Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:44, 13 April 2010

sandbox Prokhorovka

If you are happy with the casualty sections, we can move on to Prokhorovka if you wish. Dapi89 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Just put in what you have into the section, but remember to provide citations from Frieser and whoever you are quoting. This section already has an article of its own, so I suggest this one is kept short and the key events discussed briefly only. Dapi89 (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You cannot dispute the facts presented by the sources. This is the first problem we had. What you want to do is ignore Soviet operational intent and strategy (and tactics) that worked, and have this section filled with stats about how many tank kills the Germans obtained. This is the very definition of bias. The sub-article is okay as it is. You can mention losses here if you like, but the narrative at present is correct. It focuses on operations and how they related to and effected the strategy of both sides. You can post the losses below the section if you like and I will incorporate them into the article. Dapi89 (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have issues about the way the battle was fought (tank ramming), then let me know what source you have that disputes it and I will put it in. Dapi89 (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please dont write thing like everybody will see the tactical skill of soviet army. It is highly suggestive of bias. Nobody is disputing German tactical experience was higher, but operational art and strategy are more important. Tactics are the least important aspect of military art. Dapi89 (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That comment suggests you know little about military science. That was the very strategy that brought the Red Army victory. Attacking on a broad front, stretching German resources and employing deception to catch German mobile reserves off balance. The Germans played right into Soviet hands by using elastic defence against Soviet deep battle. Dapi89 (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that by lauding Soviet operational methods I am attacking the Germans' ability - I am not. In Operations and Strategy the Germans were out thought. At the tactical end, I believe the Germans always had the edge. But like I said, tactics are the least important. Dapi89 (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you cannot delete information because it may come from a source you do not like. Quote your own sources, but do not remove others you personally don't like. If you have contradicting sources then these can be mentioned in the article. You cannot decide for your self what should be included - it is selective editing. Dapi89 (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability. All sources are to be included not selected. Dapi89 (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Bergstrom doesn't say. And he doesn't have to. He is a verifiable source. You have got to stop thinking your sources are the only correct ones. I have to go now. I will converse more tomorrow (my time is not limitless. Dapi89 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you to stick to one section at a time. Please don't edit other sections until the Prokhorovka one is finished. Second, Respect the sources! I don't criticise yours, so don't criticise mine. Stop mocking them. Personal opinions are not important. Neither is the anything that authors have to say about each other. Just state the sources that all you need to do. Dapi89 (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I keep saying we merge the two together

We write the version of events as is commonly known. We then qualify it by mentioning that German accounts of the battle (Frieser) deny that it was fought tank-to-tank, i/e no ramming etc. Then explain the German version of events. Dapi89 (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

updating the section

Can you give me references for Frieser regarding the German accounts refuting the nature of the fighting? Dapi89 (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I must press you for the citations for Prokhorovka. Dapi89 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Orsha

Yes, I have some information on this. What's the problem? Dapi89 (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a rather large topic. Are you refering to the Battle of Smolensk (1943)? Dapi89 (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well it is a huge topic. In terms of manpower reserves both sides were starting struggle. The Soviet losses of 1941-42 meant that casualties had to be better managed. Much effort was placed on deception (Maskirovka). The numerical advantage enjoyed had been, in Glantz' words "frittered away" or wasted. According to Glantz, the average Soviet division was down to 2,000 men per division. In 1943 a divison would hold roughly 7,000. The Germans were also declining. It would all depend on who could out manoeuvre the other. The numerical advantage enjoyed on the battlefield was a result of concentrating forces in the area rather than overall superiority.

For this reason most of the 'offensive' action in the centre of the front was limited. The target in the winter 43-44 was to liberate the Ukraine. Operations against AGC were mainly diversions (a part of Maskirovka) to enable greater success in the south by diverting German mobile reserves there - this was all down to casualty management. Also, the south offered the quickest route into the Crimea, and Romania. Such success would undermine the Axis alliance (who were already starting to get nervous). This was basically the general strategy for the Red Army. Dapi89 (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No it is not wrong. The Soviets had severe manpower shortages. In 1944 I recall civilians/children/women of all ages being sent to the factories to free more manpower reserves for combat in 1944.

At Kursk, the Soviets had superiority in numbers because they concentrated their strength in such a small area (They did not have, as is commonly assumed, an infinite number of men up and down the front). Dapi89 (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In February various, I think 7-9, strategic operations aground Luga and Vitebsk and Orsha were undertaken by the 1st Baltic Front. They did lift the siege on Leningrad but failed to make much ground into Belorussia (losing 200,000). ACG would have to wait until 1944 for its turn. So yes, operations in the centre were not serious operations from November 1943 until June 1944. Dapi89 (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at this: Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II. Dapi89 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. That led to Operation Bagration, a great success. I'm not sure what Frieser is getting at. Not a lot of offensives were conducted against AGC between November 1943 and May 1944. Dapi89 (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There were no serious offensives directed at AGC after the Battle of Kiev. 3 October 1943 - 22 June 1944 AGC was pretty much idle. The main Soviet offensives were directed at AGN and AGS. AGN won some defensive battles near Leningrad in the Baltic in 1944, but that is it. Soviet offesnives were pretty much successful in the centre and south in 1944-45. Dapi89 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. No such operation took place in 1943. The Byelorussian Strategic Offensive took place in 1944. Dapi89 (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Byelorussian Strategic Offensive (1943)

I see you meant this one. But it doesn't change the fact these were Maskirovka offensives designed to draw German forces from the south. Buy David Glantz' Soviet Military Deception in the Second World War. Dapi89 (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Come now. You know what is being said to you. They were operational and tactical German sucesses, but strategy is what is important here. Maskrivoka is strategy-based manoeuvre. You try to breakthrough, but if you dont it is no big deal. The purpose was to tie down German forces. The same can be said of limited German attacks against Moscow in 1942, to mask their intentions to launch blau to Stalingrad. This was the same thing. Dapi89 (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Referencing

Hi. Thanks for adding a reference at the Battle of the Bulge article, but as it only gave the last name and year (Cooper, 1978), it's still a bit ambiguous as to which book it's referring to. Other citations give only author's last name and date, but this is because they're linked to one of the references in the Bibliography section using Harvard referencing. There isn't currently a book with an author called Cooper, so if you could add in the details of the citation (i.e. title, maybe even ISBN and publisher), I would appreciate it (or you could even just tell me and I'll do it for you). Thanks, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. Merry Christmas, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:00, 23 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) 00:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Perch

You added something to a passage giving 7th Armd Div and 50th Inf Div losses for June 1944. The 50th Inf Div was about twice the size of a normal division so its 'loss rate' is about 50% lower than the nominal rate.Keith-264 (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Advice/Perch

Just a quick note: be careful what you say, block-shopping isn't clever if you havn't got a legitimate excuse. I don't want you to get blocked before you bring back those citations! Please read this Dapi89 (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC):

Hello, Blablaaa! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - FWiW Dapi89 (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC).(UTC) talk 13:26, (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

503rd heavy tank battalion (Germany)

Please provide references to your additions to 503rd heavy tank battalion (Germany). Just because it is already sorely lacking them doesn't mean that your additions shouldn't have any. (Hohum ) 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sachs

Thanks for letting everyone know who's tank it was but do you have a source, as Trew doesnt support it iirc - i will check later on though just to double check if he mentions the commanders name however.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Am pretty sure i have some info on the ramming inncident; when i get round to editing the article i will add something in on it if i find the ref that is - i think there is also a photo too.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Couldnt find it on IWM; sure there is a photo in one of the books i have on the subject i shuld be able to track it down with some luck.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft

A very difficult question. I have some information. I'll look. Dapi89 (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Goodwood

Well i noted he went from talking about Goodwood and then comparing it to Charnwood as well as comparing the losses I Corps suffered in each operation. Just to make sure i double checked the information there with that he mentioned on Charnwood and the figures matched up.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Windsor

The source that 17 tanks were knocked out? The guys there are trying to get the article moved up the rankings; the less work to do the better ;)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Debrecen

Please do not arbitrarily delete comments from the article or its footnotes because of your opinion regarding sources. Look: The Soviet Official History's take on the Axis losses is not used in the information box at the top of the article -- it is only stated in a footnote so that readers can see how much variation there is in various claims regarding casualty figures. How a reader chooses to consider those claims is their business; by deleting the footnote, you are acting as a censor -- which is nobody's role on Misplaced Pages. I have opened a discussion on the talk page of the article to discuss sources. If you have comments about any of the sources, that is a good place to discuss them. W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop changing the figures -- they are footnotes only. You have your opinion on these figures -- but your opinion is not good enough reason to censor information in Misplaced Pages that you do not like. Now -- you can discuss this on the article page as I suggested, or we can get admins involved because your approach to editing is unproductive, and apparently, this is your normal way of approaching edits. W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What I do not understand is that I have provided a source -- and you are only giving me your opinion as justification for deleting material. I understand you are skeptical about the source -- guess what, I am too. But that is not the point. The point is that casualty figures for all battles are disputed and it is informative for readers to see how widely they can vary. The figures used by Glantz (actually taken from a Russian source) are those used in the information box and those figures in the information box are what 99.9% of the readers will see in any case. You are deleting information without any reason other than that you don't like it -- please stop doing that. I am not pushing the Soviet official figures on anyone, I am simply putting them in a footnote for those who have more interest in the topic of the casualties to consider. Your approach is combative -- try discussing this on the article's Talk Page instead of assuming that others have no idea of what they're doing and arbitrarily deleting information. W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the English language Misplaced Pages. I can see we will not come to agreement, even on the point of discussing changes before they are made. I have asked an admin to look at this as a third party because our constant reversions to the article won't help anything. Tschüß, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Blahlaaa, look closely at notes 5 and 6. Note 5 specifically says the data is drawn from the GErman official history. Note 6 provides as a extra illuminating reference. It lists both 1950s German and Soviet figures. Nowhere is Krisholeev (excuse my horrific spelling) mentioned. The main reference is Glantz - if you wish to say that he is using Krisholeev, you will have to cite this. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. Sorry, yes, the German official history was indeed 2007. This is correctly cited as note 5. Do you understand now that note 6 provides, for the comparison of any interested reader who may wish to delve further, the compared numbers of the two official histories? There is no statement of authenticity intended. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to emphasise that, your proper course of action is to add a carefully worded note to the bibliographical reference for the Ustinov Soviet official history at the bottom of the article. Right after the reference. Something like 'Immediately postwar Soviet official figures may be unreliable. More recent scholarship with declassified figures includes ..Krisholeev' or whoever you wish to add. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's your opinion on the Soviet official history's worth that is at the core of this. Only you are vehement about it. If you do not wish to indicate that it may be unreliable, no-one can do much more. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not 'against the rules.' The Soviet official history, as an official government document, is a WP:Reliable Source. Now, you and I know that propaganda meant figures were overestimated, but an official history remains, in whatever circumstances, an RS. Again, the numbers are included for comparison only. I suggest you go and find some more up to date Soviet official sources, if you wish, and add them - but even then, we would retain the contemporary figures as well. Each individual can decide to use them as they like. It would help if you indicated that the contemporary official histories may be biased, but if you do not wish to, that's your decision. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for one week

I have implemented this one week block for the following reasons:

• You are edit warring in the Battle of Debrecen article (eg, in this, this and this edits) and are making aggressive comments on the article's talk page and the talk pages of other involved editors (these edits are some examples; I could highlight many more like them , (not polite when translated through either Google Translate or Babelfish), , and )
• You are attempting to use the Talk:Defense of the Reich page as a forum to discuss your personal views on this topic despite editors there asking you not to.
• You have returned to making uncivil comments despite your previous warnings and blocks (in addition to the rude comments the the discussions I've noted above, I'd also highlight this and this as being particularly aggressive)

You have been warned and blocked previously for uncivil comments and have been repeatedly warned about aggressively editing articles, particularly in relation to disagreements over figures, yet are continuing this behaviour. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

iam not sure if its necessary to block me for one week. regarding the edit warring my edit were not in one day and not really concerning the content. other users used a ref behind numbers to bring other numbers this was not correct, u can use a note for it but not a ref because a ref is for citing i explained this. and after this the other admin changed this because i was correct, please check. and i didnt want to edit warring then despite my concern about the content the major problem was the wrong using of the ref funtion ( i explaind in edit log and on mulitple talk pages) . regarding the talk page which i used as "forum" i wrote their multiple times that i search for historian which can be included to support this opinion. i said the article can be improved because its not neutral user Hohum supported this and brought historians. i not only discusses my opinion i tried to motivate others to bring other historians because i thought this sections are not balanced. i also tried to improve the section with saying whats out of context for example. while i did this i was making jokes and had "fun" i had many contact with both users before ... iam note sure if this is so bad, i guess i started simply a discussion which will improv the article. regarding the incivil point i explained buckshot that i dont see the soviet "official" history as reliable source, and that i will bring this on discussion board for reliable sources like i did before with other books... . i did dozens of edits last days and i want to go further. iam not really sure it is necessary to block me for one week, i didnt want to edit warring i didnt want to make forum :-). cheers update when the checking admin thinks the block is justyfied he maybe thinks about the week. maybe 5 hours are enough. joke... 48 hours?Blablaaa (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You talked your way out of your last block this way, it's not going to work this time. And one week is pretty light for someone who was just unblocked nine days ago for pretty much the same thing. You still don't seem to even understand why edit warring is not allowed, why we expect editors to be civil, or why we require that talk page comments be in English. Expect to keep getting blocked for longer and longer periods until you have corrected these problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

yeah ok u call it edit warring even when a user breaks the guidelines of wiki and another fixes this, cool. i didnt talked me out of an earlier block, check facts before u say something please.... Blablaaa (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The one and only exception to the edit warring policy is reverting blatant vandalism. For everything else, you should request page protection and/or pursue dispute resolution. As I said, until you can understand and abide by this you can expect to keep getting blocked for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

help

{{helpme}}

can i edit so called sandboxes while iam blocked? if yes, how? Blablaaa (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I'm afraid you can't edit user subpages while blocked, only your user talk (although that can be revoked). Regards, Spitfire 18:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Kursk

You should be more careful about what you say from now on. The comments left on my page are offensive and unfounded. Everything I said holds true. To the last comment: You have misquoted again. The source (p. 249) says 16-17 AUGUST , not July. And the battle was a relief operation to prevent army group Kempf from being destroyed/encircled. Days later the Germans were forced to withdraw, as Konev was a about to pinch of the links south of the city Kahrkov. The III SS Corps tried to pinch off the salient containing the 6th Guards, using the GDD, 7 and 19 PDs. It failed and the German divs were whittled down to 100 T & SPGs. The 57 infantry division collapsed and its survivors ran away. The 255 ID and 57 ID had only 3,336 and 1,791 men left respectively. Converging pincers compelled the Germans to retreat or be destroyed. The Soviets captured the city days later - this constitutes a VICTORY. The German divisions were subjected to a "bloodletting they could no longer withstand". The 11 PD was left with just 820 PzGr'S, 15 Tanks and 4 guns while the 19PD had 760 PzGr's and 7 tanks. Totenkopf and Das Reich fielded only 61 and 55 tanks between them - p. 252. This is what Glantz says.

I will also add that your quotations, as they have been prior, are selective. This much is painfully obvious.

I expect an apology. Dapi89 (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

i wrote his complete sentences out of his books and your quotations from the kursk article are saved. Blablaaa (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

your quote where u cited glantz *On 11 August, the 1st Tank Army engaged Waffen SS units near Bogodukhov, 30 kilometres northwest of Kharkov. Initially the Germans stopped the advance, "mauling" three brigades of the 1st Tank Army. The 5th Guards Army sent reinforcements, and between 13 and 17 August the Germans were fought to a stalemate. For the first time a major German counter offensive had failed to destroy a Soviet exploitation force. Kharkov fell on 28 August. The battle is usually referred to as the Fouth Battle of Kharkov by the Germans and Belgorod-Kharkov offensive operation by the Soviets"

this is glantz exact statement :"finally on 16-17 august the III panzercorps succeeded in pushing the .... back and destroying the offensive power of both red armies" , i will check your other statements too. i hope this doesnt sound offense. best regardsBlablaaa (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

NO. You are ignoring all the information to the left and right. This is selective editing. IT IS YOUR STATEMENTS THAT NEED CHECKING, NOT MINE.Dapi89 (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

iam not sure if u understood where the battle between the two ss division took place, not next to kharkov, the counterattack was succeeded read glantz exact words Blablaaa (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

looking the facts, u seem to have wrote something what glantz simply not said, he never said the ss division where fought to a stalemate he simply said they succedded and destroyed the comabt power of two soviet armies. i must admit that i didnt read everythinh so maybe u are quoting something else, i will track it down. like the other statements Blablaaa (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you continue to make such statements to me or other editors you are going to find yourself blocked again. Dapi89 (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

what ? i said i didnt read the complete book and your statements are maybe correct. and i will search. whats wrong here? Blablaaa (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

here this is your quote : "Glantz asserts the German defeat at Kursk did not come about by the "Often-exaggerated numerical superiority" of the Soviet armed forces." i think this is your text , u say what glantz means. but glantz final words regarding the failure of zitdalle are this: ""When the worst came, Soviet numerical superiority, the stubborn tenacity of sobiet soldiers, the improved combat skill of commanders and the soviets ability to sustain staggering losses spelled doom for Citadelle" . this are glantz exact words. iam not explaining my opinion i only compare your statements with glantz real words... Blablaaa (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not from his book The Battle of Kursk. IT comes from When Titans Clash, pp. 175-176; 'Kursk to the Dnepr', "This grim situation did not arise solely because of Hitler's errors nor even because of the often-exaggerated numerical superiority of the Soviet armed forces". Furthermore, I did not deny the Soviet numerical superiority. I did say that that superiority was because the Soviets concentrated their forces in one particular region. I also said, as Glantz, that numerical superiority WAS NOT THE ONLY advantage. So Glantz has made clear he holds the same opinion.

I believe I have done all I can to work with you, but it is clear to me this only going to end in one way. Ignore what others have said at your peril. 13:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

u took one sentence out of his book where he said something about numerical superiority and asserts that he glantz said numerical superiority was not significant????? while in the over all conclusions he says numerical superiority was significant. u claim glantz disputes frieser and then u mix up his words. u claim the major cause is the soviet improved skill. in his book about kursk ( his newest book ) he says their are multiple reason ( it would be strange if he claims what usaid). as the first reason he takes numerical superiority. can u please delete your statements from the kursk article? dont understand why u sound so aggressiv i explained kindly thta your statements look a bit "strange". what shall i do ? ignore that u mixed his words in other context? Blablaaa (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

First off, I regret that our communication regarding Battle of Debrecen was laden with conflict. Second, I have added some statements to the brief note about the Soviet official history claims that caution the reader as to the source as well as warning that games may have been played with the material for the purpose of spreading propaganda. Please note that I am also skeptical of Soviet (and Nazi/SS) sources -- but, I much prefer inclusion of material to exclusion of material, especially in the case of official works.
I was not trying to be sneaky when I changed the citations you made referring to Ungvary's work in the German official history -- it was just the style you chose (Ungvary, p. 876) did not agree with the existing citations in the article that pointed to the German official history. Please note the German official history was identified with its complete title in the "references" section of the article and I thought that sufficed to identify the work that was being cited.
About the German official history -- I think it is a solid piece of work, but it also has its weaknesses. One of the biggest in this regard is the decision of those producing the history that they will not put out a volume describing the ground operations in Germany in 1945 -- a mistake in my opinion since there are very few works available that cover the entire scope of operations in Germany in 1945 -- and the German view of these operations is especially needed in this case.
About the Soviet official history -- produced in 1978, by the way, not the Stalinist era of the 1950's. It is surprisingly good for military history -- and the information presented is not so much distorted as it is incomplete. The Soviets chose to omit information when it made them look bad, as in their not discussing Soviet losses for the Battle of Debrecen. The work does present propaganda when it comes to economic or social themes -- hardly surprising for a Soviet Communist product. You can obtain this work in German, it was available a few years ago and was originally printed in the DDR in 1981.
Now, Blablaaa, I have just gone a long way to explain my view on these matters. My goal is to let you know I am willing to work with you. You should understand, however, that outright deletion of material in Misplaced Pages is -not- a good way of making changes to the articles and that lecturing other editors only promotes conflict. I fully admit my own approach to you could have been less confrontational. I hope you take these comments in the good spirit they are intended. MfG, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

iam blocked because i did a correct edit than i reverted your edit and u reverted again because u insisted on this. i explained that its not correct to do this statement in a ref . nevertheless u reverted... . now when i look the article again: i see that now its in a note how i explained!!! because another admin edited it this way ...

regarding soviet "propaganda" books. they are always wrong with axis casualties. they had no access to german archives and if they had they wouldnt use them, so every axis casualties is an wartime estimation. and this estimations are always wrong . sometimes they exceed the german troops which were involded. look the tank casualties this are more destroyed tanks then the entire heeresgruppe had. this is a fact. i tried to explain. never use soviet figures for german casualties while better data is available.... . Blablaaa (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa -- please stop for a moment. First: You are wrong about the Soviets not having access to German archives -- because the Red Army overran a lot of Germany in 1945 and captured many German archives in the process. Not all of them, but they certainly got their share.

Second: No one is "using Soviet figures while better data is available" -- the only thing that has happened is that note has been made of the Soviet figures and I even provided an explanation that the figures may be suspect. The figures listed in the article's information box are from various sources, but the Soviet official history figures are NOT used in the information box, so please stop suggesting that this is the case.

Third: Your edit was not "correct" because it was deletion of material based on your opinion of a source. Believe me -- it is VERY much easier to discuss your ideas for changes on the article talk page and come to agreement with other editors than to just delete material and get into conflicts with other editors.

Fourth: That note about "information from totalitarian regimes" being suspect is a note that I put in, not an admin. I put the note in there because I happen to agree with you that Soviet sources can be inaccurate and deserve firm scrutiny. I am trying to meet you halfway on this issue, but it is frankly difficult because of your insistence that you are right and others are wrong -- may I suggest you try to work with me? W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

i have no problem with being wrong, but i wasnt, i deleted your ref. u used the ref wrong thats why its now a note like i suggested before... . your material wasnt "deleted" because u can take it out of the old version. it was possible that i take your text in a note, or u take the text in the note. but we both prefered to revert the other , this was may unclever of both. but iam blocked now and the text is in a note like i suggested. thats why i maybe sound a bit genervt. Blablaaa (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't agree on a lot of things, but I very much agree with your comment "we both prefered to revert the other , this was may unclever of both". I at least hope this issue with the Debrecen article is at a point where we can both accept the current state of the article. MfG, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

hm i dont see a reason to mention propaganda numbers, such lies exist for nearly every battle for both sides. to include them in all the articles brings no value for the reader... . thats why nobody includes german/british claims for downed aircraft in the box of Battle of Britain because they are wrong . if u put this note in the box than u "have to" put such statements in many boxes... . if u would try to add such note in a normandy article with german propaganda claims than u would be reverted within 4 minutes... . maybe u rethink this note. for example u could look up the german panzer numbers for all armygroups and than compare with the lost claim :-) .Blablaaa (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't argue that the Soviet numbers are better in this case. I believe, however, there is use in having readers exposed to how different casualty claims can be. Casualty statistics are notoriously disputed for many battles, and casual readers of military history may not be aware of that. I see no harm in the numbers being there since the cautionary statement is worded quite clearly. I'm not sure such additions to other articles would be reverted, but in the case of a particularly well-known topic like the Normandy landings, I would be sure to discuss the addition on the talk page of the article first to explain what my intent was. In my view, such informational notes do no harm as long the information in them is seen in the perspective of where it came from. As to your comment that such statements should be added to many of the casualty claims for various articles on battles ... well, you have a point, and really, it might serve as a useful "reality check" since casualty statistics can be so flawed. I think your comment about the tank/StG holdings of Heeresgruppe Süd versus the Soviet claims is valid and I have no problem with words to that effect as another informational note to the article. One item of information is missing -- do you have any sources that show how many armored fighting vehicles that HG Süd received from the start of October through the end of the battle? We know from Ungvary's work how many they had on 1 October 1944, and also there is information for how many were left over at the end of the battle, but I haven't seen information for vehicle deliveries anywhere -- although the German quotes for their own armor losses are probably accurate enough to make an estimate. I have to look at the initial forces involved and how the order of battle (Kriegsgliederung) changed during the battle. MfG, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

warum hast du nen "ü" auf der tastatur? Blablaaa (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

? ALT 0252 = ü W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

wusste nicht das man mit nich deutscher tastatur nen ü machen kann Blablaaa (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A useful resource for keyboard stuff MfG, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

es gibt übrigens ein buch über die bodenkämpfe der letzten monateBlablaaa (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Have to admit I was wrong -- apparently Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg now includes volumes on the end in Germany (volume 10) -- I'm not sure why the announcement was made that the series would not include such a volume. It will be interesting to read these. W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Volume 10 part 1 Die militärische Niederwerfung der Wehrmacht Blablaaa (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't post messages in German - this is the English language Misplaced Pages and talk page contributions need to be in this Misplaced Pages's language. Please see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Good practices for guidance on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Charnwood

You know damn well Wood is not stating that figure - he is quoting an entire German report. The reports are well known to be unreliable and we have multiple sources showing that the total destroyed and damaged is well below that figure; you are inflating the losses for the fun of it!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it funny how you argue the toss to the enth degree over the eastern front articles you can kicked up a fuss about, you kick up a fuss over BS figures proving a POV bais situation agaisnt Germany on Western Front articles yet you are doing the same but in the reverse situation....

As as been discussed to hell and back regarding the "British claims" in the VB article; Taylor is the only source that actually comes close to what you keep objecting to but he notes that that figure includes knocked out/destroyed/damaged tanks. Remeber you keep harping on that we should include damaged tank figures - Brevity, Crusader etc

The objection is not Wood, i havent said Wood is not relibable so please remove you silly strawman arguments from the debate. The page quoted is an entire German report that Wood has reproduced; the report alone (which are known to be unreliable (not the HISTORIAN or his BOOK)) claims the Germans destroyed this many. The Official Campaign history shows that 80 was the limit and that includes destroyed and damaged; a figure supported via other sources.

The fact you keep bringing up Goodwood shows that your attempting to prove a point via disruption (WP:POINT); but lets address this to shall we. We have an equal number of sources claiming both sides of the coin hence the range.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Your just not listening are you?

Your pushing a POV (highlighted by your obbession with this apparent bias attitute were we use British sources over German); we have multiple sources showing what the actual losses were (i.e. actually less than 80 because that includes damanged tanks) but you dont give a shit because you have an unreliable claim presented in a reliable work ... So you can get one over on the British 70 years down the line?

I suppose we should go and add all those "Sovietshit" figures in again because there in reliable sources arnt they?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats crap and you know it!

So have you added the Soviet figures back to those articles then eh?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you should go read Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system because thats all your doing...

Here you go again with your BS "you only use British books"; Dude the war ended 70 years ago ... get over it! Historians are trained individuals, regardless of their nationality, who attempt to tell the truth. So now your bitching about Reynolds - who supports the German report for the Goodwood loss of 75 tanks, also note that Reynolds mentions that the 11th Armoured Division's CO supports the loss of 75 tanks. HOWEVER we have an equal number of sources that place the losses higher.

The icing on the cake is that i have a French historian's book with an entire chapter by a German soldier, tank expert and historian .... and you moan about him too.

Your replies highlight the fact all you want to do is push POV. The fact you want to push POV highlights this. We have a concensus view from verifiable sources that place the extent of the losses at 80 (Misplaced Pages:Verifiability) yet you want to ignore this because a single source quotes a report where a claim is made. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources ....

Your POV pushing i suppose could even come under Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories if we wanted to play around with the definition...

My OPINON .... am not throwing my opinion about; we have several verifiable sources that confirm the extent of the British losses that outnumber a single German claim. Thats not opinion thats fact. You object to BS figures but you want to add this one in ... And you dont bitch about historians ... really? I think you should review your messages to me and your comments regarding Schiender.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think ill "calm down a bit" when you decide to stop trying to throw POV around perfectly ok articles to carry on your agenda.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you own any of there books? You sprout all sorts of shit and cant back any of it up and on top of that ... all these historians are out to get you!

Nationality means squat! Get over yourself. Stop attempting to game the system...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So strawman argument after strawman argument eh? So we are suppose to add weight to an outnumbered fringe view .... why? Can you find any other sources that even support that figure?

The report that is provided is entitled "an estimate of the situation as a whole". The next page talks about the 30 odd Allied divisions in the beachhead and the 60 odd sitting in the UK, of which "50 could be transferred" to Europe "at any time" ... should we add this to the article too? We KNOW the number of tanks destroyed and numerous historians support the figure.

Look there not "my historians" you have to get this stupid notion out of your head ... its annoying. The repeated claims by yourself that i sit making crap up and picking and choosing is bloody rediculious ... do you have a single shred of proof to support said claim? At the end of the day the poor German POV out to get the German historians are usually the only ones with the figures. Why? How the hell should i know ... go ask them?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

BS and you know it!

Charnwood we have 3 trained historians, one of which was the official campaign historian who establish the losses at 80 tanks destroyed and dammaged. We then have source, a German intel report that includes incorrect information (not to mention are known for being iffy with the truth) that CLAIMS 103 tanks were destroyed. Its a fringe view that as far as i - or apprently you since you havent done any research on the subject or anything - is unsupported by any other sources.

We then have Goodwood - this being your strawman argument, go look it up - where we have the German intel report supported by a further source (a British historian who also calls upon a British divisional commander from the battle) that suggests one figure and an equal number of sources that place the figure higher. There is no undue weight.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So now your introducing a new strawman argument; apparently also highlighting how your pushing your a POINT. An equal number of sources provind two seperate figures and lol both are British historians yet you jump to the lower figure automatically....intresting. Checking Buckley's sources we find that several others support said figure; including Reynolds who states he arrives at this figure from checking the 12th SS own records - he has been seen as a rather balanced view of the SS and ive actually seen comments that he is somewhat bais towards them i.e. support them.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice new strawman argument however you will note i have when he provides information i.e. CHARNWOOD....--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you bother to read; Trew (a British historian) claims the 12th SS records show 1 figure. Buckley claims a higher figure - his source being other secondary sources; one of which is Reynolds (A British historian) who has stated he based his figures off the 12th SS Records........--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To clairfy Trew states the 12th SS Reported those losses; Reynolds based his figure off checking their actual records.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

HAHAHA of course he did not; me and Buckley are in cahoots and are out to get you!

But hang on your not suggesting that historians are lying again? Your not believing reliable sources .... you want to ignore them?

You have just argued yourself into a corner and now your trying to worm your way out i see... sad :(--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What am i talking about? You argued yourself into a corner; you automatically jumped to the defense of the lowest figure. Highlighting your POV pushing. But at the same time the historian who provided that was a British one - who you were slagging off just before for being POV bashers who hate Germany. Then you automatically disblieve Buckley, when its shown his source is Reynolds you then suggest Reynolds never said such a thing.

As for Trew hs is a single source providing a fringe pov unsupported by anyone else, even Reynolds supports it and he went and anyalisied the German records to come up with his figures for German losses....

Stop attempting to push a point and game the system and i dont think we will have a problem.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You go with the figure you trust ... which comes from an ENGLISHMAN??? yet you want to post a BS German figure into the article that adds nothing and misinforms the reader...

when we include german claims than its misinformation of the reader when we include british claims which exceed german intels than this ok because what? i would accept your point if u would only use intels for BOTH sides but u have diffenrent ways to handle casualties claims this says everything.... i say include all, british claims and german ones. can i edit now ? Blablaaa (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

OMG you just wont admit that your wrong and so badly too!

You jump to the defense of the lowest possible casualty figure for the Germans and decide that you dont believe two sources that provide a higher figure. There there, on the pages so get over it. But at the end of the day what is the point in throwing in another 3 sources that support the current range for German losses?

The German intel claim is wrong and we have numerous sources stating quite clearly that the British losses did not exceed a certain ammount; Woods figure, infact not his figure but a figure in a reproduced intel report, is over inflated. Simple as. Why wont you let that go, what do you have to prove?

Banging on about other articles is called a strawman argument, go look it up. In fact there is wiki poilcy that says just because it happens in other articles doesnt mean it has to happen in this one etc. But at the end of the day you beef is with the Goodwood figure - German and British sources support 75 tank losses - yet a bunch of other sources support a higher one. There equal there is no undue weight. The German intel report in regards to Charnwood is bogus, you know it, and the sources show it is.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Your reponse again highlights that you want to push a point, that you pushing POV and that you are ignoring everything.

3 sources id the exact extent of the British losses for Charnwood; 1 single incorrect primary source (presented in a secondary source) shows what the Germans claim.

The quip you are making is aimed at VB; which includes a mixture of British, French and German claims. You have banged on about the need to include tanks that are damanged (i.e. Crusader, Brevity) - said figure is included in the Charnwood figure - yet you have kicked up a fuss because Taylor notes that 14 tanks were destroyed or damaged. Henrie Marie notes 11 tanks destroyed and clearly states more were damaged.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So you pushing a point you dont even believe in ???

Your asking to find consensus on the subject i think the fact that the various historians supporting a figure of around 80 destroyed and damamged tanks - and no other figure bar a single intel claim is currently on the table - highlights the historical consensus.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So there is no editor consenus, no historian concensus, and you believe it to be a BS figure yet your going to add it?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop creating strawman arguments out of nothing! Are you joking about Reynolds ... go look at the British losses for Charnwood! At least attempt to support your rediciousl allagtions.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Should i highlight how you cant even establish what your own position is? One moment the historians used are all rubbish, inapporbiate, wrong, and bais out to get Germany. Next you state they are ok to use. Then you pick and choose between them. Now you are back to there all POV monsters trying to get one over on Germany.

I think you should realise ... or at least attempt to assume good faith that these professional men have done a good job (like you seem to partially accept Reynolds) and their nationality has nothing to do with it.

I mean likewise you essentially making the claim that am out to get you and Germany too; ive been there and had a whale of a time, the most amazing bunch of people i ever met - the hundred or so i bumped into and not a bad one in the bunch i met. I mean for christ sake the war ended 70 years ago and most of these latest books are done by trained professionals with access to every record imaginable.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Wood....--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Right so were back to am out to get you ... ok do you have some sort of evidence that i have withheld information from articles on purpose? That i have picked and choosen what source to use and what not to use?

So apprently am also 3 seperate historians because my opinion is 80 tanks was the limit? Dont act so daft! Three historians have sourced 80 destroyed and knocked out tanks ... we have a single fringe view, a intel report suggesting more was knocked out but not supported by any other source. It is used within the article as the claim it is but numerous sources present the correct figure for the infobox.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

But you already have done ....--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Strawman argument - go do your homework first. You appeared to even realise that some consider him pro-ss before i even told you...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You are just making yourself look foolish now.... goodnight--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:01, 7 March 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) 00:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Kursk

First, I havn't lost interest. Second, I did not delete your tables. Third, the tables give undue weight to one source. How many time do you have to be told? Dapi89 (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You should have aited for me to respond. Your edits have been reverted for the reaons given in the summary box. Do not edit the article again. Continue to edit my sandbox article. Dapi89 (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you need to do? Firstly, stop throwing around accusations, it will get you into trouble. Second, read the talk page. Good night. Dapi89 (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for one month

can u explain what i did? Blablaaa (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

what did i wrong? i wasnt incivil, i was involded in a discussion but i was not incivil not more than other editors. i did not disrputed wiki my edit were primary on "Battle of kursk" ] and on the kursk talk page were i discuss with another user about next edits ]where i added table and updated sources, what did i wrong? i discuss with other uses what to do next. for me it seems that i have problems because i discuss edits, if i would simply revert other editors than nobody hinders me but when i discuss my changes iam marked as uncivil. i even asked the admin who blocks me to help me dissolving the disputed, i discussed everything with this admin!! he said nothing on his talk page that iam uncivil or disruptiv, i asked him if i can table to kursk, and if i can go on editing he said he will not comment this and now he blocked me? please look talk page of nick, i tried to discuss with him the problems and searched for help , under the section "problem" , update nick now wrote what he thinks i have done. please admins wait until i can upload pictures of glantz and friesers book to show that i did not cherrypick or something else, i will also prepare links to show who admin nick is presenting facts in a strange light to blame me for having bad faith. please wait for this to judge fair update 2: i will stop citing the books i will scan today every disputed page to all of nicks accusations. i will address every of his points. please dont review this request until i have addressed all of his accusations. i will also copy glantz the sites of glantz new books that show that everything i said on the reliable source board was correct. update again: i have to wait until evening (europetime) before i can add the content please wait until this: thanks

Decline reason:

It seems that your attempts to get along with other editors on Battle of Kursk are not working. Please suggest ideas for how you can work differently in the future. Do you have any other interests? You and the others who care about WWII battles are not getting along at all. I can imagine that your block might be lifted if you are willing to go and work on something else for a while. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

i cant add links to the request i think, here the links for my edits on kursk ] and the talk page

I was just in the process of posting the following explanation of the block when the above appeal was posted. I am referring to the following unacceptable behaviour, for which Blablaaa has been warned and blocked previously:

• Personal attacks on other editors: comments such as this, this and this over the last few days are a continuation of your uncivil behavior. The second example is particularly troubling as in it you falsely accused another editor of misrepresenting a source.
• Continued unwillingness to accept differing reliable sources or assume good faith by the editors who propose using these sources in edits such as this, this, this and this. I am particularly concerned about the last example here - your response to me calling you on your false claim that another editor misrepresented a source was to claim in this and subsequent edits that the source was unreliable and to imply that a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard had come to this conclusion. That discussion actually came to the opposite conclusion, with several editors stating that the book was a reliable source and none supporting your concerns about it.
• Statements that you intend to resume the practice of aggressively editing articles such as this, this, this (I am concerned about your attempt to impose restrictions on Dapi's editing). Your response to my question about why you'd stopped using a sandbox version of the Battle of Kursk was also highly unsatisfactory as in it you basically state that you gave up on the sandbox as 'it was disappointing result for me' and then asked me to insert a table into the article which you were involved in an edit war on.
• More generally, the main thrust of your editing appears to be to find sources that present the German military in as favorable a light as possible, while dismissing or downplaying sources that provide a differing opinion. These seem to form a pattern of attempting to bias articles when they're considered in the context of the many talk page posts you've which appear to be nothing but your own opinion, which are invariably positive towards the performance of the German military (these are recent examples: , and, in particular, , but there are many other previous comments which appear to be nothing but your own views).

On the basis of this behavior, it appears that you are still not willing to engage in consensus-based or civil editing and are still hoping to use Misplaced Pages as a vehicle to advance your personal interpretation of events. If this behavior continues when the block expires you should expect to be blocked for an indefinite period. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

this is a joke your show what i did before i got blocked, u tell me iam pushing german pov while citing glantz. if any admin will invest 30 minutes to check your qccusations he will see how wrong u are. you advised me to wait for dapis persmission to edit something... Blablaaa (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

ok nick, i will go and scan glantz books, i will show what he exactly wrotes about german losses. your link 9 10 11 are what exactly is written in glantz and friesers book, u dispute the most recent research on eastern front to blame me a POV pusher. i will show that glantz and frieser have consense about the casualties. u witchhunt me. Blablaaa (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

btw its higly suspect that u advise me to stop edit battle of kursk with my books which are the most modern research for kursk from german POV and soviet POV, u advise me to edit dapis sandbox where he told me what i can do and what not while i simply could add new content to battle of kursk, i will give links for this too. dapi btw blanked the sandbox and at first i did not find the his sandbox again, that why wrote on his talk page that i think he is not any longe interessted . thats why i thought my table were gone because i didnt find them. but ok .... Blablaaa (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

before i invest hours in scanning book pages and linking conversations, is there a civil way to solve this problem nick ? i pledge that everything what i wrote is sourced by glantz and frieser, i will proof this in the case of need. i also can show that many "accussations" are out of context. i also can show that i try to improve the articles, i invested hours to add table with glantz and friesers numbers. are u maybe ready after rethinking the issue to lift the block ? this is a kindly request not because iam "guilty" but because i dont want to create stress for me and others. so maybe u rethink the situation and try to analyse again, if u are interessted i can copy the improtant pages for your personnel interesset. is this a deal ? Blablaaa (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked you on the basis of your continued uncivil behaviour and aversion to working constructively with other editors, not on the details of the content dispute you're engaged in, so attempting to use this as a forum to continue the dispute would not be helpful. As I noted on my talk page, you needed to work with other editors and accept that different reliable sources say different things. Instead, you have continued to attack the other editors and aggressively insist that the sources you approve are suitable for use while the other sources they propose using are unreliable. You have been blocked several times previously for this behavior. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

ok then i have to add the scans to show i worked proper and tried to improve article. but i like that u tell me i dont want to work with others while i ask for permission before my edits and discussed everything. and where did i said other sources are not suitable ? i have glantz newest book about kursk and u insist of his older ??? of course is his old book not suitable when his newest contradicts this. i asked u kindly and u denied its ok, i will add the links and scans. Blablaaa (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

unpleasent for me that i have to link your behaviour towards dapi and dapis towards me which shows who the discussion evolved and how u ignored. how iam called a nit and that i cheat sources what u ignored. first i will show that i never cheated sources and than that u not tried to help solving the dispute when u was asked because i didnt wanted to make something wrong. u also accused me of cherry picking without having my book thats not ok Blablaaa (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

indeed its one editor. iam not sure what i should change, at the moment the confilct is about sources. the article uses and old book of an historian who updated his findings. if the other editor would accept that, not i disputes his previous edits, the new book does. here i guess the problem is that the editors think i cant delete their sourced material but in this specific case i can i think ( its a rare situation a newer book contradicts an old of the same historian) . i can be annoying and i was before but to be honest at the moment i dont think that iam the problem. particulary at kursk, iam accused of cherrypinking, i didnt. i was accused of denieing other findings, thats very wrong i have glantz ( pro soviet ) book and use him. i repeat myself i was annoying and disruptiv before but at kursk iam not the problem at the moment. i even said that i can scan pages to show what the author really said, nobody asked me for while accusing me of cherrypinking and selectiv editing. but ok. to the future i would suggest that i go on with kursk and glantz new book, the article now includs some wrong statements of glantz . to avoid that i edit selectiv ( what i not did i think ) i can provide the sources and content and other editors choose the words for the edit, when they dont want that i do edits. regarding the teamwork, i explained all my edits and responded to every question, when the russian user ( dont know the name at moment , sorry) said something i responded fast as possible. i searched contact with everyone who showed interessed in this article. i cant do more i think.... Blablaaa (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

what i can do is stoping conversation with other editors. i explain my advices, than i add content, then i edit, without nonsense talkin, then i guess their would be less stress. Blablaaa (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

is there anylonge need of uploading the book pages to show that i did not edit selctive or cherrypicking or misquoting or whatever? Blablaaa (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

hm after i wrote the text i saw the recent edits on kursk , please take a look ] . the user deletes my previos edits. first he deletes frieser findings about the failure of zitadelle, this findings are exactly what frieser wrotes with other words, this is sources multiple time, he simply deletes it. than i updated glantz numbers with his new numbers, he deletes again. why? whats the reason for? the summarize gives selctiv editing and patching pages togerther. where is the selctive editing, where? this happend often i explainded this to the admin who blocked me but he ignores. if i would do this i would be blocked immediatly. u can find 20 pages where i explained that glantz now has new numbers. then i edit with sources and he delets. he not only deletes this he deletes the findings of frieser, while glantz are out of context ( this i explained 30 times, too ) . and now please tell me that iam the problem on kursk. Blablaaa (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this from the outside, it is clear that something is not working. The admin who blocked you has examined all the details. I have not reviewed very much, but I can see that you are not getting along. It is not up to us to rescue you from the situation. Misplaced Pages is a group project, and you can't seem to get along with the other WWII people. Do you have any other ideas? You can't expect us to change how the other people work. You seem well-intentioned, but very stubborn. If you would abide by consensus, things might go better. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all , thanks that u respond. But when i read this sentence "If you would abide by consensus, things might go better." i see that u dont know what happend. To be honest i was disruptiv before and now people think "this guy" but at kursk iam not the problem. u can read above. i dont know how much time u want invest for such annoying thing like this here but when u read what i wrote above and watch scans when i upload then u will see.... . please review the link above first. kursk is big article maybe the other user steps back and let me do, there are enough other editors like hohum who will intervent when they think i do wrong. but the other user is disruptiv, i dont want brining him problems or something else but he is simply disruptiv and childish with his reverts. should i upload scans to solve every doubt ? Blablaaa (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

with stepping back i mean not that hes not allowed to edit or something like this, but that he takes a break and accepted that i cite the same historian with newer content. Blablaaa (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

regarding the plan of changing the interests iam really in the battle of kursk, bought glantz studied frieser and glantz so i would appriciate working on this article. if iam not allowed i have to search something else or to stop editing. but not beeing blocked! because the block is not correct Blablaaa (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

while iam sitting here and waiting, i found something interesting. on dapis sandbox dapi did an edit ] here he uses numbers of glantz newer books, so he seem to have it. he uses that numbers that show glantz thinks 60-70 tanks on proko lost while he here ] reverts my edits which use the same updated source and restores the old wrong version, he also did multiple edits on battle of prokhorovka establishing the obsolet 350 german tanks. i think this is proof enough that iam not the guy who pushes a pov. please note both books from the same author one is older and the other is newer and only focusing on this battle. this in context with calling me a nit and pushing pov and selective editing is very bad... Blablaaa (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not continue the dispute here. Please consider other options, that do not require you to edit Battle of Kursk. You have had many chances and been blocked four times in less than a month. By this time you must realize that something is not working. So do we. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

so iam forbidden to edit , even when u check the links above? than unblock me please i wasnt incivil and did not push german POV and so on, please unblock. Blablaaa (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

so i will not make controversial edits on kursk until the dispute is resolved. is this ok for u. btw i dont think iam "guilty" but for showing good faith i will follow your advice Blablaaa (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This block has been implimented in response to your behavior towards other editors. All the examples I gave above of recent unacceptable conduct are talk page posts. Ed, please note that Blablaaa has previously had a one week block lifted after promising to work constructively with other editors (see the discussion at the end of this version of the user page in which SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) lifted a one week block and explained their reasoning) only for Blablaaa to revert to their previous pattern of behaviour. Please also note that Blablaaa's unacceptable conduct isn't limited to just the Battle of Kursk aritcle - it's simply their current focus. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

which behaviour? i wasnt incivil, i tried to work with others, see talp pages. but nick can u respond to the proof of blatant disruptiv editing of dapi iam interested Blablaaa (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC) while u call me incivil without proof, u ignore a other user calling me a nit and so on, very neutral nick Blablaaa (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• "This block has been implimented in response to your behavior towards other editors"

ok u are reffering to my incivil comments, here your first example this], i dont see incivilty first of all. there are hundreds of previous edits which brought the situation between me and dapi there. dapis words are at least same "incivil" then mine. he calling me a nit and accuses me of misquoting and so, u ignored completly. here ], the other user's style is the same like mine but iam not abusing him. here your next ] , i not even understand why u took this edit??? here your last ] , same style like all of dapis comments towards me, mention he accuses me beeing a nit and selective editing in his previous edit. admin nick is ignoring. iam not sure if nick really tries to be neutral here maybe influenced by my previous behaviour before other blocks, i can understand but blocking me for this is not ok. u claim that i falsly claimed a user misquotes, i will address this with the version by dapi which he added to the article regarding the battle around bogodukhov

• ""On 11 August, the 1st Tank Army engaged Waffen SS units near Bogodukhov....The 5th Guards Army sent reinforcements, and between 13 and 17 August the Germans were fought to a stalemate. For the first time a major German counter offensive had failed to destroy a Soviet exploitation force"" NOTE: dapi added this while he has the newer book of glantz

• this is the side which describes the bogodukhov battle, NOTE kharkov and bogodukhov are different battles both soviet tank armies were not longer capable of action. additionally to glantz u can see frieser i can scan too if needed ] and here the tank strenghts, frieser implyes most of the tank losses inflicted by ss counterattack, about 800 tanks are lost, this only to address the point that i highlight "minute engegaments" ] . and also note please that i explained this before many time and i tried to explain many times i also explained this to admin nick. i want to highlight again that the other editor owns the new books which i scanned but insisted on the older version BOTH books by GLANTZ

i again ask kindly for the lift of the block. what i told to admin ed about not editing controversial kursk data until dispute solved is still my intention. thanks Blablaaa (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't respond to any new requests from you, unless you agree to stop editing Battle of Kursk and agree to work in some area other than WWII. When you complain about other editors, this suggests you are not listening. EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ok i will stop editing Kursk, that means not i think iam the problem there. and that i complain about people who break wikipedia rules is showing that i show that people break the rules and an admin should investigate about this. that this is ignored without responds by two admins is highly suspect. nevertheless that u or another admin investigate against the other user is not my primary target my aim is being not blocked and editing Misplaced Pages, so i have to accept your conditions and i will. is this ok for u? i have to search for less controversial topics than. Blablaaa (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, propose something else that you are willing to work on. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

unit histories, persons ? by the way its a pity that i dont have permission to work on all articles, where i want. even when the accusations against me are baseless this time. but i accept that i have no choise. i think warfare is a section where many articles have less content and where many is to do. and my knowledge about this section is bigger than about other things . so if iam not allowed to edit any warfare related topics i am afraid that i have to quit wiki. i dont think iam very usefull on other themes Blablaaa (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

so, what is about unit histories and persons?Most Heer units have very short articles. i tried to expand 503rd heavy tank battalion for example. i would focus on such articles then. what u think about this ?

is this a deal Ed ? Blablaaa (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

admin nick wrote this on your page

• "Hi Ed, Blablaaa (talk · contribs) has a long history of aggressive, uncivil and POV editing on a range of articles, and not just the Battle of Kursk article (though their focus has mainly been on World War II articles). As such, unblocking them with a restriction that they only not be involved with World War II articles would probably just shift the problem elsewhere, particularly given that they've breached previous commitments to work cooperatively with other editors. Nick-D "

i want to comment this :

thats simply not true i broke no aggreement i followed the plan and than the situation changed i can check the conversation and edits. u blocked me without reason this time . u claimed things which are not true , for what did u block me? for what? now u highlight my previous behaviour which was indeed against the rules and incivil. what i did before my blocks was not ok but now i did nothing wrong. u said many wrong things on my talkpage after i proofed that u are wrong u did not respond to that. why nick ? u claim something and u are rebuted and u ignore it, is this the proper behaviour ?to Ed please jugde fair. look my edits after my last block, i followed the rules and did good proper edits, sourced everything explained everything. nevertheless is also said i follow your advice and will no longer edit the controversial topis :-( Blablaaa (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

while my previous blocks were correct, this time the claims against me are baseless. i explained above. admin nick who is very selectiv and not neutral accuse me of beeing disruptiv but has no proof for it. when his claims are rebuted he doesnt respond . than he claimed i was "incivil" but i wasnt. please check above. hope there is somebody who can judge neutral here. btw iam aware thats highly unlikly that an admin will have enough time to check the whole situation and to check that the accusations against me are baseless but if an admin will invest some minutes i would appreciate. and maybe important i dont dispute that i was incivil before and i hope the admin will ignore this and only look this block now, because i heavly changed my behaviour but the reputation is still there.

Decline reason:

This comment shows that you don't get the point of editing here, and shows no signs of understanding why you were blocked. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

yes for this comment iam blockey yes? lol . my intention was to say that my problems with other users evolded due unneccessary conversations about critical topics and that without there would be less stress. for this iam blocked? Blablaaa (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

and yes i dont understand why i was blocked this time. please explain me iam sure u cant .... Blablaaa (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

no admins finds an edit justifying an block while following wiki guideline Blablaaa (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

regarding the page about unblock request, i seem that i did some mistakes. So now: i did not try to disrupt wiki. i was not incivil, maybe a bit rough. i will not be "rough" in future. i dont plan to be disruptiv in future. i did not broke wiki rules. i did not ignore other users and didnt tried to be not coopartiv. i did no edit warring . i did not trying to establish a POV . i will not try in future. my knowledge and my content ist helpfull for wiki and its aim to provide neutral and verifiable knowledge.

Decline reason:

It appears to me that you still do not understand the reason for your block. Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

to be really honest, i really dont understand. the block means "disruptiv" editing. i thought i did not, than being incivil, i thought i did not. the following sounds like irnoie or sarkasm or something like this but its not: can u explain me? Blablaaa (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

u will not?Blablaaa (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the block gives the following reason : "continued incivility and non-consensus editing" . first of all i dont i dont think i was really incivil, even if my style was not kindly enough i will try to improve. to the non consense editing : iam not sure, my only edit where on battle of kursk and charnwood. on charnwood i asked later for annother opinion and accepted this. on kursk i only edited tables to present the figures and updated the figures of an historian, furthermore i added material of an historian. all of this edits were explained on the talkpage. even when this is not ok i said that i will try go to edit less controversial topics to avoid problems. when i asked for examples of my disruptiv editing i got no so iam not sure if this claim is correct. nevertheless looking forward i simply say i will not be disrupiv and i will not be incivil. looking the whole issue i think its maybe clever to let u now that iam no native speaker so its possible that i miss something of an conversation and say something which has another meaing for others. for example the link listed by an declining admin. the edit had no bad intention it was simple self critic. some admins now declined my request explaining me that i didnt got the points, i realized that this is maybe true so this time the admin maybe presents my edit which justified the block and broke rules, i did not so much edits since my last block. thank you update: i wrote the guide and talking about others should be avoided, but when it comes to the non consense editing i might be usefull to read my texts above, the "nonconsense" edit were removing of material of an historian and replacing this with newer material of the same historian

Decline reason:

I'd be more inclined to WP:AGF if this was the first time, but this is the fourth time you've been blocked for this behavior. I think you need to sit out the full month in order to rethink your behavior here. Blueboy96 21:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

so now the 4th? admin who cant give me the link for my edit/s which justify a block ? i think for most admins its more easy to decline unblock request than risk confrontration with other admins, i understand this but its not correct. no reason for blocks -----> no block .... . 85.176.134.189 (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

help

{{helpme}}

where can i see if an admin has a email address ?Blablaaa (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:E-mailing_users might be a start. W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup .. go to the admin's talkpage, and if you see "Email user" on the left (under the toolbox), then voila. Not always the wisest move, however. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

LAST WARNING

• Note to Blablaaa (talk · contribs): Due to the persistent disruptive editing pattern displayed by you (for THREE repeated misuse of the "request to unblock" despite being told not to by several Admins), your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked until you sit out your one month BLOCK. This includes the clause of not sending any unsolicited emails to any Admins of Misplaced Pages. Take note that this is the last warning to you, if you do it again then the possibility of you getting an INDEFINITE BLOCK is without any doubts... a very real and possible scenario. (PS: Take a hint, drop the stick and go for a break, wil'ya?) --Dave 23:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

question

{{helpme}}

is there a "Statute of limitations" for breaking wiki rules? Blablaaa (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean consequences? Chevymontecarlo. 14:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

yes are their less consequences for this person now? because its some weeks ago Blablaaa (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see you were blocked for a month. Is that what you mean? If so, no, you will still be blocked but this time indefinitely, no matter how long ago the first warning was.