Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dave1185 (talk | contribs) at 15:37, 20 December 2009 (→In recognition of your service rendered: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1 Jan 2007 - Feb 2008

270th RD (II)

Thanks - anything's good to have. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Empire and Commonwealth

In accordance with www.regiments.org's precedent, I suggest you include both and do not try to distinguish - it's a subject for constitutional scholars, and not too important for the people who will be looking for the information. Thus 'Divisions of the British Empire and Commonwealth in WW2' or suchlike. I'd also advise if there's any way to merge roughly similar lists in, and not have a 'British Divisions in WW2' (which I think there is) hanging off the side dealing with virtually identical material, it'd be good. Consolidation's the way to go - with references! Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

DSU

Hi Mr Wilson, it seems the 1917-45 page has made it into the list of the 50 longest pages on Misplaced Pages, and so I think we need to think seriously about spliting it. Do I understand your recommendation was rifle and guards rifle divisions (+ the VDV?) in one page, and everything else in another? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at the page lengths, but I do not think so; I propose the new page be 'Infantry Divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-57' to cover the point up to which the transition to Motor Rifles occurred. The other might be 'Cavalry, Artillery, and other divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-45'. I'm sorry I've never seen any reference to the circumstances in which 1st Czech AB was assigned to screen Dunkirk. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you add your recollection of the 1st CAB situation, and put a footnote explaining where you remember it from and that it needs to be better sourced. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

9 battalion, the Royal Fusiliers

Do you have any way of verifying that several companies of this unit were ever taken prisoner by the Italian Army between 1941 and 1943? --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The unicorns have seized Tannu Tuva!

Infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957 - do make any changes as you see fit. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Front (or anywhere) maps

Have a look here http://maps.poehali.org/en/catalogue/ I will propose we use these with edited graphics as required. The advantage is that they are available in different scales, and once modified become non-copyright original works of the editor (I think).--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:British Divisions in World War II

Please come--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems you would rather stay out of this one.

I was wondering, are you located in UK? Can you do me a favour in terms of research?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Debrecen

Do you have any objections to moving this article to the Debrecen Offensive Operation title?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

renaming proposal

Beacuse this was after all a Soviet operation, I would like to propose it be renamed to Debrecen Offensive Operation--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Army (Soviet Army)

Hi Mr Wilson. I'm trying to get this article through an A-class review, and one person's made the comment that in some places it's not well cited. Would you mind inserting some citations from your sources for the explanatory paragraphs you added? Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM

Your expertise on Soviet divisions, and troop types, would be helpful for the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Narodnoe_Opolcheniye#Requested_move. It affects the Soviet divisions page in as much as the hastily war formed Leningrad & Moscow divisions are described as 'People's Militia,' Narodnoe Opolcheniye, or maybe a third option - be great if we could get a third alternative. Buckshot06(prof) 05:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

D-44

I know little about the equipment, so I just took a look at the article, and wondered, is it a field gun, same function as the 25-pounder, or an anti-tank gun? Might want to clear that up. I'll have a think and see what else I might be able to add. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 22:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Should have also thanked you for the Der Speigal article. Interesting points of view. Buckshot06(prof) 00:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

2 inch mortar

Were you asking me for the data on the 2 inch mortar?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone here in Australia has reprinted the 1939 Army training pamphlet for it, and this is now for sale on eBay. I'm thinking that may have the information you are looking for--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you/will you be bidding on the manual on eBay?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are less experienced in eBay (where I sometimes find bargain book buys), I woudl recommend waiting until last 10-15 min to bid. One never knows how many people are watching the item, as is true for the Misplaced Pages articles :) In any case, if there is one reprint, there are others, and manuals for 2 inch mortars are not at the top of everyone's shopping list...unless you own one of course :)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Issues with your edits to Battle of Narva - Battle for the Narva Bridgehead (1944)

Thanks for Your comments! I'll try to clarify the whole complex of issues, the battle was about in a world wide view. However, I have a major problem with the term 'campaign' here, making it look like a series of operations conducted by the Soviet Armed Forces, making the article a Soviet POV. I'm not a military expert, but looking for the closest analogy, I see the term 'battle' used in the article about the Battle of Verdun, which was bigger, longer, and more complex. Why is the term 'campaign' an issue here in the Battle of Narva article?

Another term I have a problem with, is 'Narva region'. I am a PhD student of geography in Estonia, and I can assure you, there is no such thing as Narva region. Narva is a border-town in the middle of rangeland, and does not have any inhabited hinterland. So whatever the Soviet Armed Forces were attacking and the German forces defending, was not Narva region. Until June 26, it was a section of Panther Line, June 26 to September it was the Tannenberg Line in the Sinimäed Hills. However, I don't think the defense lines were the overall targets here, as in fact the Soviets were trying to gain access to Tallinn and the rest of the ports in the Baltic Coast to force Finland out of the war, the German ambition was to defend the Baltic coast and the Estonians were trying to hold the Soviets out of their country. So, if you agree, that 'Narva region' is not suitable as the target of the battle, which geographic term would You suggest? Erikupoeg 14:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

From the neutral point of view, what is the story here in the Battle of Narva? In a nutshell, the three major facts:

• 1)The Soviets launched a massive but unsophisticated offensive to gain the Southern coast of the Bay of Finland from the five times smaller German forces.
• 2)Unlike everywhere else in the 1944 phase of warfare in Eastern Front, the constant Soviet massive attack was defied for eight months on Narva river and Sinimäed Hills, resulting in one of the bloodiest battles for the Soviet Union (150,000 casualties) against 20,000 dead German troopers. Knowing, that the Soviets acted in the same way, that brought victory everywhere else, from Finland to Romania, what happened here? Two major points are relevant:
• - In the military sense, Sinimäed Hills are a natural bottle-neck, with the only way through to Tallinn and the open surroundings perfectly controlled from the hills. This made the overwhelming majority useless, pretty much like in the Battle of Thermopylae.
• - The tens of thousands Estonian conscripts were emotionally charged by hopes to restoring Estonia’s independence once the war was over:
• 3) The major outcomes of the campaign (besides the human and equipment losses) were as follows:
• -The Baltic Offensive and the Soviet re-occupation of Estonia was delayed for eight months.
• -The delay made it possible for 70,000 people fled to Germany, Sweden and Finland
• -On 1 August 1944, the Estonian National Committee pronounced itself Estonia’s highest authority, and on 18 September 1944, acting Head of the State Jüri Uluots appointed a new government led by Otto Tief. The government issued two editions of State Gazette. Over the radio, in English, the Estonian government declared its neutrality in the war. The Estonian flag was raised in the permanent flag mast in the tallest tower of Tallinn. The attempt to re-establish Estonian independence would have been impossible to organize with a quick advance of the Soviets to Tallinn.
• -95% of Narva was destroyed by Soviet bombs and less than 5% of the people returned to their home town.
• -10% of the centre of Tallinn was destroyed and 20,000 people left without their homes in a frustrated Soviet air raid.

Points 1 and 2 are addressed fair enough, but need polishing, point 3 needs serious work. Erikupoeg (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to contribute to the article. However, I'm confused about, what the contents should be. You keep referring to Battle of Narva - Battle for the Narva Bridgehead (1944), which in its current form is about the battles in the surroundings of Narva town and river (Feb 2 - Jul 26 1944). The current version does not see Tannenberg Line as a part of Narva bridgehead. Including the campaign of Tannenberg Line in Battle of Narva - Battle for the Narva Bridgehead (1944) would be a principal change. The current logic here is, that Battle of Narva (1944) is an introduction to Battle of Narva - Battle for the Narva Bridgehead (1944) followed by Battle of Narva - Battle of the Tannenberg Line (1944). I suggest we keep that structure, but bridge these articles more with writing an overview of the actual battles in Battle of Narva (1944) and including the background information to Battle of Narva - Battle for the Narva Bridgehead (1944) followed by Battle of Narva - Battle of the Tannenberg Line (1944). As we discussed before, all three of the articles need a section of outcomes. Erikupoeg (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use is refers to wikipedia's use of copyright material

W.B. by fair use - I meant "copyright" fair use. Irrespective of where material is published it will fall under copyright unless it is explicitly released (by either being declared as PD by the author or by being released under a "copyleft" license like the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses). When we quote other people's work on wikipedia, we have to comply with fair-use law and wikipedia's own fair use rules (See WP:NFCC). An introduction to this is here http://www.netread.com/howto/legal/index.cfm?article=fairuse.cfm .

Basically unless you are commenting on the prose itself (i.e. megapixie failed to use adverbs correctly in the following sentence) then you are drifting onto dangerous ground.

Good luck Megapixie (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pershing Rifles

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pershing Rifles, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pershing Rifles. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Maybe this article can be fixed, maybe not, but I think it needs more than just three specialists looking at it to determine salvageability. --Vidkun (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Elba 1944.png

A tag has been placed on Image:Elba 1944.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Misplaced Pages have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on ] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. 71.189.216.248 (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Inns of Court

Presume you've seen Inns of Court Regiment as well, which does clarify the history a bit. Buckshot06(prof) 16:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You could add the two Fox regiments, the Royal Yeomanry and the (Royal Wessex Yeomanry?). Otherwise, to my eyes, looks pretty good. User:Yorkshire Phoenix might be a good reviewer.

Belated reply

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you - busy busy busy. I've had a look through the article, and can't see anything that seems out of place. However, I'm no expert in the subject (having driven one precisely once!), so I'm possibly not the best person to ask ;) EyeSerene 19:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You could take a look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/British military history task force, which is a task force of the very active Military History WikiProject. There's a list of members on the page who could be contacted directly, or you might get better results posting on the related talk page. There are various other task forces in MilHist too, listed here, so you might spot something better. I'd be amazed if you couldn't find someone in that lot - the project is the biggest and most active on Misplaced Pages, and full of hugely knowledgable people... EyeSerene 20:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Poznań

Dear W. B. I am sorry that the incident left such a bad impression on you. It was never my intention to indicate that non-Polish editors are less qualified to edit articles about Poland. I certainly respect your input and I hope you'll not hesitate to edit other Poland-related topics. However as I've pointed on talk of that article, diacritics are a standard on Misplaced Pages (ex. Battle of Łódź (1914)). If you disagreed, you had the option of a WP:RM (or you could have reverted my move and I'd have started a RM). There was no move or edit warring in that article, and I am surprised you felt the issue was important enough to note on ArbCom. It has nothing to do with being or not being an admin; I carried out what I felt was a completely uncontroversial move (hence I saw no need to justify it beforehand). I assumed you did not use the ń diacritic because of technical reasons and I fixed the article for you... Yes, it proved more controversial in the aftermath, but not enough for anybody else to move the article back or start a RM... so why this storm in the teapot now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a conviction that one is correct, as long as one is also willing to consider the possibility that one may be wrong, and is civil when discussing this with others. I believe I was civil in the discussion we had. Yes, I had a POV, but admins are allowed to have it, and I did not abuse my admin tools in the discussion. You made your case, I made mine, you decided to give up in the discussion - that was your choice, not mine, and I have went as far as to show you the avenues (RM) through which you could get input from other editors. Thus I don't understand why you brought this case to arbcom. PS. I don't indent to discuss the content issue itself, which is irrelevant to the arbcom; please note I have no problem accepting that we may have different views on it, and while I think you are wrong I see no reason to go to places you are frequenting and complain about it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

A further reflection on your comments gives me the impression that you are arguing that as an admin, one has to weight one's actions more than a normal editor should. To an extent, I agree with that: admins should lead by example. However, I strongly disagree with the claim that admins are not entitled to have a POV and should not be controversial. Please see my thoughts in this mini essay (and the one that follows it). I hope that in our brief interaction at Poznan (I'd really like to see you come back and edit it more) I have not intimidated you. If I did, please point out to me what I did wrong and I will make sure to avoid it in the future (but again, I find it surprising it's something we have to discuss via evidence in arbcom, instead on via our talk pages). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

HCM Brigade

Thanks for the help with the article.radek (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Manning in Italian Army squads

Hi Wilson

that is tough question you have... and I am not able to answer it. First I am not aware of the historical organization of the Italian Army below battalion level and second I am over-burdened with work. My suggestion is to contact de:Benutzer:Empar. He is THE expert on Italian military history and speaks perfect English. If there is a user, who can help you it is him. All the best, --noclador (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Remembering fallen comrades

It's good to mark our heritage and our colleagues at such appropriate times. Personally I stand here partially because my grandfather and others went off to fight in Egypt, Libya, and Italy with the New Zealand Expeditionary Force. It is a better world today because of what they did. Best wishes for Christmas and the holidays. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Military Police

Thanks for the info. I'm actually very familiar with the 290th MP Company (I am in the Maryland Army National Guard and my unit has worked closely with them), but I had next to no information on the 290th MP Brigade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamemnon b5 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

In recognition of your service rendered

I hereby award you the following for your unwavering support on Misplaced Pages. Cheers and have a great weekend~! --Dave 14:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This editor is a Journeyman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Thank you Dave, very kind of you. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• You are most welcome and IMO, it is long overdue. You can hang either of them on your user page if you want to, cheers~! --Dave 15:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)