Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:27, 14 February 2010

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Blablaaa, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Misplaced Pages articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Misplaced Pages also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Hohum 21:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Referencing

Hi, when you add references to articles like you did in this edit and this edit you need to also add the full publishing details of the book to the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be best if you added the full reference the first time you use it in an article so that other editors know what the source is and can consult it. Nick-D (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

References such as 'AOK9 german military archives' and 'archiv Ministry of Defence of russia' are not at all useful to readers given the vast size of these holdings. Moreover, archival references should not be used in Misplaced Pages articles unless no secondary sources are available, which plainly isn't the case for the Battle of Kursk. Can you please replace these with useful citations? Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes - please provide the secondary source and page number so that other editors can use and check this reference. Could you please explain what you mean by "in this cases the secondary source is only citing the primary source and not interpreting thats why i list the primary source , its the same."? Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take care when editing

Please copy edit your work before saving it. Contributions such as this are not very helpful as they're full of grammatical errors. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please follow Nick-D's advice. Press preview and check your addition before committing your edits. The mistakes that you are repeatedly making is not capitalising proper nouns like German and Russian. It is also normal convention to put reference tags after punctuation. It might also be worth your while to use a web browser that has English spell checker - Firefox can do this. Hohum 01:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Kursk

You have not understood the point being made. The Germans were out thought, not just outfought. The myth of the 'Soviet steam roller' has been exposed again and again but some people still believe that sh1t. The Soviets won battles when they were fewer in number. And I don't see you rushing to point out that the Soviets were outnumbered in tanks, aircraft and artillery for most of the winter battles in 1941. In 2010 with such scholarly works around there is no excuse for incredulous ignorance. The Soviet Army drew level at the tactical level, but strategically and operationally the German Army was surpassed by the Red Army. It was a more effective weapons system than the Wehrmacht ever was. Had it not been for the purges in 1936-39 the Germans would not have got further than Minsk. Dapi89 (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Losses are irrelevant. The outcome depnds on whether or not the attacker achieves his objectives. The German operation failed, Strategically it failed - these are beyond dispute. Tactically the Germans failed to achieve their objective (P') - and losses were less than 2:1. If I were you I would try to read books written by non-German authors, german ones seem to like to represent claims made as actual kills. German and Soviet losses were massively inflated by both sides. Dapi89 (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't make sense even if you wanted to. You don't understand how battles are assessed. Its a typical German trait; overfocus on tactical battles and damage done and not focusing on the big picture. Dapi89 (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)