User talk:Mrg3105

Welcome!

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! 

For logical positivists
Logical positivism asserts that only statements about empirical observations are meaningful, effectively asserting that all metaphysical statements are meaningless.

Unfortunately, this fundamental tenet of logical positivism belongs to the family of statements that it asserts to be meaningless. As a result, the entire edifice of logical positivism vanishes in a puff of logic.

This insight appears not to have occurred to the logical positivist school of philosophers.

Archives
Archive 1 (2006-2007)
Archive 2 (1-15 Jan 2008)
Archive 3 (16-30 Jan 2008)
Archive 4 (1 - 28 Feb 2008)
Archive 5 (2 - 15 March 2008)
Archive 6 (16 - 31 March 2008)
Archive 7 (1 - 15 April 2008)
Archive 8 (16 - 30 April 2008)
Archive 9 (1 - 15 May 2008)
Archive 10 (16 - 31 May 2008)
Archive 11 (1 - 15 June 2008)
Archive 12 (16 - 30 June 2008)
Archive 13 (1 - 15 July 2008)
Archive 14 (16 - 31 July 2008)
Archive 15 (1 - 15 August 2008)

Causes of Wikipedia erosion

1. Good-faith change of referenced information (or even direct quotations) by subsequent editors who don't read the sources
2. Partial change of values in lists, tables and the like, while the rest is not updated, rendering the whole structure misleading.
3. Suppression of referenced information some users dislike, sometimes citing WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:BLP etc.

User:Colchicum

• Wikipedia:Overcategorization

Battle of the Atlantic

I've reverted a change you made here recently; I've posted it for discussion here. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Insulting people

I'm sorry Mrg, I've absolutely had enough. Your comment on 'making things up' to Biru is just about the last straw. If you insult anyone again, I will initiate the formal redress procedure - and I've already been encouraged to request Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction 'with extreme prejudice' against you. Please do not insult people in the course of improving WP. Buckshot06(prof) 22:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, David Irving made things up, and all Biru, and yourself are doing is supporting that discredited source. You find that insulting, stop supporting a know fraud. PS. How would demanding a reliable source be subject to Digwuren#General restriction?! At least you can come up with some other reason for the alleged insulting behaviour on my part. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re

The whole article is virtually unrefrenced! How can you replace my "unreferenced" info with the old unreferenced info and call it Wiki policy?! The only point that's really in dispute here is the joint operation business. Since I do have some corroboration of my edits, I wonder where you find the nerve to replace it with your own totally unreferenced version of a solely Red Army operation. All references in the article at this time state that the operation was one in which the Red Army participated, not commanded. The involved Partisan forces were at no time removed from Tito and the Partisan high command, the moment you have a reliable, unbiased, and preferably English source that says otherwise I will agree with you. You can't just remove things you do not like. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You are funny! Did you even look at my edit prior to yours? Did you think I could undertake such an extensive edit without any research? Did you look at my record of editing in the field of military history, or articles I created? You, an editor of 1 month, just dove in there "fixing" the article with NO references at all aside for a wholly unsourced online site. You have no corroboration for your edits until I see something acceptable in the Reference or Sources sections, and until something appears I can do as anyone would in removing what constitutes for Original Research. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Um... I started editing as DIREKTOR on January 7, 2007. You appear to have joined almost a year later. The difference may be that I do not boast with my edits, nor try to use them to act all "high and mighty" with other editors. I will keep this simple: if you have sources where are they!? can I see them, please!? Or am I to suppose your mysterious Russian book "source" now has a specific citation countering my position? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of military history your edits are very recent. I have other priorities and you will not dictate to me what I need to do. I accept that I have not added references, but my editing was not challenged by others, and I am challenging your editing, so the onus is on you to provide your reasons for me being wrong. So far I have realised that you do not understand what was going on in the operation.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Ps. most of my sources are in English, a few in German--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you accept that you have not added references, I wonder if you will accept that I have [1]? Please curb your arrogant tone of voice. Once again I'd like to offer a "cease fire" (even though my knowledge on ceasefires cannot be compared to yours), I can't remember how this escalated from the use of "Soviet" all the way to a contest of sorts... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a contest. You just need to understand terminology, the meaning of words and what constitutes a good source and how to reference. I only sound arrogant because you are unhappy with my opposing your edits. Please, do me a favour. Go and read the article BEFORE I had edited it. You will see that I did not get the contents out of my head. However, assembling references for a large article is more difficult then for small articles, and this is a large article. I was not prepared at that time to finish the job. Please note, the only thing in a reference article that ultimately counts is the quality of its sources.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not criticizing your editing skills, I'm merely saying that the article needed a grammar fix, and was one-sided, much as you yourself admitted. I fixed some grammar and familiar Slavic sentence structure, and tried to balance it by removing some of the emphasis on Red Army units, without removing any information (if you remember I said the info you added, though unsourced, appears to be realistic). The "one-sidedness" of the article manifested itself in the omition of the fact that this was (at least officially) a joint operation due to strong political reasons.
I've read the articles you listed on your page quite a while ago, and am familiar with Wiki policy and guidelines. While aware of its shortcomings, I listed vojska.net as a usually acceptable (and frequently cited) source in these matters, but I naturally had to look for better references when insisted upon. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, do me a favour. You just said "this was (at least officially) a joint operation". You go and find who, when and where made this official, and preferably the document that said so. Ok? This is called research, and good sources. Meanwhile I will contact Mr Glantz for further guidance on this and the other matters.

Forget moving stuff in the article. I will revert eventually anyway when I get a chance. you do not understand the operational role of the 4MC. As it happens it cam from the "back" as it were. When I am done with that article it will be twice the size with at least 5-10 published sources, so don't worry about grammar and all that. The version I left was far from finished and I said so in the summary edit. You can help, but right now you are just not really doing anything but shuffling words around. I do not have a political perspective although I have been accused of being pro-Soviet of all things.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Soviet! You! couldn't be! ;) Look, I respect your work and commitment, but you must understand one thing: this is not just another eastern front article, and Yugoslavs are not Romanians or Bulgarians, but a far larger and more independent force with significant backing of the western Allies. I say this because you have to keep that in mind during article expansion. As for my source, it is very reliable and clearly states that the operation was conducted by a joint military force, you should not delete it, as its supposed insignificance is based only on your own "interpretation". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing: I'm not just some Balkans freak annoying you out of some insignificant sense of patriotism. I'm a Balkans freak annoying you because I have real historic information that needs to be taken into consideration. In a few words this is what I'm trying to tell you: the Yugoslav Partisans are a special case in WW2 Europe. Why? Because it was a strategically significant force (800,000 men, 4 field armies), that appeared on its own and was very protective of its independence. The Red Army could not simply take control of their army as it did with Bulgaria and Romania, because they would not let them, and they had the backing of the west in their independence. Indeed Yugoslavia was not liberated by the Red Army, but liberated itself (a rather unique case). All I'm saying is that you should take that into consideration that you're in the Balkans now, and that nothing is as simple as it seems. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am just a military historian. I have absolutely no interest in politics, despite my academic degree, outside of their influence on military operations. Had you contacted me, I would have explained that the operations in the Balkans outside of Red Army operations are outside of the scope of my project. What happened to the Yugoslav resistance prior to 1944 is out of my sphere of interest right now. However, since you went and created the articles for the Yugoslav units, I will advise you that they will need to be renamed because they are not named according to the convention on nit naming accepted in the project. You will also fin me questioning your redirects to Yugoslav Partisans title at a later stage.

If you are unsure as to what "joint operations" mean, please ask. If you feel I ma not the right person to ask, you can ask Buckshot06 who is probably more then capable of explaining the concept. For the record, Stalin did not conduct joint operations with anyone. My interpretations of Joint Operations come from the NATO manual.

You are, judging from your last reply, confused. You can not separate the concept of political independence of the Yugoslav forces, and their operational subordination to the 3rd Ukrainian Front. However, if you are confused, that means others will be also, so I will endeavour to put together additional data on this aspect of the operation in future.

Self-liberation of Yugoslavia is a myth--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not confused. I thought I explained earlier that the unique political independence of the Yugoslav forces was such that it caused their strategic independence in 1944 operations. I maintain that the Yugoslav forces were strategically under the command of Marshal Tito and their own Supreme HQ, while only coordinating their efforts with the Soviet forces. You have still not given me any reason whatsoever to believe otherwise besides your word.
Despite my deep interest in WW2 history (military and otherwise), I am not a historian, but a mere medical student. If you are a historian (which I do not doubt) your knowledge certainly surpasses mine in military history, but I shall be so bold as to contradict you firmly in this matter: the liberation of Belgrade was not an operation solely under the command of the Soviet Red Army. If you do posses information that states otherwise, please share it so that I may understand the foundation of your firm position here. I admit that I may be wrong here, but I also hope you may admit the same.
Furthermore, may I suggest that we use the current version of the introduction text as a compromise? It is reliably referenced and does not contradict with your position or mine. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Strategic independence of Yugoslavia was not really something Tito could assure without Stalin's support despite cooperation with Western Allies. However, strategic independence of Yugoslav forces is not questioned in the article! Did you notice that only one of the four Yugoslav Armies actually took part in this operation? This is besides the fact that the 1st Yugoslav Army Group was a severely weakened formation by Red Army standards, lacking in artillery, armour and above all air support. The Yugoslav Army (as opposed to the army) simply could not operate independently even against the comparatively weak German Army Groups. It may be that Tito was in control of the Yugoslav Armies strategically, but operationally, and this is what I'm talking about in the article, there was no chance of Yugoslav troops operating on their own outside of 3UF operational planning protocols. If you understood as much about military operations as much as you may understand about surgical operations, you would realise the impossibility of your earlier statements. And despite that you took a butcher's knife to the article like you were doing an autopsy! Anyone who knows about urban assault combined operations will not even question that the assault on Belgrade was under total Red Army control. These are among the most complex of operations at the best of times without semi-irregular Yugoslav forces participating in one. To put it into medical terms, an urban joint operation is a brain surgery where one surgeon is a neurologist an the other a family doctor. Please don't take this with disrespect, but the Red Army had by this stage 3 years of city fighting experience while the Yugoslav troops had just emerged from their areas of control. I do not know what you call reliably referenced since I have not seen the latest reference you added, but it had better be a sources that explicitly states the degree and nature of "jointness" between the two forces. I will contribute references when I am ready. I can tell you now that you will need to take a ticket since others are ahead of you on these requests.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(Oh LoL, can we forget my studies? I do know a few things about military history, believe me :) My apologies, I expressed myself incorrectly. What I mean was that the liberation of Belgrade was not an operation solely under the command of the Soviet Red Army, and that involved Partisan forces were not under overall Soviet, but Partisan command. Now, I harbor no illusions about the capabilities of the Partisans, and I am not saying that they were capable of pulling off this particular operation on their own. Besides the sources I listed, the reason for my conviction lays also in the tremendous fanfare that was raised about this issue in Yugoslavia. This relatively small point was emphasized over and over again by Yugoslav media and history books. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC) All in all, I suggest we use the current wording and leave this dispute be. I dare say it has already sapped far too much of our combined time and typing energy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you will not like the answer, but I can not accept any wording, indeed any word in the article that does not reflect or is reflected in sources. Would any of your patients be happy with an almost successful operation?

I care even less about the Yugoslav Media then I do about Yugoslav politics. It may not be what you want to hear either. All I can do is repeat that there is no way in this world that the Yugoslav troops were operating under independent command during this offensive. Its is just laughable even if I had no way to substantiate what I said. Journalists may write what they want, but ask any military officer and he/she will tell you its inconceivable for the size of the op.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ok, you maintain that my position is "laughable", I understood as much. I shall have to demand real evidence to that effect, that's all I'm saying. However, please note that the sentence:
"...an offensive military operation conducted by a joint Partisan-Soviet force."
is properly referenced in accordance with Wiki policy. It may not be altered at will. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My site

My articles get update when I have free time which is unfortunately very little at the moment so many old articles are still in broken English lacking specific reference while others have more details then history books, not to mention I have acquired so many books that I don't know where to start each time I want to fix/update/add something! :-) Hopefully my new Content management system will be completed soon which will allow me to work a lot faster.

I think you missed the point with Google, not linking to my website while using it as source would be really unfair, its not linking that kills my ranking its wikipedia itself since Google has given Wikipedia Page Rank of massive 9/10 which then spreads to all its article even if they are stubs and as Google also considers wiki to be trusted website it gives it even more unnatural boost in search results, you could create blank pages with title of all article from my website and they would remove me from first place despite the fact that my articles actually have text while wiki articles are blank! :-/

To make matters worse wiki decided in order to discourage spammers to place nofollow tag on external links which prevents Wikipedia to spread its Page Rank to other website including sources in other words wikipedia takes without giving anything back (from personal experience I rarely click on source links at wiki and traffic I get from wiki is far from comparable to Google), end result is I get drop in traffic and lose valuable feedback from visitors (since I have submission form which is easy to use even to most inexperienced surfers) which helped me to improve many of my articles not to mention drop in ads earnings which pays for hosting and allowed me to purchase some really expensive books which otherwise I would never buy since price tag of over $100 is little too much for hobby website.

That is why I'm regularly patrolling wiki since there have been many cases (especially on Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian wiki) in which users simply copy/pasted my website content and I got penalized by Google as duplicate content and removed from search results. I have similar problems with many other website all over internet where the owner rips me off and plays dumb, this also partially killed my enthusiasm to work on my website or wiki since I have to spend more time on protecting my work then creating it. :-( --Ivan Bajlo (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I certainly did not use any material from your site when I edited the article Belgrade Offensive. I also don't think that DIREKTOR has since he mostly rearranged what I have written. I was going to use your site to fix the names of the Yugoslav formation and unit commanders, but without references all I could do is use the bibliography which I have saved on my own pc. I have no problem linking to your articles if they were referenced to Wiki standards, but would not plagiarise. However, if you would like to collaborate on the article, that would be great since the Yugoslav troops are a weak point in my own library. Unfortunately I don't know what to suggest about protecting your work --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the stuff from vojska.net contradicts your edits to some degree. If you remember, however, I said that your info, though unsourced, appears fine and realistic. This is why I did not remove it outright, but asked you to provide a real source for all of it, so that we mere mortals may see which is correct. Once again, I ask you not to twist words or try to demean my good faith edits. I did not "reshuffle" or "rearrange" your text, I cleaned it up (fixed spelling and Slavic sentence construction). I dare say any impartial observer will find the text of much higher quality far easier to read now. (As an example of what I mean, I provide a single kilometer-long sentence from your text:[2]

"Belgrade Strategic Offensive Operation (14 September 1944 - 24 November 1944) was a military operation by the armed forces of the 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian Fronts (including the 2nd Bulgarian Army), in coordination with the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia (NOAYU) against Nazi Germany and its Croatian and the Serbian and Chetniks during the Great Patriotic War, to destroy the forces of German Army Group E in the Suva Planina region, and Army Group F east of Morova river, and ultimately the liberation of Belgrade." This, of course, is probably only the best example.)

Gospodine Bajlo, I also would greatly appreciate it if you could lend us a hand with this article. I admit I'm probably not a match for the all-knowing mrg here, and any assistance would be invaluable for the creation of a more balanced (Soviet/Yugoslav) article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately since currently I'm trying to start a small business which will hopefully be able to support my hobbies besides me I'm unable to do lot of work but I'll try to do some updates at my website. There is also another problem of WP:COI which certain people already used against me for adding links to my website in some articles (I'm in open war with admins at Croatian wiki) plus big part of my work would fall into category WP:NOR so I decided to limit myself to adding interwiki links at Wikipedia and stick to my own website for articles to avoid problems. Hopefully I'll find some free time in the near future and maybe make a book out of my website. ;-) --Ivan Bajlo (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Will buy :), see you around. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, there is no limit to sentence length outside of the reasonable in Wikipedia.

The sentence you find exceedingly long actually is the shortest posible:

• 1. the name - "Belgrade Strategic Offensive Operation
• 2. when - (14 September 1944 - 24 November 1944)
• 3. What is it - was a military operation by the armed forces of the
• 4. who was in it - 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian Fronts (including the 2nd Bulgarian Army), in coordination with the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia (NOAYU) against Nazi Germany and its Croatian and the Serbian and Chetniks
• 5. context - during the Great Patriotic War,
• 6. purpose - to destroy the forces of German Army Group E in the Suva Planina region, and Army Group F east of Morova river, and ultimately the liberation of Belgrade."

"Most of the stuff from vojska.net contradicts your edits to some degree" - this is temporary due to the unfinished nature of the article, as I said in the edit summary. However, inevitably there will be contradictions in operational accounts where two, or more in this case, forces participate, and is to be expected. It is dealt with by producing references to support statements.

"good faith edits" - these are only good if backed up by references. I don't care if you completely rewrite what I wrote as long as you back it up with references of your own, and to sources that actually deal with the subject matter, and not use country data from the Library of Congress to try and convince me there was combined operational command on this sector of the Eastern Front.

"fixed spelling and Slavic sentence construction" - you fixed some Yugoslavian spelling, which is great, but as to my sentence construction, it was just fine. You did however rearrange it to give greater prominence to the Yugoslavian forces in the operation, and that is not fine without references. In one case you had reversed the roles of the Yugoslavian leg infantry and the 4th Mech Corps in the role of assaulting Belgrade which clearly showed that you did not understand the role of either in terms of operational use, or the capabilities of the formations involved, what with the Yugoslav troops moving at the speed of their horse-based rear services. This is not on.

"the all-knowing mrg" - actually I have clearly stated several times I am not all knowing, but nor do I diminish my level of knowledge gained over decades

"creation of a more balanced (Soviet/Yugoslav) article" - in Wikipedia as in any reference work we do not "create" articles, but research, write and edit them based on sources.

Ivan, if I may suggest, you could avoid WP:COI by collaborating with other editors on the articles. You can also avoid WP:NOR by getting published in publications such as THE JOURNAL OF SLAVIC MILITARY STUDIES where the editor is a very prominent military historian Mr. David Glantz. Should you decide to do so, I can put you in touch with him.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the text was nigh illegible. I'm not criticizing the actual length of the sentence but its lack of structure and cohesion, not to mention the fact that parts of it were incorrect: The Chetniks, for example did not participate in the battle itself, and they certainly are not the Croatian Home Guard, which is the article their wikilink led to. Also, I do not need references if I do not add any info. On the contrary, you need sources to prove something before it can be included (such as Chetnik participation). Are you really saying that the text didn't need a grammar cleanup?! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My information suggests that the Chetniks were in the area of operation during the conduct of the offensive. What their role was, I have not yet determined.

The Croatian Home Guard were certainly in the German retreat according to German sources. If I linked them to the wrong Wikipedia article, it was not intentional

As for grammar, I find that fairly subjective in case of English as a language.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on! just read the article ffs: it was completely written in what I like to call "Slavic English", a coarse translation of Slavic text into English without the accompanying changes in sentence structure. Sentences written in "Slavic English" are very awkward at best, and unintelligible at worst. The former versions of the article had both examples.
The Chetniks were in the "area" (eastern Yugoslavia), but, though they were quislings, I seriously doubt they participated in the operation side by side with the "Nedićevci" and the Ustaše.
The NDH forces were certaibly in the area (Yugoslavia), holding the line against the Allies, but once again I doubt they were involved in the actual defense of the Serbian capital (being rabidly anti-Serb and all). All in all, WW2 Yugoslavia is a very complicated political theater, with each side having its own bitter enemies and allies. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I will review the grammar, and no doubt Buckshot06 will also.

"I seriously doubt they participated", "once again I doubt they were involved" - when in doubt, cite sources. Just saying that I did not cite sources so its not true is not the right thing because I explicitly said in the edit summary that the article is NOT finished.

"WW2 Yugoslavia is a very complicated political theater" - what does this have to do with the Belgrade Offensive? --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The grammar has been corrected. If you think parts of it were POV, I won't object to a limited correction (I am certainly not trying to diminish the importance of the Red Army here), but don't undo the whole thing without grounds. Keep in mind that the overwhelming emphasis on Soviet units has been lessened (withou removal of info!) in the pursuit of a more balanced non-Russian article, partly even due to your own objections (I read the discussion before editing).
Perhaps this is your problem. Your knowledge on Red Army operations certainly appears very well founded, but I dare say you're treading in somewhat unfamiliar waters here. The general political situation, and the alliances and enmities herein play an extremely significant role when discussing the Yugoslav front.
One final, rather significant, matter: you cannot ask people to prove a negative. You can't write something like "The Chetniks participated in the operation." and then ask someone to prove that you're wrong. Rather, you must first prove your point before it is even included. Do you get my point? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are not going to get me to start a review of the article which I am not prepared for right now. I work at my own pace and to my own wants. However, if you think the article is unbalanced, you can write the article on the Yugoslav Army Belgrade Offensive.

Even a cursory perusal of Wikipedia articles will tell you that proving the negative is just part of editing here, so get used to it. That is why I keep asking for references--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Get use to it"?! I certainly won't, reference your claims.
I'm not trying to get you to do anything. I don't think the article is unbalanced now, but it obviously had an over-emphasis on Soviet advances and movements. A perfectly understandable fact considering the text was originally Russian. You yourself even agreed to this, but are now apparently contradicting me for the sake of it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I can't imagine what manner of sources you will find that will allow you to rewrite the article while ignoring the fact that the operation was conducted by a joint force (unless that is fully refuted, of course). I must ask you to treat Red Army and Partisan troops as equally as possible, as the latter by no means played a secondary role in the offensive. There really is no need for this continued enmity, ffs, we're all Allies here ;). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, what you are suggesting is WP:OR. I have no evidence that the Belgrade Offensive operation, an operation planned and executed by the Red Army, ever included the Yugoslav forces as a significant factor in planning. You may not like it, but that is how it is. As I understand it, most of the objectives of the operation were secured by the Red Army without any significant Yugoslav participation, or with minor support until the final phase. The 4GMC was tailored for operations in the depth of enemy rear, so the encounter of Yugoslav troops was welcome, but not necessary. Hence the obvious emphasis on Red Army in the article. I can not possibly treat the operations of the two Red Army Fronts as equals with the 1st Yugoslav Army, and not only for the rather obvious reasons of size and composition. The two forces had entirely different operational methods, objectives and command staffs. Its Apples and oranges stuff! I have no idea where you get this "enmity" or us being "allies". As I said before, I have no dispute with anyone who can provide valid sources for their statements. IF you can prove that the two Red Army Fronts and the 1st Yugoslav Army operated as a "joint force" from MILITARY HISTORY sources, more the power to you because I have never seen this suggested although I admit to not being an expert in the area. However, I can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that no General of the Army in the Red Army would have ever accepted a Yugoslav Major General as an equal, never mind being subordinated to one. This is probably true for any army in the World. In any case, you know where I stand. When I have all my sources together I will return to the article.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Now we're entering the realm of speculation. Exactly how significant were the actions and objectives of the Red Army in comparison to those of the Yugoslav Partisans? This is where POVs has a tremendous effect. Would the Red Army be capable of liberating the city on their own? Would the Partisans be able to liberate the city on their own (eventually)? You do not know, you can only suppose, and that is not what an article should be like. I cannot imagine what source you will find that will corroborate speculation.
It is highly disputable which side exactly is in a majority, or on the whole more significant (in Yugoslavia), and if you include all the 3rd and 4th Fronts, we must include the entirety of the 800,000-strong Partisans. I can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that no officer of the Yugoslav Partisans would take orders from the Red Army. What I propose is that we stay well out of all that. I propose we simply treat both of these forces completely equally. Since neither the Soviets nor the Yugoslavs were under the command of one another. (As for your baseless criticism of all sources that happen to contradict you, I will not discuss it anymore. If you remove the source I'm getting an RfC to see just how many people think that the US Library of Congress is an unreliable source.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I will point out once more that the international status of the Yugoslav Partisans (and Yugoslavia itself) was very different from that of the Bulgarian or Romanian Army. Why? 1) they had significant backing from London, 2) they were far more militarily significant, being both stronger in overall military power, well experienced, and able to withstand vastly superior forces on their own ground (perhaps even the Red Army for a time), 3) they were never part of the Axis, and were formed completely on their own, starting to fight on the same day as the Soviet Union. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at AN/I

Hi Mrg3105,

Just to inform you that a discussion has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#mrg3105_incivility_at_Talk:Belgrade_Offensive regarding the tone of your remarks and their inherent incivility. Do please read the discussion and contribute to it if you would like to. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing restriction reminder

Mrg3105, after looking through your recent contributions, I feel I have to remind you about the editing restrictions listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction. You are already aware of this as of this this warning and this block. I wish to strongly remind you that incivility and tendentious editing including edit warring and blind reverting will not be tolerated. If you continue this behaviour then I will have to enforce the remedy again.

Also, before trying to remind others of editing guidelines, you might wish to re-read them. The thing about Wikipedia is that we prefer to do our own research rather then rely on other reference works! This is against the core policy of WP:OR. Woody (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The tone of your response is not helpful and is exactly what I was talking about. I have looked into your edits, it took me a whole 24 hours to fully evaluate all of the information. I repeat that if you do not stop your incivility and general bullishness, then I will have to block you. Woody (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you saying, that WP:V has been deleted while I wasn't looking?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not about content, it is about you. There are ways to enforce policy; do it in a civil manner. Simply put, you have not being doing this. You also refuse to listen to the opinions of others and their interpretation of policy. If you dispute a source take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Don't revert and argue ad nauseum on talkpages. Woody (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Woody, give me a break. What are you suggesting, that I ask Wikipedia to declare country data from the Library of Congress an unreliable source because someone is misusing it?!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is too funny! At the top of the page for the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view.

The very thing I have been harping on about. The guy is asking me to give equal credit to Yugoslav troops in an operation with no proof for it! That is contrary to all three Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to get into a convoluted argument with you about the content. This is about your behaviour. You disagree with what he has to say, with sources backing him up, and you are pushing your argument forward in a manner completely against guidelines and common manners. As I said earlier, and this is the last time I will say it, if you continue, you will be blocked. Woody (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not pushing my argument. I have tried to explain several times why his edits are inappropriate. Exactly what do you suggest I do, get an RfC? I am frustrated by DIREKTOR's unwillingness to listen --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Here it is from WP:V Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'm frustrated by your unwillingness to listen. You're the only person I've met that actually stated the Red Army was not "of the Soviet Union", i.e. "Soviet". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And there is your source of frustration. You have misrepresented what I said.

The army of the Soviet Union

• before 1946 - Red Army - therefore Red Army's 18th Army
• after 1946 - Soviet Army - therefore Soviet Army's 40th Army

Ok?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(Do you honestly still think I never heard about the Red Army rename?) I misinterpreted what you said? No I don't think so, these are your words: [3] "...just because the Red Army is a part of Soviet Union, it is not 'Soviet'." Even though 'Soviet' means 'of the Soviet Union' (see [4]). An admittance of error on your part would be nice, but I doubt that will happen. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching this page Mrg3105 and haven't seen the need for my input. I am not getting involved in a content dispute at this time, I am only making sure that you remain civil and within the editing restrictions placed upon you both.

In terms of your claim that calling it Red Army or Soviet is "extraordinary" then I think you are misinterpreting policy; Extraordinary would be claiming that George Bush has three testicles, or that Gordon Brown is actually an alien. We follow the common name policy where appropriate, and this would seem to me to be one of these moments. That you refuse to compromise is indicative of your behaviour in this case. Woody (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may Mrg3105, I'd like to comment. I've looked at your edits and they seem to be serious and educated and devoted to making Wikipedia better. You have, however, a confrontational style that will do nothing but make you enemies. Wikipedia has what we can call a 'house style', encompassing everything from the reliability of sources to the tone of editors' contributions. There are good reasons for this: without it, the whole thing would fall down. So, if you want to edit Wikipedia, it's best to play within the rules. No matter how irksome you may find them. You know, my training on Wiki was the battleground that is WWII Yugoslavia, where I learned 1 edit 1 source, 1 edit 1 source. It's good training, believe me. I've applied this, even in articles about 19th century Maltese bureaucrats. You see, street training. Good luck with your future edits. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well AlasdairGreen27, what you suggest is not so simple. I am working on an ever expanding range of articles. In the Eastern Front range alone there are so many missing that I have not even been able to establish the upper limit of my new article needs. There were some very bad articles in the range, and still are. Because people read articles all the time, my project is split into two, seemingly logical phases: 1) correct existing contents to reflect current accepted research in general and expand the articles to at least reflect basic components; 2) fully reference the contents on the "second pass".

When I encounter other editors working on any of the articles, I always offer collaboration because quite frankly I can use all the help I can get. However, I have a personal stringency to content quality which is seemingly far higher then the accepted level of quality in Wikipedia n general. You will find that all my articles, where I have worked on the as second pass, are fully referenced and linked to other referenced Wikipedia articles.

I had tried to explicitly explain to DIREKTOR the reasons why his edits are not welcome. Whatever he thinks of my English grammar, his edits in how they concern the subject of the article are not acceptable within the WP:V. I do not accept irrelevant and decontextualised references to back up WP:OR. If you look at the degree of my editing prior to DIREKTOR, you will see that I substantially expanded the article, so I must know something about what the subject is about. I have not made statements which are representing anyone's POV, but simply asked DIREKTOR to provide his own substantiation to the contrary, and he has not been forthcoming. Currently I do not have the time to spend on a knee-jerk reaction to his editing. He may continue editing, and providing false image of the event to the readers, which seems to be what you and Woody are suggesting is the right thing to do if DIREKTOR simply refuses to listen to reason. However when I return for the "second pass", I will be re-editing the article with the full use of my sources (still getting some together), and given DIREKTOR's current editing, he is not going to like this one bit, so I would rather resolve his misunderstanding now, because I dill go to all possible lengths, including Arbcom, to ensure that what I edit is of the highest quality. I see quality as the only determinant on which an editor may be judged, and don't care if I am not "liked" for behaviour because that is not the "face" the Wikipedia user sees. I DO attempt to explain, reason, and provide sources for my statements, but if people are not willing to listen when I say "black", and keep insisting on "white", I do become frustrated. As it happens in this case I do not have the level of expertise on the Yugoslav Army that I have on the Red Army. From the Red Army sources, including memoirs of Marshal Tolbukhin which are available online, there is nothing to suggest joint operations with the Yugoslav Army. I am in the process of obtaining additional resources for my research on the subject, but they are not surrently available to me, or to Mr.David Glantz, so DIREKTOR will just have to wair since he is unwilling to spend the money on book in the way Ivan does.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Woody, you have not seemingly followed the discussion on the Talk:Belgrade Offensive. So to summarise below

• DIREKTOR claims that the operation, which all sources available to me say was planned and executed solely by the two Red Army Fronts, was in fact a joint operation with the Yugoslav Army. The "proof" he offers is from a general country data source compiled to reflect the very general history of he country of Yugoslavia as a whole that confirms that Red Army and Yugoslav troops entered the city jointly, i.e. together. I have not disputed that they entered the city together, but asked to produce the sources that confirm that this was a combined or joint operation since the concept was unknown in the Red Army until it became the Soviet Army during the formation of the Warsaw Pact. DIRECTOR has not provided such a source.
• The issue of calling units Soviet is simply ahistorical as I have tried to explain with no success. Quite simply the army of Soviet Union underwent a name change after the war, just like the USAAF became USAF. Various editors and even published authors have persisted in applying the Cold War naming to the formations as Soviet, meaning Soviet Army, to the Second World War, even though the name was Red Army. In a reference work this is a warranted degree of precision. Same applies to the use of (for example) "German" IX Corps, which was in fact Wehrmacht, since during the Second World War German refered neither to the state (German Reich), nor to a military organisation (Wehrmacht), but to a European language group that includes annexed Austrians, neutral Swiss, and the Volga Germans some of whom fought in the Red Army. The use is just sloppy for a reference work given there are Wikipedia articles that explain what Heer, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine are, as well as the Red Army. If on the other hand the reader looks at German he or she will not get much of an idea on the military aspect, and same can be said for Soviet Union.
• Common name use and compromise are not made in Wikipedia to the detriment of its contents where the content is properly referenced. In this case all the articles above are properly referenced, and are the common names for use when writing on the subject. There is no need to use what had been veritable slang like "Reds", "Soviets", "Nazis", "Yanks", etc. when correct terms are very acceptable in the history discipline. However, DIRECTOR had twisted my explanation of this to say that - I declared the Red Army was not "Soviet". --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

omfg, if its only the wording "joint operation" that bothers you (even though it is not in the text), then we can change it to "an operation conducted in cooperation". But the real problem here is that you insist in depicting Yugoslav units here as "secondary", when their participation was conducted in the manner of a fully independent force, pivotal to the success of the offensive. Once again, this was not a Red Army operation, this was an operation of the Soviet Red Army and the Yugoslav Partisans, you have yet to provide sources stating otherwise.
As for "Soviet", I will only say that it is NOT a slang or pejorative, ([5]) and that I intend to use the full scope of the English language while editing around here, i.e. I will not use "Red Army 3rd Army" if I can use "Soviet 3rd Army". BTW, mrg, have you read the article Nazi Germany?, I remind you that WP:COMMONNAME is more important than what you personally may or may not consider to be "proper". "Nazi", unlike "Soviet" is both a slang and a pejorative, and yet, lo and behold! it is used all over Wikipedia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the issue is the concept of the operational interaction and not the wording. And you have said it above, The Yugoslav army as reconstituted by Tito was largely operating independently. I have no idea what their operation was called that eventually led to the taking of Belgrade, but every source I have says the the Belgrade Offensive was a Red Army operations largely planned and executed by the 3rd Ukrainian Front. In the progress of the operation some of the Front's formations and units interacted and supported Yugoslav forces, notably in the air. The Yugoslav forces were not a part of the operational planning, and took very little part in the operation as conducted according to Tolbukhin's plan. Where the Yugoslav troops did come into contact with Red Army units, they, according to an agreement with Stalin, were operationally subject to Red Army command while remaining organisationally outside of it. You said you read Russian, so read Tolbukhin's memoirs for a start.

Common names are not there for that purpose. Read again the intent of that guideline. It is absolutely unnecessary to state the possible political persuasion of the troops, particularly since the vast majority of forces on either side were not members of either the Nazi Party of the Communist Party. Using "full scope of English language" also has nothing to do with it, but I do expect the English language to be used within the context intended by it, so I will revert your "Soviet" where it is used in conjunction with units and formations before 1946 as being factually wrong.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So you're threatening with revert-war? Fine, you do that, and we'll see if I'm allowed to use the adjective "Soviet" in this encyclopedia. Once again: "Soviet" is NOT a slang, look up any dictionary, they make the distinction. (Your pro-Soviet, or should I say "pro-Red Army", POV must truly be tremendously strong when you refuse to acknowledge this simple fact.)
As the liberation. Please explain to me how can the liberation of Belgrade be a "largely Red Army operation", if the Yugoslav Partisans participated in the fighting to such a degree that sources refer to their force as a "joint force" [6]? I would also advise you to please not start again with your POV-fest on how the US Library of Congress is incorrect, and that you, the all-knowing mrg, are right. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Another question: in your opinion, was the operation we are talking about conducted in cooperation between the Red Army and the Yugoslav Partisans

Again, you fail to understand what the article is about, and use statements out of context. The Belgrade Offensive was a "largely Red Army operation", with the exception of the Bulgarian troops on the extreme southern flank, because it was conceived as such. This is called operational planning, and took place entirely within the confines of the HQ staff of the 3rd Ukrainian Front. Yugoslav forces may have participated in the fighting during the course of the Red Army's offensive, but they were not a significant part of the operational planning by the 3rd Ukrainian Front for operational reasons. I mean, really, you need to read something about the way militaries work to understand this and I can not teach you everything in the scope of Talk! Yugoslav troops used different communications protocols and equipment, were not at all coordinated with Red Army logistics that determine joint operations, were separated from Red Army by Wehrmacht forces, etc. It was operationally impossible to ensure closer cooperation then the very basic measure of inserting liaison teams, which was done only to ensure IFF.

So, again, the answer to your question of "was the operation we are talking about conducted in cooperation between the Red Army and the Yugoslav Partisans" the answer is empathic no.

You just have to look at the enormous difficulties experienced in the UK Armed Forces which pioneered combined operation to appreciate their complexity, and difficulty of implementation. Even conducting combined operations between forces speaking relatively same language like the British and American forces was a testing ground that took literally years to iron out. Within NATO the interoperability issue has been plaguing the doctrinal development of unified commands for much of the Cold War. The US DoD has as Joint Command that does nothing other then work on ensuring the interoperability within its own force structures actually functions as intended in combat. So how do you expect this to magically happen in a few short weeks in one sector of the front within planning of one operation by one Front staff with no prior experience or doctrine?! --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, I could not dream of even trying to reach your astronomic level of knowledge. Your tone of discussion insults my intelligence, and I'm starting to wonder whether you are the Great Military Historian you say you are. Now you're saying that an operation is not conducted in cooperation if the planing is done by the Soviets. First you said that the command of the Partisan forces was in Soviet hands, now you appear to be backing down from that. Do you realize how that sounds? However, I also wonder if you are correct in your claim that the Partisans command had no impact on the planning, and I'm done taking your word for anything. The joint entry into Belgrade was of paramount importance to the Partisans. Anyway, as I said, I'm not interested in what you say you "know", only what you can prove, and I'm done taking your word for all this stuff. Either present your sources or stop with the unfounded claims, this is starting to get ridiculous. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore if two armies cooperated in any military venture, than that military venture is conducted in cooperation. This is not history, this is plain English and common sense. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, it is really frustrating when one is continuously being taken out of context. WHEN the Yugoslav units or troops encountered the Red Army troops, the Red Army assumed operational and tactical command within the scope of that local interaction. This procedure is actually universal to this day. Its just something you would know after 20+ years of research.

No, plain English and common sense do not apply in a "military venture". Anyone knows that armies do not speak plain anything, and rarely make sense :) Seriously though, your concept of cooperation is way off from the meaning of the word in military use. It has about the same relationship as "healing" is to "cardiac surgery". And no, doctors don't speak plain English either, and certainly do not make common sense to the common person who is not medically trained. Why do you think your profession can have exclusivity on professional language use, but the military profession should be reduced to the level of journalistic writing? Again, this is a reference work--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The read army assumed operational control? I do not care about your personal opinion. Prove it or stop making unfounded claims. Oh you have, what, some 50 years of research?, that's interesting. I'm Drew Gilpin Faust, the President of Harvard University on vacation in Croatia, honest I am.
Also, let me assure you that plain English and common sense do indeed apply, if you disagree, that is your own problem. Any person of any profession can plainly see that if two armies cooperated in any military venture, than that military venture is conducted in cooperation. Why do you constantly reject logic in conversation? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, professor or medical student, whatever. You just keep editing and when I'm ready I'll do what I need to do. Certainly an interesting way to spend a vacation by editing Wikipedia ;)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(Actually I was being sarcastic, sorry, I'll make it more obvious for you next time.) I certainly hope you do high quality research, goodness knows Wiki needs more of it (keep WP:V in mind). However, you may rest assured that every bit of unbalanced text will be edited, and that POV reverts will be questioned. I am prepared to go all the way to ArbCom on this, so I suggest you keep to the sources as much as possible here, and make them good ones, as I don't doubt you will. You would do well to remember that the sole cause of this dispute (or whatever you may call it) is the fact that you gave no references, arrogantly contradicted without sources all that I said, and then proceeded to squabble over even the most obvious edits in the most uncompromising and impolite manner, on the very verge of personal attacks. What I mean to say is that if you truly do find honest to goodness sources saying that the Yugoslavs did not cooperate with the Soviets, but were instead under their command, I will naturally yield the argument. Though I doubt that occured, it may be possible, but you can't expect people to take your word on that, and then insult their intelligence when they don't. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Budapest Offensive

A little confused on which reference you mean; there's nothing inline. Glantz?

"Joint" and "Combined arms" have slightly different meanings, at least in the U.S. A operation is joint if more than one service is involved, while a combined operation is a synthesis of qualitatively different types of forces. So, a mission by Navy F-18's and Air Force F-16's would be joint, but not combined. A Marine operation with infantry, engineers, Harriers, artillery, and tanks would be combined, but not joint, if they attacked overland and didn't need Navy amphibious lift.

Many operations, of course, are both joint and combined. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the difference in the interpretation, and hopefully will get a chance to include that in the expansion of combined operations. Of course if you have the sources ready at hand I would appreciate your edits.

The references are in the introduction section of the Belgrade Offensive article.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Panzer division vs Panzer divisions

Hi.

To be clear, I moved Panzer Division to Panzer division. There were no plural "divisions" involved (nor should there be, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)).

This article is about the type of unit called a panzer division. This is a common noun, and is not normally capitalized in English. The proper name of a particular division would be capitalized, for example, "the 1st Panzer Division". These normal rules of English capitalization are clearly restated with examples in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms.

PS: If you sign your posts with "~~~~", it will make it easier for other editors to get right back to you, instead of having to check the edit history or try to guess which parts of "-mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣" represent your user name. —Michael Z. 2008-05-22 03:13 z

I'm still not sure which link you mean, but it's no trouble.

And sorry, I noticed after I left my note that your normal sig has a link, and something must have misfired.

PS: In case you don't already do it this way, you can put your full sig in the Signature field in Special:Preferences, check "Raw signature", and then sign with three tildes. For comparison, my Signature field contains the following:

 ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}-{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}-{{subst:CURRENTDAY2}} {{subst:CURRENTTIME}} z</small>''

Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-05-22 03:58 z

Ah, just realize what it was all about. I didn't realize that the article had been changed just before I moved the other one. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2008-05-22 04:02 z

Mrg3105, thanks for the comment on Panzer divisions vs Panzer division. However, I'm not sure I understand your comments. The Panzer Divisions article was a simple list [7] with very little detail. The Panzer division article contained a short description of German Panzer Divisions in WWII, followed by a list with links to each Heer Panzer Division in WWII. So, I felt that exact same information was contained in both places, except that Panzer divisions included numbers of operational tanks at one point. That was why I combined the articles. I waited 2 weeks after I tagged the article to merge and hadn't heard anything so I thought it'd be ok to merge, should I have waited longer?Tobyc75 (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed that. Ideally there needs to be:

• Panzer division article - a general reference on the type of formation
• List of panzer divisions (doesn't exist) - that offers a link to each...
• (unit name) Panzer Division - individual articles on unit histories:

So it seems the list of the panzer divisions can be created into a List article. How does that sound?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Yamashita's gold

This page is currently protected, so I would like to ask you to change the current category Category:World War II -> Category:Japanese war crimes...at least until there is a subcategory alleged crimes, or myths of World War II. In nay case, I'm not involved, just doing root category maintenance. Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the protection permanently. Daniel (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Regio Esercito incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Regio Esercito to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Regio Esercito (World War II) incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Regio Esercito (World War II) to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Operation August Storm

Fully aware article is about events in China, but broader definition of Years by country articles is used, as it is part of History by country, so that all Japan related history can be added, otherwise, for instance, Pearl Harbour attack could only appear in Years in the United States. Ardfern (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

78th Infantry Division (Germany)

Do you think this article is stub? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to treat any article that is unsourced as a stub, although some are very large--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Want to work together?

Do you want to work together on List of military engagements of World War II since you have a great knowledge on World War II and creating lists? I cant do this by myself! Cheers EZ1234 (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Do I order the engagements into date, region or length? and for bombing raids we will make another list for it or leave be EZ1234 (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Good questions! I have a category Military engagements World War II, but eventually it would include

Military engagements of World War II by ground units

Military engagements of World War II by naval units

Military engagements of World War II by air units

However, I can see people creating other categories like Military engagements World War II by ground units in Europe, etc. It seems to me that at this stage it would be ok to just create the three listss to cover the three primary Services, so

List of military engagements of World War II by ground units

List of military engagements of World War II by naval units

List of military engagements of World War II by air units

What do you think?

Sounds great, it would be easier reading three different list than one large list that's incomplete EZ1234 (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the most sensible thing is to sort the lists by theatre, and then chronologically.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we include the Sino-Japanese War battles in the list or not? EZ1234 (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it was concurrent with the Second World War.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we begin by collecting aerial engagements and create the List of military engagements of World War II by air units? EZ1234 (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. How were you going to do that? An aerial engagement is probably by a wing, although I am not entirely sure this is true for every air force. The best way to judge what is what is by number of aircraft. If its more then about 30 aircraft, but less then about 300, its an engagement. This is however a rough guide, so allow some +/- variance. I am going to tray and verify this in my sources because I usually think in terms of operational goals rather then resources--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)\

Collect aerial engagements from the Catogory: Aerial Battles as well as the Category:World War II aerial operations and battles. In this list would you include such aerial units vs. naval units for example Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse?

Yes, include any articles where air units are involved against either air, naval or land opponents using more then about 30 aircraft, but less then about 300.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In the list of military engagements of World War II by air units we should include other list

• List of Major Bombing raids
• List of naval air arm engagements

Would that be alright? EZ1234 (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think major bombing raids were probably larger then 300 aircraft and qualify for air battles. Naval air arm (naval aviation) probably all qualify since there were very few instances of using more then 300 aircraft during fleet carrier engagements.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and create List Of Naval Air Arm Engagements. You place the definition for the article and we'll look for naval air arm engagements. Do we need website links tp this? EZ1234 (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll do some research tomorrow--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, after this weekend i have to study for exams so I wont be there for a while. EZ1234 (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tokyo Boys

Me being a patriotic and unpatriotic Indian is nothing to do with the fact that Collaborator is a pejorative term. But I think by that you acknowledge that patriotic Indian view is that they were far better than collaborators, as much as I agree that a distinct very British view exists that they were collaborators, bourne not only by the war-time propaganda measures, but also since propounded by some subsequent 1940s-50s historians of the old-cambridgist school. The "Boys", moreover were not soldiers of the British Indian Army, nor were nearly half of the Indian National Army, they were civillian volunteers of Indian origin from South-east Asia who enlisted in the INA after the second INA was formed. On the issue of Patriotic Indian thing you raise, that point of view of "Freedom fighters" is a disctinct point of view as you acknowledge exists, as is the British point of view that the INA were "tratiors", which I too acknowledge does exist. Notice they are diametrically opposite and carries negative connotations to each other.

Moreover, the Tokyo Boy never faced trial, nor did any more than twelve or so personnel of the INA. They were released, as you point out due to political presure, which arose because they were not seen as collaborators by the Indian public, but as patriots. This is not my PoV talk, but extensively recorded by works of history on the Raj. You will find a detailed description of this, eg, in Lawrence James' "Making and Unmaking of British India". Further by definition, the Tokyo Boys should have been acting against national interest for personal gain to have been collaborators. That did not happen since they never fought in the war and moreover Japan never invaded India. I do not wish to go into the hypothetical scenario of "if Japan occupied India then they would've been worse than British etc etc...". This is very different from the experiences in Burma and in Indonesia, were the people like Ba Maw and others who were aiding the Japanese were genuinely seen as collaborators by the nation. The Freedom fighter article might put this into context.

I think you will find the controversy section in the INA article helpful, which is I believe a more NPOV approach than branding controversial articles with onesided opinions and categories. Adding a category that describes a solely British opinion and totally opposes the Indian view is, I hope you will see, extremely biased. On the side of the domestic politics of India you raise, that is very important because post-independence India had a policy of not admitting former INA personnel, which is also disctinct point of controversy in Indian history. (Agian refer to the INA article if you want to look further.)

I am undoing the addition of the category. Please discuss in the talk page and leave me note if you have further comments. Regards [[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 09:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Air Army

Hi Mrg. I've been looking through various sources on the Air Armies and have been able to track some of the post war changes down but not all. Would you be able to translated a comment to put on the soldat.ru forum? (Also opening this page noticed it was at 254kb. You might want to archive.) Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 11:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Siege Photo

My pleasure. I believe the photo is, by Hungarian law, in the public domain, or I certainly wouldn't have uploaded it. I hope it stays, too! Shlimozzle (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WWII categories

I will make whatever decisions are appropriate per any consensus I can find. If you have acted without consensus on such an important and well discussed category, then I would consider it vandalism. You know we have forums for discussion and you know that these must be used. I struggling to see why I shouldn't ask for you to be blocked for disruption, myself becoming too involved with your antics to make a neutral decision. Woody (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how you can call this vandalism. I have in good faith sorted out the absolute jumble of articles and categories as per extensive discussion which included Kirill last year and which fully comply with categorisation guidelines and as defined by other Wikipedia projects, never mind other language Wikipedias--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A link to this discussion will suffice then. Woody (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a link to a brainstorming page, not a discussion. There is a difference between being bold and being reckless. You did not create a discussion for this, and that is where the problem is. Simply, the system is now confusing as is evident by the comments on the milhist talk page. Citing Britannica is not a great way to go about a category restructuring. I am perfectly calm, I just cannot see how you could reasonably think this would be acceptable. Woody (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, a brainstorming did come up with a direction to follow, and that was created after extensive discussion lasting months. That is what brainstorming is all about. One is not expected to keep on brainstorming forever! Quite simply everyone has the right to create categories as they are required. When I went to look for appropriate categories for the articles I was creating I was left dumbfounded. I saw it as my duty to firstly clean up the root category where I actually found one of the articles for my own project that had never been project-tagged, but just dumped with the single global category of WW2. I also have a right to categorise my articles as I go, and within the guidelines, and I have exercised my right. Am I guilty that no one had bothered to do category maintenance before me? I rather expected a thank you, however. You do what you like. I consistently write and edit much better quality articles then many you find in the 196 pages of stubs. In fact I have entirely stopped producing stubs, and have expanded several to start at least as I go. I add verifiable references to all edits, so that makes me think I am neither a troll nor a vandal. Consensus is not always required, particularly in categorisation maintenance long overdue. There is already a Wikipedia wide consensus that the categories should be maintained, and that they should be as closely reflective of the articles in them as possible (within reason) --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

PS, I did not site Britannica, but only consulted it (comparative approach is good). I did cite a very prominent American historian who was highly influential n Pentagon during the 1980s, Trevor N. Dupuy.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What has someone who was influential in the Pentagon in the 1980s got to do with the category structure of Wikipedia? Woody (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything in a reference work needs sources. Please look at Trevor's list of published works and you will undoubtedly understand.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A category structure doesn't need sourcing per se, it needs logic, something yours seems to be lacking. Basing it upon book titles is not wise. Woody (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did not base it on book titles, you read that into my reply. It seems to me that you have only seen a small part of the whole, and only executed to a small part of intended, and yet you already declare that my approach lacks logic. It seems to me you are far too eager to judge--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my watchlist has been lit up in the past few days with category changes so I have been watching. I am not questioning your integrity, and I apologise if you feel I have. I am trying to point out that you need to discuss major changes here on Wikipedia, before you do them. Unilateral action will not, and cannot be tolerated as it creates confusion and ill-feeling, something which you are feeling the brunt of now. What can I say, your heart seems to be in the right place, but you are going about it in completely the wrong way, alienating those who could be of most help to you. Name-dropping doesn't mean anything on Wikipedia as it cannot be verified, I judge a person by the sum of their actions. Woody (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

So why not say something? A great many categories are mane not according to the categorisation criteria in our own Project page!!! All I have done is create appropriate categories and have moved those inappropriately categorised elsewhere. Name dropping is VERY meaningful in Wikipedia, particularly for an author with his own article. Any reference work is only as good as its sources, and Dupuy, as was his father, was a very good military historian. If half the editors used his books I would never question their edits. The side of me you have seen with DIREKTOR is a side I only show when my intelligence as a career military historian is being insulted, as it was this by the way that got me blocked for 24 hours completely unjustly.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea what you are upto, I thought it best to let it pan out instead of incite the wrath of Mrg3105. Only when other editors had qualms, did I get involved. Name-dropping was referring to RUSI, and it is not just the DIREKTOR stuff that other editors will will make their judgements on; it is your general disregard for the thoughts and opinions of others if they do not perfectly mirror your own. At least one thing will come out of this, a speedy discussion on the category structure as people want to sort out the mess. Woody (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Peoples' Militia

To respond to your message, I have to be blunter than I would wish. Thus I'm sorry about the inflections, but basically, you appear to have no respect for WP:UE and no respect for the way English is constructed (which would make this not one single person, but multiple people). You say you deal in facts and not opinions, well, it is my opinion that you are not respecting the facts of how English is used, and keep trying to half-Russify the articles dealing with Russian subjects. I doubt we'll come to any agreement on this, but I didn't feel it was appropriate to ignore you totally, thus this response. Buckshot06(prof) 09:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Be blunter, I don't really care what you have to say. Russification of Wikipedia is in your imagination. You bad faith is obvious since it clouds your thinking. Had you even been right, consider how many other countries there are with "Peoples' Militias". In any case, this will go to arbitration because I have had enough of your stalking.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you don't really care what I say, and wish to seek RfC/arbitration, whatever, etc (I think arbitration doesn't deal with content disputes), why complain on my talk page? Why not just start your dispute resolution thing? Buckshot06(prof) 10:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In the hope that maybe after telling you 100 times that you are wrong, maybe on 101st try you will get it.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised, because your userpage quotes Jimbo Wales: 'Why are you here? Are any of you trying to change another person's opinion? If you are, you belong on Usenet, and best of luck.' I agree. --Jimbo . Buckshot06(prof) 10:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to change your opinion. Trying to get you to use sources when you tell me I'm wrong.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

<devils advocate> Yet, in the past, you have refused to accept sources other than those personally revered and vetted by yourself. Woody (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Like which sources? If you mean DIREKTOR, then please spare me the need to explain why country data from Library of Congress is not a good source for referencing command and forces interaction in a Second World War operation--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Article naming

With regards to "I would firstly like to ask you to undo the redirect for Battle of Voronezh (1942) and restore it to the Battle for Voronezh (1942)." Requested moves is that way -->. With regards to "Why can't you just stick to editing something you know about?!" That is not civil and anymore comments like that and you will be blocked under the arbcom restrictions. The same goes for both of you of course. Woody (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Military districts

We might actually be able to have a reasonably functioning discussion on this question, as it's a pretty simple issue. I have yet to come across a military district or region that does not include a headquarters and staff, and subordinate units or formations. The top intro line (albeit, I wrote it) on 'military district,' says it's a 'organisation of a state's armed forces.' That fits within my definition of formation (military). Why do you say they are not formations, and if so, what do you define as a formation? PS. I see from my watchlist that you've just inserted a note saying 18 Group had air responsibility for the RN's Rosyth area. I've added a {{cn}} tag to that as all the information in the article is from the sources listed at the bottom, so it would be good to have a source for that too (are you working from Roskill, for instance?) Buckshot06(prof) 13:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Category

It actually says "Please do not add articles to this category without consulting Military History coordinating team". Doesn't say DON'T ADD. Just says please ask before you dump an article with little regard to categorisation standards of Wikipedia HERE. What exactly is wrong with that?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

With regards to removing the removal of "Please do not add articles to this category without consulting Military History coordinating team.", that statement is completely against the entire ethos of the Wiki. You can try and wikilawyer, but someone new to Wikipedia who sees the notice, in bold, that says "do not add articles to this category" will be put off and then is forced to try and enter that myriad of sub-cats that you have set-up. We don't want a new post to a talkpage every-time someone wants to add a WWII cat to a page. If a newbie puts Cat:WWII onto a page, that is fine, we will then put it into the more appropriate sub-cat. That is what {{catdiffuse}} is meant to do, and that will suffice. Woody (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I expect them to read the entire sentence! Secondly, what ARE you talking about with "wikilawyer"?! I put it there because catdiffuse was not working, and no one was looking after the category, this one or any other. There is not a myriad of categories, but those that cover very broad subjects that will certainly include 200 or more articles when they are fully covered. Why would a newbie dump an article into Cat:WWII if they have read introduction to editing? I did. I just do not get the attitude. Are you actually trying to actively discourage me from improving Wikipedia according to its policies and guidelines?! Just leaves me completely lost for words.

Oh, ok, I get it, when you said "stop others adding articles" and I said "I recategorised them"...that's "wikilawyering? I would suggest you acquaint yourself with Orwell. The intention is to force authors to comply with Wikipedia standards they are supposed to be aware of BEFORE they start adding articles.

Why don't you give me a break and recognise that what I'm doing is long overdue for being done, and will never get done by consensus. People want tor with their favourite category, but fail to see the wider picture. What you will get in a consensus is a failure to agree on the basic categorisation design parameters, and it will be eventually abandoned, and allowed to continued becoming a greater dog's breakfast.

Do you have some plan on discussing the master table I sent you in the task force page?

Tell you what. Let me finish implementing the master table with no interruptions or reverts. You will watch in any case. When I'm done, individual categories can be discussed on their talk pages. Categories can always be deleted and created, but until the project (WWII) see the entire structure they will not be able to appreciate it. If you want to start a discussion now, lets start with he top order categories in the Category:World War II.

My basic design thinking is that the category name should start with the words the user is searching for, which is what it says in the guidelines. So more specific, followed by more general subject name.

Naval aviation squadrons of the RN during World War II

Naval aviation of the RN during World War II

Royal Navy during World War II

UK Military organisations during World War II

Allied military organisations during World War II

Military organisations of World War II

Militaries of the Second World War

World War II

Can you see anything redundant in this categorisation?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wikilawyering refered to: "Doesn't say DON'T ADD. Just says please ask before you dump an article with little regard to categorisation standards of Wikipedia HERE." (Which actually was a lie, because it says Do not add)
• I will read Orwell, if and when I feel like it.
• If no-one is looking after the category, do it yourself, or ask for more eyes at the Milhist WWII taskforce talkpage. Why don't you ask the co-ordinator to add a notice to the taskforce to-do list?
• "Why don't you give me a break, I have given you plenty, and I am not being hard on you. If I wanted to do that, I would have blocked and reverted you. When you start respecting WP:CONSENSUS and understand that "patience is a virtue," then there will be no need for me to get involved.
• Moving onto the actual content: Redesign of categories; That master table is simply mind-boggling. Transfer it to userspace or to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force/Category restructuring. Then the community can decide. This isn't something to discuss on your talkpage, on my talkpage, or on Kirill's talkpage; this is for the community, for consensus to decide. That you still don't realise this, is the major problem here.
• If you continue to ignore that things are done by consensus and not reckless unilateral action, then you really need to rethink your continued participation around here. Woody (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Much of what you say is self-explanatory. I highly disagree though that you have any place to be a "leader" within this, you can take part in the discussion, as can anyone else. If co-ordination is needed, then the aptly named project co-ordinators can do it. In terms of sources, only controversial names need to be sourced per our very own guidelines so all of your clauses, especially the bulleted ones, are unneccessary. All of your 2000+ bytes of text are unneccessary, I appreciate that you want to get moving on this, but we need to consult everyones opinions on this, let consensus form. Put your master plan on the subpage and let the discussion begin. The co-ordinators can steer things along if needed. Woody (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Woody, no project gets off the ground without some leadership. A project leader is just the person who leads a team. Teamwork is essential to reach conclussion of a project. A project is not an ongoing activity like operations. hen you say "we need to consult everyone's opinions on this", who do you mean? People are coming and going from the project participation all the time, so you can not conceivable literally get everyone's opinion, and in any case, opinion is one thing that is not wanted. Everyone has an opinion, but the onus needs to be on proving the opinion is correct, and more importantly relevant to the categorisation project goal. As history of categorisation in the Military History Project shows, coordination and leadership has been lacking. For example all the categories that start with World War II rather then ending with it should have been renamed long ago, but this was not done. I'm not picking on coordinators, because I have seen Kirill at work and I know its a full time job, but that task could have been share among all other participants and done by now.

Regardless of how you see it, I see myself as the only person who has so far consistently tried to address the issue, which is central to the maintenance of Wikipedia as a reference work, and I do take responsibility for the implementation of standardised categorisation that will serve for a very long time indeed, and ultimately include far more categories then my master table of categories currently includes, and will be required if not within years, then within decades assuming Internet is here to stay and Wikipedia with it.

What do you refer to when you say "All of your 2000+ bytes of text are unneccessary"?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Frustration I suppose at the unneccessary verbosity of your text. I know things need leadership, that is being offered at the talkpage. In terms of erveryones opinion, I mean those who are interested in the World War II article and the people who will have to use this glorious new struture of yours. Whilst future-proofing is ok, building empty-categories so they fit into your master plan is not. That is why it is a speedy deletion criteria. Woody (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(<comment> There's that mrg-modesty we've all come to know and love... ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean humility, but humility has a place. Occasionally the most humble of people do take leadership roles, and they usually do so to correct something that is wrong. I do not think I am better or more important than others, but I do think I have more knowledge and experience in some areas then others, and this is why I am here, to share that knowledge. I can not share this knowledge without an adequate knowledge administration system, categorisation.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(yeah, but "mrg-modesty" sounds better, don't you think?) Look mrg, I'm into medicine, I'm not a historian. However, as a person I've always had more than one interest, however demanding medicine may be. I've read dozens and dozens of books on one particular subject: the Second World War (Eastern Front and Yugoslavia in particular). Now, I do not claim to be a history professional, but as far as anyone knows, neither are you (personally, I believe you). My point in all this is that you mustn't allow your "real-world" position and reputation to make you arrogant, because as far as anyone knows, you could be just the night shift janitor at the State Library. Also, you should work more towards trying to see the "English" perspective on subjects, you use, and have always been using, Russian sources, which naturally put an emphasis on the Red Army but Wikipedia does not (I'm not talking only about Yugoslavia). If you do not do this, it will be perceived as "Russification", and you as a Russian nationalist, possibly with the prefix (ultra-). I really am trying to help, do not perceive this as patronization. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't know me--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, that's just my point: neither does anyone! All we have to go by is your behaviour towards people here, and that's what I'm telling you to improve. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I can offer you a deal - you improve your references, and I WILL improve my behaviour towards you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not getting the message, the point is not that you "talk nice to me", the point is that you refrain from treating other people like dirt in general. Yet here you are, actually telling me how I may earn a civil relationship with the great mrg! A guy has to be really arrogant before he is actually physically unable to even conceal it on an internet discussion about his arrogance... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And you are not getting the message either. My "arrogance" comes from decades of exposure to academic standards of writing history. Some people editing in Wikipedia, yourself included, don't know what that standard is, so you perceive it as arrogance. How do you think I perceive you?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As an "upstart", because you are arrogant enough to think that I should taken your word over sources (however inadequate you may perceive them). Why? because you say that you have eons of experience and are a military historian, again you want me to take your word for granted. And you perceive it as "arrogance" when I don't. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I am "arrogant" enough to think that you should use appropriate sources when referencing.

My other "hobby" is psychology. It is a common trait of people who do something wrong to try and label those who expose them as villains in the attempt to make themselves be seen as victims, and therefore blameless, and indeed deserving sympathy and protection. The tactic is called guilt transfer, or popularly the cuckoo complex named for the bird that having done its dastardly deed of murder, proceeds to scream for food as if neglected by its new parents. I had initially assumed in good faith that everyone who participates in editing in Wikipedia have good intentions and good knowledge to share. However, I have now encountered six cases, four from Eastern Europe and two from elsewhere, where there has been a consistent attempt to pervert the knowledge of history as recorded in authoritative sources by every means possible, including word twisting, misinterpretation, mistransalation, selective use of sources, using bias non-English sources, circular logic arguments, and other bag of tricks that in the academic peer review are so rare as to be virtually unheard of.

And that, is why you find me arrogant.

One day, if you ever graduate as a medical practitioner, you will meet a patient who despite your diagnosis and offer of treatment will choose to ignore you, and use a useless herbal mixture prescribed by someone with no knowledge of physiology or pathology, and then you will think the way I think.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"if I ever graduate", "villain"! That's it, I'm through here: you're hopeless, man. Oh you know psychology? I know psychiatry. It appears to be far more useful in evaluating this matter. Thank you so much for your insightful "medical explanations", I am so glad someone could spell it out for me so clearly... I will be less arrogant from now on. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

bye--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Category:Military operations of World War II

That particular category (along with its various siblings) was intended to serve as a cross-section for "things the military did" by war, rather than defining an operational scope of action precisely; it's merely that we've never been able to come up with a better name. But I recall we've discussed this before, at some lenght.

In any case, please bring up your various proposals at WT:MILHIST, where they'll get the needed level of attention and community input. Kirill ^(prof) 15:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Watching a category only shows changes to the category page itself, not to any pages within it. You're looking for something more like Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:World War II, presumably? Kirill ^(prof) 00:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The only method I know of is to do it manually, unfortunately. Kirill ^(prof) 01:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Board"? Kirill ^(prof) 03:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I've never been a member of that (or had any substantive Foundation-level involvement, really). Kirill ^(prof) 03:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

List of military occupations

The requested move is closed, so there is no point keeping the RFC on that section. Better by far to re-phrase it and move it down to the next section Talk:List of military occupations#Occupations before 1907 --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with grammar

Could you please check and proofread the article from my sandbox User:Whiskey/Sandbox. I'm trying to put it in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Essays. --Whiskey (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Aleksei (Russian convert to Judaism)

Hello, thanks for your message here. I'm afraid you will have to find an admin (which I am not) to move the article back, or persevere with WP:RM, as the redirect that is now at the old title will need to be deleted to do so. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Goals

I thought you might have taken it from something like that; the footnote about the finer semantic meaning of "free" in reference to our image policy is something that could only be the result of prolonged editing by committee.

In any case, we can afford to be somewhat more to the point, since we're not obligated to be unbiased in describing our own goals. Kirill ^(prof) 04:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Coordinators

Yes, I would be willing to take it to the pump, and yes, I would like a copy of the rewrite when your done. Thanks for keeping me in the loop. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, that will never get through in that form. It encompasses too many things and does not concentrate on the issue of co-ordinators. You might be interested to read about Wikipedia:Flagged revisions. Woody (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I see the feature is not up yet.

It is in the German Wikipedia. See this signpost article. Woody (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The form I sent to Tom is a summary of the whole. It will be in a substantially different form when presented, but the issues are inter-related. Regardless of the introduction of Flagged revisions Wikipedia can not continue with a 90% QA rejection rate and 90% of the passed to be subjected to continuous editing. More importantly, there needs to be a clear plan for completing the Project while the article production is maintained.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not something that the Milhist project can tackle. You are talking about fundamental issues with Wikipedia that most people have come to accept. You are asking for a fundamental shift of the whole of Wikipedia, something that cannot be enforced on an obscure {{essay}}. Personally, I think flagged revs will help us stop concentrating on vandalism reversion and get back to article writing instead of the constant bickering that seems to have surrounded us in the last week alone. Woody (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Woody, I agree. My proposal will go to the Pump.

We can do nothing until the QA is implemented at the "factory gate" as it were. So long as the input is 90% stubs (regardless of size) you can guess what the output is going to be. In the data management world I work in the expression is "garbage in, garbage out".

Unfortunately sometimes someone has to get up and just start doing things, and that invariably invites hostility. This is not the first time I have seen it in professional capacity, but in the commercial world where project management has a cost dimension, time becomes money. I only have a limited window of opportunity to contribute, and I intended to make the most of it (hence the urgency), but have become increasingly frustrated by various issues.

Incidentally the last time I brought up the issue of categorisation for discussion there were like 2-3 participants, and the vast bulk of input was from Kirill. Months go by, my working categories become unmanageable (from editor's perspective) and all of a sudden people jump up and scream consensus. Where were they when Kirill and I were trying to reach consensus? What have they done in the months since? All of a sudden I'm branded "radical", vandal, "rabid dog", "smart troll", and for what? Trying to do what Wikipedia intended me to do? And yet I am the one with "behaviour problems"? There are far more dangerous behaviour problems to the success of this Project then arguably justified incivility such as passivity, intransigence, lack of forward thinking, and above all not editing within the scope of Wikipedia's policy structures - evading authority. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, mrg, I was not calling you a rapid dog. I was merely stating that everyone seems to have their heckles up for no good reason (and were barking at each other without listening, from what I can tell) and if it can't be worked out, Wikipedia has the ArbCom and MedCab there to mediate these things and get everything back on the right track. I have no desire to see you banned, nor do I think it is you that needs to be subject to mediation, but the category situation. Let everyone say, in a calm and structured manner, what their beef is, then we can look for a solution. I don't acctually have a dog in this race but anyone can see that everyone yelling at one annother is not helpful. So if people want to take issue, let everyone use the processes we have in place. Narson (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well Narson, you were there when I was put through the "processes" before, and not only did the arbitrating admins failed to listed, or read the evidence, but the "incivility" was blatantly used to take me out of the discussion process on the content. Unfortunately for me, I am one of the people who tends to say-it-like-I-see-it, a concept that may be unfamiliar to some. I do not call people names as has been done to myself, nor do I accuse them of being trolls or vandals. However, because I say things as I see them some have imaginatively interpreted this as my arrogantly saying I'm better then others in some what. Quite frankly I do not care what others think of me. I am not here to make friends, or influence people, outside of providing them with reference to knowledge that I am fairly sure I have a good understanding of. And this is the basis of my discontent. To contribute effectively I have to work within the Wikipedia guidelines, and so depend on others to do the right thing, and for the most part this means citing sources and creating articles that are not requiring substantial rewrites and referencing my myself to be useful. I also need a consistent and logical categorisation structure for my articles, and that is lacking despite being mandated by Wikipedia policy. This seems selfish since I speak only of myself, but since there is not a lot of evidence for teamwork despite numerous task-forces, I am forced to rely on my own devices despite several attempts to call for cooperation on these issues. No, I do not see myself yelling at anyone. DID YOU SEE ME YELLING AT ANYONE? If you did, please show me where. Have you seen me exhibiting "rude or unsociable speech or behaviour"? Please point me to those instances--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Acctually, I stepped away before the arbitration aspect of the Romanian articles, I wasn't even aware it occured. The atmosphere was toxic and, well, I don't care enough about Romania for it to hold my attention through that kind of thing. I suspect the reason the calls for collaboration don't elicit response is that you do, as you say, say-it-like-I-see-it in a fairly blunt manner. Of course, if you have made calls for collaboration that have gone unheeded and then people attack you for not gaining consensus, that is unfair. As with the Romanian issue mrg, I think you have alot to offer, just that sometimes you have to 'play the game' so to speak. On this I think you and me disagree on exactly how the game is played. If you don't want/like mediation, then I don't think it should be forced on you. Just can't see this ending well if both sides stand their ground. I hope that I am wrong and this ends well, do have a good week mrg. Narson (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If people want to play games, they are on the wrong website. What if I was contributing to a medical Project, or one on Law? There re people who can not afford a doctor or a lawyer, and they may gain information from online sources, and Wikipedia usually comes up first on Google. We are providing reference here, and we have no idea how it will be used or in what way it will influence users. Sure Military History may not be that critical to people's lives, but the standards need to be consistent throughout Wikipedia if it is to be taken seriously, which, based on media reports, it often is. Many users take Wikipedia articles as the true reflection of any given subject, and another way to say truth is "say-it-like-I-see-it". (Do not point out that Wikipedia is not after truth. Truth, as far as it can be referenced to reliable sources).--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward, not sideways

Can I offer my viewpoint as I see it at the moment, ignore the observations if you wish. I have no idea about the Romanian/Digwuren etc arbitration, that was a while back and I am not interested in that. As I see it, you are a self-confessed professional, (I don't mean self-confessed in a derogatory way, simply that it can't be verified) who finds himself in a new environment. Wikipedia is not like other projects, not like other archives or like any other reference works. Wikipedia has no leaders per-se, editors are invited to edit as much or as little as they want in whatever way they feel appropriate. Editors do not have to upload complete works, nor do they specifically need any experience in their field of editing.

What I think has happened with you, correct me if I am wrong, is that you have become frustrated by the perceived inactivity in some areas of the Wiki. Take Category:World War II for example, a discussion was started a few months ago that didn't reach much of a conclusion. Now, this is not unusual for Wikipedia, but it is different from what is experienced in professional life, after discussions, there is a conclusion. I hope that you see with hindsight, the best thing to do would have been to resurrect the previous discussion; show people your ideas and let a consensus develop. This is another fundamental clash as far as I can see it. You, understandably, want to make unilateral decisions, get things done now instead of "later", yet on Wikipedia things need to be discussed before bold changes are made. Otherwise they are seen as reckless and they breed hostility.

Quality of Wikipedia. The quality of wikipedia articles is varied at best, this is a product of its design and can only be remedied with an extraordinary amount of work. Editors are working on them, but it takes time. Wikipedia is very much in development, article scopes aren't defined, some are loosely defined. You cannot base anything, let only a category structure on the titles of articles as most don't follow conventions. This seems to be in contrast to your way of thinking. If an article doesn't accurately define something, particularly articles on doctrine, then edit it so that it does, cite your sources and everyones happy. You cannot expect new articles to be B or GA at the point of uploading, which is entirely unrealistic for the majority of our editors.

To be frank, your character is very bullish, very in your face and very determined to have your way, which, simply put, isn't the Wikipedia way. To get things done on Wikipedia, you need to follow the conventions, you need to act with consensus, and you need to act in a civil manner. Entrenched warfare is not helpful to anyone; concessions have to made on both sides. I hope that you can engage in discussion on the category page that is removed from discussing editors actions. I will try and get it moving towards discussing the category structure again. That is the only way I see to move forward. If editors disagree with your category structure, that is their prerogative, that is their right. What then has to be weighed is the consensus amongst the community, however limited that may be in these discussions. I know this has been verbose but I hate how this has degenerated into a lot of hot air with nothing being done to improve the actual articles: the only reason we should all be here. Woody (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Woody, "I have no idea about the Romanian/Digwuren etc arbitration, that was a while back and I am not interested in that" - and yet you held that block over my head like a club, ready to whack me with it should I "misbehave".

"Editors do not have to upload complete works" - yep, and many are called stubs

"nor do they specifically need any experience in their field of editing" - yep, but need to cite sources

"want to make unilateral decisions, get things done now instead of "later", yet on Wikipedia things need to be discussed before bold changes are made" - Wikipedia has been around for years. I think the period of "grace" is well past. However, I do not want to do things unilaterally. What I have not been successful in, is attracting active discussion. So, if no one talks, and then I do something, it does look like I am taking unilateral action.

"You cannot base anything, let alone a category structure, on the titles of articles as most don't follow conventions" - well, actually I can. This much is assured by copious Wikipedia conventions and policies. It is a basic premise of a reference work that it should provide information about the subject of the article, and that the article be titled accordingly. Take for example a newly baked Kingdom of Italy (North Africa). Its not about the Italian protectorate in North Africa, but a rehash of the North African Campaign. What it should be about is the Italian public administration of North African colonies. I spent all of 5 minutes on it and suggested it for speedy deletion because it would take a complete rewrite. It is this editor's second article

"very bullish, very in your face and very determined to have your way" - if you only knew me face to face. However, I am not unconscious of this. Let me conceptualise my character as it is perceive in Wikipedia in another way.

"If editors disagree with your category structure, that is their prerogative, that is their right." - but I also get to exercise my right by disagreeing with pre-existing structure. However, could be we will get a discussion now that there has been some stirring in the Project.

Appreciate your comments none the less, and your assistance --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You have email. Regards Woody (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Formal warning

This is the only warning you will receive for incivility and personal attacks. The next time you make comments expressed in terms such as these, you will be blocked. Please heed this warning. Thank you, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality versions

Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Quality versions; see also Wikipedia:Flagged revisions.--ragesoss (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Milhist tagging

Hi Mrg, when tagging for milhist a couple of things to remember please. The project doesn't use importance rating so it isn't needed in the template. Also, whenever possible, it would be greatly appreciated if you could add the relevant task forces associated with the article. That would be a great help, thanks. Woody (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Woody. Mostly I started tagging to try and catch new milhist articles in the new article report. Maybe I should have asked if anyone in the Project does this already on daily basis. I use one simple tag to bring the articles into the project because I find that if that is done other Project members "pick up" the article and retag/categorise them almost immediately as they edit within their areas of interest. I will copy over the task force tags and use them from tonight, and no, I didn't realise that importance ratings are not used. Did you see my additions/comments on the requested article list? How many people know about that list? I would like to propose that the list needs to be copied to the Project page (like essays?) and maintained in the Project area. There is also a redtag list, but haven't looked at that. Would be great if a report of Project-specific redtags could be generated for people to work on. Just some thoughts. Not going to make any of these suggestions in main Project space because really have too much on my hands as it is--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No I hadn't seen Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences, to be honest, I didn't know it existed. It will be useful in updating the current requested articles for the task forces; they each have their own requested articles template. In terms of the project tag, please don't be discouraged from you current actions, it just helps if we add task force at creation, rather than later on down the line. I go through the unassessed and incorrectly tagged article categories regularly so in terms of them being picked up, they usually do. Regards. Woody (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so we are all learning here. If the task of tagging is already done by you, or other coordinators, should I stop? What process/tools do you use to do that? I agree its useful to tag from the start, but I tend to do this at the end of my day, and simply can't manage the categorisation then and there because of the (in my view) ensuing confusion. I tried, and found my intuition and educated guesses coming up with non-existent categories. I have joined the Categorisation Project and will elicit more comments on my suggestions. Regards--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Usually there are new page patrollers who add the milhist tag to the talkpage, usually unassessed so one of the Milhist project can assess it and fix it. I only pick up the ones that aren't tagged correctly (PR, ACR errors etc) and the unassessed ones. Please don't stop adding the tags, but it would be helpful if you could add the task forces and even better, the b-class tags.! All help is appreciated! ;) Adding cats to the page will also not be discouraged! ;) Thanks for your effort in these areas. Woody (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No probs Woody. However, with the B-class, I assume you don't want me to assess, but just to tag with all set to no? I'm not up to assessments of articles, often out of my area of expertise at the end of the day :( Me adding categories is probably not advisable at the moment :) until the Project as a whole can establish what I suggested, a scope map for its existing and future article taxonomy. I for one prefer the scientific approach.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Just leave them blank, people can assess them as they go along, or add the b-class tags and leave it unassessed, then someone will find and assess it in the "Milhist unnassessed category." It is up to you. Just remember the Wikipedia category structure isn't a tree exactly... Woody (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I realise the category structure is not a tree, but a number of trees would help :) How about planting an orchard? :)

BTW, was your summary comment to Buckshot06 "have to be polite now...!" directed at him, or a reflection on my warning? I didn't have the heart to tell Craig that his warning is absolutely wasted on me. I am simply not into appeasement, and my principles are of a far greater worth to me then Wikipedia will ever be. I still insist that naming articles based on a single, proven to be wrong source is not the way to go in a reference work. I will always insist on good, relevant and context based source citations even if Craig blocks me to all eternity from editing :) --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it was actually no comment on any of the current hulabaloo, it was simply because I forgot to be polite... Don't go reading too much into things Mrg! But yes, you should be polite anyway, not withstanding what I say in edit summaries. Oh, and that really isn't a helpful attitude now is it? ;), blocks shouldn't be taken lightly. Regards. Woody (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Woody, principles are principles. I am polite to anyone who edits according to the policies and guidelines and does not insult my intelligence, which is worse then calling me names. If I get blocked for insisting on high quality article production, then so be it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI discussion

You should be aware of a discussion about your actions here. Toddst1 (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't have time to read through ANI, only on flettingly, but I did tell you about that on the 19 May. Whether you took any heed is another matter. Diff (notice edit summary as well) Regards. Woody (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well, I don't know why that bit of good advice escaped my attention, or why I had not acted on it previously when reading the sourcing guidelines. My apologies to you for not heeding it.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Category

I only deleted it because there was only one page in it. I do actually support having such a category, but under a different name. Something like 'Fighter Units of WWII', 'Fighter Units of the USAAC' or 'USAF WWII fighter units'. The name decision is entirely up to you though since you are taking the initiative to create it. I'm assuming that you want to create a category that tags present day fighter units that were fighter units in WWII. If not, a name like 'USAF WWII Aviation Units' might be the best fit. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Petersburg (Lada) class submarine

I assume Petersburg (Lada) class submarine is what you're talking about? I boldly redirected that one because redirects are cheap and it doesn't seem too unlikely a search term. I'll probably do the same for Severodvinsk (Graney) class submarine. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Belgrade Offensive

Hi, Mgr! I am sorry, but I am unable to grant your request. Full protection of articles is reserved for a very limited number of situations, and pending RfC is not one of them. In general, articles are fully protected only when they are heavily vandalized or when a revert war is going on with no signs of stopping (see WP:PROT for details). Even then, full protection is applied for as short a term as possible. Since there is no ovbious vandalism to the article in question, and the only revert war going on is the one you yourself are involved with, the best course of action is to leave the article as is (at least as far as the part being contended is concerned) until additional sources become available. Note that if you choose to continue with the reverts, you are more likely to get yourself blocked rather than to have the argument resolved.

Again, sorry for not being of much help with this. I hope you'll be able to hunt down the sources which will help resolve the discussion and improve the article, and I wish you best of luck in this endeavor. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 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) 01:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

110th Rifle Division

Two issues here.

1. I've just done an edit which will hopefully make it clear why the other two divisions were mentioned in the Konigsberg assault; the 110th was probably in the same corps (I'll have to check the online BSSA, I think) with the 153rd on one side and the 324th on the other.

2. Perecheni. I assume the list No.5 that you sourced that data from came from the rkkaonline (?) site where Craig Crofoot and his colleagues have helpfully been putting them up on the web. If so, would you mind inserting a link to the appropriate page?

3. Thanks in advance and regards Buckshot06(prof) 06:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not sure what happened, but when I came to the end of the article there were these two disassociated division that seemingly bore no relationship to the 110th. Is it not better to include that information in theBattle of Königsberg article?

Craig sent me my own copy of Perecheni. I thought I did add the pages (54-55)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) BSSA says all three divisions formed part of 69th Rifle Corps, 50th Army. It said, on the right (flank) was one division, and on the left (flank) was the other. In other words, 69th Rifle Corps had three divisions advancing side by side. BSSA doesn't list any other rifle divisions as part of the corps, so the corps or army commander was happy enough with the situation have the rifle formations advance in only one echelon, though the second echelon may have held mechanised or tank formations. We have no article on either 69 Corps or 50th Army yet, so I thought it best to just leave the data where it was, until we do so. (2) Thanks for the clarification on the source. If the file is on the web somewhere, would you mind adding the link anyway? Buckshot06(prof) 07:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Try and work the tactical/operational data if you come across it into the relevant article if one exists. The 69th Rifle Corps did not participate in the assault on Kongsberg a such, but occupied a sector of the front that support the main two-pronged assaults from behind a series of stream and canal linked lakes to the east of the city opposite the German 367th Infantry division (supported by dug-in tanks/sp guns). The Corps was reinforced by a tank brigade, a light sp regiment (SU-76 judging by the serial), and a guards heavy sp regiment (i.e. SU-152s), so probably felt safe enough to forego defence in depth. You can see the deployment here [8]

I lost my links when my pc crashed. Perecheni is here [9], but require djvu file recognition capability. The way to view them is to install on own pc.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Adamnajjarian

Looks like simple vandalism to me. If he continues like that, he'll get his standard warnings and then be blocked; perhaps indefinitely (as a vandalism-only account). I'll keep an eye on the article. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

I see what you mean, Mrg3105. I've been trying to add assessment capabilities to the template, and it took me a couple of tries on the template to get to a point where I thought it was error-free (see Template:WikiProject Soviet Union to have a look at what I thought was finished). Upon receiving your message, I checked the Talk:Soviet Union page, and sure enough, something has gone haywire. I'll check out the problem right away, but I am a relative novice when it comes to formating templates, so any suggestions or help you could offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! TFCforever (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the problem is with the coding on the template, not with the individual tags themselves. If I can fix the main template, everything else will be fine. I'm just trying to add a capability that wasn't there before. In the meantime, I'm moving my work from the template to a sandbox, and reverting my edits on the template. This should fix the problem, but please let me know if it doesn't. TFCforever (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it has worked. Are you still experiencing any problems? TFCforever (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be ok now, thank you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Just a thought following the category discussion, which I wanted to put to you. If you've got a number of articles planned, or had planned earlier, that did not fit into the existing WW II categories, one of the options you would have had was to write them, one by one, and simply place them in the root category initially. Given you had a ordering scheme already in your head, once there were four or five of them there they might, by their naming, have suggested new categories (my experience is with things like military units, where once there's four or five brigades in the 'Military units and formations of Foo' main category, one creates 'Brigades of Foo'). That would have created a precedent, and you could have created the appropriate category for those five, or two categories, or whatever. Thus creating the categories when the appropriate articles had appeared that might go in them. That doesn't apply now, of course, but reading your and Roger's last statements I wanted to leave the thought with you. Buckshot06(prof) 01:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not unreasonable as suggestions go, but did you see the state of the root category before I started creating categories? It had become a dumping ground for any article author who could not be bothered to find the accurate category cognate for the article subject.

There is an added issue I had refrained from mentioning as yet - across the subject area consistency. If I write an article on a given topic concerning for example the Red Army, I want to see what treatment it received from other editors, for example the New Zealand Army, and achieve some sort of parity in coverage, presentation and formatting - the desire to promote reference work uniformity. Depositing my new articles into the root category would be singularly unhelpful in the process of authoring, and the reason why I had recently encountered at least two cases of article duplication in the new article maintenance "patrol". I'm sorry if I sound uncompromising and unreasonable, but I would rather do something right from the start, then having to wait for it to be redone at a later stage.

You do realise that the minimum number of articles to justify having a category is two? I had only created subcategories that had at least one article existing, but I am confident of finding others for every category I create with the exception of the five 2nd tier subcategories to the root that should be kept mostly free of articles except maybe a main article offering the overviews from disciplinary perspectives.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

World War II

Many of the points you bring up I'm attempting to redress by rewriting the last section "Impact of the War". If you check here you can see my current proposal. Oberiko (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

CSD criteria

Hi, I've answered your note re the CSD criteria for nonsense on my talk page. Kevin (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

People of the United States of America

What is your doubt as stated in the edit summary? Ultra! 20:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I had not read it right through, but even the opening seems highly unencyclopaedic "The people of USA are whites, blacks, natives and other foreign emigrants"--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Town stubs

Thank you for your input. I was actually looking for the opinion of a geographic names specialist, rather than yours as a non-specialist, however. Buckshot06(prof) 23:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So who is the 22nd Special-Designation Air Regiment? 22 SAS by any chance, a translation of the name rather than a translation of the purpose? Buckshot06(prof) 00:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so it seems. I got a bit confused because had never heard of this designation in Russian before, and it turns out its a Russian translation of a former member of the 22 SAS--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, in the nicest possible way, that you sometimes don't check your potential links to well. You wrote that article Aviation Division just after aviation regiment, and I had to come back today and link the two articles you wrote at the same time together. Please take a little more time looking for the correct links - WP:Quick Index is sometimes good; you can search from the exact 'Avia--' or whatever. Cheers. Buckshot06(prof) 08:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I try to link whatever I can think of at the time. Sometimes I go back, but by the same token, I am not he only editor in Wikipedia and others, including yourself, also have other ideas on what needs to be linked and what not. There are people who think that overlinking is not good, and others who jam as many into and article as they can. If you think I missed something, please help yourself. I just don't like you making comments about my editing, and following my edits like I am the only one producing articles.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take the suggestion of using WP:Quick index for anything more than an advisory. I'm only trying to alert you to a useful tool. I'm interested in your statement above, because it seems to conflict with your repeated statements about making 'wikipedia a quality reference work,' and 'I'm not here to make friends, only to improve the encyclopedia' - which would imply you'd at least be happy to receive constructive comments. Are you not interested in suggestions that improve editors' knowledge? Buckshot06(prof) 10:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll use it, but I find it too unwieldy. What I meant is to use good sources. BTW, do we cover mythical wars Æsir-Vanir War?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'd encourage you to give it a try a couple of times when you're pretty sure there are articles on or near the subject. Um, my take on the scope guidance would be that that was out-of-scope, but check the wording yourself on the main Milhist page if you're unsure. Oh, and by the way, my respect for you has gone up a notch. I was expecting a multi-paragraph angry response; instead you've responded reasonably positively to a suggestion. Buckshot06(prof) 10:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Re removal of Judaism-stub

What is the point of 2 stubs that put the stub into the same subject: Judaism? Also later I'll be counting the Kabbalah stubs to see if there are 60 so they can have their own stub category. Kathleen.wright5 07:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't get this

cf this edit - what, exactly, is the use of changing a "references" section to read "external links" and then tagging the article as "...does not cite any references or sources"? It seems to be entirely circular. Shimgray | talk | 11:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at, and in a perfect world I'd agree, but in the context of a short, single-sourced article like this I think you're being too strict. What we conventionally require for references is just that it be sourced to somewhere else, and that source be given and named; what you seem to want is us to trace that back to whatever source it initially came from. In other words - is the website in and of itself a valid secondary source, or is it merely of value inasmuch as it summarises what the original source (the regimental history, etc) says, and should it only be treated as an adjunct of that original source? [In this specific case, of course, what we're doing is quoting someone's not-very-clearly-sourced original resarch, not even a summarised source...]

I lean heavily towards the former - it may not be a particularly good secondary source, but it's the one I used, for want of anything better, and the article should reflect that. Remarking the references as simply external links is actually a disservice to the reader - it's no longer apparent that these are the sources from which the article was created, and so we lose that part of the audit trail. Being able to say with confidence that an article was created from a shaky source is in many ways better than not being able to say where it came from... Shimgray | talk | 12:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(PS: I went to check what the MOS says, since I tend to find it develops weird changes after a while and I might have been wrong, but it currently notes that "Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be ... linked as references ... Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section." So once they've been used as sources, keep 'em in references, seems to be the way of things.) Shimgray | talk | 12:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the vagaries of the MOS! I'm a little confused, though - are you seriously contending that a Wikipedia article is only of value if it contains information not easily findable? I disagree entirely - by recasting even simple information into our form, by placing that page within our structure and our web of articles, it becomes intrinsically more useful, through crosslinks etc. But also through its expandability.

Yes, that simple information can be extended, expanded, corrected, annotated, and I have every faith someone will. But there's no need to do it immediately - if I had gone digging further, I'd have filed the draft away and forgotten about it, left it as another unfinished start on an article. Far better to have something in place, something productive and beneficial to the encyclopedia to come out of my half-hour or so of evening boredom. A short summary article, a note on the sources used to write it, and I'm happy to leave the rest for future writers. (I am confident that those writers will come, and that having the framework there is a benefit to them; I won't bore you with my reasoning here, it can get lengthy)

I do want to reiterate the sources thing, though - just because "better" sources may be available for a subject, it doesn't mean we shouldn't give the sources used. I've seen this business before, tagging an article as {{unreferenced}} because the sources aren't up to someone's standards, and it annoys me greatly. Shimgray | talk | 13:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In a way I agree, and I actually intended to add lots of stubs when I begun to actively edit last year, but have changed my mind after finding there are 196 pages of stubs! On of my undertakings is to intercept articles as they come into the project on daily basis and reference them at least a bit. If I can do this for a while, maybe the other editors will get a chance to tackle the mountain of stubs. Ultimately though the goal is not only to add information to wiki (quantity), but to make wikipedia trusted as a reference source (quality). Still, we all do what we do, so if you can add the stubs, great. The problem is that in reality the links you call references do not in the end qualify based on what is called a reference in the publishing world. If the article is not tagged unreferenced, it is not in the 196 pages, so there is even less of a chance to have it referenced until someone finds it and feels so inclined.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But this is the problem! They're sources, plain and simple - they're the place from which the information for the article was gathered. So we list them as the references. They don't stop being the sources for that article just because better ones could potentially (hypothetically?) be found... being good ones is nice, and it benefits the articles, but really it's a bonus not a cast-iron necessity.

I am all for encouraging people to improve the quality of articles, but surely there are ways to do this that don't involve claiming articles are worse than they are? Shimgray | talk | 14:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It may not be an issue for tank battalions, but verifiability of sources is of primary concern elsewhere, and so is the consistent approach to all articles.

...in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.

A website is not a published source--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: McCain infobox

You need to make your case on Talk:John McCain, where others can see it, not on my talk page. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but meanwhile I'm trying to figure out why the references are not working. Don't use the repetitive style usually, and when I just did it all went weird--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

'Anti-aircraft warfare'

Are you aware that this article is actually just about AA guns and missiles? It's misnamed, and doesn't even try to cover air defence in general. We could really use an article on the greater context - might suit your flair for military theory - but this one is all about AA guns and missiles, rather than the whole thing. Air defense/Air defence should redirect elsewhere, or be raised from stub status to an article. Buckshot06(prof) 01:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought something was amiss, but no time to read the lot. The article should be named Air defence and the warfare part being the doctrine of using the systems (there is a part called tactics). How does the article deal with gunnery and missiles, but not their radars?! Interceptor units always worked with gunners even before radars for advanced warning, so not sure how the two can be disassociated either. If you want to move it to Air defence, be my guest--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. The article should be named something like 'anti-aircraft guns and missiles.' That is what it covers at the moment. The whole intricate complex of 'air defence,' is much broader than that, as your edits indicate. Air Defence belongs at a separate article - (which I was suggesting you might want to start), covering fighter aviation, long range radar, as well as a mention of AA guns. The other thing that ties it to ground based AA systems is that they're PVO of the Ground Forces, not just V-PVO, to use russian terminology. Buckshot06(prof) 01:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, just looking for a Canadian roundel for WWII--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok so there are now two categories that require main articles

• Category:Air Defense - includes organisations (national and formations/units), histories (unit and operations), doctrines, system types/classes
  • Category:Anti-aircraft weapons - specific weapon types from infantry firing from trenches to Missile defense (Anti-missile defence?!)

So you are proposing to use the intro I rewrote for the main article of the former, and the rest? The AD cannons and ADA are very different things, and the missiles are just completely different technology altogether of course.

Anti-aircraft warfare is really Anti-aircraft warfare doctrines

Category:Anti-aircraft weapons needs a main category/article Air Defence systems to include both Category:Anti-aircraft weapons and Category:Military radars (of course not all radars are AD) as Category:Air Defence radars

The rest need to be in categories/articles Category:Infantry anti-aircraft weapons (inc. portable SAMs), anti-aircraft autocannons (and Autocannon) (maybe will need separate ground and air articles), Category:anti-aircraft artillery (don't like "guns", maybe will separate static and mobile articles), anti-aircraft missiles (maybe need separate static, mobile, and AA articles), air defence fighter interceptors (maybe will need separate prop and jet articles), Category:air defence radar networks, Category:air defence support radars

Also need Category:Air Defence organisations, Category:History of Air Defence

I'll see if I can find my work on altitudes--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got no such big ambitions - I just know that article is inaccurately named and that you've just written a good intro for Air Defence. I can quite happily split your intro into that new article, figure out a new name for the existing one, and let you get back to the Eastern Front - and maybe finding the odd regiment for me; any ideas where the 60 OShAP, formerly in Azerbaijan in 1991, went? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 06:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Aviation regiments

I'm trying to track down a little more about the 176 иап, Миха Цхакая/Georgia, Миг-29, which was in 34 VA in the ZKVO in 1991, but apparently moved to the Siberian Military District. Can you find out when and to which airfield from the Russian sources? Buckshot06(prof) 06:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't find it immediately. You got this from Lenski?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Didn't expect you to find it immediately. From Vad777. Buckshot06(prof) 07:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Æsir-Vanir War assessment

Hello. Recently, you made this assessment at the Æsir-Vanir War article: [10]. Would you be more specific? I'd like to improve the article and I've checked it against your assessment chart and it seems to meet all requirements. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm no expert on the subject, but it seems to me that such an important part of the eda needs to be far more sourced then just the four you have there. Maybe I have high standards, but I see at least three different sources for each section in any article as a minimum. Also, the images seem very modern depictions of the subject.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Response at: Talk:Æsir-Vanir War#References :bloodofox: (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

HMS Carrere (1801)

I'm afraid I don't have access to the sources you've added. Surely it was Muiron that carried him and Carrere that escorted? Bonaparte can't have gone all the way with one foot in each ship? :-) Neddyseagoon - talk 16:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not a case of escorting. Bonaparte was not alone, and probably both ships were required to take all his staff, their baggage and escorts, in all close to 100 people. The escort was provided by two xebecs that are also named in the source I provided. Have you tried looking for the sources I have provided? They are available on Google books which I try to use when possible given the relationship between Google and Wiki. I am well aware of which ship Bonaparte was in, but had no sourced references. On short notice I did not have a source to say that he and his entourage were in a particular ship, but if you have one, just add it. However it would be more appropriate to add to the article on La Muiron. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sudom Uplands

Nope, no such plans. In general, I limit my editing activities to populated places (which is quite a handful as it is). If you occasionally catch me editing an article about some other geographical feature, this is either because I needed that article for disambiguation purposes or it was in such horrible condition I just couldn't ignore it :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, can I ask that we collaborate on these? I will need quite a few done for the Second World War articles covering all of European USSR--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RN stations

I haven't reverted your reverts yet, but they are incorrect. Roskill may be capitalising some titles, as was informal practice within the Royal Navy, but the titles are, for example, for the Mediterranean, the Mediterranean Fleet, or even more strictly, Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean. Check the list of commands at http://www.admirals.org.uk/appointments/fleets/index.php - as 'Commands' they're neither named correctly, nor Second World War temporary formations; check also the articles linked from the page, which are helpful. Buckshot06(prof) 06:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If I am wrong, then you will have to show sources for that. So far as I'm concerned the Commands were correlated to RAF commands in Roskill, and so are not just "commands". There seems to be a lot more stations then Commands also, and the Fleets are in a different appendix. The Mediterranean Command is also mentioned by Churchill, so I don't know how you can say it didn't exist, although I may be confusing the RN and the Allied Mediterranean Commands--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

How do I know? Because for fifteen years while you've been looking at the Eastern Front and myriads of Soviet data, among other things, I've been looking at the Royal Navy. Take a look at the list of commanders-in-chief I've given you via the British admirals website, and do a few comparative websearches for 'Command' as opposed to 'Commander-in-Chief.' Every one of these Commander-in-Chief existed well before the war, and in several cases, long after it. The list from the British admirals website is taken from the Navy Lists, and I'll look the later ones out from the Defence Library (if they haven't been sent to Trentham or somewhere). Take my word for it (though I will back this up with sources as I get them): these are Commanders-in-Chief, they're definitely not temporary, and I would lay a large bet that you cannot find any RN document (of which there are a few on the Br admirals website) listing any 'Command.' They'll all be 'Commander in Chief X' or 'Flag Officer Y'. Buckshot06(prof) 08:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, lets be clear - we are not talking about Commander-in-Chiefs. The stations were oceanographic areas (currently says geographic). Here [11] is a record of stations from 1856, listed after the arsenals. Commands, albeit spelled commands, seemed to have been the same as far back as 1820 according to Beeler (p.26 [12]), and Morriss (p.96 [13]) seems to refer to the accounts aspect of being stations on foreign stations. Although I would understand "to be on station" to mean that a vessel is deployed at a given point of its area of operations, it seems to relate also to the actual logistic base since one can not have expenditure while at sea. Why does Stevens say that "Foreign stations were closed down"? (p.12 [14])

The areas of stations in the 19th century are given here [15] but are also said to be parts of command. So what exactly was a part of the command? Seems to me they included the Fleet (with a Commander-in-Chief), and stations named after the bases, to which were later added coaling stations [Singapore as a great emporium for eastern trade, a coaling station and base for the East Indies Command, and from 1844, the China Station.] (see page 181, The Oxford Illustrated History of the Royal Navy, by J. R. Hill, Bryan Ranft, 1995), so named because they had to be located within range of each other to replenish vessels with coal as opposed to general provisions that could be obtained anywhere, even by a shore party. Hew Strachan in his book says that "By now the East Africa station had been transferred to the East Indies command, and administrative confusion may explain the determination of Captain F.W.Caulfeild" (Page 581, The First World War). Now clearly it was not the ocean that was transferred along, but the responsibility for the vessels operating in it, and the responsibility was not transferred to a Fleet because the Captain would have simply receive orders for transfer from one Fleet to another. In other words, his administrative command region was changed, the actual logistic assignment of his vessel, which may have been different to the operational combat rewuirements of the Fleet or squadron he was operating with. Angus Konstam and Tony Bryan say the same thing about the Repulse in British battlecruisers 1939-45, p.35. Also look at the organisation commanded by a Commander in Chief in German Capital Ships and Raiders in World War II Appendix B [16]. So it may be I am wrong, but everything I have seen so far suggests differently.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am focussed solely on the names of the commands. Initially, for starters and because it's closest with the most information available, I'm going to remove the term 'New Zealand Command' in a few hours unless you can find any other sources apart from Roskill. Our official histories, which you must admit were written much closer to the truth on naval activities in NZ, show no mention of the 'New Zealand Command,' but many of 'Commodore Commanding the New Zealand Station,' with sometimes a variation of 'Squadron.'[17] [18] [19]. I haven't found a single mention of 'New Zealand Command' in reference to NZ naval forces on the net, and neither in my two histories of the Navy in New Zealand, Grant Howard, 'The Navy in New Zealand,' AH & AW Reed, 1981, nor in J. O'C Ross, 'The White Ensign in New Zealand, AH & AW Reed, 'The White Ensign in New Zealand,' 1967.

It seems to me the New Zealand Command (RN) does not refer to the New Zealand Navy, but to the RN Command role/office/facility located in in New Zealand, and quite apart from the command of the New Zealand Navy. It pre-dates New Zealand as a state I think because on the 3 August 1860 during the Second Maori War the British troops in Australia were sent to fight the Maoris, and the campaign was controlled by the commander of imperial forces in Australia until the New Zealand Command was separated from Australia in 1861. The then British colony of Victoria sent its ship Victoria and about 2,500 Australians joined either the Waikato Militia Regiment or the Company of Forest Rangers in the fighting around Waikato.

The NZ Command also had its own Depot in UK which during the First World War was called the New Zealand Command Depot, Codford, located in Wiltshire. So it seems to me that you may be inadvertently confusing two different organisations--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing Army organisations with naval ones; you'll note that the depot you're talking about, Codford, is inland, and it's wiki page gives lots of detail about Aust and NZ army troops in WW1, but nothing of the navy. Any NZ associated naval depots would be at the naval bases, Portsmouth or Plymouth or the Nore or suchlike. I found the same page you did while double-checking things. Checking the reference links that I gave will show that there was one RN/NZ naval organisation in NZ, which was definitely not duplicated - it was small enough as it was. Buckshot06(prof) 01:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case its just curious that the RN would refer to groupings of its forces that include units and shore establishments as Commands and not by the name of the commanders. As you stated before, the history of RN is not my speciality, but I had looked into its operations during Second World War on previous occasions and had seen the various commands mentioned in other books, so assumed, maybe without warrant, that the Command referred to an actual Command with a commander. I am still not convinced this was not the case for administrative purposes though the application may have been different where Commonwealth nations were concerned--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(od) As I said, many of these organisations were informally referred to as 'Commands,' and thus, for example, the forces under the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, though formally the Mediterranean Fleet, could be called the Mediterranean command, and sometimes people capitalised them. The site at the very top of this section clearly shows the various names from the Navy Lists, and I will dig out the others through the Defence Library slowly and provide the necessary sourcing. Buckshot06(prof) 02:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I thought Roskill was pretty much 100% reliable given the years it took for the history to be written, so indeed a valuable contribution on your part--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Feskov 2004 isn't absolutely reliable; nobody's perfect! Buckshot06(prof) 02:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

True. Still, Feskov is dealing with a far more difficult subject of research, and Roskill (I thought) was pretty much accepted as the source on the RN during the Second World War. I have seen occasional typos, and once mistake in assignment of the ship's commanding officer, but nothing so major as this. These Commands are repeated throughout the volumes. I actually think they deserve an article in their own right--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, maybe in the 1950s, but not now. You ought to have heard Andrew Lambert, one of the lecturers at War Studies, go on about how Roskill's conclusions and arguments were nuanced to support the RN's needs in the post-war resource competitions between the services, and how the Atlantic could have been won much earlier if only the resources (VLR Liberators, mostly) had been reallocated earlier. Now the 'Commands' as opposed to 'commands' are not so much a mistake, but just an informal description - everyone would be aware that when Roskill referred to the Mediterranean 'Command', he was referring to either C-in-C, Mediterranean, or the RN senior officer on one of the many Allied Mediterranean commands of various types. On expansion, the current page definitely needs more sources and references, and I'll be slowly adding those, and then if necessary later bigger sections can be split out to new articles. Buckshot06(prof) 03:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean analysis offered in Roskill's volumes. Those were contributed by the Admiralty of course :) In the 1950s and 60s the people who served in the war would have been in senior positions, so it would be expected that interpretations were less then objective, as would be expected. I think this is true for most armed forces and why military historians exist. However the Commands are a definite confusion in the volumes, the assumption being they were strategic administrative commands. Has anyone actually ever questioned this?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Hundred Days

The language for the last source is Danish. --Assisting Wiki (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I c...I don't know Danish--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Civility and inappropriate accusations

You have accused me at Participants in wedding ceremonies of bad faith edits and deleting sourced material because:

• I moved a source into an inline reference, per WP:CITE#HOW ("You should follow the style already established in an article"), and
• created a subsection for the history, instead of leaving it mixed in with current practice.

Initially, I assumed that you must be a novice editor -- someone too inexperienced to figure out that the "deleted" reference in fact properly appeared in the ==References== section -- but I see from your talk page that you have been an active editor for a long while, and that you have received many complaints about your incivility.

I have explained my edits on the article's talk page, and I invite you to participate in a discussion there, or to apologize there for your rude and inaccurate edit summaries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Maori battles

Can you better inline-reference your new article first, before we think about hooking it up to the template? Buckshot06(prof) 06:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Its probably more then I'm prepared to do right now, and really hoping that someone else will pick that job up. I just saw the opportunity to create the list, so did it. The additions I was considering are the pre-European tribal and mythological Epos battles. I think both have a place since they are used in European histories--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Seven Archangels

I found the above article in Category:Kabbalah articles needing expert attention. This is the only article in this category so I thought you should deal with it. Kathleen.wright5 22:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Kabbalah stubs

Here's something for you and the other members of WP:Kabbalah to get into, expanding these Stubs. Most of them are Jewish Kabbalah. Kathleen.wright5 23:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Raid on Drvar

Hi Mrg, please see the talkpage of the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

article help

thanks for your help at United States military in Iraq. I added some new comments there, at the talk page.; just want to let you know. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar-free zone image

Alas, I can't take credit for it :) My wife found it in the barnstar gallery, and I'm not even sure who originally created it. However, I love the userbox you recommend :) Adding it now. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Various

Seeing you at the Napoleonic Wars page reminded me that I never replied to your email those weeks ago. Apologise for my rudeness. I agree that WP has a long way to go to reach accuracy and comprehensiveness, but a little encouragement that we're on the right track is always nice. Even if it just means we're the best of a bad lot! Anyway, thanks for the encouragement with British Army during the Napoleonic Wars. It's a bit of a secondary project for me; I really started out doing 52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot (which is in itself a distraction from other things: I seem to have a few too many pots on the boil) and thought there should be some more background information, so I'm afraid it'll be slower progress than I'd like. Feel free to chip in. Gwinva (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you found that, did you? HitMA is one of my pots: I'm trying to bring that to FA but got distracted. Another is Early thermal weapons, which is almost there, but has not had any input from me for a while. I like lurking on the fringes of Military History; the popular stuff is hard work: a real mess as far as prose, citations etc and far too much POV. Think WWII-stuff is bad? Look at Knight or Armour and weep. I don't know what the Nap. Wars task force is up to: some of the stuff is lacking. That British Army article should have been written years ago. Waterloo and all that, but nothing about how they actually fought it. Don't apologise for the long post: all good stuff. If you want to escape your kitchen for a while, drop in whenever you want. Gwinva (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The older articles seem the worst for citations (can you believe that once even FAs didn't need inline cites?!). The text might have started off fine, once upon a time, but every man and his dog comes along, adds a bit and so on, until the page needs scrapping rather than salvaging. No wonder Fowler's "Best military history site" made you chortle in disbelief. If this makes you feel better (!!!) Mil Hist project is respected within WP for its rigorous assessment and citation requirements!! (See any of those assessment discussions you mutter about; plus the Mil Hist citation MOS is more rigorous than many of the others). Anyway, I potter on in my own corner; you, on the other hand seem to be running a one-man campaign to straighten it all out. Well done for attempting it! Gwinva (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes,well, quite frankly I had no choice. I had not used Wikipedia until about two years ago when someone stated quoting it at me in a Yahoo group. Unfortunately due to other commitments I was unable to even start considering to edit at the time, but just watched intently. What I was not aware of is the clique formation that goes on in WP which is somewhat foreign as a concept from the commercial environment I usually operate in despite the usual politics at work.

I just had a look at the Armour article. If it is defines as "protective clothing intended to defend its wearer from intentional harm in combat and military engagements, typically associated with soldiers." then the I am proven correct for my long time assertion that tankers are the first experiment in genetically modified organisms since they wear a 60ton MBT ;) Good thing no one from the naal task force had seen the article yet, or they may reconsider using the word to describe what batteships and armoured cruisers are made from :) Than there is all that "stuff" the fighter pilots liked to have around the cockpit during the Second World War :) Has the expression "knights of the air" never crossed any editor's mind as having more then a romantic notion to it? I will deal with it when I get to cuirassiers if no one beats me to it, however it seems to me at leas the intro needs to be rewritten--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Armour

Subheadings which have little or no information underneath should not be included. This is obvious. Show me where in the Manual of Style it says that these subheadings are appropriate. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I will reply in the article talk page--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning on Layout

I know that you do not like the content of the guidelines WP:LAYOUT and (Wikipedia:Citing sources#Section headings) because you have made changes to both Hundred Days and Zieten Hussars. Personally I like to put footnotes below further reading and references above, but that is not the consensus view, neither is yours, so I suggest that you campaign to change them in the guidelines and not the article pages as reverting changes away from guideline advice can be seen as disruptive.

From your last message on my talk page it is clear you are confused by WP:LAYOUT nowhere on that page does it suggest having a section entitled "Sources".

You have already raised this issued at Wikipedia talk:Layout/Archives/2008#Notes and references sections and been told by user:Dank55 that you are mistaken. Yet despite, I see from the history of your contributions on the 19 June 2008 that you have altered a number of pages. Stop now or I will block you account for a period of time. I am going to post a message to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mrg3105 Layout, as I have been involved as an editor on two of the pages to make sure other editors do not think I am acting out of order. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually the reply was

Renaming pre-existing sections in 2.4 million articles and fielding questions from confused authors isn't practical. If we don't change them all, then people have to learn what both sets of words mean, which makes more work for everyone. It's not practical. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Did I start changing all 2.4 million articles?

I agree with Dank55, namely people have to learn what both sets of words mean

I note that you had not replied, but another editor did, and this should clarify to you that I am not mistaken

The list of sources is called ==References== because the editor is supposed to have referred to these sources when writing the page. As to why some editors separate the full bibliographic listing from the repeated page numbers, it appears to be a matter of personal preference. You don't have to use that style if you don't want to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Trouble is, when all that is listed on the page is a title of a book, are you going to read the whole thing just to ensure that it actually supports what's in the article?

So far as having a section called Sources is concerned, I refer you to WP:SOURCE, so it seems that having a section called Sources, with the assist tag '''{{find}}''' is most appropriate.

I welcome your ANI as it may get more viewing then the LAYOUT talk

In any case, what are you going to block me for? Violating a style guideline?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now created Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mrg3105 Layout. You have started to change articles. The name of the section References or Sources has been discussed in depth in the archives of WP:LAYOUT and WP:CITE. Again before you go changing lots of pages get agreement on the guideline pages first or you will be blocked for disruption. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think your depth perception may be somewhat off since so far there have been two other editors contributing to the discussion. News flash - changing articles is called editing, and that is what I'm doing. If adding sources to unsourced and unreferenced articles is disruption, then you have a weird idea of what editing is Philip--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

mrg3105, it is disruptive to insist on your choice of section title in an article someone else is primarily responsible for writing. Changing a few but not fighting by reverting if someone changes it back is ok. Using "Source" or "Sources and notes" in an article you are primarily writing is ok too. But again, don't fight if some idiot thinks guideline=policy. Wait til they go elsewhere and then change it back. Relax. Don't fight. Wikipedia is more fun that way. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate your advice WAS 4.250, but Philip is here for the long run, and is not going away. My intention is to create some semblance of consistency in article presentation. Besides that I do new article patrols, so its much easier to slap the five sections on it as a guide for its author to follow, never mind to use the find feature in Sources as a hint that I do not want to slap a missing references and citation on their brand new article instead. As I see it, I'm just trying to help prevent a creation of another unreferenced stub--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You said "(Undid revision 220581669 by WAS 4.250 please participate in Wikipedia_talk:Layout#Notes_and_references_sections)" in your edit summary. I made changes that I believe make it better and to show you how I would do it. But I agree with you that your "version is not beyond common sense as the guideline says" so I won't fight about it. My time is worth more to me than wasting it on minor matters like that. It is fun for me to make minor changes that make things better. But not fun for me to fight over them. Perhaps you have a different idea of fun. Good luck. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

48 hours for [20], which is blockable per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, the remedies of which you are subject to. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your view wanted

When you're back, if you would take a look at the Template:Tmbox proposal, I'd appreciate it. I've listed my (weak) concerns on its talk page, but would be happy to hear from someone more sensitive to visibility issues than me. Thanks, (not watching this page) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to emal you regarding your comments on the layout talk, for which I'm grateful because at least even if you don't agree with me, you have taken the time to put it all in writing. Do you mind if I do that? I will have a look at the templates. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey, im back, for List of naval air arm engagements do we need to create a draft?--EZ1234 (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back EZ1234. Do you have a draft suggestion?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should set out the list like this

• Battle of Makassar Strait
  • 4 February 1942
  • Some brief info

Is that alright?, if you have another idea im all ears. Should we set it out by timeline or campaigns and regions?--EZ1234 (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Given they are naval, how about the list be broken up into sections by ocean, and then by seas? The next column can be the date, then the name of the engagement, then the units involved, and end with notations on the actual engagement--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be good. I just realized that there would be hundreds of naval air arm engagements, I think we should name the article List of major naval air arm engagementsEZ1234 (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've begun a sandbox on my userpage. Does a naval arm air engagment only include aircrafts on one side and naval units on the other?--EZ1234 (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSUE

You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1917-1957

Because they were active within the 1917-57 time period!! Anyway, please make your comments either at the main talk page, where I've raised this issue, or on the talk page; let's stop edit warring. Buckshot06(prof) 10:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have asked before why you created two lists for covering same period. It seems to me they units that were primarily created for the war, and ended their existence after it ended. So why have then in a period ending 1957?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you never see the discussion over the page's size? The infantry divisions pages is over 150k, and the original page is over 50k. W.B. Wilson and I discussed it - you'll see the links in the merger proposal section I've established in response to your banner - and decided infantry was the best one to split out. I think I've already said I chose to extend the date to 1957 so it would end with the introduction of Motor Rifle formations. Thus, if it's an infantry division of the Soviet Union between those dates, ipso facto, it has a place on that page. Buckshot06(prof) 14:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, I really appreciate your work on the divisions. However, what you really need is multiple lists because the subject area is too large. There were not 400 infantry divisions created during the Second World World War, but many more. fully 50% of the pre-war divisions were reformed as 2nd formation, and many as 3rd. I guess you are going to think I'm being overbearing again, but I am going to suggest to you that what you need to do is write an article on types of divisions in the Red Army, and have in-article links to each division-type list. I will help you to expand the article, if you need my help, but this would be an article and not a list, preferable showing development from after the Civil War to creation of the the Soviet Army in 1947, which was a fundamental change. The lists are, I am sad to say again, not all that helpful. If a division of the 2nd formation needs to be mentioned in an operation article, it will invariably link to a division number entry, which operated elsewhere, or was even disbanded, so will only confuse the reader. I tried to point this out to you before, but you seem to just discard anything I say, maybe due to my insistence on using Russian sources that you can't verify. I appreciate this, and Roger has raised the issue, but fundamentally, as evidenced by Glantz's research done on German and Soviet archives, the Russian sources are not wrong, just "coloured" in the political overtones of the Soviet era, as was the US literature. In any case, think it over.

I wish you would appreciate that I am fairly dedicated to study of military history over 25 years, and do not have political or ethnic agendas in my contributions. I think that recent conflicts between us are fruitless an do not in the end contribute to productive participation in Wikipedia, so I ma just not going to participate in them. I don't know what you want an apology for (already said I regret using the f*** word), but from where I see it you are just out for revenge, despite my good advice.

I think there are fundamental and systemic problems in Wikipedia that need to be fixed. These issues impact on the acceptance of Wikipedia as an authoritative reference source, and primarily have to do with the ability of editors to support their articles and their continued editing. It is the reason articles are so unstable and can not be taken to FA easily. Excellence in referencing and sourcing supporting materials is something that was drummed into me at the university, and I am completely committed to this. Ideas can not be invented without a logical sequence of evidence being offered.If you agree with me on this, I guarantee there will never be another conflict between us. If you don't, then we will repeatedly meet in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WARNING:If using Firefox 3 with Vista

There is a serious bug if you use FF 3 with Vista. Please see this link - Talk:Mozilla_Firefox#WARNING:Vista_users_and_Firefox_3 Kathleen.wright5 10:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk - Battle in Berlin

Not sure whether you meant to, but you removed my talkpage contributions. Was that a mistake? Buckshot06(prof) 04:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation

Come on Mrg3105...you got your demand, the article was renamed. Reaching the necessary consensus for that article to be renamed required a lot of good will from the other editors. They could have driven this to a non-consensus or a stalemate very easily.

Now, that sarcastic comment is totally unneeded and it will only anger Nick Dowling.

It would way better if you wrote something acknowledging that Nick Dowling's and Buckshot06's support was vital and that you are thankful that the big change you requested got through. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Leningrad & Moscow war-raised divisions of volunteers

(Managed not to use either title!). Would you mind sourcing the section that you added, whatever we decide on finally for the name? It looks a bit bad with all the other sections heavily footnoted and sourced, but that not having a single ref or bibliographical reference. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 05:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

32 teeth

Feel free to put that back in, I was only definately sure about the irrelevancy of a 32-bit doubleword in computing being related in any way. There may be a relation with teeth I don't know about, but it seemed to be out of place trivia. There's no dire need for a citation, but putting it in context would be good. Nazlfrag (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Question on 13th Army Band and 13th army band articles

I was doing some work for the WikiProject Unreferenced Article Cleanup, and the first articles in Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2008 were these 2 articles. I added some citations to 13th Army Band and its talk page was a redirect to Talk:13th army band. The 2 articles 13th Army Band and 13th army band appear to be separate identical articles. Their history says that you did a move but it looks somehow like a copy. Shouldn't there be a redirect in place for one of the spellings and not 2 separate articles? Didn't want to do anything in case there was some other purpose that is not obvious to me. Cheers. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Civil

I am merely asking you to remain civil and not insult people, either directly, or indirectly, by mocking the terms they use. Buckshot06(prof) 21:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That presupposes (by you) that I was insulting anyone. I was merely pointing out the inconsistency of approach to citing guidelines--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Burma

Okay, I have created Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Burma. I have added you along with added 18 other users (including myself) to the list of involved parties. The ones I have listed are ones who have commented recently, or who commented on the Mediation Cabal case (except if they solely made a neutral comment). If you disagree with me listing you there, remove yourself from it if you wish. If you feel someone else should be involved, add/ask them. I hope those I have added are alright though. I also hope this step is what finally ends this dispute! Deamon138 (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mail

Thanks for the note. I had a look, but I don't feel I know enough about the subject either way to pass judgement on the article name. Sorry I'm not much help! :) Gwinva (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

Shavuot celebrates Moses receiving the Ten Commandments. What's This? Shalom aleichem sports fans, and welcome to the first of what I hope will be a monthly newsletter with the need-to-know information about our fair WikiProject. If you have any questions or comments, or would like to recommend a story for the newsletter, click here to leave a message on the Newsletter Coordinator's talk page. In the News WikiProject Good Articles is doing sweeps over all our current good articles to ensure they still meet criteria. For more information and how you can help, check out WikiProject Good Articles Sweeps. GA status for the article Jew has been put on hold pending a few minor revisions. A list of things that need to be done to return this top importance article to its proper status can be found here. Jerusalem is a Featured Article Candidate! Go forth, my people, and !vote! To Do One new Judaism-related article was created this month, the long requested Hebrew Punctuation. Thanks to Epson291 for creating it. Remember, folks, there are over forty standing requests for Judaism articles, so whenever you get the opportunity make sure to go create a few. In the right column you will see a listing of our most popular articles. All of these articles got 170,000+ page hits in the past month, and they should be on everyone's watchlist so we can keep them vandalism-free. Spread the word! No, not the Word... (well, you can do that too) I'm talking about inviting knowledgeable users to join the project. You can proclaim your undying love of WikiProject Judaism in methods mild to wild, check the project template page and member list for examples. We also now have a flashy advertisement, to use it add {{Wikipedia ads|ad=148}} to your userpage. Quick Stats On the date of publish, we had... 275 Project Members 6152 articles 2341 of which are Stubs 15 of which are Good 8 of which are Featured New Members Benignuman Bernstein2291 Shevashalosh Yudel Most Popular Articles By page hits. Source. Israel The Holocaust Judaism Ten Commandments Ark of the Covenant Wikipedia ads file info – #148

This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

85mm divisional gun D-44

Thanks for your assist with this. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 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) 19:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Templates and so

Hi. After our little exchange at Gematria I noticed that {{find}} was being used well outside its specified usage. I therefore removed it from quite a few pages. Within minutes it became clear that almost all these pages are about military history, and it turns out that you were generally the editor to add this template. I therefore thought that I should drop a note to clarify my edits.

Tight integration between Wikipedia and Google would be nice, and I have previously encouraged editors to either write their own monobook.js extension to plug Google functionality, or alternatively to file a Bugzilla report. Of course it would be ideal if you could tap into Google for sources after reading an encyclopedia article.

At the same time, I don't think {{find}} should be added to any article pages at present, or only on designated bio-stubs. The reasons are: (1) it suggests Google will answer any remaining questions (usually "no" if the encyclopedia article is well-written), (2) it is a tool for editors, not for readers and should therefore be on the talkpage.

I will not remove the template from any more pages until I have your views, but at the same time I expect you not to undo my actions until you have responded. We can discuss matters here or on Template talk:Findsources if you find that more appropriate. JFW | T@lk 14:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not particularly satisfied with your response.[21] You really should have awaited some form of consensus before reinserting your templates. I am also less than delighted with your personal attack referring to my 4 year editing history. Surely that should have been an indicator to you that I am an experienced editor (for the record, your first registered edit was on 4 November 2006) and that it might be inappropriate to throw me insults.

By extension of your logic, almost every single page should have the template, because apart from our featured articles, every article is by definition a work in progress. To put such templates in the article namespace for your convenience (to avoid you having to open extra windows) really does not displace my arguments above in the slightest. Much more consensus is needed for its use before applying the template for such a use all over the project. Other solutions (e.g. a monobook.js extension or a plugin) might be much more useful. JFW | T@lk 15:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me you are overly sensitive. I expressed surprise, and I wonder how surprise can be interpreted as an attack. I don't need a consensus because I did as I was asked, and re-read the conditions of use of the template as advised by you. I found no statements of restriction as you suggested. What would you say that's called, deceptions, insult to my intelligence? I am simply adopting an existing tool for another use, a practice well establish in human behaviour as being normal, and far from aggressive, usually considered creative.

It doesn't really matter how long anyone has been editing, does it? It only matters that the editor contributes productively and with the intention of improving Wikipedia in mind. Having the findsources template in articles assists in improving Wikipedia, not having it does not.

You are quire correct. Any article that has any statements or claims made which need to be cited, needs the encouragement of other editors to provide such citations. Have you seen what happens to FA articles while they go through approval? Citing references is the single most common issue, and cause of disputes in Wikipedia. I am simply taking a note from the discipline of medicine and suggesting that prevention is better than the cure.

So far I have not seen any suggestions for other solutions to combat gross lack of references in articles, and certainly no constructive action to do anything about it. If you think that you can offer such solutions, you are welcome to propose them here--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I know jolly well what happens to a FAC. I happen to be involved in one at the moment; I am not having any referencing problems there, but that aside. For the FAC process, it would be nice to have a nice tool to quickly find websites (which is not identical to "sources"), but not to the point that you should put a template into the article namespace. You have not addressed my point that by extension of your logic, every single page ought to be bearing the template, and that therefore a script or extension would be more suitable and less obtrusive to editors who don't care for it. References are found by someone with a command of the relevant literature finding the most appropriate source, not by someone pushing a button to Google.

I am basing my statements on the use of {{find}} on the text of Template:Findsources/doc ("This template is primarily useful for finding sources for stub articles, or in deletion discussions.") and Template talk:Findsources ("Please be more careful with this template; it is an AfD and bio-stub tool"). I think that is fairly unambiguous. JFW | T@lk 16:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mrg3105, I created the find template, and it shouldn't be used in articles - have a look at number 9 on this list.--PhilKnight (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the never ending vandalism on the heterosexuality article. Caden S (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Tags

I reverted myself straight away, saying "joke" in the edit summary. Then you reverted me which put the tag back!!! Then you reverted yourself again realising. Lol, confusing. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Atlantic, again

You really want to do this again?
What on earth gave you the idea that you you had the right to make a unilateral change to the opening sentence when this has been a bone of contention for months? I’ve put it back in again; if you have anything to say about it take it to the talk page; I have. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Burma. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 01:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Venus and mars symbols

They represent the planets Venus and Mars (as well as copper and iron, and male and female), but there's no evidence I'm aware of that these symbols were used in ancient Roman times, or have a particularly close association with the mythological deities Venus and Mars. These symbols likely originated from the astrology-astronomy (not always clearly distinguished) and alchemy of the Middle Ages, and owe their modern sexual use much more to notational practices in the field of botany than to ancient mythologies... AnonMoos (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If you ever decide to write to anyone on any topic of editing articles in Wikipedia, and find yourself using words like maybe, likely or "I suppose", just don't write, but go out there and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL the reference that will support your no doubt good attempted guess and then cite it.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you're the one who is advocating a non-standard (some might say eccentric) view, and adding disputed material to an article, the burden of sourcing would appear to be on you. Furthermore, some of my hedging in the above remarks was due to the fact that the exact origin of the planet-gender symbols is in fact not known with any certainty. However, the general historical context from which these symbols emerged is known -- and this context was not ancient polytheism... AnonMoos (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation

Hi, I removed my support for the strawpoll basically because I have no real beef in the fight (I'm not an expert on Soviet operations during WW2) and I don't really care what that particular article is called. Just be aware that "Soviet invasion of Manchuria" is probably what most people will search for if they were looking for that article (I think anyway). I believe that an encyclopedia should be just as helpful for non-experts as for experts, but that's just my opinion. Anyway, two questions:

1. What are your thoughts on battles like Battle of Basra (2008) and Second Battle of Fallujah. In your opinion, should they be renamed Operation Charge of the Knights and Operation Phantom Fury?
2. Do you think there is a need for guidelines on the use of "strategic" and "tactical" when it comes to the results field of the battle infobox. You seem to have a handle on military terms so I'm just wondering what you think when you see "strategic Taliban victory" in the Battle of Wanat article.

Thank you for your time. Lawrencema (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Timelines: masochists only

Check this out User:Dhatfield/EasyTimeline Tutorial. I'm afraid I will not do Timelines on request because of the pain involved, but it is possible. Dhatfield (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked (2)

You have been blocked for four days, per the Digwuren restriction, for incivility and personal attacks. Here are a few sample diffs: [22] [23] [24] [25] --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)