Thanks for your article. It is very informative. We need more entries like this one. -- Ghirla -трёп- 12:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Entex, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Entex/index.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 05:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
A {{
prod}} template has been added to the article
Entex, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{
db-author}}.
GlassCobra (
talk •
contribs) 05:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Hans Jordan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Pump
me
up 09:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Walter Weiss requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Otolemur crassicaudatus (
talk) 09:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mrg3105. Thanks for you comments here. Believe me, I don't feel in any way "pumped" or special by tagging articles. I'm sorry if you feel this way. What I do is try to ensure Wikipedia stays legal and doesn't violate copyright holder's rights off when tagging pages as such. However in this case I may be in error, though another administrator also thought that the article was an unreasonable copyright violation. Nonetheless I invite you to re-create the aforementioned articles, utilizing the service statistics, etc provided the majority of the text is your creation. Things like what they may have accomplished in service, etc will make it less likely someone similar to myself will feel the article is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I've offended you or caused you hassle. Cheers, Pump me up 10:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Noticed your really good improvements to the Red Army tactics in WW2. Would you mind adding some references to them - which books you got the material out of, with footnotes? ( Wikipedia:Footnotes#How to use). Otherwise it's very difficult to be sure of how good the information is, and it will be difficult to rate the article higher. If you need help, I'd gladly help you with how to put in footnotes. Thanks very much, and happy holidays! Buckshot06 ( talk) 22:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Buckshot06. I'm determined to resist trying to learn about Wikipedia navigation and markup nad stay focused on writing/editing. As a result I screwed up my user page when trying to insert a sandbox. Its not that I'm technologically incompetent. I just have too much to read as it is. I take your point on the British Army, and the Soviet one. My other project is assisting with translation of the complete OOB for the Red Army for WW2. Yes, all 36 volumes of it. I am well aware of the magnitude of the task, and so I'm also trying to find a way to solve this using technology. Currently it stands at about AU$300 in software. After that is under way, I hope to substantially enlarge the entries in Wikipedia :) I'm also a member of the Australian part of RUSI (NSW branch), so can contribute to Australian and Commonwealth Military History.-- Mrg3105 ( talk) 05:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Great thought also on listing all the campaign Soviet style - if there's a central listing somewhere, that would mean we can take stock and see which ones don't have articles, as well as being able to link every written-about campaign/operation with the units that took part that already have articles. Tell me what you want me to do and I'll pitch in - but please PLEASE note your sources as you go, otherwise FA-quality articles take so much longer.
Buckshot06 (
talk) 06:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm working from the scans I got from the www.pobeda.com.ru (I think). Craig Crofoot is already several documents into the thing, and did the Fronts and Front HQs.
here is what he says:
Gentlemen,
I am going to describe what is available on the Internet as far as the order of battle of the Soviet Armed Forces goes. This is a general summary and not specific details. If there are specific details that you know about, please let me know.
1) In the 1985 Robert Poirer and Albert Conner wrote ‘The Red Army Order of Battle in the Great Patriotic War”(Presidio Press) which for the first time dealt with the unit histories of major Red Army combat formations (its still available through amazon.com [1]). Although general in make-up and based primarily on the German Army’s Fremde Heeres Ost records, it did provide something. In the 1990’s the authors attempted to have published a second edition, but due to its size and the publishers unwillingness to have two volumes, this was dropped (per telephone call with Mr. Conner). Given the fact of the huge amount of information now available from Russia, I would consider this severly dated material and would recommend acquiring a copy of the book only as a collector’s item.
2) From 1995 to 1998, Charles Sharp wrote and had published through The Nafziger Collection (
http://home.fuse.net/nafziger/WW2_ARMY.HTM) a 12 volume series detailing the unit histories of the ground formations of the Soviet Army and NKVD during the war. Portions of them were based on Poirer and Conner’s book, some on the original German FHO records, but then a new source was mentioned. It was the official order of battle of the Soviet Army as published by the Soviet Ministry of Defense from 1956 to 1990. It was relatively unknown until the early 1990s because the Ministry of Defense had classified all of them SECRET. The problem with them is they only detail the combat forces and not the support forces. Eastview Publishing originally was the sole source of them, but in my opinion because of the high price they were charging, several Russians were upset and began obtaining copies of them through their own sources and put them out on the Internet. Igor Ivlev at soldat.ru used the version put out by the Russian Ministry of Defense to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the war, but this was poorly done since the Ministry only put out 1 for each quarter. Two other sites put their versions out, one in PDF and the other in html (see below for links). In my opinion, download both and compare.
3) Approximately 5-6 years ago, word began seeping out of the Russian Federation that there was a much larger series of books detailing not only the combat units, but also the combat support and combat service support units of the Army, Navy, Air Force (including Long-Range Aviation) and PVO forces. They were initially called for those that did not know them ‘Perechins” (Russian for ‘Lists”). About 3 years ago, I was able to obtain a list of the books (initially being 36 of them). They were described to me as being a list of all the formations and units of that type that were in the Operational Army during the Great Patriotic War. For the Eastern Front, this covered the period from 22 June 1941 to 11 May 1945 and against the Japanese from 9 August 1945 to 3 September 1945, with one additional volume that covered the battles with the Japanese in the late 1930s, invasion of Poland in 1939, and the Soviet-Finnish war in 1939-40.
Over the last years, only bits and pieces came out, such as the Tank and Motorized Divisions, the low numbered Rifle Divisions. My initially plan was to hire someone in Russia to see if the can obtain scanned copies of them so I can translate them and put them on the Internet. Well, that all changed on 24 August 2007.
4) On 24 August, through his source, Igor Ivlev posted on his soldat.ru website scans of most (one is missing) of these Lists. I have posted links to them below. Although you do not need anything special to download them, you will need WinRaR to extract the files and Djvu (from lizardtech.com) to view them. It seems that they are appendices to General Staff Directives (which still remain restricted) showing every formation, unit, sub-unit, establishments and institutions in the Soviet Armed Forces and NKVD in the Operational Army during the war. The first one was published in 1956 and the last in 1973. But it didn’t stop there. It seems the General Staff continuously modified this list, changing dates of inclusion, adding units or subtracting units. This was done from 1970 up to 1989 in the USSR and at least two after its fall, one in 1996 and one in 1998. Except for the last two, most of these have been penned into the books. The word I have heard, and no official explanation has been given, is that these were done for the veterans when they collect their pensions. It seems they receive a double count for each day thy served in the OA. For example, if a veteran served 45 days in the OA, he would be credited for serving 90 days. I am currently in the process of translating them into English and Below you will see the translations of the titles, the numerical order they were published and the links to the soldat.ru website for downloading. In addition, I am providing the status of the translations (myself doing the original translation, Michael Avanzini proof-reading and Alex Vasetsky doing final proof-reading and posting it on his web site).
Appendix No. 2 to General Staff Directive No. D-043 of 18 July 1970 (List No.1: Field Headquarters of Main Command Directions, Fronts, Groups of Forces and organs of Fleet Headquarters, included in the composition of the Operational Army in the years of the Great Patriotic War 1941 – 1945) [10 pages] List No. 1 (360 KB) Translation status: Completed; on Internet ( http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/formation/Perechen/01_Directions_Fronts.xls)
Appendix No. 3 to General Staff Directive No. D-043 of 18 July 1970 (List No. 2: Headquarters of Combined Arms, Tank, Air and Sapper Armies, PVO Armies, Military Districts and organs of Flotilla Headquarters, included in the composition of the Operational Army in the years of the Great Patriotic War 1941 – 1945) [20 pages] List No. 2 (716 KB) Translation status: Completed; on Internet ( http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/formation/Perechen/01_Directions_Fronts.xls)
Appendix to General Staff Directive No. 168780 of 18 June 1956 (List No. 3: Field Headquarters, Main Commands, Headquarters of Operational Groups, Defensive Regions, Fortified Regions, and Aviation Base Regions, included in the composition of the Operational Army in the years of the Great Patriotic War 1941 – 1945) [92 pages] List No. 3 (4.031 MB) Translation status: Scheduled to be completed April 2008
Hello. Regarding your message [2] at WT:UTM, while I am not entirely sure what you are looking for, if you put {{ db-userreq}} at the top of your "vandalized" user page, an admin will probably come along and delete it for you. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 01:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Ok, thank you, I'll try it. Just don't want to do more damage then already done :)-- Mrg3105 ( talk) 01:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Nope, that tagged it for speedy deletion!!!-- Mrg3105 ( talk) 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 04:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I would be glad to help you with improving Operation Barbarossa to FA status. Admittedly, I have never brought an article up to GA class let alone FA class, but I will do what I can to help. Captain panda 13:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Mrg3105, I'm not very well read on the operations of 1941 but I have a strong interest in Second World War force structures and orders of battle. I'd be happy to contribute to OOB research or perhaps contribute some brief text on the force development of the Red Army under the stress of invasion. Cheers,
W. B. Wilson (
talk) 08:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I would be happy to help if I can, but unfortunately I won't be very active until early-January. However, I'll try to contribute as much as I can. I would say that the referencing sector needs attention and lot of work. Best regards, -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 12:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I have added some more information and citation details on the film editing technique and removed the part on Wikipedia, which was unsourced, and apparently original research.I don't think the contention that it has been encountered by many Wikipedians makes it any less original research. It might be more appropriate in a different namespace.-- Boson ( talk) 13:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
I actually wrote Extermination of Soviet prisoners of war by Nazi Germany, but it's kinda stub-bish. Feel free to add anything you like. -- HanzoHattori ( talk) 18:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I meant massacres of the Soviet troops who surrendered. I did the article on the Soviet POWs because I thought it was totally overlooked (while much was said on a minor issues like the treatment of German homosexuals or Jehova Witnesses by the Nazi authorities) and claimed millions of lives. I don't do everything related to the WWII crimes. -- HanzoHattori ( talk) 21:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Also "no prisoners" orders. -- HanzoHattori ( talk) 21:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
There are a couple of distinct issues in your comments, and I'm not sure which one you're actually looking for a solution to; so I'll try to comment on all of them:
One matter is the choice of correct state names. Certainly, "Russia" is not an appropriate substitute for the Soviet Union. The matter of Germany is a bit more subtle; in my experience, "Germany" is generally viewed as an acceptable short form of "German Reich" (cf. "France" versus "French Republic"), particularly as both go to "German" in the adjective form. If I recall correctly, there was some discussion about "Germany" versus "Nazi Germany", with the idea of using links of the form [[Nazi Germany|Germany]] being preferred; but that seems more of a stylistic point.
Another is the use of shorthand state names to refer to the combined militaries of those states. For example, we might write that "Soviet troops captured the city" or "German troops captured the city" rather than "Red Army and VVS troops captured the city" or "Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, and Waffen-SS troops captured the city". I view this as a matter of style; giving the full collection of services in a combined-arms force on every mention would make the text unreadable, so I see nothing wrong with using the shorthand versions after the actual composition of the forces involved has been given.
Yet another is the use of ideological or political terms. I would think that wording like "the Nazis invaded" or "the Soviets invaded" ought to be avoided in formal writing regardless (although the latter form is a somewhat popular shorthand for "the Soviet forces invaded"). As far as I know, though, this isn't too much of an issue in practice.
More generally, if you're looking to establish common conventions on terminology, the best place to have such a discussion would be at WT:WWII. Kirill 22:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
How do I approach discussion in the WT:WWII? Do I just post to the discussion page?-- Mrg3105 ( talk) 22:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the meeting's purpose (the meeting itself being one sided decission of Hitler - he had not been asked by Finnish to come and "say hello" to Marshal Mannerheim) was not to make plans with Germany on how to "take out Leningrad". That the Finnish unit which was eventually created was involved in clashes agains't Leningrad's supply route is irrelevant. The unit's purpose was to patrol waters of Lake Ladoga, which was strategically important area of water for Finnish because of it flanked both Karelian Istmush and East Karelia, not to attack agains't Leningrad. Neither was Finland in an "alliance with Nazis". The fact that the unit was involved in clashes agains't Soviet forces supplying Leningrad by Lake Ladoga is and was already noted in the article with references - there is no right to talk about Finnish alliance with "Nazis" and include Finland in the box. -- Kurt Leyman ( talk) 23:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with my "PoV". "I asked if the meeting to which the article referred took place or not since you deleted the reference to it." It did, as I already said - and the meeting itself is irrelevant, especially since the user who added information regarding it did not use the references he listed for it - he copied them from elsewhere in the article to mix something the references are relevant with something they are not. Information regarding the unit was already noted in the article and still is. If you would read the article carefully you would see this yourself. "Also, are you saying that Finland did not have a formal alliance with German Reich during WWII?" Yes, there was no alliance with Germany and Finland. -- Kurt Leyman ( talk) 00:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not have to do that - the article does not claim such and did not claim such until someone decided to do some "intriguing" edits. I can and will add plenty of sources which do state clearly the common fact that Finland did not take part in the Siege of Leningrad - if need arises. -- Kurt Leyman ( talk) 00:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Finnish Army did not take part in the siege - it does not claim so currently and neither it did before certain edits. I shall make nessecary arrangements if need arises - refering to possible edit conflict with certain user (not you). -- Kurt Leyman ( talk) 01:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I see little reasoning behind writing "Wehrmacht" under Germany (would be the same if we would be talking about any other country - and its military). That is not something rare in Wikipedia battle articles. As for Finland's involvement in the siege; Finnish Army did not siege the city; there was no shelling or attacks agains't the city. Finnish troops were only tens of kilometers from Leningrad (with Germans closing in from the East) when Marshal Mannerheim ordered the advance to be stopped at Finland's old borders. Leningrad was within range of artillery from Finland's border - yet there was no shelling nor attacks; Finnish did not seek to attack Leningrad.
The small Finnish naval forces on Lake Ladoga were involved in clashes agains't Leningrad supply route on the lake - which should come as no suprise since it was to patrol its waters. The Italian naval unit on the other hand had been specifically tasked for attacking agains't Leningrad (although the Italian unit did not exist for long - its few vessels were turned over to Finnish by the end of 1942 - the vessels being used to strenghten Finland's small navy). -- Kurt Leyman ( talk) 01:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
As for Wehrmacht, you are right. It should say Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine, as well as Waffen-SS. Its a point of factual accuracy and not common sloppiness of using the easies common term. As producers/editors of historical information we should be more quality-mined then the reader who may be a just a school kid doing homework. The school kid will have no idea which part of Germany was at the siege. In fact he will go to Germany and it will take a long time to reach Wehrmacht through History of Germany, History of Germany in WWII, etc. So why not save the time and just say what it is supposed to say, that Wehrmacht troops were conducting the siege with support of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine?-- Mrg3105 ( talk) 01:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me teach you a trick- 'piping' links. If you want the Soviet Western Front, as simply WF, you do it like this for the normal [[Soviet Western Front]] but for the abbreviation - [[Soviet Western Front|Western Front]] or even [[Soviet Western Front|WF]] and it shows up like this WF. Understandable? Pretty easy once you try it a couple of times. Buckshot06 ( talk) 04:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't create the article, and if I had I probably would have done it at '10th Guards Tank Division'. Just be sure to check the category Category:Divisions of the Soviet Union before you start, because we have various units there, listed under WW2 names, Soviet era names, and in some cases, thanks to enthusiastic Ukrainian contributer user:Ceriy, modern Ukrainian names. Buckshot06 ( talk) 09:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going back to downloading the volumes of WW2 history from Soviet POV. Its going to be my one-source-fits-all in the initial page creation so the pages don't come with "add sources and references" tags (hate those).-- Mrg3105 ( talk) 09:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Only one problem. The convention now is [[3rd Army (Soviet Union)]] not [[Soviet 3rd Army]]. This because the name of the formation isn't 'Soviet 3rd Army' it's simply '3rd Army'. Please do not put in any further unit names like that - I'll simply have to change them back. Cheers Buckshot06 ( talk) 08:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
My mistake Mrg. However 'affirmed' is not very clear. Do you mean nothing substantially changed, and the rank continued in use. In that case a better wording might be ' on the recommendation of Voroshilov, the continued use of the Mrank of MSU was agreed upon, and reaffirmed in Red Army standing orders/decrees whatever.' Sound better ? Buckshot06 ( talk) 01:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mrg, I realise there is something you could help me with - specifically (a) take a look at my {image} flag presentation ceremony cleaned-up machine translation of 59th Guards Rifle Division, and (b) ask at the soldat.ru forums whether they are happy for machine-translated copies of their discussion to be used as the basis of En-wikipedia articles. That'd be really helpful if you could do that. Cheers Buckshot06 ( talk) 02:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
What I would like to propose is a bit more structure like there is in the US entries.
Formation/unit number - Guards status - Arm or Service - name and honorifics
{images} guards badge orders [link] to in the name of
{image} flag presentation ceremony == Formation == (box?)
{image city crest} where available Place
date
{image} where available Command
Notes: eg. volunteers, ethnic, sailors, workers, 2nd formation, NKVD etc.
{rank image} shoulder boards Commanders (by date)
{command post image} Chiefs of Staff (by date)
{Arm or Service image} template == Component units ==
{image} {Lenin template} == Civil War ==
{image} template of operation map (like on the Project template) === Combat history ===
(by year/campaign/operation/battle/city liberation)
{image} city/ province/region or country crest
{Stalin image} == Between World Wars ==
=== Combat history ===
(by decade/campaign/operation/battle/city liberation)
{image} BT-7 or I-16
== World War Two ==
{image} patriotic poster
=== Combat history ===
{template} of operation map (like on the Project template)
(by year/campaign/operation/battle/city liberation + narrative where appropriate)
{template} create a template for year with image of prominent event, e.g. 37' NKVD 1937
{template} 38' Lake Khasan 1938
{template} 39' Winter War 1939
{template} 40' T-34 1940
{template} 41' Moscow 1941
{template} 42' Stalingrad 1942
{template} 43' Kursk 1943
{template} 44' Bagration 1944
{template} 45' Berlin 1945
{template} 46' nuclear mushroom cloud 1946
== Cold War history ==
(by decade/dislocation/campaign/operation/battle)
{images} prominent Soviet events like Sputnik, etc
== Russian Federation service ==
{images} Yeltzin, Putin etc.
(narrative)
== Order of Battle ==
{image} modern Arm of Service badges template for each subunit
=== Table of Equipment ===
{image} prominent equipment
== Sources and references ==
With having this I can just reuse it and with smaller sections its easier to add information as it becomes available. What do you think? All the images can be readily obtained from Wikipedia I think. I'm not saying to drop everything and do this, but just to work towards this as an article FA presentation goal
--
Mrg3105 (
talk) 12:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The top rating is properly the province of WP:FAC and WP:FAR; our tagging of the articles as FAs merely mirrors that. If the article is deficient, it'll get reviewed and demoted eventually; but that's a decision the community as a whole makes, not each individual project. Kirill 15:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Category:Military railways ← is that what you had in mind? Kirill 15:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Please take another look at this category - you've misspelt 'Imperial' in the category. Buckshot06 ( talk) 01:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you aware that you're misusing the categories? You add the category tag at the bottom of relevant pages - one never manually edits the category page, except to add a {{main|Russian Imperial Guard}} - a category main article - at the top or other such. Are you sure you don't want me to convert that page to an article? Buckshot06 ( talk) 04:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for checking with Soldat.ru - that's really really helpful. Now we can go ahead and portray individual units' histories better - eg. 33rd Motor Rifle Division. Buckshot06 ( talk) 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Mrg3105, I reverted the Daniel page after an IP had replaced it with an article about a particular Daniel. Did I revert to the wrong revision? Or did you leave the message for the wrong person? I think my edit summary was confusing - I was talking to the IP I was reverting by saying "specific Daniels should have their own pages," but I can see how it would look like I was arguing that the Daniel the page is actually about should be moved. I didn't read the page and assumed it would be about the name. Careless! :) Peace, delldot talk 10:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Permissions for us to use content aren't useful; for something to be usable on Wikipedia, it needs to be reusable by everyone (i.e. under a free-content license or in the public domain). Verification of that typically gets sent to the Wikimedia Foundation directly; see here. Kirill 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
According to the Russian copyright law of 1993 (Федеральный закон от 9.07.1993 № 5351-1), the following items are not subject to copyrights:
* Official documents (laws, court decisions, other texts of legislative, administrative or judicial character); * State symbols and tokens (flags, coats of arms, orders, banknotes and other state symbols and tokens); * Folk creative works; * Reports about events and facts, of informative character.
![]() | This work is not an object of copyright according to article 1259 of Book IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation No. 230-FZ of December 18, 2006
Shall not be objects of copyright:
Comment – This license tag is also applicable to official documents, state symbols and signs of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (union level[*]). Warning – This license tag is not applicable to drafts of official documents, proposed official symbols and signs, which can be copyrighted. Warning – This Russian official document, state symbol or sign (postage stamps, coins and banknotes mainly) may incorporate one or more works that can be copyrightable if separated from this document, symbol or sign. In such a case, this work is not an object of copyright if reused in its entirety but, at the same time, extracting specific portions from this work could constitute copyright infringement. For example, the denomination and country name must be preserved on postage stamps. [*] – The official documents, state symbols and signs of 14 other Soviet Republics are the subject of law of their legal successors. | ![]() |
RIGHTS INFORMATION: No known restrictions on publication. means ok to publish? [5]-- mrg3105 mrg3105 09:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear User:Mrg3105,
Thank you for your efforts. However your actions in transplanting sentences and paragraphs from Siege of Leningrad to St. Petersburg makes unnecessary duplications and does not help neither of the articles. Siege of Leningrad is actively undergoing a major edit, and the template is clearly visible, please be thoughtful.
1st: you are disrupting the ongoing flow of edits and updates by creating edit conflicts (see the template).
2nd: you changed the language so that your text stated "Leningrad Metro operated in the 1930s" which is wrong.
I was born and lived in the city for decades. Please let me do some work without edit conflicts with you and without wasting time for corrections of your unnecessary mistakes and duplications. Study both articles in their entirety for several days, also study the city and make a few visits there to learn more newest information in museums, libraries, universities, and historic sites there, then think what can be done to make Wikipedia better.
Thank you anyway, your kind support and cooperation may be highly appreciated at the right time.
Steve shelok honov 12:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
NOT TRUE YOU MADE ALTERATIONS IN THE TEXT, Everybody can see the whole history in other layers where you have no access Steve shelok honov 12:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The duplication was that you had inserted the same sentence in the Leningrad/StPetersberg article also about the Metro, so I deleted a one sentence paragraph. Have a look in the history. The Siege of Leningrad is a large article with is going to get larger because more detail on military operations will be added, including to the timeline which currently lacks this. There is a larger project in ProjectsMilitaryHistory that will be reviewing all of the Red Army operations in the war and Siege of Leningrad will be one. Your post-siege content will just get lost in it, and is also completely irrelevant.-- mrg3105 mrg3105 12:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Please read this message with more care and attention:
Thank you for your efforts. However your actions in transplanting sentences and paragraphs from Siege of Leningrad to St. Petersburg makes unnecessary duplications and does not help neither of the articles. Siege of Leningrad is actively undergoing a major edit, and the template is clearly visible, please be thoughtful.
1st: you are disrupting the ongoing flow of edits and updates by creating edit conflicts (see the template).
2nd: you changed the language so that your text stated "Leningrad Metro operated in the 1930s" which is wrong.
I was born and lived in the city for decades. Please let me do some work without edit conflicts with you and without wasting time for corrections of your unnecessary mistakes and duplications. Study both articles in their entirety for several days, also study the city and make a few visits there to learn more newest information in museums, libraries, universities, and historic sites there, then think what can be done to make Wikipedia better.
Do NOT cause interference with ongoing edit process. Read the template. Pay attention. Please. Steve shelok honov 12:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops, thanks for catching the missing word. I'm not quite sure what you mean, however, by "if you could not constructively contribute by defining the term further." Anyone familiar with the period will know that the Nazis used the term "Third Reich." For example, the party's monthly art magazine, published by the Eher Verlag, was first titled "Kunst im Dritten Reich," before the title changed to "Kunst im Deutschen Reich." It would be easy to add lots of other examples, but it hardly seems necessary to document every common fact. So what is it, exactly, that you want? Bytwerk ( talk) 13:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed your post [6] in an old talk page section. Another time you can ask a question by starting a new section at Wikipedia:Help desk. You can make a new image upload with proper copyright information that prevents it from being deleted. See Wikipedia:Uploading images#How to upload a new image and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. PrimeHunter ( talk) 19:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mrg, when you get the chance can you take a look at this shaky machine translation and improve it? Thanks Buckshot06 ( talk) 23:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, Buckshot06, I had my new year in September since I'm not even on the solar calendar. I'm sure you wouldn't wait 9 months. I'll incorporate whats there and insert appropriate notes re unresolved questions (do you have a syntax already?) ;o)-- mrg3105 mrg3105 03:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Categories are added to by adding the category, for example, Category:Divisions of the Soviet Union to the bottom of an existing page, not by editing the actual category page. What you've been doing just means that Kirill, for example, had to clean up the Russian military history articles needing attention to structure - here and I actually added Siege of Leningrad to the article list in there by editing the project banner template - the {{WPMILHIST}} banner that one copies the B-class listing into. Buckshot06 ( talk) 04:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Where should the non-existent articles be added?-- mrg3105 mrg3105 04:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Only in articles. For example, with the Russian Imperial Guard, redlink the units in the actual page, as I've done with 1st Infantry Division. Buckshot06 ( talk) 04:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
There are a few problems with the way categories and articles were set up, which is why I didn't find them. Of course I should have looked in the categories in hind sight.
For example the use of the dash (-). There is a difference between Pskov-Novgorod Campaigns and Novgorod - Livonian border conflicts. One signifies a single entity much in the way a double name is written, while the other signifies separation/opposition. The names used are also different to the Russian historiography. In any case, I'm glad there is so much there, so I will look it over at some other time, and fill in the blanks where I find them.--
mrg3105
mrg3105 06:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)--
mrg3105
mrg3105 06:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this Mrg. However notes to me should go at my talk page, not just randomly scattered around. Article talk pages are for general discussion on improving that article. Also, I've never heard of the Belorussian Strategic Direction - ever. Glantz doesn't list any more than the three directions at the start of the war, the Northwestern under Voroshilov, the Western under Timoshenko, and the Southwestern under Budyonny & Timoshenko, plus the Far Eastern in '45 under Vasilevsky. Do you have other sources backing the existence of the BSD up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I took the Belorussian direction from here http://www.genstab.ru/gpw_fronts.htm. I just wanted to do one that was small and less involved with MDs to get some practice. It was a very short lived one, but there is another source I added that suggests it existed in 1941 along with the Kiev Strategic Direction. However the Kiev one was not reformed, and instead there is the Ukrainian one.-- mrg3105 mrg3105 23:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
There is already a separate article for the VDV. I'm moving your new information there, if you don't mind. Permissions? I've never heard of that site before. Cheers Buckshot06 ( talk) 01:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of bad sources, I have just located an unverified anonymous source for OOB of the RF Army in Chechnya. It is similar to yours, but adds some units, and particularly the SpetzNaz and Internal Troops. Do you want it?-- mrg3105 mrg3105 02:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)