User talk:Mrg3105/Archive 5

The pro-diacritics pushers? will never give up their control. I've proposed a 'seperation'. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To propose something like that would require a Wikipedia Foundation Inc. policy decision, and not just a change to a guideline. Not sure you will get much feedback since there is already a policy that most reasonable common sense editors should follow. May I suggest that you start learning other language "writing systems". You can start with Albanian! Maybe Stephan Schulz can give you lessens?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mrg3105, sorry, I do not. A regimental history might comment on this, but my resources for British Army topics are slim. On the face of it, that many British troops surrendering to the Italians sounds unlikely, but some of the Italian forces were competent enough. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I wanted to clarify the Von Ryan's express article. Will try and find out some other way. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this helps. 9/RF was assigned for the entire war to the 1st (London) Infantry Brigade, later redesignated the 167th (London) Infantry Brigade. From 28.11.40 until 10.2.44, this brigade was part of the 56th (London) Infantry Division. This division did not see action in North Africa until April 1943, in Tunisia. While the reputed surrender could have happened during the Tunisian Campaign, again, it seems unlikely. The division's next action was at Salerno as the division did not participate in the Sicilian Campaign. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt you have seen the movie Von Ryan's Express which stars Frank Sinatra as a US pilot who ends up in an Italian POW camp largely created for British POWs of this battalion (at one time called regiment in the movie). Given the movie opens with the funeral of the British colonel commanding the POWs, it would have had to be a fairly significant surrender. Later in the movie Sinatra says that the POWs have been there for two years, and since on arrival he announces that Messina was taken three days ago (17 August 1943). I thought maybe the movie had some basis of truth behind it in an episode during the 1941 British campaigns in North Africa, possibly with another of RF battalions, but couldn't find anything there either. Maybe there was a battalion taken prisoner, but of less illustrious lineage and the name was changed for the movie. Of course another American POW in the movie declares himself to be from the 113 Armoured Division. I suspectt he movie was based on the events of the 5th NZ brigade, and are somewhat detailed here http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Pris-_N78986.html ;O)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sounds fictional, at least as far as the unit ID's go. They could not have chosen a worse number for the U.S. armored unit, there was no 113th in terms of battalions, regiments, or divisions as far as armored units were concerned. As well, the mixing of nationalities and air force and army personnel in the same camp sounds suspect, but I am not familiar with how the Italians ran their POW camps. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not that fictional. There was an armoured US unit, the 113th Cavalry regiment which was a non-divisional unit of the XIX Corps (http://members.home.nl/alasoe/113th_cav_rcn_sq.htm), however, how this particular member of the unit ended up in Italy in 1943 would of course be an interesting story ;o) This unit is still around 113th Cavalry Regiment (United States)

BTW, I note that the US XIX article is yet to be written, so this site [1] may be a good source for it. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mrg. Saw your suggestion about a page name move here. If you take a look at the extended page history you will see that I already moved it previously to 119th 'Sassuntsi-Davit' Separate Engineer Tank Regiment. As it was a unique title, I felt there was no need for a (Soviet Union). However it was reverted by the page creator, user:MarshallBagramyan, who also wrote the 76th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) and other Armenian-related Soviet military articles. I'd support a move to something more along the proper lines, but I suggest you talk to Marshall Bagramyan first. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Buckshot06. Do I need to tell you how many "unique" titles different units in Red Army had? There is an article on "tank columns" on RKKA site which details about 30-40 units that received sponsored vehicles, of which "David Sassansky" was one. However this name was not an official name of the unit which begun life as the 119th separate tank battalion, and later became an independent tank regiment (or separate as you call it). David Sassanky was NEVER in its honorific, but was only painted on the tanks. It started out in WW2 combat as a newly formed 119th separate battalion (1st formation) on the Leningrad Front with 4 x T-34s and 7 x T-26 in 1941 during the Tikhvin defensive operation of the Leningrad Front serving as part of the 4th Army. (http://militera.lib.ru/h/isaev_av5/06.html) of the 41st Light Tank Brigade after being reflagged from the 50th tank battalion which arrived from the North Caucasian Military District in August 1940 (there is the Armenian link). It was reformed as 2nd formation 119th tank brigade on 2 May 1942 in Gorky with two battalions and other subunits as part of the Bryansk Front. (Not to be confused with the 119th tank brigade 1st formation which was reformed in the Moscow area as the 7th Guards Heavy Lomzhinsk Order of Red Banner tank regiment) (from soldat.ru forum) In August-September 1942 it was part of the 30th Army on the Kalinin Front with 23 Valentines and 13 T-60s, which were reduced to 4 of each two months later. In October 1942 it was reformed as a regiment (1st formation) and taken out of the line in the Brynsk Front sector. In July 1943 it was a part of the 10th Guards Army until spring of 1944. (with T-34/76 1943 model tanks) In August 1943 it distinguished itself at Yelnya (conducting combat in the city; CO Col. O.A. Losik - future Marshal of Armoured Troops of Soviet Union; the reason this regiment is so well known) and received the official honorific "Yelninski" (Yelnya) along with other units of the 10th Guards Army. (This was the operation which gave birth to the Guards honorific of the Red Army) During September it was attached to the 7th Guards Corps during the Smolensk operation, conducting a successful assault-crossing of the Ustrom river to reinforce the 29th and 85th Guards divisions. By March 1944 the regiment is equipped with the T-34/85 tanks as part of the 2nd Ukrainian Front, which are repainted with Armenian script rather then the Russian of the T-34/76s (see here http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=85&Itemid=43&lang=ru) During the 60s the 119th tank regiment was equipped with heavy tanks and SP guns (IS-2/3 and ISU-152) in Germany as part of the 11th tank division, 1st Guards Tank Army (40km from Erfurt) Before the dissolution of the Soviet Union the regiment was a 119th separate Yelninsky tank battalion in the 60th Motor Rifle Division (Lenkoran) of the 4th Combined Arms Army based around Baku, and had 31 Т-72 (аlso 4 Т-55 and 12 Т-54); 13 BMP (9 BMP-1, 4 BMP-1Command), 6 BTR (1 BTR-80, 5 BTR-70); 1 R-145BM; 1 MTU-20 The regiment passed in its entirety into the Azerbaijan Army, and equipement was used during the Nagorno-Karabakh campaign against Armenia. Now you know why this regiment of all others has been selected for "notability".--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, great research work. I'd encourage you not just to leave it on your talk page, but to add it to the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot06, I don't care who adds it. You know what my project is. I have no interest in getting mired in yet another nationalistically-motivated article that has a woefully wrong title. You give it a go for a change. I have another article to translate for guy doing Operation Bagration, and this is besides the course. The only reason I picked out this regiment is because I have read Marshal Losik's biography and I was SOOOOOO surprised to read this article. No doubt I would have to get a consensus with a "room full" of Armenians on one side and Azeris on the other ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I don't fully understand - why did you go and look out all that history otherwise? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not so hard to look it all up; I did it in the break of about 30 minutes. Had I said that the article is just wrong, and has a wrong article title you would have asked why and wanted sources, right? Mostly I am too busy to integrate all this into the existing article which doesn't even have significant notability as far as I'm concerned, unless one considers English speaking Armenians.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure we're talking about the same unit? David Glantz wrote to me that 'from Boevoi sostav Sovetskoi armii [Combat composition of the Soviet Army] 1944 and 1945

regiment began its wartime service as the 119th Rifle Tank (Mixed) Regiment in the 2nd Ukrainian Front in February 1944.

The Regiment received several additional tank columns and, as a result, was reorganized into the 119th Separate Engineer Tank Regiment (with mine-clearing tanks) on 26 May 1944.

It was assigned to the 1st Baltic Front in June 1944.

Sounds like two separate units, this 119th Tank Bn->Regt and the Sassuntsi-Davsi Rifle Tank (Mixed) Regt that became an Engr Tank Regt. Also, why is it possibly not very notable? Every cavalry regiment in the British Army has an article, why not the Red and Soviet Armies? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, same unit. It became separate engineer-tank regiment on the date David states, but wasn't with the 1st Baltic for very long from what I can gather. Its various permutations are given in Perecheny No.14, p23. You can also see the page for it here [2] in Russian, but the pictures tell the story. The name on the T-34/76 tanks in Russian, and one KMT kit with the initial issue (can just see it in the picture) which is what a tank regiment was supposed to have.

There were 181 such tank "columns" built on the collections of civilians and donations by enterprises and organisations, some consisting of only a few tanks, others outfitting entire brigades. Most had sponsor names painted on the turrets, but none were official unit names.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious about Russian regiments? There were 64 cavalry regiments in the Imperial Russian Army in 1811 alone. During the Second World War the Red Army Cavalry Arm had entire Corps, not to mention independent regiments. And this is just the Army. What about the NKVD and Border Guards cavalry regiments? Even if I had the sources and all the time in the world, documenting every regiment in the Imperial Russian, Soviet and current Russian Federation forces would take a very substantial team of people a very long time. I can create lots of one-line stubs for the pre-1917 regiments, but I guess you would not be too happy about that.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And we've got, what, 40-odd articles on British Army cavalry regiments? My worry wasn't that we didnt have articles for them, but that you said they weren't notable - worth an article when we get around to it. When/if we do, it'd be great to have an article on every cavalry and tank regiment. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure every regiment is notable, but there were some battalions that were more notable then some regiments. Consider the assault-sapper battalions that took part in the taking of Koenigsberg, or the naval infantry battalions in the Kirkeness operation. All I have for these would be like a two line entry. Even with the Soviet Army you haven't scratched the surface yet. Let me see waht I can do. I'm having a few issues with the course although I have most of my book now.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The February 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) 07:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you took part in the discussion about renaming this article, you may be interested in participating in a most evil poll to determine the public opinion on the naming issue. --Illythr (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Jassy was written in three languages, Russian, Arabic (Turkish) and German since a copy was forwarded to Russia's ally, Austria. Catherine IInd also was much more conversant in German then Russian.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but Jassy was still the English exonym for the city until the early to mid part of the last century as can be seen on these maps here, here, here, here, here, and here. — AjaxSmack 04:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I'm not arguing with you. However, given the event occurred in the middle of the 20th century, using 19th century sources is not that helpful. I can dig up an English map that has everything in Latin, and I know one editor who will jump at this as proof that there is no difference between English and Latin. Hence the use of historical sources. There can be no sources of the operation in English prior to 1944! Given the state of German publishing, and the availability of information in the West on Soviet operations during the Second World War, I doubt that any pre-1960s sources can be trusted. Erikson begun his research in late 60s; Glantz in mid-70s.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On another note, I thought of letting you know about this old thread from the long ago times when you were not around here, now that this thread is deep in the archives. I am not suggesting that you should do anything about it now besides reading it.

And on a totally unrelated matter, I read a bit of the naming discussion that you are so heavily involved. I think many (although not all) diatrics in this encyclopedia are indeed a nuisance while I won't support their total elimination either. Anyway, this belongs to the discussion page and the only thing I wanted to tell you here is that you might want to reconsider claiming offended and making a big deal out of insensitive or simply brusque comments of other users. Often ignoring such stuff is the best thing you can do to avoid the discussion's shifting the topic. Regards, --Irpen 04:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GPW is a mess. My purpose is to completely overhaul the Eastern Front articles and add to their number. This will likely take about two years although I though naively that 6 months would be enough when I started planning last year.

I am not so concerned with casualties as some editors appear to be. Exact, and even relatively close estimates of casualties are virtually impossible for the GPW, for either side. I am more concerned with getting the Eastern Front documented from a neutral point of view using sources from both sides. As a result of using these sources the casualty figures will become apparent as part of article research. As they stand now many articles are woefully bias.

Here is the funny thing - I have never advocated "getting rid of" accents (I prefer Frenko-English to the Greek word). The whole thing started with the renaming of the Yassy-Kishinev operation into Rumanian. My basic premise has always been that any reader using an English reference work would expect mostly English entry titles. The words that use accents in English vocabulary number 800 in a 500,000 assortment. Their possible occurrence in an encyclopaedia titles ordinarily would be extremely rare. However they were used as a pretext to rename a large number of articles into languages other then English! Given that 16% of English language is composed of recently borrowed loanwords, this is going to become ridiculous quickly. Try to extrapolate this to its eventuality knowing that "English" is a composite language based on highly corrupted Franko-Latin, highly corrupted Old German, and highly distorted Celtic! In any case, I will be interested to see where this goes. In the process people may finally discover the fraudulence of the Indo-European Theory.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the GPW topic, I recently bought Mawdsley's Thunder in the East which I selected based on this review. So, if you need help with what the book says on some specific point, feel free to ask. --Irpen 22:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of maritime explorers now in a table --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philip, did you just copy and paste the cells?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't do your magic and repeat the feat you managed with the 119th Separate Engineer Tank Regiment and find something out about the formation that stormed the Kuriles, could you? Would really appreciate it. Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the 1957 mark is the reorganisation of all Mechanised and Rifle Divisions into Motor Rifle Divisions. The 57 and onwards page - covering Motor Rifle Divisions - is at List of Soviet Army divisions 1989-91, which I've been expanding backwards in time. For example, take a look at the 7th Motor Rifle Division. But neither of that is anything to do with Army level formations, which are at Army (Soviet Army). By the way, the reason the new page was created was, as you'll see at W.B. Wilson's talk, that the original page had made it up onto the list of the 50 longest pages in Wikipedia - see the tag which was added in the page history. You know that, sorry. Thanks for the quick work on the 101st. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your points in order. 'No, I appreciate the renaming, but this was not as great a change as the reflagging of the vast majority of the Corps into divisions.'

For tank formations, doesn't apply quite yet; for Motorised Corps, will be handled - is already being handled - as that 17-57 page grows.

"Motor Rifle" only reflected the change in scale of motorisation of the rifle troops. And what happens between 1957 and 1989? There was a vast difference between the 1957 Motor Rifle Division and a 1967 one, and the 1979 MDR was completely incomparable.

Takes time!! Also, I'd argue with that contention; both had three MRRs, tank element (regt or bn), arty regt, AA or SAM regt, just different equipment.

This is what I have a problem with, the continuity. You had encountered this issue with the 40th Army due to its participation in Afghanistan, but why treat it as an exception. It seems to me there needs to be a single category of Soviet rifle divisions. What happened to these divisions during the years of existence of the Soviet Union need not be fractured into convenient chunks just as the history of the British 1st Division. Although the article lacks 200 years of history, there isn't a British 1st Division (1809-1937), and another British 1st Division (1901-1939).

That's what I'm doing, I thought, following my main source Feskov et al. If you have better sources, please send them!

The 101st was not a great amount of work; a single article. However, it made me realise how much is missing from the Wikipedia that would allow someone so interested to understand the Soviet rifle division of the Second World War. I'll do the 79th division next since it was the other major division of the 87th Corps in the theatre.

(A) Could you fill in the 1941 etc history for the 101st? It was in the west before it was sent east. (B) Your alternative is to work at Corps level - cuts the workload in half or so. If you wanted to do it this way, there's a Russian article on the 8th Rifle Corps which you could start by translating.

Why don't you just create a lot of stubs? I also noticed the divisions are sorting in the category somewhat funny.

The divisions are sorted by Rifle, Guards, 'C' for Cavalry in WW2 (actually a present-day Ukrainian unit), etc

It also irritates me that the Soviet divisions and brigades are listed as Ukrainian. If an when I encounter this as part of GPW editing, I can assure you that I will want to move them. There is no connection between the Soviet and the Ukrainian units other then the names that the Ukrainians say belong top them. Its a bit like renaming the 2/2st Battalion NSWR into the Coldstream Guards...because it sounds better. I know I have said it before.

I understand your point of view; Ceriy and I disagree with you; don't think there's much point in repeating ourselves. However, if you discover a big treasure trove of info on the exploits of a formation in Soviet service, we can add that to the existing article, and then split it (as I've done with the 76th Rifle Division and the 51st Mechanized Brigade though at a different point. I think that might present a better alternative to a 2 vs 1 renaming debate. (Incidentially, the point is that we're all, at different times, focusing on different parts of history; Ceriy started to document the current Ukrainian forces, me the current Russian forces, and you would like, as per the 9th (or Kursk?) Div, to start from 1917, while I'm looking at WW2 now. Appreciate your inputs. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Tsaritsyn
  • I'm not saying it shouldn't be in the article, its just not necessary for the immediate introduction/summary.

• Start Date
  • The Soviet date should be added, but I think ultimately there are numerous dates which could be used; "summer" just seems general enough, while indicating that the battle didn't just start suddenly on one particular day, but rather involved a gradual evolution over a period of time. If I had to pick, I would date the actual main battle from the start of the prepatory aerial bombardment; I believe that is August 23. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

• POWs
  • Its fine to distinguish the specific number of German POWs, but the actual battle itself was an international one and the main summary should list all Axis POWs. Meanwhile, one of my pet peeves is how most people focus on 6th Army, and utterly ignore 4th Panzer. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

• Battle for Stalingrad vs Battle of Stalingrad
  • I don't have a preference. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

• Intentions?
  • Right now, just to go through and add more detail and streamline it some. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

• I'm probably going to summarize everything to mid-August in a couple paragraphs, and move the rest for the Operation Blue article; likewise, Winter Storm and Uranus should be kept to a minimum, so that the focus remains primarily on the immediate engagement at Stalingrad itself, and in the subsequent kessel. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

The link you broke and I reestablished was the one to the Far East Military District, which you changed to Far Eastern Military District. You hadn't moved the page. Seems that Bogdan agrees with you, so, if you wish, go ahead and move it to Far Eastern Military District, but please, change at least the most important links pointing to it. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you would do a search across Wikipedia and fix all links at the time of the move?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that every page has, on the left, third box down, a 'What links here' link. All you have to do to find the pages that link is to click on that link. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, aside from Chuikov's account and the official Russian history, I'm not too familiar with the Soviet historiography. If you know a few good translated texts on the subject, or WWII in general, I'd be interested in suggestions. I think I'll take an introductory Russian course in the fall. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

I have found it works better if I just let you keep editing, and when you think that you need something, to just ask me. Otherwise we will be editing over each other and probably not being particularly productive. I don't know if you have e-mail, but if you do, I will email the replies to any questions you have to keep the talk pages free, and allow you to incorporate my replies into the content. Most of the information is available online, including a number of published works. Where units are concerned I use Perecheni and some other databases like the Liberation of cities. Where I don't know the answer, I ask in forums.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, tried to download a 1/200,000 of Narva but could not. It asked me to enter a code, but the code was not displayed, at least on my PC.

Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my PC went down last night, period, soyou are in a better position then I am ;O\

The reason you don't see the core is because the coding of the site is not in the usual Windows but probably Unicode-something. When I get my PC fixed (tomorrow?), I will try to discover what the issue is--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to assume that I was incorrect on most of those points? I was aware that a taskforce was in the process of combing through the eastern front articles in an effort to re-write them, I just felt the older version would give them a better platform to do so, rather than a POV ridden monologue. A collaborative effort would be far more adviseable than some editor who thinks he knows it all. Dapi89 (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the question is in the title really. Was that you? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did send an email, but it didn't have a question in the title.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given your past contribution to this issue you may be interested in the new thread here. Euryalus (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume it's a coincidence. Anyway, just letting you know. Euryalus (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I mostly agree with you in terms of the incorrect title should be corrected regardless of displeasure etc that causes. I'm not sure how discerning between good and bad sources can be done without more of a dialogue examining each source. I think that, ATM, it is at totally the wrong name. The issue right now, in my mind, is getting it to something approaching the right name, and we can then start a process to look at more detail at sources. Oh, in regards to the assessment, I'm running through my range of articles ATM. Not sure if catagories get rated. Narson (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for the tagging anyway. I just noticed some articles didn't even have a MilHist template, but didn't have one handy and then saw your participation.

"getting it to something approaching the right name", now change the last word to runway, and see what your 'passengers' think of that approach ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Discriminating between good and bad sources is part of editorial judgment. Under the circumstances, however, it would be just as well to read the historiographic literature, and have sourced statements praising this source and damning that one close to hand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pmanderson. I have been a historian for longer then some editors here have been alive (which will no doubt be held against me). However, no amount of reading on my behalf will affect editorial judgments of people who are not bound by any formal code of editorial professional integrity. In any case, the ability to read is proven not to have a strong correlation with the analytical abilities every editor needs, and I have so far found this sometimes lacking. On at least a couple of occasions I have also found the ability to read lacking. I will also mention the rather superficial relationship between editors who are not united by some extra-Wikipedian "ideal" based on notions of civility that lacks intellectual honesty, and not basing consensus on facts, but on numbers. As an economic historian, I assure you that given a choice the consumer will always choose quality, so it seems to me that if Wikipedia had a statement of purpose, quality of its offered product would be somewhere within the primary goals and objectives of its management. As a matter of fact statistics reflect only quantity. Well, 'bigger battalions' do win wars, but as a student of the Eastern Front during the Second World War, I can assure you that the cost is not one willingly paid by any thinking community. Editorial attrition in Wikipedia seems to confirm this observation.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite your source/sources for this article - be good to know where the info came from. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the 4th Panzer Group. I thought we decided to go with no (nation) for unique unit names.

For stubs the article is a basic translation which is from the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, but reproduced on a number of Russian sites. The reason it takes so long to do each Army is that in the past I found minor errors, so have to verify. When we edit the articles for Start/B level I will ensure sources are there as you have done for every distinct section and statements.

I have taken your suggestion on board, and started to redlink all formations and units as I come across them. The bad news is that I lost all my soft files (at least for now) so have to start rebuilding from 6 months ago (I wasn't great on backup). At least I have the hard library.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would you mind inserting a note that the original, whether mirrored or not, is the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia? Better than me having to pester you about inserting your sources. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary for a stub-rater? --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's key for everything. Everything added should be cited; where can readers at the moment look for the sources? As for redlinks, the redlink I was objecting to not being fixed was your mention of Panzer Group 4 - you'd moved Fourth Panzer Army (Germany) just before, so I was perplexed why you couldn't remember the right title. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I forgot about the 4th Panzer; should have checked. There is no English online database for Red Army. For consistency I will use http://www.victory.mil.ru/rkka/units/ but this is not much help AFAIC. Its better then most GSE mirror sites though.--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not add futher comments to a closed process. If you really wish to kick the dead horse, you may do so at the corresponding editors' talk pages. Also, the PR department consisted of Jmabel, Dc76 and me. Obviously, we weren't particularly brilliant at it. --Illythr (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you note my final replies were not directed at Biru as such. Also I had no intention of kicking anyone (not my words). Had he given same advice a few months ago, things would have been different, but at the RfA he displayed a fine set of double standards. Everything else that was said about me was a joke. I'm a professionally trained economic historian, and I don't get into an argument unless I have the facts and figures as a backup. What I face with some editors is pure amateurism, and a bit of immaturity.--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beating a dead horse is a metaphor I misspelled a bit. There's even an wikiessay based on it. Uh, what's up with your username? --Illythr (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a redirect should be discussed, please go here Please feel free to ask me if you need any further assistance. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew there was a Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion! There is a plague of redirects in the WWII Eastern Front due to everyone wanting to have their national spelling of the article although few English speakers would ever be able to search using these terms, and specialists wouldn't need to. I am dead set against having redirects in any case other then where there are more then one English common names, with other names given in the intro section. Thank you for pointing me there. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]