force (including Long-Range Aviation) and PVO forces. They were initially called for those that did not know them ‘Perechins” (Russian for ‘Lists”). About 3 years ago, I was able to obtain a list of the books (initially being 36 of them). They were described to me as being a list of all the formations and units of that type that were in the Operational Army during the Great Patriotic War. For the Eastern Front, this covered the period from 22 June 1941 to 11 May 1945 and against the Japanese from 9 August 1945 to 3 September 1945, with one additional volume that covered the battles with the Japanese in the late 1930s, invasion of Poland in 1939, and the Soviet-Finnish war in 1939-40. Over the last years, only bits and pieces came out, such as the Tank and Motorized Divisions, the low numbered Rifle Divisions. My initially plan was to hire someone in Russia to see if the can obtain scanned copies of them so I can translate them and put them on the Internet. Well, that all changed on 24 August 2007.

4) On 24 August, through his source, Igor Ivlev posted on his soldat.ru website scans of most (one is missing) of these Lists. I have posted links to them below. Although you do not need anything special to download them, you will need WinRaR to extract the files and Djvu (from lizardtech.com) to view them. It seems that they are appendices to General Staff Directives (which still remain restricted) showing every formation, unit, sub-unit, establishments and institutions in the Soviet Armed Forces and NKVD in the Operational Army during the war. The first one was published in 1956 and the last in 1973. But it didn’t stop there. It seems the General Staff continuously modified this list, changing dates of inclusion, adding units or subtracting units. This was done from 1970 up to 1989 in the USSR and at least two after its fall, one in 1996 and one in 1998. Except for the last two, most of these have been penned into the books. The word I have heard, and no official explanation has been given, is that these were done for the veterans when they collect their pensions. It seems they receive a double count for each day thy served in the OA. For example, if a veteran served 45 days in the OA, he would be credited for serving 90 days. I am currently in the process of translating them into English and Below you will see the translations of the titles, the numerical order they were published and the links to the soldat.ru website for downloading. In addition, I am providing the status of the translations (myself doing the original translation, Michael Avanzini proof-reading and Alex Vasetsky doing final proof-reading and posting it on his web site).

Appendix No. 2 to General Staff Directive No. D-043 of 18 July 1970 (List No.1: Field Headquarters of Main Command Directions, Fronts, Groups of Forces and organs of Fleet Headquarters, included in the composition of the Operational Army in the years of the Great Patriotic War 1941 – 1945) [10 pages] List No. 1 (360 KB) Translation status: Completed; on Internet (http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/formation/Perechen/01_Directions_Fronts.xls)

Appendix No. 3 to General Staff Directive No. D-043 of 18 July 1970 (List No. 2: Headquarters of Combined Arms, Tank, Air and Sapper Armies, PVO Armies, Military Districts and organs of Flotilla Headquarters, included in the composition of the Operational Army in the years of the Great Patriotic War 1941 – 1945) [20 pages] List No. 2 (716 KB) Translation status: Completed; on Internet (http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/formation/Perechen/01_Directions_Fronts.xls)

Appendix to General Staff Directive No. 168780 of 18 June 1956 (List No. 3: Field Headquarters, Main Commands, Headquarters of Operational Groups, Defensive Regions, Fortified Regions, and Aviation Base Regions, included in the composition of the Operational Army in the years of the Great Patriotic War 1941 – 1945) [92 pages] List No. 3 (4.031 MB) Translation status: Scheduled to be completed April 2008

User page issue

Hello. Regarding your message [2] at WT:UTM, while I am not entirely sure what you are looking for, if you put {{db-userreq}} at the top of your "vandalized" user page, an admin will probably come along and delete it for you. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Ok, thank you, I'll try it. Just don't want to do more damage then already done :)--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Nope, that tagged it for speedy deletion!!!--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 04:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Operation Barbarossa

I would be glad to help you with improving Operation Barbarossa to FA status. Admittedly, I have never brought an article up to GA class let alone FA class, but I will do what I can to help. Captain panda 13:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting the invitation Captain Panda. Do you think we can do it by tomorrow? ;) Just kidding, this is a project that will take some time, and I think that aiming for high quality doesn't hurt. I have never taken an article to that level either, and in fact I'm a relative beginner in Wikipedia, but I know that this is a job for a team effort even if I was an expert.
I would appreciate if you read my comments on structure in the discussion there and of course would appreciate feedback. I have a copy of the article on my home PC which I'm using because I destroyed my user page when I tried to install a sandbox.
My proposed approach is to define the purpose of the article first, and then create a whole-article approach structure rather then write sequentially. I strongly argue that the article should be about the OKH operation and exclude everything else, including Soviet preparedness, decisions and reactions. They will be in articles that will cover Soviet WW2 operations, the structure for which I'm working on now.
The Soviet part which is usually lumped into Barbarossa is known is Soviet historiography as the Summer-autumn campaign of 1941 (22 June - 4 of December), and is in turn composed of 13 strategic and 52 operational level distinct operations. The reason I would like to 'untangle' this form a single Barbarossa 'lump' approach is because I'm also committed to a long term off-Wiki project of translating the entire Red Army OOB which is a first since the end of WW2 that will give an unprecedented view of detail in this theatre.
Eventually I hope the Eastern Front would be divided into eight theatre periods (and one Far East theatre period each with its own set of strategic and operational articles on distinct operations.--Mrg3105 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mrg3105, I'm not very well read on the operations of 1941 but I have a strong interest in Second World War force structures and orders of battle. I'd be happy to contribute to OOB research or perhaps contribute some brief text on the force development of the Red Army under the stress of invasion. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, in that case like myself you will probably learn much in the process :) It seems to me that I have learned more then I ever hoped to know in the past 20 odd years :) I think somewhere in the Staff College symposium notes I remember someone saying that there are no experts on the Eastern Front, only those willing to admit they were wrong in their past assumptions :)--Mrg3105 (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to help if I can, but unfortunately I won't be very active until early-January. However, I'll try to contribute as much as I can. I would say that the referencing sector needs attention and lot of work. Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eurocopter. Thank you. I may be out of action from second mid-January for a couple of months actually so that would be good timing. My broad objectives are to add pages on the operations that took place during the Operation Barbarossa (wile redoing that Article) from Soviet perspective. To start with I will only use two Soviet sources for referencing. with time people will come and add where appropriate and chat (hopefully and without EW). I'd also like to help Buckshot06 in his research because it dovetails with my own, and of course Bagration is interesting. seems to me I'll be busy for the next few years :o)

Discontinuous editing

I have added some more information and citation details on the film editing technique and removed the part on Wikipedia, which was unsourced, and apparently original research.I don't think the contention that it has been encountered by many Wikipedians makes it any less original research. It might be more appropriate in a different namespace.--Boson (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

But Boson, That was the entire reason for its creation! The principle and effect of the phenomena is the same although one application is to a visual senses and the other to a cognitive one. Can you not understand that? It would be impossible to document the phenomena otherwise since it is not encountered anywhere else outside of Wikipedia. I am undoing it, and I would like a third opinion.--Mrg3105 (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem understanding that, but if it is a new phenomenon that nobody else has written about yet, that would make it original research. There's nothing wrong with that but, in my opinion, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (at least not in the article namespace). If you want to write an essay about the subject, I think you could write about it in the user namespace, as a sub-page. I'm not too sure of the best place to discuss such things, but you could try Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). If you refer to the article you created, too, perhaps someone can also give you a third opinion on the general appropriateness of such content. You may want to read the policy. Here is an extract:

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

You also asked, on my talk page, for suggestions on how to source such a new phenomenon. You could look at Wikipedia:Press coverage and Wikipedia:Wikipedia in academic studies to see if anything suitable is cited.--Boson (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Boson, thanks for advice. I'll try those places.--Mrg3105 (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Soviet POWs

I actually wrote Extermination of Soviet prisoners of war by Nazi Germany, but it's kinda stub-bish. Feel free to add anything you like. --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The Article is in Russian (a child looks for traces of her father's disappearance during the war). I would have to translate, but unfortunately as you probably know there is only so much anyone can do. I'm committed to the rewrite of the Operation Barbarossa article, and when I come across any material on Soviet POW treatment, as I'm sure I will, I will certainly keep your article in mind and will contribute towards its expansion and Wikipediation as far as I'm able. I appreciate your research and contribution on the subjects. Puts a very human, or maybe I should say inhuman, face on war that all too many people treat with historical detachment or maybe fascination for technology and prominent personalities.--Mrg3105 (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it lacks for example a section of death marches (from the frontline to the German rear) and the immediate massacres by the German combat troops. --HanzoHattori (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I meant massacres of the Soviet troops who surrendered. I did the article on the Soviet POWs because I thought it was totally overlooked (while much was said on a minor issues like the treatment of German homosexuals or Jehova Witnesses by the Nazi authorities) and claimed millions of lives. I don't do everything related to the WWII crimes. --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Also "no prisoners" orders. --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Consistency - state names

There are a couple of distinct issues in your comments, and I'm not sure which one you're actually looking for a solution to; so I'll try to comment on all of them:

One matter is the choice of correct state names. Certainly, "Russia" is not an appropriate substitute for the Soviet Union. The matter of Germany is a bit more subtle; in my experience, "Germany" is generally viewed as an acceptable short form of "German Reich" (cf. "France" versus "French Republic"), particularly as both go to "German" in the adjective form. If I recall correctly, there was some discussion about "Germany" versus "Nazi Germany", with the idea of using links of the form [[Nazi Germany|Germany]] being preferred; but that seems more of a stylistic point.

Another is the use of shorthand state names to refer to the combined militaries of those states. For example, we might write that "Soviet troops captured the city" or "German troops captured the city" rather than "Red Army and VVS troops captured the city" or "Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, and Waffen-SS troops captured the city". I view this as a matter of style; giving the full collection of services in a combined-arms force on every mention would make the text unreadable, so I see nothing wrong with using the shorthand versions after the actual composition of the forces involved has been given.

Yet another is the use of ideological or political terms. I would think that wording like "the Nazis invaded" or "the Soviets invaded" ought to be avoided in formal writing regardless (although the latter form is a somewhat popular shorthand for "the Soviet forces invaded"). As far as I know, though, this isn't too much of an issue in practice.

More generally, if you're looking to establish common conventions on terminology, the best place to have such a discussion would be at WT:WWII. Kirill 22:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are several issues as you point out, and in university I was taught to call things their proper names. I know you are also a historian, and know that there are many Germanies, and the Austrians resented all of them :o) Given the number of German speaking Austrians that served in the Wehrmacht, never mind other nationalities, it seems to me that historical pedantry is called for if only to educate the reader. The problem I have with services is that the Soviet OOBs state which units and Services participated in a given operation. I can not say that the 16 Air Army was part of the Red Army since it was not. As it stands now the VVS doesn't even have a page of its own! After all you don't see the RAF lumped with the British Army? Again an issue of consistency.--Mrg3105 (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

How do I approach discussion in the WT:WWII? Do I just post to the discussion page?--Mrg3105 (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. If you know of other active editors that would be interested in the matter, you can also leave them notes inviting them to take part in the discussion; it'll probably increase participation, since not everyone may have the task force page watchlisted. Kirill 22:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

First of all, the meeting's purpose (the meeting itself being one sided decission of Hitler - he had not been asked by Finnish to come and "say hello" to Marshal Mannerheim) was not to make plans with Germany on how to "take out Leningrad". That the Finnish unit which was eventually created was involved in clashes agains't Leningrad's supply route is irrelevant. The unit's purpose was to patrol waters of Lake Ladoga, which was strategically important area of water for Finnish because of it flanked both Karelian Istmush and East Karelia, not to attack agains't Leningrad. Neither was Finland in an "alliance with Nazis". The fact that the unit was involved in clashes agains't Soviet forces supplying Leningrad by Lake Ladoga is and was already noted in the article with references - there is no right to talk about Finnish alliance with "Nazis" and include Finland in the box. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Kurt, I didn't ask for your POV on what Finland's intentions were. I asked if the meeting to which the article referred took place or not since you deleted the reference to it. Also, are you saying that Finland did not have a formal alliance with German Reich during WWII?--Mrg3105 (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my "PoV". "I asked if the meeting to which the article referred took place or not since you deleted the reference to it." It did, as I already said - and the meeting itself is irrelevant, especially since the user who added information regarding it did not use the references he listed for it - he copied them from elsewhere in the article to mix something the references are relevant with something they are not. Information regarding the unit was already noted in the article and still is. If you would read the article carefully you would see this yourself. "Also, are you saying that Finland did not have a formal alliance with German Reich during WWII?" Yes, there was no alliance with Germany and Finland. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You may in that case add a source to substantiate the statement that Finnish forces did not participate in the siege such as The Siege of Leningrad by Leon Goure--Mrg3105 (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not have to do that - the article does not claim such and did not claim such until someone decided to do some "intriguing" edits. I can and will add plenty of sources which do state clearly the common fact that Finland did not take part in the Siege of Leningrad - if need arises. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me the need is there now! If the article is ambiguous about Finnish Army's participation in the siege, then it needs to be made clear and referenced--Mrg3105 (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Finnish Army did not take part in the siege - it does not claim so currently and neither it did before certain edits. I shall make nessecary arrangements if need arises - refering to possible edit conflict with certain user (not you). --Kurt Leyman (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I just think its a point worth making. Someone less informed can easily assume that Finland due to its proximity and taking the offensive with the Wehrmacht troops DID participate in the siege. BTW, the Wehrmacht part should stay because that is what they were IMHO --Mrg3105 (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I see little reasoning behind writing "Wehrmacht" under Germany (would be the same if we would be talking about any other country - and its military). That is not something rare in Wikipedia battle articles. As for Finland's involvement in the siege; Finnish Army did not siege the city; there was no shelling or attacks agains't the city. Finnish troops were only tens of kilometers from Leningrad (with Germans closing in from the East) when Marshal Mannerheim ordered the advance to be stopped at Finland's old borders. Leningrad was within range of artillery from Finland's border - yet there was no shelling nor attacks; Finnish did not seek to attack Leningrad.

The small Finnish naval forces on Lake Ladoga were involved in clashes agains't Leningrad supply route on the lake - which should come as no suprise since it was to patrol its waters. The Italian naval unit on the other hand had been specifically tasked for attacking agains't Leningrad (although the Italian unit did not exist for long - its few vessels were turned over to Finnish by the end of 1942 - the vessels being used to strenghten Finland's small navy). --Kurt Leyman (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, I don't really want to argue with you. The trouble is that this is an open edit encyclopaedia, and this means that the next time someone decided to write Finland into the siege, you will have to undo again, and and again, etc.

As for Wehrmacht, you are right. It should say Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine, as well as Waffen-SS. Its a point of factual accuracy and not common sloppiness of using the easies common term. As producers/editors of historical information we should be more quality-mined then the reader who may be a just a school kid doing homework. The school kid will have no idea which part of Germany was at the siege. In fact he will go to Germany and it will take a long time to reach Wehrmacht through History of Germany, History of Germany in WWII, etc. So why not save the time and just say what it is supposed to say, that Wehrmacht troops were conducting the siege with support of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine?--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Abbreviating Fronts

Let me teach you a trick- 'piping' links. If you want the Soviet Western Front, as simply WF, you do it like this for the normal [[Soviet Western Front]] but for the abbreviation - [[Soviet Western Front|Western Front]] or even [[Soviet Western Front|WF]] and it shows up like this WF. Understandable? Pretty easy once you try it a couple of times. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that you have already created all the abbreviations for the fronts so I just need to pipe them?--Mrg3105 (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

PS, I also owe you big time :o) If you don't mind, I 'borrowed your tables from the Soviet divisions to reuse for the operations. --Mrg3105 (talk) 04:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you have to copy the code out, as above, every time you wish to abbreviate the Front names (or the division or Army names, for that matter, eg. Soviet [[6th Army (Soviet Union)|6th]], [[11th Army (Soviet Union)|11th]], and [[13th Army (Soviet Union)|13th]] Armies. , will produce Soviet 6th, 11th, and 13th Armies. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This is going to take a loooooong time! I'll just do it as I go, rather then trying to add all the fronts and Armies first if that's ok with you. I'm bored out of my mind downloading a 12 volume Soviet set on WW2, and its like a timewarp! I only did two volumes in two days, and they re the pre war times when innocent and peace loving USSR was going to be set upon by the warmongering imperialists as it tried to defend the downtroden and enslaved proletariat of the World like the Mongols :o)--Mrg3105 (talk) 05:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't ask questions in archive talkpages. Noone will see them. Add a new question to the bottom of the current talkpage. Also, we have already 4th, 5th and a bunch of other Air Armies. Check the template at the bottom of Army (Soviet Army) to see what articles are done or not. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Russian Ground Forces and associated pages, including Category:Divisions of the Soviet Union more closely. We have a good article for the 10th Guards Ural-Lvov Div already, at 10th Guards Uralsko-Lvovskaya Tank Division Buckshot06 (talk) 09:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm a little confused. Do I need to say that I was trying to help, but when I looked on the Russian Ground Forces article and say it was not linked, I decided that there wasn't a page for it. To make sure I searched the Soviet 10th Guards Tank Division, and there wasn't one. The title you used is not correct for either the WW2 Tank Corps, or the current tank division, so why use the extended but incorrect title for the division instead of the operational designation and add the extended honorific in the article? I'm sorry to mess it up, but I was following your earlier examples. In any case, in future I will look more extensively as you suggest or just post the info to your talk.--Mrg3105 (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't create the article, and if I had I probably would have done it at '10th Guards Tank Division'. Just be sure to check the category Category:Divisions of the Soviet Union before you start, because we have various units there, listed under WW2 names, Soviet era names, and in some cases, thanks to enthusiastic Ukrainian contributer user:Ceriy, modern Ukrainian names. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I really prefer a though through consistent approach so this Wikipedia thing is driving me nutz. This is why I'm taking my time and checking things out before I start creating more content for the operations article because it will link to so many things (obviously). Can you fix the 10th Guards Tank? I only happened on it because I found a great quote by Malinovsky, and it cam up in the search, so wanting to help I checked on the Russian division page and seeing its not linked thought "why don't I help Buckshot06"...ah good intentions :o)

Ok, I'm going back to downloading the volumes of WW2 history from Soviet POV. Its going to be my one-source-fits-all in the initial page creation so the pages don't come with "add sources and references" tags (hate those).--Mrg3105 (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer of help. The most help at the moment would be translating the odd bits of Russian that I've left untranslated in many articles, like in 13th Army (Soviet Union) and 6th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) - thanks for the assist at Divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-1945 by the way. We are also missing an article on 3rd Shock Army, yet there is a Ru-wiki article at ru:3-я ударная армия. If you wanted to translate the key bits of that and set up the article, that'd be good. Your campaigns/battles page will be a great help when it is up and running, so that is a help in itself. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

the Ru site for the 3rd Shock has a huge table with the operations just like I wanted to do, but obviously for the one Army! Do you have plans for something like this?--Mrg3105 (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No. One of the reasons I hadn't (ineptly) machine-translated the Ru-3rd Shock Army page was that huge table. If you wanted to translate it as text, that would probably fit better with most of the other articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points: To create a new article you simple put [[3rd Shock Army]] , click on the redlink and start writing. Secondly, if you take a look at the overall Red Army page, you'll see there is already several pages linked from there about Russian military ranks - don't create any new pages there before you're absolutely sure there is not a specific page for the period and branch you're after. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I promise that I will look more following the 10GTD experience, but the Red Army article covers the ranks kin two sections. There is substantially more to it then that although I will only be concerned with the higher level officers for my purpose and I know there is a separate article on Marshals, although incomplete. I was actually looking in the History of Russian military ranks article where the section is inexplicably empty.--Mrg3105 (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Only one problem. The convention now is [[3rd Army (Soviet Union)]] not [[Soviet 3rd Army]]. This because the name of the formation isn't 'Soviet 3rd Army' it's simply '3rd Army'. Please do not put in any further unit names like that - I'll simply have to change them back. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Marshals

My mistake Mrg. However 'affirmed' is not very clear. Do you mean nothing substantially changed, and the rank continued in use. In that case a better wording might be ' on the recommendation of Voroshilov, the continued use of the Mrank of MSU was agreed upon, and reaffirmed in Red Army standing orders/decrees whatever.' Sound better ? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple then. Put what you've just told me in talk into the article, to explain and make easier to understand the use of 'affirmed' in that context. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to save the edits again and now the new section and marshals have disappeared and I have no idea why because you only revised the wording, right?--Mrg3105 (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've been the only editor since you at this moment, but again, click that history tag at the top when you're reading the article and you'll be able to see the edit history yourself. I've just checked, and your words 'to name a few' remain. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what happened. In nayy case it was not a good idea because almost everything I added was redlinking. I have saved the Marshals files at home and will write up more substantial articles for creation. I will also put the Marshals of troop Arms and Services on the to do list. So much to do and so little time. What did I used to do before Internet?! --Mrg3105 (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi Mrg, I realise there is something you could help me with - specifically (a) take a look at my {image} flag presentation ceremony cleaned-up machine translation of 59th Guards Rifle Division, and (b) ask at the soldat.ru forums whether they are happy for machine-translated copies of their discussion to be used as the basis of En-wikipedia articles. That'd be really helpful if you could do that. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've added 59th to the to do list. I will also ask on the forum. However, I had not realised that forum information required permission. Also working on the 3rd Shock Army (I need lots of diversions :o))--Mrg3105 (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I started doing 59th it struck me that I will probably be doing this again whether when helping you, or form my own purposes, and not just with divisions.

What I would like to propose is a bit more structure like there is in the US entries.

Formation/unit number - Guards status - Arm or Service - name and honorifics

{images} guards badge orders [link] to in the name of

{image} flag presentation ceremony == Formation == (box?)
{image city crest} where available Place
date
{image} where available Command
Notes: eg. volunteers, ethnic, sailors, workers, 2nd formation, NKVD etc.

{rank image} shoulder boards Commanders (by date)
{command post image} Chiefs of Staff (by date)

{Arm or Service image} template == Component units ==

{image} {Lenin template} == Civil War ==
{image} template of operation map (like on the Project template) === Combat history ===
(by year/campaign/operation/battle/city liberation)
{image} city/ province/region or country crest

{Stalin image} == Between World Wars ==
=== Combat history ===
(by decade/campaign/operation/battle/city liberation)
{image} BT-7 or I-16

== World War Two ==
{image} patriotic poster === Combat history ===
{template} of operation map (like on the Project template) (by year/campaign/operation/battle/city liberation + narrative where appropriate)
{template} create a template for year with image of prominent event, e.g. 37' NKVD 1937
{template} 38' Lake Khasan 1938
{template} 39' Winter War 1939
{template} 40' T-34 1940
{template} 41' Moscow 1941
{template} 42' Stalingrad 1942
{template} 43' Kursk 1943
{template} 44' Bagration 1944
{template} 45' Berlin 1945
{template} 46' nuclear mushroom cloud 1946

== Cold War history ==
(by decade/dislocation/campaign/operation/battle)
{images} prominent Soviet events like Sputnik, etc

== Russian Federation service ==
{images} Yeltzin, Putin etc. (narrative)

== Order of Battle ==
{image} modern Arm of Service badges template for each subunit

=== Table of Equipment ===
{image} prominent equipment

== Sources and references ==

With having this I can just reuse it and with smaller sections its easier to add information as it becomes available. What do you think? All the images can be readily obtained from Wikipedia I think. I'm not saying to drop everything and do this, but just to work towards this as an article FA presentation goal
--Mrg3105 (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No plans to work on a 3rd Shock Army article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Smolensk (2nd)

The top rating is properly the province of WP:FAC and WP:FAR; our tagging of the articles as FAs merely mirrors that. If the article is deficient, it'll get reviewed and demoted eventually; but that's a decision the community as a whole makes, not each individual project. Kirill 15:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: More categories?

Category:Military railways ← is that what you had in mind? Kirill 15:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you create that or did I miss it? I could swear it wasn't there before.--Mrg3105 (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just created it; you didn't miss anything. ;-) Kirill 23:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't expect such quick service because I now realise how much work you do for the Project. Can only Project coordinators create categories?--Mrg3105 (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, any editor can; it works pretty much the same way as creating an article. Kirill 00:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have only looked for categories and not how to create them because I don't want to duplicate where alternatives exist, not being so familiar with the military categories yet.--Mrg3105 (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Russian Imperail Army

Please take another look at this category - you've misspelt 'Imperial' in the category. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You are fast!!! Nothing gets past you ;o) I just fixed it.
In any case, I am somewhat dumbfounded here.Just to be on the safe side, I wanted to have a look at the syntax used for the Russian Imperial Army Armies and divisions. Well, there is one, First Army (Russian Empire) from WWI. Of course the first Armies date from the Napoleonic wars, and EVEN in Borodino they are not linked, and now are redlinked by myself! There are no divisions at all! I suppose they would be X Infantry division (Imperial Russia)? --Mrg3105 (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm using [[3]] which works for each user; my one, for example, is [[4]]. Be aware the overall category is Category:Military of Russia, with everything in subcats, like Category:Military of Imperial Russia below that - check the various pages out and you may find something more. I know there are some individual regiments. But there's no Imperial Russian Army article - it's a redirect, which you could start writing if you wish. Finally yes I think your idea of Xth Infantry Division (Imperial Russia) is fine. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I see it's right there - you quoted it First Army (Russian Empire). So it's (Russian Empire) rather than anything else. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What I'll do is stick to my original plan which is WW2 operations. Having created the category, I will add it to the regiments so at least the category page is not empty. I can not take on the enormity of the Russian Imperial Army also now. What I meant was that there is only one (1) pre-1917 Russian Army (formation) listed. The syntax is however to spell out the name. However now I see that Mr Wilson also created some Soviet Armies by spelling out the names rather then using numerals?! Can we use consistent syntax of spelled out for Imperial and numbered for Soviet/RF? PS. I always knew I was Special, but the doctors just keep giving me those pills ;o) I get too many notices as it is, so I have no intention of keeping track of you also :o)--Mrg3105 (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll also see that he's just changed First Shock Army to 1st Shock Army. Spelling out for Imperial and numbered for Soviet/RF seems right to me. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, didn't see. I picked one at random from the box at the bottom of Field Armies of Soviet Union. Not going to keep track of other people. BTW, is there a page for KGB? ;O)--Mrg3105 (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that you're misusing the categories? You add the category tag at the bottom of relevant pages - one never manually edits the category page, except to add a {{main|Russian Imperial Guard}} - a category main article - at the top or other such. Are you sure you don't want me to convert that page to an article? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, was NOT aware. This is the first one I did really so I thought there should be an explanation of the category. I can make a new article, but not ready now. I will remove the text and add the . Also inadvertently I added to the military districts froma page where I was not loged in so the addition may be scanned for vandalism?--Mrg3105 (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is my user IP on which I added content to the military districts in case you want to watch that also 121.218.44.117 I sometimes open a page in Wiki just to look up things without loging in--Mrg3105 (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking with Soldat.ru - that's really really helpful. Now we can go ahead and portray individual units' histories better - eg. 33rd Motor Rifle Division. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel

Hey Mrg3105, I reverted the Daniel page after an IP had replaced it with an article about a particular Daniel. Did I revert to the wrong revision? Or did you leave the message for the wrong person? I think my edit summary was confusing - I was talking to the IP I was reverting by saying "specific Daniels should have their own pages," but I can see how it would look like I was arguing that the Daniel the page is actually about should be moved. I didn't read the page and assumed it would be about the name. Careless! :) Peace, delldot talk 10:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Its ok now. Probably you need to read the article and at least ask in talk before doing editing-- mrg3105mrg3105 10:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean I wasn't the one who changed the article - I just changed it back to how it was before they did that.  :) delldot talk 21:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: copyright requests

Permissions for us to use content aren't useful; for something to be usable on Wikipedia, it needs to be reusable by everyone (i.e. under a free-content license or in the public domain). Verification of that typically gets sent to the Wikimedia Foundation directly; see here. Kirill 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

so even though I may have permission from site owner to use site content (as long as referenced to the site) in the articles, the content is still copyrighted unusable because the site owner had not bothered to add free-content license? Does this apply to translations?-- mrg3105mrg3105 02:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, not quite sure. I think translations may be considered to be derivative works of the original, copyright-wise; but you're probably better off asking on Wikipedia:Copyrights if you want a solid answer. Kirill 03:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

his is what it says on the Wikipedia copyright policy re Russia:

According to the Russian copyright law of 1993 (Федеральный закон от 9.07.1993 № 5351-1), the following items are not subject to copyrights:

* Official documents (laws, court decisions, other texts of legislative, administrative or judicial character); * State symbols and tokens (flags, coats of arms, orders, banknotes and other state symbols and tokens); * Folk creative works; * Reports about events and facts, of informative character.

Now most of what is on the Russian sites is reused from official records anyway, to the site owners are not the original copyright holders, and this includes images from WW2 with some exceptions. Information about unit histories (one part of what I'm interested in) are extracts from combat reports. Information of strengths are extracts from administrative records. Images are parts of (usually magazine or newspaper) Reports about events and facts, of informative character.-- mrg3105mrg3105 04:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's not eligible for copyright, then we don't need anyone's permission. (It's only if we do need permission that the matter comes up in any case.) But I'd suggest checking whether the law applies only to material created after its adoption, or if it's retroactive to older works as well. Kirill 06:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Its retroactive to 70 years.-- mrg3105mrg3105 06:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How do I attach this to an image so its not seen on the page ?-- mrg3105mrg3105 07:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RIGHTS INFORMATION: No known restrictions on publication. means ok to publish? [5]-- mrg3105mrg3105 09:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Saint Petersburg and Siege of Leningrad

Dear User:Mrg3105,

Thank you for your efforts. However your actions in transplanting sentences and paragraphs from Siege of Leningrad to St. Petersburg makes unnecessary duplications and does not help neither of the articles. Siege of Leningrad is actively undergoing a major edit, and the template is clearly visible, please be thoughtful.

1st: you are disrupting the ongoing flow of edits and updates by creating edit conflicts (see the template).

2nd: you changed the language so that your text stated "Leningrad Metro operated in the 1930s" which is wrong.

I was born and lived in the city for decades. Please let me do some work without edit conflicts with you and without wasting time for corrections of your unnecessary mistakes and duplications. Study both articles in their entirety for several days, also study the city and make a few visits there to learn more newest information in museums, libraries, universities, and historic sites there, then think what can be done to make Wikipedia better.

Thank you anyway, your kind support and cooperation may be highly appreciated at the right time.

Steveshelokhonov 12:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I didn't change anything when I removed he post-1944 text so the mistake was yours. I simply copied and pasted.

NOT TRUE YOU MADE ALTERATIONS IN THE TEXT, Everybody can see the whole history in other layers where you have no access Steveshelokhonov 12:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The duplication was that you had inserted the same sentence in the Leningrad/StPetersberg article also about the Metro, so I deleted a one sentence paragraph. Have a look in the history. The Siege of Leningrad is a large article with is going to get larger because more detail on military operations will be added, including to the timeline which currently lacks this. There is a larger project in ProjectsMilitaryHistory that will be reviewing all of the Red Army operations in the war and Siege of Leningrad will be one. Your post-siege content will just get lost in it, and is also completely irrelevant.-- mrg3105mrg3105 12:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful and evasive reply,

Please read this message with more care and attention:

Thank you for your efforts. However your actions in transplanting sentences and paragraphs from Siege of Leningrad to St. Petersburg makes unnecessary duplications and does not help neither of the articles. Siege of Leningrad is actively undergoing a major edit, and the template is clearly visible, please be thoughtful.

1st: you are disrupting the ongoing flow of edits and updates by creating edit conflicts (see the template).

2nd: you changed the language so that your text stated "Leningrad Metro operated in the 1930s" which is wrong.

I was born and lived in the city for decades. Please let me do some work without edit conflicts with you and without wasting time for corrections of your unnecessary mistakes and duplications. Study both articles in their entirety for several days, also study the city and make a few visits there to learn more newest information in museums, libraries, universities, and historic sites there, then think what can be done to make Wikipedia better.

Do NOT cause interference with ongoing edit process. Read the template. Pay attention. Please. Steveshelokhonov 12:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The template means it is undergoing active editing, but you are not the only editor! None of the articles belongs to any one author or editor. They are edited all the time. Even FA articles get re-edited Steve. Now what you are doing is just downloading an entire translated article from a Soviet/Russian book which is not how it works. Firstly there are guidelines to editing. One is that you need to keep to the subject of the article. This subject is the Siege of Leningrad, and not its rebuilding. Secondly you need to talk about all sorts of approaches to the writing and editing this. You keep insisting on devoting a huge amount of content to Finnland, bu they had almost nothing to do with the siege. They will be covered in other operations of their participation in the war. I can guarantee that because I'm the one who is working on about 200 articles dealing with these operations of which the siege of Leningrad is one. Have some perspective and a sense of context please-- mrg3105mrg3105 13:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

On "Nazi Germany"

Oops, thanks for catching the missing word. I'm not quite sure what you mean, however, by "if you could not constructively contribute by defining the term further." Anyone familiar with the period will know that the Nazis used the term "Third Reich." For example, the party's monthly art magazine, published by the Eher Verlag, was first titled "Kunst im Dritten Reich," before the title changed to "Kunst im Deutschen Reich." It would be easy to add lots of other examples, but it hardly seems necessary to document every common fact. So what is it, exactly, that you want? Bytwerk (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is that you took out Allied propaganda. Nazi Germany was a product of Allied propaganda in the same way that Third Reich was the product of Goebbels' propaganda. So you did not contribute anything to helping the reader understand the significance of these terms both being products of propaganda where as the real official term remained same German Reich. -- mrg3105mrg3105 14:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that still doesn't help much. "Nazi Germany" was used very early after Hitler took power, before there were "Allies" as a group to make propaganda against him. Bytwerk (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, there were political enemies and allies on both sides well before the war, and even before Hitler came to power. National Socialists and Communists had propaganda since before the Russian Revolution :o) It started as a social conflict over labour rights, grew into a political one over representation, and economic one over pay and conditions, and into militant unions and eventually brown-shirts and bolsheviks, and then the war.-- mrg3105mrg3105 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It would have been rather hard for the Nazis to have had propaganda before the Russian Revolution, since the party did not exist in 1917. And to English-speaking readers, "Allied propaganda" in this context will mean the Allies during World War II, so to put "Allied propaganda" in confuses rather than helps the reader. Bytwerk (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

I noticed your post [6] in an old talk page section. Another time you can ask a question by starting a new section at Wikipedia:Help desk. You can make a new image upload with proper copyright information that prevents it from being deleted. See Wikipedia:Uploading images#How to upload a new image and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and my appologies. I had managed to upload and include the image in the article, however forgot to tag it with category.-- mrg3105mrg3105 00:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

33rd Motor Rifle Division

Hi Mrg, when you get the chance can you take a look at this shaky machine translation and improve it? Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mr.Buckshot06 :O). At present I am refighting the Siege of Leningrad which you no doubt know from Mr.Wilson's NKVD activities :o), however I will make a special (order of Red Banner) heroic effort for you. The only thing I ask is that I need the original Russian due to some words that come up 'funny' and difficult to translate accurately because machine translation sometimes scrambles context/sentence order. If you place it in the talk I can remove it after I have copied it to my home machine. Is this a compilation, or does it all come from the soldat.ru forum? -- mrg3105mrg3105 00:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's all lifted from http://www.soldat.ru/forum/?gb=3&id=33542. Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There is four pages of it so will take a bit longer ok. I'm working on a small side-project as a New Year surprise for the Russian and Soviet military history Project ;o)-- mrg3105mrg3105 02:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you incorporate the additions/answers, and are you aware there is an unresolved issue with the identification of some units involved?-- mrg3105mrg3105 02:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't include any of the later forum replies, and I was not aware that the identity of some of the units were in question. Please don't feel pressed to hurry, if it's fixed only after the New Year (is that January 14 for you?) that's fine. Best regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, Buckshot06, I had my new year in September since I'm not even on the solar calendar. I'm sure you wouldn't wait 9 months. I'll incorporate whats there and insert appropriate notes re unresolved questions (do you have a syntax already?) ;o)-- mrg3105mrg3105 03:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by syntax. Just put the extra info in the talk page and I can deal with it from there. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop manually editing categories

Categories are added to by adding the category, for example, Category:Divisions of the Soviet Union to the bottom of an existing page, not by editing the actual category page. What you've been doing just means that Kirill, for example, had to clean up the Russian military history articles needing attention to structure - here and I actually added Siege of Leningrad to the article list in there by editing the project banner template - the {{WPMILHIST}} banner that one copies the B-class listing into. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand. I added articles to the category page, not categories. Unless that was by mistake last night. A bit confused.-- mrg3105mrg3105 04:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Where should the non-existent articles be added?-- mrg3105mrg3105 04:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Only in articles. For example, with the Russian Imperial Guard, redlink the units in the actual page, as I've done with 1st Infantry Division. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So what about all the wars I added? There seems to be no central repository for wars and conflicts in Military history of Russia and Soviet Union.-- mrg3105mrg3105 05:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I can add all these historical wars as redlinks in the Military history of Russia articles (5), but how will the members of the project know? The bot will pick them out? I think this is the part I don't understand.-- mrg3105mrg3105 05:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? Are you trying to keep track of redlinks somewhere? If they're articles that need to be created, Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/Russian and Soviet military history would be the most obvious place, I think. Kirill 05:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen Category:Wars involving Russia? Categories are only for existing articles, and articles are added by adding the category to the article. Don't add redlinks to categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok Thank you PrimeHunter. I misunderstood that-- mrg3105mrg3105 06:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a few problems with the way categories and articles were set up, which is why I didn't find them. Of course I should have looked in the categories in hind sight.
For example the use of the dash (-). There is a difference between Pskov-Novgorod Campaigns and Novgorod - Livonian border conflicts. One signifies a single entity much in the way a double name is written, while the other signifies separation/opposition. The names used are also different to the Russian historiography. In any case, I'm glad there is so much there, so I will look it over at some other time, and fill in the blanks where I find them.-- mrg3105mrg3105 06:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)-- mrg3105mrg3105 06:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

149th Guards MRR

Thanks for this Mrg. However notes to me should go at my talk page, not just randomly scattered around. Article talk pages are for general discussion on improving that article. Also, I've never heard of the Belorussian Strategic Direction - ever. Glantz doesn't list any more than the three directions at the start of the war, the Northwestern under Voroshilov, the Western under Timoshenko, and the Southwestern under Budyonny & Timoshenko, plus the Far Eastern in '45 under Vasilevsky. Do you have other sources backing the existence of the BSD up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, should I remove the note re 149 from the 201st division and put it in your talk?

I took the Belorussian direction from here http://www.genstab.ru/gpw_fronts.htm. I just wanted to do one that was small and less involved with MDs to get some practice. It was a very short lived one, but there is another source I added that suggests it existed in 1941 along with the Kiev Strategic Direction. However the Kiev one was not reformed, and instead there is the Ukrainian one.-- mrg3105mrg3105 23:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Theatres and directions

Don't remove anything. That's not the convention - any talk page comments remain for all time. But put all future questions to me on my talk page. Please go ahead and add the Strategic Directions, but initially why don't you stick to the well-known four above - I've, again, never heard of the Kiev SD - was that another name for the Southwestern SD? Um, taking a look at your source now (and please list that webpage, rather than books listed in the page that you do not appear to have directly used), they do not seem to be formations, instead being theatres of military operations - most notably, they don't have commanders or staff - they're just big areas of land over which combat took place. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I though that since I did provide additional information about the unit, that this was ok. Again, a part of learning process.
Well, I have never heard of the Kiev Strategic direction either until this morning because I never read that book to Chapter 6 where it gets a mention in one sentence. Given what happened at Kiev in 1941, I'm not surprised. Keep in mind that the term 'direction' can be used in operational and tactical sense also, so you are right and caution is required. However Genshtab site is generally pretty good for data. I don't have permission to reproduce their data yet, so I have not added the site to sources (or provided the commanding officers). The wording is Theatre, but the actual meaning is a direction rather then a Theatre. -- mrg3105mrg3105 23:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As luck would have it, just heard that Genshtab got the info from this site http://istoria.svyt.net/rus/sssr/velikayavoina/21/ which is a general site on Russian and Soviet history-- mrg3105mrg3105 00:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have done more research. The source for the many thetres is a first for the author who apparently previously specialised in books on food and 'politico-military' subjects. Only 2000 copies were printed, so I am unlikely to get a hold of one since they look to be collectors items. However the book is not a real book, but rather statistical extracts. It seems the author was confused about the difference between TVDs and SDs. I have fixed the page, and will go on from there.-- mrg3105mrg3105 05:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

VDV

There is already a separate article for the VDV. I'm moving your new information there, if you don't mind. Permissions? I've never heard of that site before. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if that was alright since this is RF page, and not Soviet Army. Ok, I will ask his permission. I have had to ask him questions before, but never permission. Aside from Chobitok, he is probably one of the most authoritative Russian sites, and his is a vehement opponent of 'Suvorov'. I will ask about the Belorussian TVD which is really a strategic direction. My problem is that I don;t have the book the other site provides as a source, but it is a recent one, so there are two options: it is a good source based on recent declassified research, or b)it has no credibility and is a complete invention. Given how GPW is viewed in Russia the and the amount of new material appearing every year about the GPW I would tend to go for a), but one never knows. If I can't confirm from Veremeyev, and he can't confirm, it will have to change from TVD to SD.

Speaking of bad sources, I have just located an unverified anonymous source for OOB of the RF Army in Chechnya. It is similar to yours, but adds some units, and particularly the SpetzNaz and Internal Troops. Do you want it?-- mrg3105mrg3105 02:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The VDV? Same force, just changed the sign at Stab VDV somewhere in Moscow, and I'm not sure even if they've done that! Chechniya? If it's a Second War listing, yes, especially if recent. I, as far as I know, haven't done a full Chechniya OB - the North Caucasus Military District listing is very incomplete. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Its just that for some categories you made separate pages, so I thought I would ask.
The list is for current, and I unduly assumed that you maintained that. Many units are from other MDs.-- mrg3105mrg3105 02:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Air Armies

Thanks for the resource link Mrg. If you feel like doing a translation, there's ru:8-я воздушная армия on the Ru-wiki there, and we don't currently have an article for the 8th Air Army. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06. Actually I'm just running out the door as my appointment was changed from morning to afternoon. I do for you what I can, but as per your advice I want to finish the upper command echelon structure before plunging into the maze of Armies, Corps and divisions. I have almost completed the basic standard page layouts, and only need to populate the fields. You picked up on my experimentation with the 4th Ukrainian (I can't get used to that extra i!), the original box Created for the Karelian Front (but I forgot to remove the title). I really appreciate your help and more so the patience with my mistakes. I'm learning though.

Back to Air Armies, I would like to make a special effort with them when I'm done with TVDs, SDs, MDs and Fronts). The Red Air Force during WWII was massive, and conducted operations that dwarfed the Battle of Britain, but their contribution and operations are virtually unknown. There was an Air Army in every Front, but of course some were down to a couple of hundred aircraft in 1941. BTW, that site has a blanket statement of permission to use information (with attribution of course) so no need to ask for permission, though I may contact the owner for additional information from his extensive library on Soviet wartime aviation.
BTW, ru:Wiki is not of a consistent quality, so be aware of that when doing translation-- mrg3105mrg3105 02:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead, just add a source for each addition - which would be good for that division of PVO into various parts you put in as well. Happy New (western!) Year! Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wordiness

I can do that, but I don't know how to track a particular user other than manually checking your contribs every day. If you know of an automated way for your contribs to be added to my watch list, please advise. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind asking Buckshot? He showed it to me the other day, but I decided not to use it, and so didn't copy into my "useful to know" file, and now can't find it of course (to my embarrassment) Thank you-- mrg3105mrg3105 06:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To butt in, no, I was solely manually checking contributions - there's no automated process. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with the 33rd MRD edits. Yow, that was no fun. I left the structure of the article alone, but it needs a lot of work. It reads more like a history of the 87th Rifle Corps than of the division which the article purports to be about. I'd suggest moving it to the name "87th Rifle Corps" or cutting out the material which has nothing to do with the 33rd MRD or its precursor units. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Pyotr Koshevoy

I saw the note in the article history about the "standard transliteration" but I don't care for it. I think Petr Koshevoi would be a "truer" article title. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an ISO transliteration standard which I think is 9 now. Have a look at that. I have not been transliterating anything because it seems to me the Project needs to set a style standard for the MilHist wide application and not just deciding what we like as individuals Having said that, I also think that the Pyotr is a better phonetic approximation then Petr. Now on the Internet many Russian sources do not write ё (yo), but settle for the simple e, and in many cases it is not as a significant omission as it may seem, but in this case it is.-- mrg3105mrg3105 21:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

здравствулте!, perhaps it would be better to put the ranks of the Soviet Marshals in the infoboxes like so in the Hovhannes Bagramyan article [7]. Cheers, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Privet. I thought about this, and due no doubt to Armenian efforts the article on Bargamyan is a particularly good one (former FA), but I thought a Marshal deserved a big display of the symbolic shoulder boards. I have applied it to all wartime Marshals. The image is too large for the infobox, and if the tile is used, it doesn't look that impressive. It seems to me the reader should be impressed by the symbol of the individual's achievement.-- mrg3105mrg3105 21:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Still, it seems odd placing it right in the lead paragraph and becomes an obstruction for the reader. It's OK if it looks unimpressive in the infobox; it's not so much of impressing the reader by placing a huge Marshal of the USSR in the top of the article but providing an interesting biography of a figure, the rank of which the readers will acquaint themselves with.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You obviously feel strongly about it.-- mrg3105mrg3105 00:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

German units on Eastern Front

Check Category:Military units and formations of Germany before you assume things are missing. I think all Army Groups are there, virtually all Armies, many Corps, and lots of divisions. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And you assume that I haven't looked. I was looking at the 18th Army (why are they spelled out when the Germans used numerals?). There are OOBs, but no narrative of operations. What use is in me pointing a link to that when describing Soviet operations around Leningrad when the reader will get no idea on the actions and reactions of the German opposite commanders? The Eighteenth Army (Germany) is not even linked to the Siege of Leningrad, so whoever wrote it was not aware of anything that happened between Barbarossa and 1944 in Kourland (quote the entirety of article entry):

Formed in November 1939 in Military Region (Wehrkreis) VI, the Eighteenth Army invaded the Netherlands (Battle of the Netherlands) and Belgium during Fall Gelb and moved into France in 1940. The Eighteenth Army was then moved east and invaded Russia during Operation Barbarossa in 1941. The army fought with Army Group North until early 1945, when it was subordinated to Army Group Kurland. In October 1944, the army was cut off by Red Army advances (Courland Pocket) and spent the remainder of the war in the Courland peninsula of Latvia.

This is what I mean by completing the articles. Its not just about the OOBs, which is why I wanted to do the operational history -- mrg3105mrg3105 22:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, same here. But that one is there, at least, isn't it. Better than these millions of Soviet armies, divisions, corps, etc that aren't. Great work on Volkhov Front, by the way, but I've had to change the box a bit. You had a 'current commander' listed. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I have a tendency to jump to conclusions and then eat my 'humble pie' on occasions, so I don't hold your reprimands as personal ;O) Be assured that I think the work you are doing is probably worthy of a better reward then a few digital images (medals, chevrons). However I would like to bring a greater descriptive sense to the Eastern front then just the OOBs. This is why I started at the top, rather then the bottom like yourself (the hundreds of divisions!). I have to say that I'm getting a bit frustrated with Wikipedia, and myself to some degree in failure to develop the strategic structure faster, but I want to do this right. I am fairly well pissed off by the way Eastern front is presented in Wiki. It reads like a travel itinerary with just a few city names that in no way give the impression of who did what to whom and on what scale.

The Volkhov Front is still an experiment in my Wikification muscle flexing :o) Thank you for your encouragement. I find doing this strange because unlike regular work, this is just me and the PC. You saw that I added the Marshal shoulder board to each wartime Marshal? The Armenian author of the Bagramyan article removed it to the infobox, the nationalistic sod. He is also trying to insert the Modern Armenian flag as a show of Bagramyan's 'allegiance' :o)
What do you mean about the use of modern Soviet commander in the Volkhov Front infobox? It said notable commanders, and he was a notable commander who fought on the Volchov Front (ok, notable after the war). Maybe I misunderstood definition of notability?-- mrg3105mrg3105 23:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It was just the way you inserted the names into the infobox. The way you did it implied that there was a commander currently - 2008 - acting as commander of the Volkhov Front. I've fixed it. If you like, why don't you switch the Armenian flag presented to the Armenian SSR flag of 42? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that. I will keep it in mind for the rest. If you have any suggestions, please contribute. I will also wan to add a box at the bottom of the Fronts for switching from Front to Front like you have done for the Armies. To tell you the truth I don't think its going to matter which flag is used. The intent is to disassociate from USSR as far as possible, so a few months in Armenian forces as NCO is a good enough reason to remove 30 years of service in Soviet Army. I see this all the time in post-USSR articles. In any case, I had no idea Armenia had a different flag in 1942-- mrg3105mrg3105 01:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you mind AGF, remain civil and refrain from making personal attacks by calling me a "nationalistic sod" right off the bat. I'm not at all attempting at all to disassociate Baghramyan's service to the USSR but by removing the flag, the flag of Armenia of 1918-1920, you're distorting the sources. Baghramyan's service to the DROA, including his account of the battle of Sardarapat, is mentioned in his "Moya Vospominaniya" and you cannot discount that service as "a few months." May 1918 - May 1920, I'm not sure but that sounds more like 2 years rather than a few months which more than warrants that at one time he had an allegiance to Armenia. He could have chosen to fight for the Reds during the Civil War but the fact that he stayed in Armenia means that he was still committed to seeing it survive an onslaught by the Turks.

I've tried talking to you about this on his discussion page but it's telling that you ignore that page and move straight to making unilateral edits. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll mind my AGF when you take note of Common Sense. Many people participated in the Battle of Sardarapat, and as I recall it took some time for Bagramyan to sort out what he was going to do after the collapse of the Russian Empire, and to reach the Armenian forcs. Like many Armenians with military experience he was naturally swept up in the call-up. As I recall at least from the version published in Russian his service in the Armenian forces was not the full 2 years you suggest (do you think the Armenian armed forces just magically created themselves on 1 January 1918?), but a few months of great uncertainly as other Armenian leaders bickered and eventually scraped together a force that resisted the Turks (who were by then defeated by the Allies anyway). He did chose to fight for the Reds since the Civil War lasted until 1924 (in fact longer). Instead of bickering with me over what is a very commons sense issue from my POV, YOU could have gone and put the Armenian flag into the article on the battle, which has none! You may also want to add that this was one of the earliest military experiences of an Armenian NCO that would later become a Marshal of Soviet Union. Seems to me a far more appropriate thing to do. I know that flag means a lot to you, but please don't mix your sense of nationalistic pride (not a bad thing) with conclusions about history. Its dangerous stuff.-- mrg3105mrg3105 21:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviations

There's a pretty standard understanding - division = div, regiment = regt or rgt, infantry = inf, tank = tk, anti-aircraft = AA, anti-tank = AT, ... is this the kind of thing you mean? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but for air units. I know the ground abbreviations very well, but what about fighter, bomber, mixed? Is Aviation Air Corps - AAC? I'm not even sure where to look since UK/US work on wings and divisions. BTW, I see in the resources abbreviations the translation for Shturmovoy is Assault. Are you happy with that? I think the abbreviations resource needs updating also :o)-- mrg3105mrg3105 02:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see Shturmovoy - the Il-2 concept - untranslated, because if I understand correctly it's a bit untranslate-able. A side reference to 'usually translated as Assault' would be OK. IAP = Fighter Aviation Regiment, BAP = Bomber Aviation Regiment, ShAP = Shurmovaya (sp!) Aviation Regiment, SAP = Mixed Aviation Regiment, 'O' in front of everything for Separate/Independent/Detached - take your pick, basically, use the Russian acronyms and include a abbreviation table in the article or linked closely. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to do abbreviations someone can easily understand without specialist knowledge. In Wiki there is only Ground Attack aircraft although as you say, it doesn't describe the concept behind Il-2. Would you like to write up a little article on this with a link to GA page? Or I can write Shturmovaya, as Shturmovaya, it will go to Il-2-- mrg3105mrg3105 03:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Link Shturmovaya like that. One thing though, don't put a detailed OOB on the Army (Soviet Army) page - that's for, at best, three or four lines for each Army. Put it at the Soviet Air Forces page or create an entirely new page - that's what Category:Orders of battle is for. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I was out editing and checking so long I got logged out :o) So there is an anonymous OOB now. The only problem I had was that I forgot how to do a link with a link inside it, so the Shturmoviye Corps are not redlinked. The priority for me is to get the Air Armies set up for the Fronts so I can keep going with the development of operations. Eventually the rest of the OOB will be added in the category, but for now this will have to do. Sorry. In any case, I followed your advice and kept it to a few lines per Air Army, so its much slimmer then I planned, but still good I think?-- mrg3105mrg3105 06:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work! That's really good. Two requests - can I move it to a separate page, because it's really a separate order of battle, and I can put a link, and secondly, could you put a link to the original Russian webpage that you got it from? Cheers and thanks, Buckshot06 (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the OOB is found on several Russian sites, so its unlikely any of them own the copyright. The data was released some years ago by the MoD RF which has not made any moves to prosecute for breach of copyright. I will look if the MoD RF victory site has it also. There were a number of mistakes in the OOB due to scanning process and retyping which I fixed, and that makes me the first person to actually proof-read it :o) Just put MoD RF on it as source for now and I will get back to it. I will try to find which archive its from, but probably TzAMO, or the Air Force equivalent (the name escapes me right now). Yes, sure, move where you think its best. You can now move the Baku PVO page also to reflect correct name. As you can see form the OOB, some Armies were PVO and some Frontal, and they were not to be confused. Just a note that after 1949 all PVO armies were called Independent to differentiate from the Frontal Aviation. For some reason this is not reflected in the English language literature much. This was of course until recently when they were amalgamated.-- mrg3105mrg3105 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It will be at Soviet Air Forces Order of Battle 1 May 1945. Iassy-Kishinev only got renamed because we have an active Romanian editor - user:Eurocopter tigre. The problems of being wikipedia.... Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06. Thank you for doing that. I would like to set up a separate category for the air war over Eastern Front. What do you think? Any suggestions for a name?

I have asked Kirill to move the Yassy-Kishinev to the English transliteration and remove the redirect. Considering this was a Soviet operation, named in Russian, and the convention is to only leave the Operation code names in original language (so curious about Operation Spark?!), there is not reason it needs to be in Rumanian on en:Wiki, particularly since no source in English will use Rumanian. Its really funny how now everyone wants a 'piece' of Soviet Union I noticed the September war in Poland is listed as a major category for Soviet Military History ;O)-- mrg3105mrg3105 00:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Check and see what {{disambig}} gets you. When anyone writes an article on the Romanian or Ukrainian Black Sea Fleet (which I doubt will happen, given that that's their entire navy, one converts Black Sea Fleet to a disambig page, and you get Black Sea Fleet (Soviet Union), and, maybe, Black Sea Fleet (Turkey). Are you going to start the WP:RM on Iassy-Kishinev? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have tried to avoid reading up on

because I think the English language is sufficient to avoid it most of the time, but your advice is taken to note. (Note: I have seen Greek claims to three (3) fleets based on the number of seas that they have coasts on) :o)

I have voiced my reasons for requesting the WP:RM, and yes, I would like the page moved since I do not think it appropriate to be redirected every time my keyboard is not mapped to Romanian, and because of the precedent it would set. I actually prefer Yassy to Iassy, but either is used in sources and I think Glantz uses Iassy.
PS. I'll try to catch up on your requests from last week tonight when I get home. Cheers-- mrg3105mrg3105 03:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Special reconnaissance globalisation

Do you have specific recommendations? The article, in its present form, draws from things that are as often NATO as much as US doctrine. There are specific British examples from WWII, Iraq and the Falklands, as well as Soviet and Korean usage. Unfortunately, while there are accounts of specific actions from various nations, it is primarily the US that publishes actual doctrine.

In the modern use of the term, it is something that will be done by a technologically advanced country, due to its dependence on electronic communications and sensors, long-range fires typically by aircraft and missiles (and sometimes heavy artillery), and infiltration/exfiltration including submarines, fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft operating at night and the extremes of altitude, etc.

There is a greater choice of international examples with direct action (military) than SR, simply because successful SR missions are apt to be clandestine and not get into the open literature. The article on DA complements this one. It's certainly easier to find material on DA, and, in some cases, where SR turns into DA. Soviet Spetsnaz, for example, had doctrine that even if they were on an SR mission in wartime, and they encountered enemy nuclear delivery systems, those were to be engaged at all costs. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard. I read the article again just to ensure I can reply to you with greater confidence.

I think the basic problem is that you have a huge amount of erudition on the US practice, and wrote for someone like yourself. This is a common problem with people who contribute to Wikipedia, including myself, in that we tend to write about things that interest us, and we therefore assume the reader will have similar interest, or the desire to have similar ambition to know the subject.

It seems to me that this being an encyclopaedia, every article needs to follow the Army rule of "say it thrice", by opening with a simple introduction/definition, then adding another section that expands into the general terms of the subject, and finally present the entirety of a detailed treatment. (This is my opinion only)

In the first instance you have not defined what is so 'special' about Special Recon., and how its form of recon is different to field/combat recon. In fact there is not even a link to the Reconnaissance article. Doing so would give the reader less familiar with SR a perspective and a context.

Speaking of perspective and context, you completely omitted the history of SR which goes back to Biblical times (and is mentioned in the Bible ;O)), and the often political nature of the use of such troops. There is also no mention of the echelon of command they usually work at, although you do mention Desert Storm and some senior US officers (who are also unlinked).

There are less then half-dozen mentions of non-USA units in the article, and none are linked. Aside from the British, SpetzNaz and OsNaz have a huge history in particular, including operations spanning from the Russian Civil War (as part of Dzerzhinski's organisation), and all the way to current operations in Chechnya. The French also have not inconsiderable experience in this regard. I would differ with you on the subject of "it is something that will be done by a technologically advanced country". Terrain and other factors can and did interfere with much of technology in many theatres where the SR troops operated, and they still performed missions, so it is not a defining precondition to excluding any units that are not part of NATO. On the other hand the SR troops of Israel who are technologically sophisticated and are not part of NATO are completely left out despite their 50+ years of experience.

I think the other reason I tagged it for US view is because almost in its entirety you use US terminology that assumes the article is speaking about US troops. For example in the section Basic Fire Support Safety the reference is made to "the Air Force combat controller with the SR could lase prominent terrain features as well as the target", but the terms like TACP, GAPS and MARS are US Air Force usage. In Directing fire support you say "SR, going back to Vietnam", but fire support direction by SF/commandos goes back further then Vietnam (even in the US use). Neither the Falklands campaign nor the Operation Biting are linked, and in fact the section TECHINT, although dealing largely with one British operation (which is only mentioned at the end, and the unit of the participating service personnel is not identified), the term used is a US one. At least you are not discriminative since you also don't link to the article on Operation Steel Tiger or other US SR units/projects/operations in Former United States special operations units;o).

Another minor point is that only those terms that are abbreviations need be capitalised. The use of capitals in things like DELTA Force is unwarranted since its not even the unit's full designation, but I know it is a common practice in the US military.

Well, I think that will do for now :o). I would suggest that you make a greater use of linking. I have also added the Category:Special Forces, and to my surprise found that some prominent SF articles were only categorised in their national sub-categories, so not exactly easy to find. Cheers-- mrg3105mrg3105 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 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) 23:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Gallipoli

Hi, I don't think that that operational names were used by the British in 1915. I've also only seen it refered to as the 'Dardanelles landings' and similar. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, just wanted a confirmation.-- mrg3105mrg3105 02:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Adding categories

Yes, you'd need to create the category by adding it to the article page. Parentheses are somewhat frowned upon in category names, so I'd suggest something like Category:Theaters of war instead.

"Military events" is possible—though something like "military actions" would help distinguish it from events that merely affect the military rather than involving it—but any such broad rearrangements will need to be discussed. I've also put up some other ideas at WT:WWII#Another thought on "operations" that you might be able to comment on.

(For what it's worth, I apologize for being so obstinate on this; but it's taken almost two years of continuous struggle to stabilize the operational categories in some minimally usable form. So I would strongly object to making any major changes to the entire structure without getting the support of the project in advance and making sure that what we end up with will still work across the board.) Kirill 03:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth I really appreciate your input, and having looked at the categories I can see where someone (you?) has tried to rationalise them. The problem is in the actual word 'operation'. In English there is only the one word to describe three different consepts that require three different words in Russian and in German. No less a persons then David Glants (Col.ret.) and the late Brigadier Richard Simpkin struggled to translate the concepts into NATO English. :o)-- mrg3105mrg3105 03:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a linguistic problem to some extent. I'm still hopeful that we'll eventually be able to come up with a category structure that's both correct and easy for someone to navigate; the problem tends to lie mostly in the top-level categories—can we find a term for "things the military did"?—and if we can develop a simple arrangement for those, the more specific categories will probably settle out neatly. Kirill 03:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I thought that was the case. It's not a problem at all; moving things away from the root categories is a good thing. Thank you for taking the time; I know from experience that cleaning up categories isn't the most exciting thing to do. :-) Kirill 23:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: with or including

I agree. However, I was reverting the unexplained and uncited increase in the size of the Russian Ground Forces from 395,000 to 488,000. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Ah, right, now I see it, sorry-- mrg3105mrg3105 04:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: disambig help

Replied on my talk page. Kirill 03:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with creating maps

I would like to find out about the experience other had in making their own maps, and the best approach suggestions. I have visited the relevant area but there seems to be too much information that does not necessarily relate to military maps. As a side issue, can screen captures from GoogleMaps be used?--Mrg3105 (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC) As far as I know, Google Maps material is not freely-licensed by default, so it can't be used on Wiki pedia except to illustrate the software itself. Kirill 22:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall detailed military map standards available at the NATO web site. In terms of tools I've played with Map Maker, but no scalable vector graphic (SVG) output. I'm still searching for a good (simple!) general map creation tool. —PētersV (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

NATO APP-6 and APP-6A symbols as font character symbols here: http://www.mapsymbs.com/maphome.html —PētersV (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm tinkering with mapping tools and can load available images/databases. What do you need? -- SEWilco (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

G'day SEWilco. I have started a long term project of documenting Red Army operations during WWII. Ideally I would like to be able to have a map for each one with moderate to good level of detail. I estimate a need for the project of some 250 maps. The greatest challenge from my POV is the need for some topographic detail on some maps to illustrate the particular difficulty encountered by troops on either side in some particular operations. This means that the quality needs to be better then a blank map with the odd river and town. I will be able to provide Soviet, and in a more limited way, German maps as a guide, but they are not of high quality in terms of resolution by digital standards if you know what I mean. This would be for the long haul because Ideally it would be good to have a consistent style through the project.-- mrg3105mrg3105 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So just loading and tiling the low-resolution maps won't be enough. I'll have to check what topographic data is available for Europe-Russia/Kamchatka. We should probably move this to WP:WPMAP so others with map awareness can comment. Copy your above questions over there. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will have a look to find the appropriate discussion page to repost to-- mrg3105mrg3105 23:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lenskii

I have a soft copy of the Lenskii book - do you have it? I can send it to you if you want. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it Buckshot06. I used to have one, but it became corrupted and had to be destroyed. I really prefer the hard copies, but hard to get. Thank you.--mrg3105mrg3105 23:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

G'day Buckshot06. Did you send the Lenskii book. I have just cleaned out my email box, and didn't see it, but I'll have another look. Please remind me what it was that I needed to look up in there for you. Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 08:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, have not sent it yet. Should be able to do so over this (Aus/NZ) weekend period. There's nothing particular for you to look up - just add sourced material from there as you see fit. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Military personnel

I chose soldier because Military personnel redirects there. How about changing that into a stub (or perhaps Military profession) to cover the subject rather than creating a disambiguation page as it would be less disruptive? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Philip. Ok, I'll create Category:Military Professions. Just need to talk to project admin because we may be going with Armed Forces rather then Military. Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 04:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

62nd Army

Mrg3105, I may expand the article but it will take some time as I'll have to review material to do so. If I run across anything in Russian that looks interesting, I'll send you a message. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Take your time. I feel completely lost in the categories, and have spent two days just trawling for articles that I will need on the Eastern Front. I realise how much is missing now, so my top level Campaign and Operations articles are really behind schedule, and I'm afraid that I will not get a good start on it before I go back to work. Of course you may just want to poin the 62nd Army to the Battle of Stalingrad which I see has its own sub-category! Interesting since militarily it was not that important, but of course it was for Allied morale and Hitler's gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair :O)--mrg3105mrg3105 05:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, knew that Khruschev was there (or somewhere in the general AOR) - twisting your tail a bit I'm afraid. But I'm getting a little confused with Brezhnev I think - Khruschev didn't, I think, rewrite Zhukov's memoirs to get himself better prominence - that was Brezhnev, right? Down here we're all feeling a little sad tonight - Edmund Hillary, the first man atop Everest along with Tenzing Norgay, has just died at the age of 88. He'll be getting a state funeral. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeh. I thought as much :o) Still, never assume anything in the big wide internet ;O)

It was Brezhnev that wrote himself in. There is even a photograph of him with some sailors in Crimea (I have the first edition). Since 1991 a new edition of Zhukov's memoirs has been republished, re-edited. The picture is gone (so I'm told).

Of course I heard about Sir Edmund Hillary. Its a pity he is only known for that climb because as I understand he has done a lot of other things (as of course his page says). Its interesting about being first. After that, everyone is just made of the same mould--mrg3105mrg3105 09:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Semyon Timoshenko article

I thought the marshal's shoulderboard placement where it was (right up at the beginning and to the left of the lead) was distracting, as this is a somewhat unusual placement for rank insignia. If you want it in there it might be better to place it elsewhere in the article such that it isn't I think distracting, which may happen with the shorter articles like Vasily Ivanovich Petrov, which is a stub. Personally I would try to find additional photos of the subject in place of rank insignia, but I don't know how hard this is with Soviet sources. I sometimes think that people go a little overboard with rank and decoration illustrations, but that's a personal preference. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 05:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I intend to Wikify all Marshals of USSR articles, but since many ware somewhat basic, I thought that an addition of at least one image was warranted. However since I did all of them in one go, I was less then calculating about the image placement. Possibly it bvelongs in the section that deals witht he period of service when the rank was awarded. I think given the rank there is nothing wrong with a BIG image. These were BIG men in terms of stature within the USSR :o) Thank you for your input again. Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 05:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right in that these were big men to the USSR, but the articles are about them, not the Marshal of the Soviet Union rank. Just my thoughts. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 05:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Boxes

Please see WT:MILHIST#Auxiliary infobox for operational plans. :-) Kirill 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Romania

Please, before continuing this flame war, consider the fact that this is ENGLISH wikipedia, not the russian one. While the name in russian might still be with an 'u', all the official documents in English (i.e. check the resources listed in the talk page and in the articles under debate) have switched to the 'o' spelling. Furthermore, before making any more outrageous statements, please gather RELIABLE resource in order to reference your statements/opinions. Thank you, and please go do something else if you are unable to contribute. Nergaal (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, since you seemed to not bother to understand my comments from my edits:

• my reply: my comments are placed there because they are replies to each point you brought; please stop vandalizing; you have been warned!
• your comment: you can post them below as I did and use quote. In any case they are irrelevant to anything I wrote
• my reply: then removing information that has absolutely no connection with what is being discussed, and furthermore, has not even a trace of referencing

Please understand that since talk pages are not forums, any statement that does not contribute, that is unreferrenced, and furthermore, that can be interpreted as 'outrageous' or even 'derogatory' or 'insulting' WILL be deleted, and if, the situation continues, this attitude will be reported. You have been warned. Nergaal (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

re:Request for arbitration

do you even know what does that require, what does that inply? I BEG you to go ahead with this and continue to throw away both of our times. Nergaal (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Iasi-Chisinau Offensive

I suggest you might want to take a day or so before poking back at the article, as your edits are starting to became more disruptive than helpful and time might give you a bit of distance on the issue and remove some of the frustration you appear to be feeling. Narson (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon, that is so WP:POINT and that was just not nice. Must you really do this? 'Tis not constructive... :-( --Illythr (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Romania: 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Romania. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I am loathe to do this but, if I am going to notify one I should notify both. Makes it clear. Narson (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your trolling on Talk:Romania

Your interventions on Talk:Romania are but semieducated spinning. It is of no interest, if you are doing so out of ignorance or you are deliberately trolling. Your behaviour is disruptive. If you continue, you'll be blocked. This is a warning.--84.153.17.16 (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation. Narson (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps move it to your sandbox first? Then the useful content (or structure) may be merged with the mainspace article under an agreed upon name. --Illythr (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wake up to yourself Illythr. What makes you think you can reach agreement after six months?! In any case, I already agreed tha tthe name should be Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation.--mrg3105mrg3105 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? I can complete the article in a couple of days to a higher standard then has been achieved in the six months of arguing over the Rumanian name of the existing article. The last editorial activity on the existing article was not performed in a sandbox because it only involved Rumanisation of the article and attaching an empty to-do list!--mrg3105mrg3105 21:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mrg, this other article on the subject is Wikipedia:Content forking and not acceptable. I recommend you merge the detail or follow Illythr's advice and sandbox it - either way, it's going to have to be shut down. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06, with all due respect the new article does not meet forking criteria.

"A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies."

The article was an intentional creation, and not an unintentional one, and the Rumanian titled article was tagged for deletion since it does not meet Wikipedia standards. When it is deleted, the Yassy-Kishinev article will be the only article remaining. Further, the Rumanian-titled article was itself a forked article by redirecting from the previously named Iassy-Kishinev article, but no one noticed at the time. --mrg3105mrg3105 22:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm applying for an administration adjudication. The article is not a forking one but a replacement for an article that does not conform to Wikipedia standards. The discussion on the renaming of the Rumanian article on the operation has gone on for six months, so I see no reason that the article would be completed anytime in the current decade.This is besides the point that the article does not describe the actual operation, but a small part of it from the German POV. I am done arguing. IF AN ADMINISTRATOR SHUTS IT DOWN, then I will not touch it with a barge pole and it will remain a testament to Rumanian editorialship in English Wiki.--mrg3105mrg3105 21:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that the article was "Rumanised", as you call it, only about a month ago. Its original name was "Battle of Romania (1944)". Then Piotrus successfully proposed to move it to "Iassy-Kishinev Offensive" per his historic source. Then came Eurocopter and moved it to the Romanian name without any kind of proposal or discussion. I noticed the move just about a week after that and that's when the discussion really started. The side opposing the move has so far ignored the killing argument of all google links for their name pointing to Wikipedia (a very big no-no) and most reliable sources using the name I proposed (with none using theirs (although Turgidson managed to find one, which makes it 41 to 1)). While I am not sure I can convince them (if absolute majority of scholarly sources is not enough, what is?), it sure does convince neutral and uninvolved editors like Buckshot06, Husond and Narson. So, all that is needed is to draw attention of more such uninvolved users. Keeping cool and civil is absolutely crucial, too.

I objected to your apostrophed version for precisely the same reason.

The article you created is an obvious content fork (creating "own" version of an existing article). It was turned into a redirect very quickly. Not only did this not help you any, it will also allow the opposition to use your actions in an argumentum ad Hitlerum ("see, the bad guy supports it, so it and everyone who supports it is bad") against the main proposal (there already is at least one "no because I don't like a guy supporting this" vote there). I will move the salvageable content to your userspace and encourage you to work on it - I like your structure more than that of the current article. --Illythr (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on the naming started 6 months ago, which is what I referred to. In any case the Iassy version is the Italian spelling as Jassy is the German one. To say Iassy in English would be Ayassy, but in Italian the sound is Iossy. You can find this out yourself by looking at the ISO 9 standards. No need for Google searches when you have standards derived by actual scientific analysis of speech :o) I'm not used to pointless discussions, and if the title discussion is anything to go by, the chances of producing a good article IMHO is very slim indeed.
Consider:

• The 'detailed' section of the existing article discusses the actions of one Soviet Corps
  
• the deception operations prior to the operation, which David Glantz used a chapter in his book to describe, is off-handedly dealt with in one sentence!
  
• The OOBs are wrong and incomplete
  
• even the senior Rumanian commander was not mentioned in the box.
  

The article is unsalvageable as it is due to structure, sources, content and of course the lacking NPOV. You can do with it whatever you want. I have many more operations to write up, and have wasted enough time on the Rumanian crowd here that are just chest-beating. Let them document the destruction of the Royal Rumanian Army themselves, but I will be watching everything that goes into that article and it will include heavy use of administrators if need be.--mrg3105mrg3105 23:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The current discussion only started with my "WTF?!" post on 16th December.

...And "Yassy" is the Russian spelling, so what? The article about the city actually uses the Romanian name, Iaşi (diacritics and all). How do you define which one's proper, lacking a centralized language-coordinating institution? Simple, you look in other encyclopedias. But what if they don't have articles about the topic you need? Then look in books by native speakers. Google Books is the simplest way to do so.

As for your article, as I said, I like your structure more (although I think that Romanian actions, like the coup and its effects deserve their own section, too). However, creating a second article about the same subject like you did is certainly not proper procedure. Best use your userspace to create the thing, then we can merge the content/structure with the main article. Flat out deleting an article that was being worked upon for over two years just because it has some deficiencies and a wrong name is not the way to go, too. If an article such as this turns out to be bad, it tends to be totally reworked, not deleted. --Illythr (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, looking at this comment I just realised you have not really considered your own statements before addressing them to me.

• Yassy' is not the Russian spelling. It is the ONLY transliteration possible into English from the Russian name for the city (Russian: Румыния) under International Standards Organisation Standards.
  
  • The city's Romanian. This Wikipedia is English. --Illythr (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting result

•Support the proposed move or Jassy-Kishinev Operation as used in other sources. Check out the article's English sources for ample confirmation of the proposed title (and cf. Treaty of Jassy, Kishinev pogrom). — AjaxSmack 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
•Support per WP:NCGN, which Eurocopter ignores. We should use the name now used for those cities as of 1944. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
•Support the move per WP:NCGN, and Septentrionalis. In any case the current orthography is incorrect, it should be Iași-Chișinău in keeping with Romanian standards. - Francis Tyers • 21:33, 4 January 2008
•Support per Anderson and others (and the ever helpful WP:NCGN). Narson (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
•Support. There seems to be agreement (gasp) above that Iassy-Kishinev Operation is the most common English nameAndrewa (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008
•Strong Support - Original nominator: It seems we have a consensus to move the page back to Iassy/Yassy-Kishinev OffensiveBuckshot06 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 11 January 2008 (
•Support. Iassy-Kishinev is what Glantz uses, that's good enough for me. Erickson has Jassy-Kishinev, so that's a second-best. The current name is a travesty. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:49, 13 January 2008
•Changed to weak support Húsönd 04:23, 5 January 2008
8

•Oppose I would share opinions with Turgidson, and articles mentioned above should be moved to the oficial name of the cities. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
•Oppose per WP:NCGN, which PMAnderson ignores. We should use the name now used for those cities as of August 1944, when the event occurred. Please consult history books on that, or the relevant WP articles. -- Turgidson (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
•Oppose per WP:NCGN and Turgidson's explanation. -- AdrianTM
•Oppose WP:NCGN wikipedia policy. Ostap 06:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
•Oppose, as per Turgidson and WP:NCGN. --R O A M A T A A | msg 09:54, 6 January 2008
•Oppose per my interpretation of WP:NCGN (point 1 and "use English" ¶ 3--Illythr (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That last guy is Biru, not me. I'm all for it.--Illythr (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

HEY WAKE UP!!! This is an article about a Soviet Military Operation!!!!!!!--mrg3105]] 03:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

...in an English encyclopedia, yes. "English" presumes using English names. Man am I patient.--Illythr (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• The "so what?" is that this was the CONTEMPORARY historical usage by the Russian speaking Soviet command DURING the operation they conducted.
  
  • Should we use "Russland", "Sowjetunion" or "Moskau" in the Operation Barbarossa article as well (per this logic)? --Illythr (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• EVERYONE defines proper as the name used by the historical personae during the event. The "centralised language-coordinating institution" in this case was the STAVKA in Moscow, and even Stalin, a Georgian, had to use this because that was the PRIMARY language spoken in the Red Army, and the official language of the USSR at the time
  
  • We're talking about English here. Not Russian. --Illythr (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• There is no need to look at other encyclopedias, because as a historian I look at the operational maps of the Operation. However, why not look in the Soviet Military Encyclopaedia? And why look at encyclopaedias anyway? Still, Dupuy's Encyclopaedia of Military History is a dated by still available source in English. Of course it says nothing about Yassy-Kishinev, and just calls it "Conquest of Rumania" (p.1116).
  • The operational maps are all in Russian, I take it? I'm sure German operational maps for their operations use "Russland", too. --Illythr (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• I agree that its best to look at books of native speakers, but in this case the native speakers who planned and executed the operation were Russian speakers, and not Rumanian!
  • Native speakers of English, seeing as how this is an English encyclopedia after all... --Illythr (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• So how does "consulting books of native speakers" translate into consulting GoogleBooks? Never the less I did the search.
  
• Yassy-Kishinev produces use by Glantz, Bellamy, Jukes (Osprey series), Willard C. Frank and Philip S. Gillette, Christopher Duffy, Denes Bernad, Albert Axell, Malcolm Mackintosh, Nathan Constantin Leites, Carl G. Jacobsen, Institut zur Erforschung der UdSSR, Florence Farmborough, Robert Maxwell (Information U.S.S.R.: An Authoritative Encyclopaedia about the Union of, University of Michigan), Martin L. Van Creveld, Kenneth S. Brower, Steven L. Canby, Air University (U.S.), United States Dept. of the Air Force.
  
• Iassy sources are only three, one Russian, one a collaboration for Glantz, and the other a 'reader' by Peter B. Lane, Ronald E. Marcello (unknown to me).
  
• Jassy is used by John Erickson, George Mellinger (on fighters), Carl G. Jacobsen (note use above), Heinrich Böll (a German), John Keegan, Sydney L. Mayer (for a Rand MacNally 'encyclopaedia'), Roman Johann Jarymowycz (from German sources), Paul Wanke (also a German), Horst Hutter (another German), J.B.A. Bailey, Norman M. Naimark (another German), Martin McCauley (not a military historian), Ray Merriam (from German sources), Harriet Fast Scott and William Fontaine Scott (in 1979 from German sources), Joseph Slabey Rouček (Slavonic encyclopaedia likely from German sources), Raymond Leonard Garthoff (1953, so from German sources), George H. Hanna (1960, likely from German sources), Andrei Oțetea (History of the Romanian people, 1974), Robert L. Pfaltzgraff (translation from German), Stephen J. Cimbala (unknown to me, but only one mention), Joint Committee on Slavic Studies, American Council of Learned Societies, Social Science Research Council (U.S.) (from 1970, so again from German sources), Andrew Hendrie (a US aircraft book!), Duncan Rogers, Sarah Rhiannon Williams (article on NW European Campaign, used in a footnote), Scott R. McMichael: The Battle of Jassy- Kishinev.[1944.] - Military Review, 65 (1985), and several Bulgarian authors.
  
  • I refined the GB search to use English language sources. I don't care much about the "Y/J" thing, my only argument for "J" being just the numerical difference: 41 vs 27. I objected only to the "Y-apostrophe" thing that's not used by anyone at all. --Illythr (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So where is the logic?!--mrg3105mrg3105 01:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

hey commie, you should stop using the archaic term rumunian (i.e. that term was in use in soviet russia/ussr) and use the one that is currently in official use in English (i.e. Romanian). Nergaal (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay guys, I haven't read the articles, no judgment from my side about the contents or the most appropriate names, but Nergaal is right in terms of process: an article must be kept together in one place, no matter where. Mrg3105, if you think you can write a better content article, by all means write it, but use the page location where it now is. (Contested move proposals are a perennial source of conflicts, the point is just, as long as there's no consensus to change, the status quo always wins.) -- Oh, and Nergaal, please save yourself those slurs, like commie and the like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., what do you think are my chances of editing an article where the name of the article has not been Wikified for English Wiki over six months due to obvious nationalistic POV?

As a separate issue, I would like Nergaal to be prevented from posting to my user page and spamming my discussion comments, besides the "commie" comment which I actually find insulting since I'm from a family of refugees from the former Soviet Union.--mrg3105mrg3105 22:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I know editing among the Romanian crowd can sometimes be pretty nasty - but what makes you think once you'd have "your" new article at the place you wanted it, you could edit there without them just like you wished? You'll have to face it, we must take our fellow editors as they come. If you get attacked, abusive editors can be placed under editing restrictions or, in extreme cases, banned.

As for unwanted postings on your talk page, you can of course politely ask a fellow editor to leave you alone, and they are expected to observe that, generally speaking, although if you edit topics of common interest to both of you there may be situations where they may have a legitimate need to contact you, so there can't be an absolute prohibition on posting here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Fut.Perf. the PRIMARY goal of en-Wiki is not to manage editor relationships, but to produce quality articles. I have other things to do then to contend with someone's desire to enhance their national standing by renaming all remotely related articles in en-Wiki into their native language. All I wan to do is to write a good article. As I see this this is the reason for Wikipedia's existence. This is also the reason administrators exist to enforce this policy. So what happens if for six months a set of editors actively prevent the article from being completed in English by Rumanising it (I am not writing Romanised not to spite the nationals of Rumania, but to avid confusion with Romanisation, which means something else entirely in linguistics)? What are my options after logic, and Wikipedia's own standards have been discarded? Do you suggest I remap my keyboard to Rumanian? Did yous ee the redirection of the previously authored Iassy-Kishinev to the Rumanian titled article? Was that ok in en-Wiki? Can I then redirect the article on Maiji Restoration to a Japanese titled article? Do you mind if I redirect the Louisiana article to a French-titled one? I'm hopeing for some options. Cheers:o)--mrg3105mrg3105 23:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect: Note that Eurocopter's move from the previously agreed upon "Iassy-Kishinev Offensive" was not proposed at all, which places the current proposal at a disadvantage.

Mrg3105, as I said, I understand your frustration, but going emotional and using WP:POINTish arguments won't help you. Logic does seem to win through here on Wikipedia. At least often enough to keep *me* here. --Illythr (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seen much application of logic here. As Future Perfect pointed out, lack of consensus leads to status quo, which is to say that input from ignorance leads to substandard Wikipedia product because Wikipedia's standards apparently don't apply either--mrg3105mrg3105 00:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That is why, ultimately, the arguments must be judged, not votes counted, preferably by a neutral and uninvolved admin. However, "neutral and uninvolved" tends to mean "has no idea what the whole thing's about". So, when someone like that sees such a dispute they have no clue about and see that one side is boorish and aggressive, they tend to side with the other guys even if the aggressive side is right (see this for an example:logic got through there, despite the uninformed majority voting "keep", often against mikka's attitude). Perhaps we can ask someone to make the final decision (I don't think there will be any more arguments coming). Someone like user:TSO1D, perhaps - I am yet to see his neutrality and logic fail him, and the fact that he's Romanian should preclude any claims of "anti-Romanian prejudice" should he side with the absolute majority of scholarly sources. --Illythr (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There are several good admin who watch RM. Perhaps it might be time to ask Dekimasu if he wouldn't mind looking over the arguments and bringing an end to the saga. Narson (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not care for any one Rumanian. I was accused of trolling by presenting a source which was deemed inadequate despite this Élisée Reclus while the obscure Greek scholar published in German 60 years earlier was upheld as a credible source. They even failed to see WHY I suggested the source and dismissed all my points without so much as bothering to provide unreferenced counterpoints. Instead I was subjected to ridicule and insults, all for a slap on the hand by an administrator. So far as I'm concerned all opinion coming from anyone speaking Rumanian is biased to the marrow of their bones, and is not to be considered as NPOV. I will no longer contribute to this article until it is renamed Yassy-Kishinev based on the survey of highly eminent military historians I provided from GoogleBooks as demanded of me. As Kirill pointed out to me, we all have our standards, and I am not prepared to lower mine for some chest-beating nationalist cause.--mrg3105mrg3105 03:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Do *not* make the (often last) mistake of bringing ethnic prejudice to Wikipedia. While you may have the misfortune of meeting some of the, shall we say, less-than-objective-on-certain-issues Romanian editors, it is extremely, EXTREMELY wrong to assume the same of all of them based purely on their ethnicity. To name a few I met, TSO1D and AdiJapan have always been reasonable Ro admins. Dahn, while rather short-tempered and caustic at times is also reasonable, logical and anti-nationalistic. Many, like Biruitorul, DPotop and AdrianTM do have their POVs, but usually are able to keep them in check (Biru especially). Lumping them all together is an error of "Ukrainians are all greedy traitors" or "Russians are all drunkards" proportions. --Illythr (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is extremely wrong what happened here with me, but I don't see much sympathy. Instead I was branded a 'commie', a 'troll', a vandal, and was told to essentially bugger off. I also have not seen much NPOV from any participants. I judge on actions not words. However whern asked in the Romanian article to provide a source, I was summarily dismissed although my source has a vikipedia article in himself while the source used there is unknown outside Romania. I was trying to write a better article on the military operation, and note that I did wait several days to give time for discussion that went nowhere. However I have been advised that due to national pride these discussions can go on for as long as a year, so understandably I am really p**** o** because I when I requested the move I assumed good faith, which apparently is lacking.--mrg3105mrg3105 12:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The proper procedure is to try reasoning first. Bring in good sources, let your opposition debate those, not your own words. If that fails, you can start an RFC in an attempt to draw community attention (thus hopefully diluting the opposing POV with neutral editors). Then you can turn to ArbCom to clear the mess. Responding to incivility in kind is a bad idea. Sweeping generalizations based on ethnicity are a very bad idea. --Illythr (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

you have been warned

you are persistent in vandalizing both talk pages and article pages. please refrain from coutinuing to do this. I have asked you previously to stop this. You will be reported the next time you vandalize pages on wikipedia.Nergaal (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Meanwhile some education for you

One of Wikipedia's main guidelines is that all information must be externally referenced. But for various reasons, a lot of information on Wikipedia lacks references. This does not automatically mean that the information is incorrect or otherwise does not belong, as most such information was added on good faith, and the user who added it was either unfamiliar with Wikipedia's guidelines for citing or forgot to provide a reference. Therefore, it is a good idea if you believe the information was added on good faith to let users know first rather than immediately deleting the information.

If you find information that you believe is unsourced, you can add the tag following the sentence in question. For an entire article lacking references, you can use the tag , and for a section, you can add . This will inform readers, including the user who placed it there, of this discrepancy.--mrg3105mrg3105 11:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

and how does this relate to deleting the added references? if you don't like them, you are welcome to add a disputed tag labeling, not simply delete them.Nergaal (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

By providing misleading references you are misleading the readers. That is called intentional misleading, or lying. Are you a lier? Please consult this for non-English Wikipedia policy WP:RSUE--mrg3105mrg3105 11:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

i am not going to explain this one more time since you have stolen a huge amont of time from my with your babbling. those two references on the Romania article:one of them is an essay of a guy on the vlach/romanian/rumanian terminology. read it carefully. the second one is a reference that clearly shows that your babbling about the origin of the word rumanian is completely off. there was a word 'romania' used during the byzantine empire (i.e. before arabs and turks entered the history of europe). weather the current name of the coutry was simply stolen from that older usage or not is debatable, BUT the ORIGIN of the word ROMANIA is older that the time you suggest for your hypotheses.Nergaal (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

also"Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly"Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think that the references you provided are appropriate, then please quote from them. However I can't find a quote in either one that proves the assertion made in the Etymology section, and I have actually corresponded with the author of the second text previously on a related subject.

Please explain to me what is the point of referencing a source that can not be understood? Lets say that I have a 5 volume work on the Romanian etymology, but in Chinese. Would you be happy if I referenced that? Do you speak Chinese (the Hunan dialect)? Do you understand now? If there is no availability of an English source of equal quality (meaning authority) you need to do the translation yourself.

if a source from the 12th century is in chineese and users who know chineese agree with it, then yes, I would accept the reference, even though I don't understand it. again assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal qualitygo find english sources of similar quality and then all this will have a point.Nergaal (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So I would post a source in Chinese that says Romanians are actually from Tibet. You can't read Chinese, and must rely on my translation, and you think that's ok?! If this is the case, anyone can write anything, including OR and reference their OR articles. This is the whole point of different language Wikis existing side by side. I work for example in Russian and German Wikis (under different names) because sometimes I need their help with sources and translation. I also have a friend in France who translates references for me (not for here), etc. So far as I'm concerned, if the reference is not something I can read, it is not a reference, and is to be tagged as unreliable. I am fairly sure that is the intention of en-Wikipedia, but I'll be happy to ask.--mrg3105mrg3105 12:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In my understanding, the rule is: non-English sources are acceptable in the absence of easily accessible English ones, as long as the editors proposing them can plausibly demonstrate that they are from a reliable source, and are prepared (when asked) to provide a plausible translation or summary. Non-English sources are used quite frequently when they are in the language of the country or culture that an article is about. Whether you can rely on a fellow editor's translation is a matter of trust, of course, but also one of assuming good faith and of having the ability of cross-checking with other users who understand the language. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that happens to be all I asked for! See my talk if you care, but all I ask is translation and quotes where I can't find them in the referenced text where the editor asserts the source text supports the statement made. I am not prepared to learn either Romanian, Italian (to a better level) or Latin (which I never liked), or any other language they choose to throw at me. So far the editor has quickly searched the online sources on a few keywords and thrown those in as references on request. One is a sample page #1 of a paid-for article that has nothing to do with Romania, and the other is a very general discussion on Balkan ethnicity by a former correspondent of mine who's work I know well. Neither support the somewhat circular logic that because modern Romanian is Latinised therefore Romania must be derived from ancient Latin word Romanus. I used to had a mate by the name Bruce Lee, but no one would assert that he is Chinese just from the name (6'2", red haired and very proud of Scottish ancestry)--mrg3105mrg3105 13:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Romania etymology

Help me understand what the content dispute is about. If Romania doesn't derive from Latin Romanus, then from what would it derive? What's the alternative? This sounds all pretty odd and confused to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try for a simple version

The camp on the right assert that Romania is derived from Rome (Italy) via its Roman settlers in the early 5th century CE. They claim that Romanian language was always Latin based, and therefore the name of the country is Romania.
The camp on the left (me) suggests an alternative. There were indeed Roman settlers in ancient Dacia (a Roman province), but the (documented) influx of other tribes, including Slavs, and the influence of Greek language of Byzantium changed the language of the Dacians (majority population) despite their borrowing of Latin vocabulary. Subsequently when the Roman Empire split, the Eastern half became known to the Arabs as ar-Rum, meaning Rome, but in reference to the Eastern Roman Empire centred on Constantinople. Rum became also the general name for the Greeks and the Greek language as Lingua Franca of the region of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans, and subsequently when overtaken by Ottoman Turks, the area of Constantinople, a part of Northern Greece and what is today Romania became known as the Ottoman province of Rum. Sometime in the 16th century the European reference to this are switched from the Wallachia (another story) to Rumalia, and eventually Rumania in the 19th century. Although the article mentions works of a Greek scholar unknown in English who calls Rumania, Romania in 1816, I showed that a far better known academic 10 years after Romania officially adopted the spelling with an 'o' was still calling it Rumania. The source is Élisée Reclus, who was in his time a competitor of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Before I pointed to him as a source I was called a troll, a commie, and was told to get off the discussion page for espousing unproven theories. However not one of the references in the Etymology page or its associated article in Romania is accessible to an English speaker, and some are incomplete so can never be references or sourced from for example my university library. Now if I am in en-Wike, and I want to find out where the assertions made by the editors come from, and are not OR, what exactly are my supposed to do, go and learn Romanian? It seems preposterous to suggest that in English language online site that advertises itself as being accessible to all comers, in this case an exception is made to quality of research, sourcing and referencing and translation of parts of articles. All this started with this article Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive which is supposed to be a name of a Soviet WW2 operation named (in transliterated and widely used English as Yassy-Kishinev Offensive. The name was moved because of the assertion that the operation should be known by the modern Romanian city names and not the English ISO9 transliteration of the original Russian as used by this former US Army colonel. The editors failed to understand that the name of the operation refers to a general course of events over two weeks taking place in the area of the two cities and does not refer to the cities as such. Never the less when I consulted with the project coordinator and politely asked for a move, and presented the reasons for the request, the reasons were not discussed, and instead for 8 days a polemic ensued on how to spell the names of the cities. It is not kosher to change the name of a historic event by a Wikipedia poll to suit a particular national POV.--mrg3105mrg3105 14:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, speaking not as an admin but as a linguist here now (me, that is), what makes you think that the spelling differences between "o" and "u" documented in the 19th century would have any bearing, either way, on the history of the transmission of the name in the medieval era? Do you understand the concept of regular sound change, and how it interacts with linguistic borrowing? What makes you think a 19th-century "u" could only emerge via Turkish? Did you bring forward any reliable sources to that effect?

As for the quality of research, I'd tend to disagree: it's in fact a good sign of quality if we incorporate information from non-English sources; we'd otherwise be at least excluding 90% of the world's treasury of knowledge, wouldn't we? Whether we're doing a good job at documenting that non-English knowledge is a different issue of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either 'o' or 'u' has any bearing on the issue. It so happens that most of my sources use 'u' but I have been castigated repeatedly for not using 'o' as an indication of a personal insult to Romania and Romanians. My problem is that the Etymological piece can not show any evidence prior to 15th century of the use of Rumania, Romania, Rumelia, or any other version. The only extant documented use comes via Ottoman documents, and ultimately the Arabic Koran which has the ar-Rum sura. The regular sound change as you suggest may have taken place (as is suggested by Arabic usage) many times between the 3rd century Roman withdrawal from Dacia and the 15th century MS (also unreferenced and without translation; tagged for expert). The most reliable source is the one I brought because he is a late source and a very respected one that is a contemporary of the name change so would have had the knowledge of extant arguments. Regardless, if the Romanian is the official spelling of the country NOW, and is even the EU standard, it does not apply to transliteration from WW2 Russian which offers no other versions then Rumania on account of Cyrillic 'у'. When I used Rumania in the WW2 article it was immediately edited out as non-conforming with current official usage in Romania. Does Romanian government have the right to rewrite histories of other countries based on its language policy?

I also agree with you on use of non-English sources, BUT...it has to be accessible to English readers! I do a fair amount of non-English to English translation myself (primarily from Russian and German), so I have no choice but to agree. The point is that presenting an English speaker with a lump of text in Italian is fairly pointless since it adds nothing to the knowledge gained and asks to extend good faith way too far AFAIK.--mrg3105mrg3105 14:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get what your issue is. As for the continuity or non-continuity of the use of *Romanus as a self-appellation before the 15th cent, you've just confirmed we have no material either way. The use of "o" or "u" in the 19th century is an entirely unrelated matter, as you've also just confirmed. The legitimacy of using "o" or "u" in the 21st century, when talking about events in the 20th, is yet another, equally unrelated matter. So what's the point?

Let me give you a sincere piece of advice at this point: give it a rest. This isn't going anywhere useful. At some stage during this discussion you must have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick. Happens to the best of us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that I want the English usage article name for WW2 Soviet operation restored (as per my sources), and be free to use the Rumanian as transliteration from Russian in WW2 articles. And I also want to be able to read and understand references where they are from non-English sources.--mrg3105mrg3105 14:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Parallel history

Yes, I'm aware of the PHP - tried to get user:Eurocopter tigre to use it with his projected rewrite of the Romanian Land Forces, but he wasn't interested. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

that one walks on the Dark Side of the Force :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 05:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mrg. Where does one insert the divisional number? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you do want to search for a specific division then its

о боевом пути [...]-й стрелковой дивизии this is \about combat path 999 rifle division\ alternatively search [...]-я стрелковая дивизия this is just \rifle division\ --mrg3105mrg3105 09:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Armies, do references always have the obshenchen~sorry whatever = All-Arms in front of them or can you find references solely to Xth Army? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, in fact its a good way to date a source. Obschevoiskoviye=Combined Arms only came into usage after the war, but has been applied retrospectively by Soviet Army historians, but not war writers. I think its the Soviet equivalence of some of the peculiar US Army terminology that came in during various periods. the short answer is that you will find references with either/or Общевойсковая [..]-я Армия--mrg3105mrg3105 10:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the map pointer. They're djvu files - how does one open them? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to download a free LizardTech utility from here http://www.lizardtech.com/. Most Russians use it. However there are .jpg copies there also from the 12 volume History of the Great Patriotic War (История Второй Мировой войны 1939-1945 гг.), first one on the list if you don't want to download the LizardTech utility. I prefer jpg due to their small size.--mrg3105mrg3105 21:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Army emblems

Thanks Mrg. I did a page for the 58th Army (Soviet Union) already, and I notice the 58th Army emblem is there. What do the three types of emblem mean? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean you did the 36 Army already (but not yet created)?

These emblems are news to me. The site they came from (RF MoD) simply states Small, Medium, and Large, the large one was the one I used (because it seemed more decorative)http://www.mil.ru/849/12215/12346/16001/16462/16468/index.shtml. The appear to reflect a regional theme - the early fortresses of the Caucasus that were the 'gates' to Russia from the Caucasus (they are shut), so security, with the sword being a traditional symbol of armed forces. So far only the two Armies have these on the official site although many units are acquiring emblems/shields/patches, not all of them 'official'.--mrg3105mrg3105 08:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, of course YOU did the Army articles :o) I just thought its still in the process of being updated. I placed the shield in the current formation part, hope you don't mind? I came across the emblems by accident. The Army emblem also appears on the Military Region's Commanding Officer's standard --mrg3105mrg3105 08:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I personnally did the 58th Army article. Could you put a ref tag on your new Malaya Zemlya OB info for 18th Army? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Operation Bagration, East Prussian Offensive

Hi, I notice that you've been making some contributions to these articles recently - they're both ones I've been trying to expand, especially the one covering Operation Bagration. I wondered if you would like to collaborate on trying to bring them (and related articles on the Vistula-Oder Operation etc) up to FA quality. I would be particularly interested in anything that can expand on Soviet deployments/tactics used in these operations, as it's rather easier to find sources (in English) relying only on German accounts.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's true that the Eastern Front articles as they stand tend to be organised from the Axis perspective. I assume this is a result of the fact that most English-language sources are based on German accounts. Many of the texts on Operation Bagration, for example, will detail German deployments down to divisional and sometimes regimental level, whereas it's difficult to find such details beyond army level, never mind corps level, for Soviet forces - other than in Glantz. I guess, in this case, this is because a lot of the English-language accounts rely on Niepold (who was the Ia of 12th Panzer).

If your overall project is to fill out the background for each of the offensive operations involved, I'd agree that the best way to proceed would be to expand the section on the overall operational planning, perhaps with links to the sub-articles you outline. As for the narrative of the battle itself, I originally organised it around the three main encirclements - at Vitebsk, Minsk, and Bobruisk - of the LIII Corps, Fourth Army, and Ninth Army respectively. If you feel this material could be organised into the individual offensive operations you mention, perhaps we could set up a test version of each of these articles to go about inserting the material and seeing what still needs to be added.

The East Prussian Offensive article needs a lot of extra material in general.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually a newcomer (see work by users Buckshot06 and W. B. Wilson), and so the project is being tackled from both the top-down and bottom-up perspectives. Have a look at the Soviet Army and from there to the Armies and divisions, and Corps eventually. An enormous amount of work there already. We will hopefully link up at the Front level. I do need the German operations so I can correlate them with the Soviet. Lets try and work together and see where we get to. I'm currently still translating the operations and preparing basic texts for translation, so will not be ready for their publication as start articles for some time, but we can plan.--mrg3105mrg3105 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well let me know when you are getting close to having some of the texts ready. I imagine that the Battle of Vilnius (1944) will need to be bought into this as well!Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I have attempted to collect all the Eastern Front related articles in the Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World to see what's there. Battle of the Baltic was tagged for speedy deletion today since there was no such battle (lasting from 1939-1945!

Do you have a list of prominent Wehrmacht "battles" for the Eastern Front? --mrg3105mrg3105 14:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could obtain one for the period prior to Operation Citadel, but after that pretty much everything the Wehrmacht did on the Eastern Front was a defensive action in response to a Soviet offensive operation. It makes sense to list the battles under the Soviet designation and include information on the defensive deployments within the article. There are prominent Wehrmacht 'actions' which might merit sub-articles, I guess - I created one on the Heiligenbeil Kessel as an article on the 'aftermath' of the East Prussian Offensive, rather as the relatet Battle of Konigsberg has its own (detailed) article.

I think part of the problem is one of classification - no doubt the Wehrmacht would regard the Battle of Memel as one long defensive action, but from the Soviet perspective, it's really partly a result of the Memel Operation and partly of the East Prussian Operation.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. What we might do is to invent operation names for Wehrmacht. The only way to do this is to include a defensive for every Wehrmacht offensive and visa versa. Since the prevailing naming practice appears to be one based on city names (with exception of Crimea and Kourland), what you might want to do is isolate the Armee Korps, Armee and Korps and find where their defensives were. Then these can be matched with the Soviet operations. What will happen is that for example several Wehrmacht Korps defensive operations may correspond with a single Soviet offensive one. What do you think?--mrg3105mrg3105 07:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We could certainly try it with Bagration as a start, as this is a long and complex article (and offensive). As things stand, my 'narrative' of the battle follows the example of Zaloga, and splits both the Soviet offensive actions (and corresponding German defence efforts) roughly into three initial sectors:

• The offensive into the sector defended by Third Panzer Army, running around Vitebsk southwards as far as the positions held by VI Corps in front of Bogushevsk (does this correspond to the Polotsk Offensive Operation in your sources?
• The offensive into the sector defended by Fourth Army, especially the actions by Grishin's 49th Army against Martinek's corps in front of Mogilev, and by the 11th Guards Army against Voelckers' corps defending Orsha (I assume this is the Mogilev Offensive Operation - does it include the Orsha operations also?)
• Rokossovksy's encirclement of Ninth Army in Bobruisk (the Bobruysk Offensive Operation)

The next section is the major encirclement of Fourth Army east of Minsk, and the liberation of the city itself (your Minsk Offensive Operation, I assume).

The existing materials on the German defence could therefore be incorporated into the sub-articles on the offensive operations mentioned above, and expanded in the case of the operations conducted after Minsk fell (after which many sources based on the German historiography almost seem to lose interest - understandable enough, as the bulk of Army Group Centre had been encircled or destroyed by then). The main 'Operation Bagration' article could then conclude with the overall statistics of the defeat inflicted on AGC, and the Soviet success in ataining the startegic objectives of the operation. As I said, if we set up a test article/subarticles, we could see what we come up with.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Warn

The East Europe articles are under the Digwuren restrictions of arbcom. Please remain civil and avoid edit warring. Comments like this do not help. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rarest R'levse. Could you pretty please point out to the stupid me which of the cited contribution I have been warned for as being uncivil? After all, if one has a sentence passed, one has the right to know the crime?

• No, the established name in the society which is being documented, in this case Soviet Army, not Romania.
  
• Also it is not "ok" to use different names in the article. It may be OK to you, but this is not the practice in the world of history publishing.
  
• The vast majority of experts on the matter use "Y-K op" in English and not J-K op.
• However I feel that I can continue to put logic or facts before you, and you will not see it if "it hit you in the face" as the saying goes.
  
• You and others are just intent to make the article as Rumanian/Romanian as you can although its only role was to provide the terrain over which its, and Wehrmacht forces were over-run during the operation. There is very little that can be Romanised in a Soviet operation, but for the sake of Romanian PRIDE you MUST insert as much ROMANIAN CONTENT into the article as possible. Well, go for it, but
  
• I will make you work for it, YOU can bet on that. EVERYTHING YOU SAY WILL HAVE TO BE REFERENCED AND SOURCED PROPERLY IN ENGLISH."
  

Most civilly appreciative and cowering in fear of the administrator's mighty ban-thingamy--mrg3105mrg3105 01:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. who hurts the most? I who proposes to enrich Wikipedia by about 250 high quality articles on a significant period in history, or Wikipedia who with my banning (or voluntary abandoning of it) will see the content posted on other sites? That is the question--mrg3105mrg3105 01:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mass renaming would really not be a good idea. In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren, Arbcom determined that a major impediment to cooperative editing was repeated instances of incivility by editors working in this area, and they enacted a general restriction that editors who were uncivil, failed to assume good faith, or made personal attacks could be briefly blocked. Your behavior falls into this category and effective immediately, the civility restriction applies to you and further similar comments may result in a block. This is not a statement on content, but on behavior. If you believe there is a content problem such as with the article title, you need to pursue the normal forms of dispute resolution. Involve other editors through an RFC, or try mediation. Don't edit war, don't make disruptive page moves to make a point, and don't be uncivil. Thatcher 22:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Was there any determination on the repeated instances of editors being illogical? My civility was just fine until I begun reading comments in the discussion page of Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive. I suggest you do so, and see how your civility holds up. In any case, I have applied for the article to be moved to Rumanian Wikipedia since I am unwilling to be so civil as to remap my keyboard every time I edit articles which describe event outside of the English speaking regions in what is supposed to be en-Wiki.

PS. The people I was (in your opinion) uncivil to, sneer at "dispute resolution. Involve other editors through an RFC, or try mediation." (which I also attempted) because they know how ineffective administrators are at enforcing Wikipedia policy and standards. All they need to do is get enough voiced in the article discussion page poll, and they can do pretty much anything, regardless of logic, Wiki standards, policies or sources.--mrg3105mrg3105 01:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Question?

Ahem... what were you saying on my talk page? I don't know any Romanian, unfortunately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well then, you'll never read any articles with Rumanian titles in Wikipidia. Your loss, I'm sure.--mrg3105mrg3105 22:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Si animadverteris prohibitum esse uuicipediano in vestibus arachnanthropi senatum Berolinensem scandere, bene erit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the page is incorrectly named. Since Reichstag is in Berlin, it needs to be titled Kein Klettern des Reichstag gekleidet als Spider-Man. However, there is always an exception to the rule, even of the esteemed Cabal. One may climb the Reichstag when dressed as http://www.rg.ru/2007/04/26/znamya-pobedy.html :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Only if you also move Wikipedia:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. to Wikipedia:Ja sagense ma, Sie da ohm, wat machensen da, dat jibbet ja woll nich, kommense sofort da runter!. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so what is your practical suggestion based on your prior experience in such disputes aside from telling me to calm down (which I am). The essence of the outcome now is that there will be no outcome. The article will remain titled as it is, and anyone looking for it will be redirected when typing in Yassy-Kishinev because 80% of the military history sources by reputed specialists in the Eastern Front use that standard. In essence if someone can get enough voices in the 'poll' they can disregard almost anything, including renaming of historical events. History by Internet anyone? This approach will give Wikipedia bad name eventually when more people will realise this possibility. Note that all discussion has stopped despite me not participating, so a status quo, but this is the preferred outcome of the 'party' that arbitrarily renamed the article with no discussion in the first place. In my book this is called "damned if you do and damned if you don't" --mrg3105mrg3105 23:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Talk:Shatt al-Arab would be one example of a case where a policy-conforming naming decision was finally made, after a long struggle, against the determined resistance of local national interests. You could have a look how it worked there. I'm afraid though, that with all the heat and confusion that's been caused over sidelined debates, and for which you largely seem to bear the responsibility (etymology of "Romania" and the like), you are now at a somewhat disadvantaged position in tackling this. By the way, since I haven't looked at the literature, I am making no judgment at present as to whether your position is right in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It was my fault entirely. If you look a the proposal for the move, you will see that it assumed good faith and logic based arguments would prevail. As for being right on Rumania, if you look up Klein's dictionary for 'Rome', you will see the suggested Etruscan origin, so regardless of the arguments I was STILL right :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 07:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Stalingrad

I can sort of see your point. But technically this is incorrect. It would not be be an overexaggeration as the Germans did conquer the Ukraine. To alter this because of the time in which they held the Ukraine would be wrong I feel. You wouldn't say the same for Belgium or France for example, they were liberaed in the end, but do we say "well it was only 4 years, so in reality they only advanced through western europe"?. Regards Dapi89 (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points. In the first place, how does one define 'conquest'? The contribution in Wikipedia suggests that "Conquest and military occupation

In the post-Napoleonic era, the disposition of territory acquired under the principle of conquest must be conducted according to the laws of war. Put simply, this will mean military occupation followed by a peace settlement. If there is a territorial cession, then there must be a formal peace treaty." Given there was no peace settlement and no territorial cession, with Ukraine remaining a part fo Soviet Union, in the strict sense of the word there was no German conquest fo the territory, though there was certainly occupation. I note that the articles in Wikipedia point to long periods of occupation that completely reshaped the occupied societies as conquests:
Spanish conquest of Yucatán
Conquest of North America by Spain's Hernando de Soto
Conquest of South America by Francisco Pizarro and Hernando de Soto
Norman conquest of England
As it happens the occupation of Belgium and France was a culmination of several weeks of fighting that ended with a surrended of both, something that did not take place in Ukraine. Besides that I believe tha the terms of occupation in the West and the East were quite different.
In any case, what I was trying to say is that the word 'conquest' carries an implied meaning of relative permanence, and the advance, and later retreat, of German forces over the territory of Ukraine was not at all permanent, particularly when the behind the lines resistance is considered (which was also present in Belgium and France).--mrg3105mrg3105 01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

True. I suppose we tend to think of the Ukraine as a independent autonomous country even when we refer to it in the Soviet era. Though the majority of Ukrainians initialy hailed the Wehrmacht as liberators and there was a high degree of collaboration. Had it not been for Hitler's insistence that Nazi ideology dictated the Ukrainians treatment, there might have been a chance of an Axis satellite state, or at the least military assistance. Would the Ukrainians have been considered conquered in that case? Puppets of Nazi Germany? Perhaps it would be better to say overran the Ukraine rather than conquered? Dapi89 (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Ukraine's case is a bit more complex then portrayed in most Western history books. Most of the collaboration came from Western Ukraine who were a part of Poland before the (1939) war. Much of the Eastern Ukraine is Russian speaking still, as was Crimea (devoid of the Tartars). The Don Ukranians were not particularly pro-German, but all Ukranians were very much anti-Rumanian. In any case, I'll be happy with overran which is actually a bettr word then advance.--mrg3105mrg3105 12:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Source

Sorry, I was referring to the assertion that Stalin had direct and sole command forces. --Strothra (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Reserve+of+the+Supreme+High+Command

http://books.google.com/books?id=pX1AAvE64poC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=reserve+supreme+high+command&source=web&ots=eg5MVV3zQm&sig=MC6m0E35r9O3JMTVxhwyJwQPaTQ

This is the best I can do for now since I am not at home. However in Russian the name translates as Reserve of the Supreme High Commander, and that was Stalin.--mrg3105mrg3105 03:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Yassy-Kishinev requested move

The usual rule of thumb is 2/3 support as a minimum; but admins have fairly wide discretion to judge consensus. You should ask the closing administrator if you want more details on the reasoning behind his decision. Kirill 05:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

is the 66% support as a minimum an actual policy somewhere? I assume I get a supporting vote as the proposer? I have asked the administrator.--mrg3105mrg3105 05:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mrg, just knock it off for a couple of weeks will you? Concentrate on more productive stuff. We can try again later. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Navy

See how small this article is, in comparison with Red Army? You don't need to create a separate article for WW2, merely much-expand the WW2 section in the main article (with references) and create, when there's lots of information there on the smaller flotillas around the country, individual articles for them - along the lines of the Arctic Sea Flotilla article. When it reaches 80-90-100 kb them we can start thinking about doing subarticles. A template would be a good idea - only navy formations really. But also take a look at ru:Шаблон:Вооружённые силы СССР в ВОВ for ideas/alternatives. Finally, looking at the Baltic Fleet page, I believe it is still called today the Twice Red Banner Baltic Fleet - correct? Not just during Soviet times? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The ru template is massive!. I really think that Corps should be separated, but that's another story. The existing articles are (Russian). The Soviet Navy, when completed, would be massive, trust me. Look at the competitor USN. But ok, I am not prepared to bite off more then I can chew right now. Thanks--mrg3105mrg3105 11:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

RM is not a vote

But thanks anyway. - Francis Tyers · 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:Iași-Chișinău Offensive

While I do appreciate that you have toned down your talk page comments since being placed on formal notice of the Eastern European General Editing Restriction, messages like this can still be considered over the line. I know there's been a battle going on there for quite some time, and I am not taking sides in it; I only wanted to remind you one last time that personalizing disputes is not acceptable. In other words, keep your comments focused and refrain from making them about other editors in a derogatory fashion. Thank you. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Which articles did you write?--mrg3105mrg3105 04:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

talkback|Ioeth|My comments at Talk:Iași-Chișinău OffensiveIoeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 07:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Order of the Bath

Thanks for adding the new info to Order fo the Bath. However, could you excersize a little more caution in adding new info to already referenced information. The way you added Zhukov's name made it look as if he was awarded the decoration at the same time as Eisenhower and Macarthur, wehras in fact it was two eyars later and so need citing separately. i know you weren't deliberately tryign to mislead, but it could have had that effect. David Underdown (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of this, sorry. I made a note to find out the date of award as I could not verify it immediately. Thank you for fixing that. Cheers --mrg3105mrg3105 11:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Appeal of Digwuren General Editing Restriction

Please make this request at WP:AE as it will likely get a broader set of eyes on it sooner. I don't know how often the talk page for that case is looked at, but it would seem that you may get a better response from WP:AE. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I moved the appeal to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Appeals_and_requests_for_clarification. The Arbitrators generally do not watch closed cases. Thatcher 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh neat, I didn't know we had a separate place for that. I figured it would have just been handled at AE. My bad; thanks for the info, Thatcher. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, since I didn't know WP:AE was there. No one informed me it was a "closed case" either. I would like my name cleared if only a user name as a matter of principle, even if it does detract from my participation in Wikipedia as a whole.--mrg3105mrg3105 22:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Soviet official history in German and Battle of Narva articles

Hi Mrg3105, the German set is 12 volumes plus the translated set of maps. Yeah, I just list Grechko rather than putting the whole litany of names for the citation. In the case of the Narva article, I think the Soviet official history is a useful counterpoint to the obvious heavily-SS-influenced sources the original author of the article used. Hell, if Wiki is going to be used to remind the world of the acts of certain members of the SS it might as well remind the world that the "other side" was also made up of individual humans who also won high awards for their actions. Frankly, I'd rather take all the propaganda out of those articles, but I always try to keep as much as the original article structure intact as I can when I edit.
On your comment regarding the inapplicability of the text about the operations south of Leningrad, this was a case where the original article already mentioned this but coyly forgot to describe Soviet successes. The problem here is with article structure. As you point out, the article is about a bit more than the Battle of Narva itself, but the Battle of Leningrad article also skims over this period of time. The actions of the 2nd Shock Army and the 42nd Army may better belong in the Battle of Leningrad article, but I'd rather fix one article at a time, and frankly again, the Battle of Leningrad edits will be a great deal hotter than these (or so I assume). I will say bluntly, though, the conclusion of the Narva articles that these were "German victories" is errant nonsense, and when I have documented enough of the Soviet accomplishments to disprove this thesis, I intend to change the battle outcome as listed in the battle box. Would be interested in knowing what you think of this. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked: 24 hours for incivility under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren for this edit, as well as this edit which constitutes disruption to make a point. You have been warned twice and you persist in making personal attacks against other users. Having strong opinions, even if you are eventually vindicated, does not give you the privilege of attacking your fellow editors who disagree with you in such terms. Thatcher 23:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)