| Revision as of 15:55, 25 July 2013 editEdwardsBot (talk | contribs)354,693 edits →The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:34, 2 August 2013 edit undo95.220.233.45 (talk) →World War IINext edit → | ||
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
| I'll do my thinking offline instead of on the talk page next time. Great improvements to ] too. Sorry if I unnecessarily complicated your day... <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 13:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC) | I'll do my thinking offline instead of on the talk page next time. Great improvements to ] too. Sorry if I unnecessarily complicated your day... <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 13:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Nick-D Safeguards Soviet Propaganda Myths under Guise of ] (for your kind consideration and later to ]) == | |||
| The WWII is not a 70 year old event in Russia. It is widely considered going on until the last of remaining 1,75 million dead soldiers is buried. The understatement of military casualties by a group of mainly military authors under direction of general Krivosheev and their transfer to civilian losses is regarded as "ingratitude and blasphemy over their cherished memory" by honest historians (me too). It means that 8.7 million dead servicemen are being bestowed the respective military honors, but at least 12-13 million are not. Up till now the respective Article of ] supports general Krivosheev’s group, although some posts with his critics are also present. They condemn what they consider the deliberate reduction of the losses of the armed forces of the Soviet Union by Krivosheev and they have demanded that the Russian government conduct new investigations on losses suffered in the war. | |||
| But any attempt to add new authors with alternative views on WWII casualties is considered ] by ] admin, as Krivosheev’s name also inevitably appear in the posts. For example, this post has been excluded by ]: “A Doctor of History Viktor Zemskov said farewell to an old myth (shared by many historians including general Krovisheev - may be excluded if regarded as ]), that civilian losses outnumbered military casualties. He labels as absurd an idea of the so called "special nature of the Great Patriotic War, in which civilian casualties are far superior than the military ones”… But Dr. Zemskov will be the highest ranking Russian historian in the Article, if included. And he is really in the know, as a former member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (History Department) Commission for Research of Population Losses. | |||
| ] has deleted not only his opinion, but also my posts to the ] on the matter to support Victor Zemskov’s presence in the Article, for what he considers “]”. I do have a dynamic IP, but I sign my posts as Въ. Any admin should know that there are dynamic IPs and should not consider them as willful violations under the most important rule of WP: <b>Presumption of Good Will</b>. | |||
| I request that the blocking imposed by ] for the alleged ] is lifted, as a person with dynamic IP does not know of any blocking, if he can freely edit, and that the post with Dr. Victor Zemskov is included into the Article as an important source with all necessary references. | |||
| My opinion is supported by ], who writes: “Victor Zemskov's figures make sense, in fact my own calculations off Misplaced Pages tend to agree with his estimates. The Russian government needs to show the people the original source documents used by Krivosheev, ADK and the 1946 commission. “ --Woogie10w (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| User Въ, a Russian historian ] (]) 11:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Charts == | == Charts == | ||
Revision as of 11:34, 2 August 2013
India
India can be also meant Republic of India, Mughal India or British ruled India, neither Republic of India or Mughal India joined wW2, It was British India, that's why it needs correction.Ovsek (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Commonwealth War Graves Commission uses the description "Undivided India" see page 43 --Woogie10w (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Undivided India, this term means India up to Partition Of India (including modern Republic of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh). In this sense Mughal India and Sultani period's India was also Undivided India as it was during British Raj. Does it mean Mughal India was involved in WW2? During WW2 India was still not partitioned and it was ruled by British. British India which was simultaneously Undivided and was also involved in WW2, is correct.Ovsek (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Undivided India is what the source says, the rest is your POV. We use reliable sources on Misplaced Pages that can be verified, not your POV--Woogie10w (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for say it, I believe British India this term is better as it was simultaneously Undivided( India during Mughal period was also undivided but it was not involved in ww2) and was involved in WW2. Ok, I will go to Dispute Board.Ovsek (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Talk:World_War_II_casualties#India_Flag Can you please reply here?Ovsek (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I cant touch that--Woogie10w (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
What happened to those my comments?? Who removed them? Are you from Britain? I gave several links proving Bharat Rakshak is reliable., ok I give a truce, mention India or undivided India and in bracket please also mention under British rule or British Raj this termOvsek (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Ovsek, check the page history... I am a DRN volunteer and I removed them. You dont comment on other's opening statements. You are meant to continue discussion on the talk page until a volunteer takes your case. I have now moved them into a section marked "pre-opening comments", despite the fact that there shouldnt be any comments at all. -- Nbound (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- There it was written, please do not open this the thread until it is not opened by any Volunteer, at first Woogi wrote his comment,so I thought it is ok to leave comment before any volunteer comes.Ovsek (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "User talk:Woogie10w". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot 17:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
NYC Wiki-Picnic: Saturday June 22
|
Great American Wiknic NYC at Prospect Park | 
|
| You are invited to the Great American Wiknic NYC in Brooklyn's green and lovely Prospect Park, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:Pharos (talk) |
June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to German casualties in World War II may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
| List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨) |
|---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to German casualties in World War II may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
| List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨) |
|---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
World War II
I'll do my thinking offline instead of on the talk page next time. Great improvements to World_War_II_casualties too. Sorry if I unnecessarily complicated your day... Begoon 13:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Nick-D Safeguards Soviet Propaganda Myths under Guise of WP:BLP (for your kind consideration and later to WP:ANI-notice)
The WWII is not a 70 year old event in Russia. It is widely considered going on until the last of remaining 1,75 million dead soldiers is buried. The understatement of military casualties by a group of mainly military authors under direction of general Krivosheev and their transfer to civilian losses is regarded as "ingratitude and blasphemy over their cherished memory" by honest historians (me too). It means that 8.7 million dead servicemen are being bestowed the respective military honors, but at least 12-13 million are not. Up till now the respective Article of WP “World War II casualties of the Soviet Union” supports general Krivosheev’s group, although some posts with his critics are also present. They condemn what they consider the deliberate reduction of the losses of the armed forces of the Soviet Union by Krivosheev and they have demanded that the Russian government conduct new investigations on losses suffered in the war.
But any attempt to add new authors with alternative views on WWII casualties is considered WP:BLP by Nick-D admin, as Krivosheev’s name also inevitably appear in the posts. For example, this post has been excluded by Nick-D: “A Doctor of History Viktor Zemskov said farewell to an old myth (shared by many historians including general Krovisheev - may be excluded if regarded as WP:BLP), that civilian losses outnumbered military casualties. He labels as absurd an idea of the so called "special nature of the Great Patriotic War, in which civilian casualties are far superior than the military ones”… But Dr. Zemskov will be the highest ranking Russian historian in the Article, if included. And he is really in the know, as a former member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (History Department) Commission for Research of Population Losses.
Nick-D has deleted not only his opinion, but also my posts to the Talk Page on the matter to support Victor Zemskov’s presence in the Article, for what he considers “Sock Puppet”. I do have a dynamic IP, but I sign my posts as Въ. Any admin should know that there are dynamic IPs and should not consider them as willful violations under the most important rule of WP: Presumption of Good Will.
I request that the blocking imposed by Nick-D for the alleged Sock Puppet is lifted, as a person with dynamic IP does not know of any blocking, if he can freely edit, and that the post with Dr. Victor Zemskov is included into the Article as an important source with all necessary references.
My opinion is supported by Woogie10w, who writes: “Victor Zemskov's figures make sense, in fact my own calculations off Misplaced Pages tend to agree with his estimates. The Russian government needs to show the people the original source documents used by Krivosheev, ADK and the 1946 commission. “ --Woogie10w (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
User Въ, a Russian historian 95.220.233.45 (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Charts
Hi
Just a progress update. I've been working with kipod at Module talk:Chart to get the templates for these going. We're nearly there, and the next step will be to put the real data in. You can see the "current" stuff at User:Begoon/sandbox/casualties.
Templates created for this are: Template:World War II casualties data, which contains all the data, and Template:World War II civilian casualties chart, Template:World War II military casualties chart, Template:World War II total casualties chart and Template:World War II casualties bar chart thumb which display the charts.
The next stage will be to enter real data - but when we do so, the problem I foresee is that the bar charts will be compressed for all the nations with "low" numbers, because of the very high numbers for nations like the Soviet Union. The solution I have in mind is to split them even further, into nations, say, over 2 million, and others. That will avoid so many "tiny" bars, but add to the number of charts.
That's not as bad as it sounds, because my thinking is that we will have to have a new page at World War II casualties charts and graphs to display the full size charts, with a bit of explanatory text, with small thumbnails of the charts at World War II casualties#Charts and graphs, linking to the new page. I think it will actually look good and very comprehensive done that way. The pie charts will also be redone with the new module, but the population pyramid might need to stay as is for now.
This will be better than the current situation, where chart thumbnails link to the file information page for enlarged versions, because the full size charts will actually be housed on the new sub article page World War II casualties charts and graphs which can have accompanying content, and the whole thing will look more professional - plus the data will be on wiki and updatable in one place. Of course it means it will take a while to do all that - but there's no WP:DEADLINE, after all... Let me know if this "wall of text" gives you any thoughts. Cheers. Begoon 06:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
New link
Greetings Woogie, I linked World War I casualties to Battle of the Somme, would you mind looking at the casualty tables at the bottom of the page, I used a recent source which seems accurate but you never know.... ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help.Keith-264 (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)