Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:50, 14 June 2018

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

My Talk Archives

User talk:Paul Siebert/OldArchive/2010/June

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Arnoutf (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

AK and Red Army in Vilinius

Welcome Back!

You've been missed. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

-)

Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back from me as well Paul. It's great to see you at the World War II article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I have just noticed that you are back, Paul. Misplaced Pages missed you and your well-thought-out contributions! I kind of missed you too... (Igny (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC))

:-))) --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

WW2 talk

Dear Paul Siebert, I cannot quite understand why you keep trying to debate me when all I am doing is providing some observations and suggestions (which may not even be relevant at all and can safely be ignored). Getting yourself all worked up on such heavy issues is no good, believe me. Regards, --Prüm (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry that it looks like I am debating. I am just providing my observations in response to your observations. Regarding your suggestions, as you can see, I mostly agree with what you propose.

Cheers. :-)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but just for an example: Do you really believe that Ribbentrop, of all people, was "masterful", as you put it? I could not believe it when I read that, indeed, I think that he was as trite and foolish as people can get when they do not have their head straightened sometimes. gn8, --Prüm (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think he was a brilliant diplomat. Until the end of 1940, foreign policy of Germany was extremely successful. When you compare Halifax and Ribbentrop during spring-summer of 1939, you should agree Ribbentrop was much better.

Many Nazi supreme officials were very talented. The problem was the major strategic goal they were pursuing was fundamentally wrong. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Ribbentrop was much smarter than Hitler. He was a strong advocate of a full scale alliance with the USSR. Actually, Stalin was prone to a kind of Nazi ideology (the only thing that stopped him from becoming a real Nazi was Marxism he inherited from Lenin; he could not abandon it quickly. Only by the end of his life he unleashed his anti-Semitism). We are extremely lucky that Ribbentrop ideas found no support from Hitler, because otherwise Nazi-Soviet alliance would conquer the world. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

YMMD, Nazi-Soviet alliance 8-) Then the U.S. would have developed nuclear weapons in 2 years instead of 4 or some such and we would still be living in nuclear ice age. To be honest, you're running after mirages here. Ever caught one? You could also be playing too much with alt. hist. games, which would be shameful. --Prüm (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Nazi-Soviet alliance the US would never developed nuclear weapon. The US and Britain would spend all resources for naval warfare and survival. By the end of 30s, about a half of Nobel prize winners lived in Germany. Germany was a leader in rocketry, computers, it was one of the leaders in nuclear physics. Nuclear project was not something outstandingly challenging from scientific point of view, even after some brilliant physicists escaped to the West, Germany had a lot of second rank scientists who were quite capable of doing this job. In a situation when a huge resource base of the USSR would be fully available to Germany, and Eastern front was absent, Germany would have enough opportunity to make an atomic bomb first.

All strategic objects would be moved to the East, and that would make German industry non-vulnerable to strategic bombing (and the US would have no resources for doing them). The US and Britain would never survive against Germany+Italy+USSR+Japan.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

PS I never played alt history games, but I was thinking about history a lot. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

OMG, you're getting it wrong all over again. The situation you describe was the one before WW I, not WW II. It was actually during the reign of the hated Wilhelm II that the sciences flourished in Germany. Who among the best scientist would have worked for a bad demon like Hitler and felt ok with that? I give it up, I will no longer try to convert you. --Prüm (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: And as for your Nazi-Soviet alliance: I bet everyone else would have shat their pants. NOT, because everyone knew only one of Hitler and Stalin could come out victorious, and that's exactly what happend. --Prüm (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Just take a look at the list of Novel prize winners.

Yes, a rivalry was very likely.

I don't think you need to convert me. My point is that Hitler was much more dangerous than people think, and America would not defeat it alone. Yes, a long time friendship between Stalin and Hitler was not realistic. My scenario is more relevant to the case if Germany defeated USSR in the same way Japan defeated China. That would create huge problems for the US and Britain. You are looking at the US from a present day's point of view, but America was not as strong as modern people usually think. It emerged as a superpower only after WWII, and as a result of it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to the Anglo-Saxon worldview prevalent in the 1920s and 1930s that pitting "Hitler" against "Stalin" was "the proper thing to do". That's the long and short of it. --Prüm (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand you. Hitler became an influential figure only in 30s. Britain had no well articulated policy towards Germany. There were at least three fractions in British government that proposed different strategies. The idea that Britain was "pitting "Hitler" against "Stalin"" is an obsolete stereotype: actually their actions were indecisive and inconsistent, which looked they are pitting "Hitler" against "Stalin".--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

You are mistaken again (sigh). The "H" guy was influential at the very least since 1923, when he marched on the Feldherrnhalle in alliance with that other guy (who was very influential indeed during WW1, but whom am I trying to coonvince?). As to your other ramblings, I said that the idea of pitting one against the other was prevalent, i.e. it was being toyed with/entertained in certain circles, not that there was much of a coherence to it. That same idea had worked before oh so many times, so why shouldn't it work again? I'll tell you what I think: you, sir, are nothing bit some meatpuppet posing as a learned scholar when indeed you totally suck at history or at least pretend to. So I am afraid I'll have to stop this little chat before this gets totally ridiculous. --Prüm (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Pitting Communists against Nazi (in Germany) is one thing, and pitting Nazi Germany and USSR - quite another. I agree about the first, but I read history articles about British foreign policy in 30s, and they did not consider provoke a war between Hitler and Stalin. That is an old post war view advocated by leftist historians. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

So you mean to say that British appeasement vs. Germany never had anything to do with the silent hope that Herr H. would draw the "right conclusions"? That the British activities in Spain, its policy towards fascist Italy, to name a few, were totally innocuous? I beg to differ. --Prüm (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say, there was a fraction in British establishment who wanted to direct Hitler's aggression to the East. However, they never had a majority. There were no majority at all, so British policy was reactive, opportunistic and very stupid in general. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

What perhaps baffled and worried me most when I read it, however, was that even the Pope was at one time wishing Herr H. "godspeed" when the latter embarked on his killing spree in the East. So you can perhaps imagine how prevalent the idea was. --Prüm (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page edits

Paul, please avoid edits like this one. You may not have actually refactored my comment, but where I was replying to Collect and My very best wishes, it now looks like I began a section. Even if this isn't a breach of the letter of WP:REFACTOR, it is a breech of the spirit, and it isn't conducive to further discussion. If you want to reply to what I said in a separate section, just open the section yourself and quote me, please (or anybody else). Of all the issues you may get hauled off to ANI about, this is the silliest, and isn't worth the trouble. Vanamonde (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not my intent. The problem was that conversation was totally irrelevant to demography, so I decided to separate the thread. Pardon me. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries, but I suggest you self-revert, and if you wish to reply in a separate section use the quotation template and/or diffs to link to what you're replying to; it will avoid unnecessary ill-feeling. Vanamonde (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be better to make a proper explanations (as I've already done on the talk page), because it is not completely clear what exactly you are talking about. If you isagree with what I've done, please, let me know, or change it as you want.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I just would like to notice that revert by Collect was exactly on the subject of "demographic effects of mass killings", as the title of the section tells. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No. The number of killed and demographic consequences are two different things.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Look, even if Collect misunderstood the section title, that's his problem; and you shouldn't be changing the section title in any case. Since this is getting to be a sticking point, and is also a small but important issue of etiquette, I have simply removed the section title and the comment you inserted there. If you wish to retrieve that comment, please do so from the history and insert it without the section title where you want it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, if you feel uncomfortable with what I've done, please, do whatever you want. However, one of two discussions will die as a result, because the section is discussing who separate questions now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't change a section title, I just split the section I created, to separate one thread from another. That is what we do regularly, and noone finds that offensive. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're missing the point a bit, Paul. A new section title is fine, so long as you place it after the current discussion or just before one of your own comments. Placing it where you did interrupted the thread of the previous conversation. Vanamonde (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde, in my opinion, I placed the title exactly in the place where the discussion jumped from one subject to another. Actually, you comment was not about the subject of the thread (demographic consequences). We were not discussing Collect's reverts in this section. I would say, your comment was more relevant to the section "Recent deletions of reliably sourced materials and systemic bias" where the user whose changes were reverted by Collect asked the same question. I didn't check history, maybe, he created this thread after you made your first comment, but if that was the case, then, as I expected, this user simply haven't noticed your comment, and started another thread on the same subject. That wouldn't happen if the title created by me was preserved. Another reason for this incident was that there was some edit conflict, so the page was a mess during several minutes.

Frankly, I am not sure we need to devote so much attention to this subject. I did that (maybe, it was not the best idea), you decided it was incorrect, fixed it - and I see absolutely no problem with that. We have much more interesting things to discuss :-)--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

MKUCR

I sympathise with efforts to bring balance to that page, but please stop opening section after section while previous discussions are ongoing, and please stop insisting that any changes need to wait on consensus on fundamental questions. By doing so, you are actively making your own objective more difficult, and making it more likely that the current version gets set in stone. I've worked on politically fraught articles for five years now, and I know how things roll. I'm not interested in lengthy discussion here; this is just food for thought. Vanamonde (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point, sometimes my posts are too wordy. Will try to minimize them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Your question at WP:AN3

Consider posting your question at WT:Edit warring. If you look in the archive you may find some related topics so it's likely to be a better place. (For example, see this thread from Aug 2017). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, myself realised it was a wrong place and moved it. Thanks for providing a link. Will read. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

1RR Warning

Paul, I think you should self-revert your changes as falling under more the 1RR -- by the way, there was no hyperlink to Harff - I added her name as it was not present at all before, and a hyperlink is reasonable - just do not say it was "removed" when it was never there in the first place <g>. Meanwhile, please self-revert the other stuff. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Collect, please, be more specific. Show me the diffs of my first and the second revert. Glad to hear you have no objection to Harff.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

WT:Edit Warring, MVBW

Hey I noticed your recent case against Mvbw disappeared without a trace and seems to have been strangely neglected by admins. Do you understand what happened? Would it had helped if I'd participated? GPRamirez5 (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Admins told me the request was automatically archived because there were no fresh posts there. I don't know if it will work, but if you want to add some comment, maybe you may ask someone to but it back to the ANEW page? I am not sure if it can be done, and I don't know if any admin will express interest in that story, but, at least, it may be worth trying.

In general, I find a situation curious: arbitrators say this case belongs to ANEW, ANEW admins ignore it. It looks like there is a gap in WP policy that allows such behavioural pattern to exist for a long time.

Another possibility is to use this case for renewing the AE story. Ask the admin who closed your request what should your next steps be. You may use as an argument the closing remark that advised to go to ANI/ANEW first. However, I must say your AE report was premature, poorly written, and it looked frivolous. The stress should be done on filibustering, civil POV pushing, ignoring NPOV policy, as well as ignoring other user's arguments.

You should also make a stress at the fact that MVBW has been formally warned about DS.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Admins may not be enthused about wading into something that looks like Round 500 of an eternal dispute. You'd have better luck if you can show that something far out of the ordinary has happened, so now it is a clear-cut case. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I remember old good times, when we both were younger. You blocked me for much more innocent technical violation (the only block in my WP life, by the way). Since those times we both became older and wiser, however, you must concede that since I decided (reluctantly) to file this report, that means I came to a conclusion the situation is far from ordinary.

After this story, I cannot treat 1RR restrictions seriously: a user clearly violated 1RR twice, three different users show dissatisfaction with these actions, the user persistently refuses to self-revert and claims they never violated anything - and admins see no reasons to interfere even when they are being openly asked about that?!! Why all these games around DS/1RR are needed in that case? If you guys do not see this as something outstanding, what is outstanding in your opinion? An emotional revert game some newbie is engaged in? That poses no serious danger for Misplaced Pages. In contrast, the cases when a formal decorum is observed are really dangerous, and the fact that you see nothing outstanding in that is very disappointing. Of course, there are no F$#@ YOU edit summaries here, no multiple reverts, but this type violations can be registered even by a bot. Why you admins are needed if you abstain from the analysis of the cases that go beyond simple violations?

Recently, I proposed as amendment to a 3RR policy that would allow cleaning WP from various garbage (which is becoming a fundamental problem), and the main objections from admins was: "No need in that, we admins are wise, we know it better, and we are quite capable of resolving each situation using a common sense". Ok, I can leave with that, I am ready to rely on your common sense. However, this incident has shaken my belief in your common sense, because I cannot understand what other evidences are needed to demonstrate this case is outrageous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the thread just above this one is a demonstration of an attempt to game a 1RR (along with this warning that I got when I was peacefully copy editing without any edit warring). Of course, this gaming observes a formal decorum (although other users never get similar requests when they make similar technical violations). I conclude you admins are not doing your job well, because you set the rules that are redundantly strict, which allows their gaming, but you selectively and unpredictably ignore their violations. That is disappointing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Since you guys discuss my editing here, I have something to say. There was no any violation of 1RR. That was purely a battleground report by you guys, just as your ridiculous complaint to Arbcom. It was followed by block shopping. So, please stop doing what you are doing, OK? I do object that you are telling nonsense about me on numerous talk pages. My very best wishes (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless you bring some fresh arguments, your posts are not welcome on my talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hey guy …. My polite message was not gaming the system and I feel you well ought to retract that charge. I do not have secret contacts with anyone about using AN or ANEW or ANI - and I find that when others post offering to renew a complaint that it is they who are GAMING THE SYSTEM. Now please retract your scurrilous charge. Thank you. I had hoped you were trying to reach actual accommodations with other editors, but this sort of thing is unlikely to improve relations. Collect (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Surely, you were. You carefully ignore even non-technical violations made by the users who share your POV, and you haven't apologised for false accusation in edit warring.

Regarding the rest of the post, it was not gaming: a bot archived the thread that had no clear verdict. Unless I hear any concrete info from some admin on the reason why there is no result, I consider archiving as a technical glitch.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that your attitude is far from collegial. You are now barred from my user-talk page unless and until you acknowledge your errors. Collect (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, you have not explained what was wrong with what I am saying, and what I have to apologise for. Incidentally, you stopped to respond to my good faith attempts to find a consensus with you on your talk page, so I think the fact that I am barred form your talk page just reflects a current state of things.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, EdJohnston, I conclude this is an immediate effect of your decision not to take any action: MVBW came to the page that they are not editing just to delete a well sourced text that was supported by other users; deletion occurred after MVBW failed to provide any reasonable arguments in a support of their viewpoint during the talk page discussion. Of course, this behaviour will not be successful on the WWII page, because other users are quite reasonable. However, I am pretty sure MVBW feels encouraged after my ANEW report went to archive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit at MKuCR

Did you mean to remove all those sentences when you made this edit to add back some other sentences? I had just added them from the dumping ground page here. I am not going to revert you, but I want to make sure it wasn't just an accident. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it was a consensus about the text that I added. Your edit was more recent, so I probably removed part of what you added. We can merge them, but, frankly speaking, your addition is related to too complicated questions to be discussed in this particular section. Don't you mind to wait a little bit with addition? I'll talk to you a little bit later (maybe, tomorrow) about the way this information (along with other similar data) should be presented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No rush. I trust you to merge appropriately without getting my explicit consensus. And if you just don't want to include it, that's fine too. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I myself was thinking about inclusion of this (and similar) material, but I would prefer to put it in a different context. It would be good if we do that together (I'll let you know when I am ready).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPA

• That was over the top. Telling to another participant "You cannot pretend you are an educated and skillful person" on article talk page is bad. You said it without any good reason; that was not about improvement of the article. I stopped responding to this nonsense, sorry, because unlike you, I respect article talk page rules. I hope it helps. My very best wishes (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Alas, you are taking my words out of context. The full sentence is: "You cannot pretend you are an educated and skillful person and simultaneously resort to arguments that are used only by poorly educated users." When I am reading your posts, I cannot believe these post are written by an educated person acting in a good faith. This two hypotheses are incompatible, in my opinion. Frankly, I refuse to believe you are poorly educated, which means ... --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You also said "You are trying to impose on us a questionable source" . The source was there for a long time. I only provided a direct quotation when another user asked. Now, speaking about the criticism of the book, I explained what was the problem with review of the book. In addition, this review you mentioned is not even a peer reviewed publication. How many people cited this review? I would expect zero. My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The source was there, but we identified its weakness, and some action should be taken per AGF, but you opposed to that under a totally artificial and logically shaky pretext. Are you sincerely proposing to use the data uncritically taken from a tabloid by a writer who was known to be inaccurate in details? Are you sincerely expecting that after that we still will be capable of assuming that you have both high intellectual capabilities and good faith simultaneously? Again, either you abandon this tactics, or I'll have to choose between two hypotheses: either your intellectual capabilities are below average (which is quite unlikely, frankly speaking), or your good faith is an unrealistic hypothesis. If I err, please, point at my logical mistake. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

If an expert on the subject writes something in her book (a secondary RS), this is her claim. She can provide a reference to other primary sources or whatever, or do not provide any references at all about something - it does not matter. But the bottom line is simple: comment on content, not on contributor. My very best wishes (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I am trying to avoid commenting on good faith contributors.

Albats cites a tabloid as a source of her statement. A reviewer says Albats is inaccurate in details. You insist Albats is a reliable source for the claim that reproduces what a highly questionable tabloid say. Per WP:DUCK, what do you prefer: to be seen as a silly but good faith user, or as a smart and tendentious editor? If you do not like any of these variants, what other explanation of your actions can you propose? I sincerely see no other explanation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

So, do you assume I act in a bad faith? Why? The "details" this reviewer talked about (the numbers of FSB personnel) show that he is completely unfamiliar with the subject, unlike Albats who worked as a consultant for an officially appointed committee to investigate the involvement of KGB in the 1991 coup d'état. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because other hypotheses are not working.

I don't see why you decided the reviewer was not familiar with the subject: the argument that boarder guards were the part of KGB is quite valid, the criticism of her numerical estimates is valid too, the notion about the SR party as "right wing" is also valid. In addition, do you sincerely believe the book that uses Guinness book and KP as sources can be a valid source for details? Do you really believe Misplaced Pages will benefit if it will be non-critically reproducing what these "reliable sources" say?

By the way, I see no reason to believe Albats is a bad source for a general description of KGB role in Soviet/Russian society. However, her approach to fact checking makes her a highly questionable or useless source for concrete details. That means, it says the things that are qualitatively correct. For example, that Stalin killed a lot of people, or that gas vans were used for killing people in Butovo. However, regarding the exact number of killings, or regarding the details of gas van usage she is a poor source: she just tells what very questionable sources say, thereby decreasing our knowledge. It is quite likely that Guinness book cites old estimates of Solzhenitsyn, and KP tells a gas wan story based on some statement one journalist found in Archipelago (or other Solzhetitsyn's writings). Albats takes this uncritically, transforms inaccurately - and we get a lousy piece of "information" which undermines credibility of Misplaced Pages.

It is obvious to any educated person that Albats did no special research, and, frankly speaking, I do not blame her, because that was not the goal of her book to provide correct figures. I do not blame her, but I do blame you, who fully understands all limitations of her book and, nevertheless, takes the weakest piece of information from her book to push some very questionable idea, and, since you are an educated and intellectual person, you definitely realize that that your activity undermines credibility of Misplaced Pages. That is why you are acting in bad faith.

I will gladly retract my accusations is I will see that you abandoned this type of behaviour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I could file such AE request, but frankly, I would rather stop editing on this site. Have it your way. Do whatever you wish. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

frankly speaking, I appreciate your persistent attempts to fight a perceived Putin troll (as you see me). Actually, I need such an opponent (and out last encounter at the Gas van talk page) demonstrated your opposition forces me to dig deeper. Your only problem is that you do not stop even when the dispute came to a logical end, and when the evidences are totally convincing. That is your only problem.

Note, I am frequently accepting your arguments (Solzhenitsyn is a recent example), but you never accept mine. If you change your behaviour, everything will be fine. I think to stop editing it is not a good idea. Think about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what would be more appropriate here, Tar-Baby, an epigram by Pushkin , or Matthew 5:43-48. Regardless, I am gone. Enjoy. My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand Russian poetry well enough to appreciate this allegory.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That's pity. It was about you and me. As about me, this is Kolobok. Good bye, Mr. Fox. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Taking into account that that is your 100500th ultimate farewell, I hope to see you again. Try to meditate about my above words. You can be useful for WP, however, you have to realize there is nothing bad in conceding others' arguments when they are convincing. I believe I was able to gibe you an example of how can it be done.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I only said I hate filing AE requests and would rather disengage if possible. I never called you "Putin troll" or "opponent". Any diff? You did call me a troll without any good reason . My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The question is not in what you say, but in what you think.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

What I think? I do not care who you are, but only what you do in the project. And I think there are some problems here. First of all, you are making very long and unhelpful threads on certain talk pages. Why? Because you are not following the policies. Instead of simply summarizing what RS tell, you fight with RS you do not like. You are trying to discredit them by finding critical reviews on the books, but this is just a normal scientific discourse, nothing special. Yes, the most significant books on the subject receive the biggest number of critical reviews. This is all. You are also trying to trace statements made in reliable sources to other and presumably less reliable sources (that is what you did yesterday). We are not suppose to do it, and should not include results of such analysis on wikipages. Your second problem I think is mentality (remember your recent arbitration comment and 1RR report?). What comes to my mind is Alexander Gorodnitsky:

 Гномы, гномы, гномы, гномы,
 Не дадим житья чужому!
 Уведёмего от дому
 И возьмем на абордаж!
 Если ты не пахнешь серой,
 Значит, ты не нашей веры.
 Если с виду ты не серый,
 Это значит -- ты не наш!

My very best wishes (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

(Please no poetry on this page) You are persistently trying to justify your POV by references to V. Meanwhile, NPOV is the oldest WP policy. You are cherry-picking the source you like, and refuse to understand arguments from others. If some source says X, and a source Y criticizes what the source X says, both the statement from the source X and the criticism must be presented on the same page close to each other. However, you are persistently resisting to that. Why?--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not think you correctly understand WP:NPOV. You should not include mutual criticism of sources X,Y,Z on every page, but include only what sources X,Y,Z tell on the subject of a page. They may differ in opinion, and the difference in opinion on the subject of the page should be included. Yes, this is probably another reason why your long rants are unhelpful. My very best wishes (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. You tell: "You are cherry-picking the source you like". No, I simply do not know all sources on a subject as non-expert in this area. But I never refuse to use other RS if they are clearly on the subject of the page and proposed by other contributors. That is what you do. Of course, you did not do it directly, but by trying to discredit all RS that do not fit your POV (see above). My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That is a lie. You reject sources provided by me, and do that persistently.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Minefield

My father was a tank driver on the front lines with the 9th Army, he received an honorable discharge and is buried in a military cemetary. Americans like my father would not advance if they were told to walk into a minefield. Americans are not Russians--Woogie10w (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Woogie10w, I agree that Americans are not Russians, however, if Russians were not Russians, no Normandia landing would ever occur. Of course, we can blame Russians in brutality of disregard of human life, however, no victory would be possible without that.

I would say the same even in more strong words: if some unknown Russians were not attacking through minefields in the East, Americans could not afford luxury not to attack through minefields. Your father, as well as many other Americans was not killed in the West, because unknown Russians were marching through minefields in the East. You are living because they died.

And, you probably misunderstood one important point: the choice Russians had was not to attack through minefields or not to attack through minefields. The alternative was different: to attack through minefields and not dense machine gun fire, or to attack at a different place, where machine gun fire it 10 times more dense, so the overall losses would be the same. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)