User talk:Shattered Wikiglass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Shattered Wikiglass, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Doug.(talk • contribs) 11:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stalingrad

I did actually; see talk page. I fail to see the logic in your other point. Being band almost certainly does mean being wrong. Furthermore the changing of established dates, like the beginning of the battle , was POV. It is pretty simple when to establish when a battle commences; when the fighting begins within the city land/air space. The change ignored the Luftwaffe's appearance of the city on 21 August in which the first air battles commenced. I would also like to point out that the "Most important Battle?" section claimed to refer to the opinions of "many historians", yet only four different sources were provided - this hardly qualifies for most historians does it? I would also contest the inclusion of this anyway as it could be summed up in a few sentences. There are also a few contradictions: is expanding this into a section really "slimming down" the article? Besides this article could do with a little more detail due to its significance, so I hardly think that adding more to the introduction because its "too simplistic" goes hand in hand with eliminating text that is "too detailed". Seems to me like a reversed and confused perception of what an article should be like. If you feel, and other editors, that this was unjustly moved then re-add the information. The revert is not unreversable.Dapi89 (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, lets see, your reason for the revert was "reverted. Poor changes"! Not even mentioned POV.
Your comments were
"Your extremely arrogant are'nt you?" - talk about ideas, not people why don't you. If you think Lir was arrogant, prove it.
"I have reverted recent edits by "Kir" - is this also you?" - Where are they? I see none.
"What makes this most embarrassing for you is that you are wrong on most points. I'll start witht he most glaringly obvious" - lets see
  • "A quarter of a million Germans were not captured." - They were. The figure comes from Soviet sources, and includes all operations conducted as part of "battle of Stalingrad"
  • "The German 6th Army was not even a quarter of a million strong." - and it was not the only Army which participated!
  • "You also fail to consider the enormous losses inflicted up on the Germans during the battle." - what do you mean? first you claim too many casualties are included in Lir's edits, now too few?
  • "To assume a quater of a million were taken as POWs is to assume they did not suffer any losses!!" - I had raised this issue with Lir in an email by pointing out that the figure includes all Soviet operations, and not just the "battle" in Stalingrad, and he agreed. The article was to be further defined as a battle FOR Stalingrad, i.e. tactical engagements within the city.
  • "It is well known Hitler had to strip the flanks bare of any meaningful reserve to compensate for losses. Numbers also account for the Axis satellites." - and? Does that not suggest the Soviet claims are in fact correct?
  • "The sources use for the prisoner count came from JSTOR, I am surprised this all knowing editor has failed to notice this." - I don't know which source you refer to, so can't comment
  • "The figure of 65% is mentioned because it is important background information - it dispels the myth of German unpreparedness: Hence it is in the BACKGROUND section." - Give me a break! Taylor, A.J.P. and Mayer, S.L., eds. A History Of World War Two. London: Octopus Books, 1974 is not the most reliable or pertinent source on operational statistics of the operations around Stalingrad. I have not seen this repeated by other authors since, so lets not quibble about it. In any case, the reason "65% of Army Group Centre had not been involved in the winter fighting of 1941-42" is because Stalingrad was never a part of the original OKH planing for the AG Mitte in the first place! Only towards the end were troops taken from AG Mitte to reinforce Sud at Hitrels insistence. So why s it in the background?
  • "The battle began on 21 August which is when the first combats took place. This was initiated by the Luftwaffe who began operations over Stalingrad on this date; the air war counts as well you know." - Well, if you want to be that specific, then the first raids on the city took place even earlier. It just depends where you start counting. Attacks on the railways into Stalingrad also count for attacks on Stalingrad's infrastructure and defenses, right?

I just wonder why you chose to undo rather then talk. And are you the perfect editor? Maybe some edits were questionable, so why not question them first? Reverting now is rather more difficult.--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No no no. You seem to be way off the point here. I did add an explanation! The point is the information added needed consensus, he didn't get it. Long standing important information cannot be changed without consensus, in particular when a reliable source is not provided. I would also say that it is clear in my explanation that I in no way implied I was perfect - I find this comment stupid and annoying. I was pointing out the fact that this editor seemed to think that "I (he) quite probably know more about the subject than you (us) do ". This intolerable arrogance coupled with the aforementioned errors warranted deletion alone.

Your wrong on a number of points particularly on prisoner counts. You cannot trust Soviet sources. They are extremely unreliable. I have come across numerous Soviet Historians and archives that have been falseified deliberately. 91,000 Germans were taken prisoner at Stalingrad. This has been sourced already and is in the article! Other Axis forces would have to have lost 150,000 captured - there were not that many serving with AGS. There is no contradiction in what I said! I did not contest 250,000 casualties I contested 250,000 captured - using the fact that the 6 Army was not that strong.

I have already explained why the 65% figure is in. It dispels this myth of German unprepardness (capabilities). I should also like to point out that the work of Taylor and Mayer is not "theirs". It was only edited by them. It is a collection of volumes written by many historians. The Stalingrad happened to be written by Colonel D.M Proektor, a Soviet General....actually, so no I won't dive you a break. Suprising he mentions then that the total Axis prisoner count was 130,000.

The Luftwaffe began operations over the city proper on 21 August: as I have already said, the battle commences when the Germans began combat operations within the cities realm. Using your logic a train carrying supplies from Leningrad to stalingrad that was attacked outside Moscow was also a part of the battle - complete nonsense. Dapi89 (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, almost everyone who writes in wikipedia thinks they know better, Lir just said it. What information was important and needed consensus? Just because something has been in an article a long time does not make it important. You aren't very tolerable, are you? One time a guy says he knows better, and already you find it intolerable. So, which errors did he make, and what needed referencing? You may want to answer in article talk--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't, I'm not that arrogant. Tolerant? Yes I am, just not of arrogance and disrespect shown to other editors by a self- professed "expert". I have largely already said it here, but I will when I have time a.s.a.p Dapi89 (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lir

To be honest, I knew nothing about his case until today. I haven't delved back far enough to see why he was originally banned, but the recent reimposition of his block appears to be due to blatant trolling. If you want to learn more, I'd suggest that the easiest way is to review the history of User_talk:Lir. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Front editing project? is that a WikiProject or a alliance of users? - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not doubting you, but was curious, regardlessyou should probably formalize the effort as a task force of WP:MIL, task forces are quite effective when organizing such efforts. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I "advertised" last year, and those interested are taking part.--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here... And not out there as much. Grandmasterka 09:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)