User talk:EyeTruth/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recent edits to the Battle of Kursk article

Please start consolidating your multitude of duplicate cites in your recent posts and start following the existing format of the cites to keep everything tidy. If you have any questions on how to do that please let me know, but I will point out that if one paragraph is entirely sourced from one book, you only need to cite it once, at the end of the paragraph, provided you list all of the page numbers used. Please also add the information for Lloyd Clark's book to the bibliography. Be very wary of all sources before published before about the 1980s, most all of them are pushing their own POVs, including Guderian who wasn't even there. I'll be watching your talk page so just respond here if you wish.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll consolidate my multiple references of same pages. I normally try to cite every chunk of passage that can stand alone. I've observed that many times, over time, passages get separated from their references and eventually they are tagged for verification and may be subsequently deleted. And even sometimes passages are tagged for verification even when not separated from their reference and this is often because their reference is sitting at the end of some giant paragraph. As for Lloyd Clark, you can start here http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/research/hri/fellows/clark. I've read two of his book and I can say he is one of the unbiased historians out there.EyeTruth (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
You're certainly not required to use only one cite per paragraph, but do you know how to name your cites so there aren't repeats of the exact same reference at the bottom of the page? Forex <ref name=g9>Glantz, p. 199</ref> becomes <ref name=g9/> on all subsequent uses and they'll all use the same entry in the reference, looking something like this: a b c Anderson and Baker (1977), p. 308.
I haven't read anything by Clark, but much depends on what sources he's using. If he's relying on Guderian and other Cold War-era sources, both from the Germans and the Soviets, then there may be some problems because he's just repeating biased sources. Not saying that he is, because I don't know one way or another, but it might be a problem. I already know that I'm going to have to check his statement about the employment of the Ferdinands against the histories of the two battalions that used them because it doesn't match what I remember on how they were used. So I'd advise seeing what sources he's using in his book before relying on him whole heartedly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know how to do the ref name tagging. I just didn't start out with it as I didn't plan to make lots of edits when I started reading the book. Lloyd uses a mixture of Soviet and German sources and often focuses a lot more on the human-side of war instead of the tables of numbers or intimidating details of tactics and maneuvers. And more often than not his interpretations mirror those of Glantz and Overy, both of which on a glance seem to be the most cited authors in his book on Kursk.EyeTruth (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, most editors with barely over 100 edits don't fully understand how to consolidate refs. His book has gotten mixed reviews on Amazon, but mostly because readers didn't like the copious amount of background material at the beginning, although a couple of references to use of Paul Carell, David Irving, and Franz Kurowski as sources raise questions. I hope that he mostly uses them for personal accounts rather than anything factual, in which case I'd challenge their reliability.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's all good. And yes, Clark's books are often bloated with background information, and that is because his target audience are the freshman history enthusiasts. And as I already pointed out, his books focus a lot more on narrating the experiences of the people caught in the conflict, so you get a lot of personal accounts, which are often followed by the author's brief critique of the account. And Amazon reviews I personally don't rely on since at a glance they can be very misleading. For example, some of Glantz's books get mixed reviews and this is usually because his books are hard to digest for the fun of it. EyeTruth (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

True, and I figured he was aiming at the introductory audience, but it was all I had access to since I don't have access to his book. And while I love Glantz's books, I'd hardly call him a stylist.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Prokhorovka

Just for your information, I didnt added the citations in the first place, I just know where they come from and therefore added the books in my 2 last edits. ;) StoneProphet (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No fuss. I know... was just pointing out that doing it well gives it a good chance of escaping deletion some time in the future. BTW, it was good that you added those citations :D EyeTruth (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

User:StoneProphet, I just want to know if you have access to Zamulin's Demolishing the Myth? If yes, I want to know the context of the 207 Soviet tank losses he declared on page 401. I already know the full context of the 334 Soviet tank losses from at least two different historians, and I'm confident that Zamulin wouldn't state two different figures for exactly the same context. EyeTruth (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've got the book and it makes no reference to any Soviet tank losses on p. 401, only to Totenkopf's strength and losses on 12 July.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
In fact, my 2012 reprint doesn't even have a page 635 as given in the next cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I do have info on the 334 tanks from Zetterling & Frankson. Also for the "522 men", Glantz & House and Zetterling & Frankson all give figures (although in different contexts) that debunks it. I'm suspecting the 522 casualties is probably for just one of the Germans units throughout the battle around Prokhorovka or unless it just for 12 July. Do you by any chance have access to Frieser's Die Ostfront 1943/44 ? EyeTruth (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have most of the English-language references, other than rubbish like Caiden and Cross, but not many of the German ones. I do have, however, histories of just about every panzer or panzergrenadier division, although their qualities vary considerably. But that's probably a bit more micro-level than we really want to get.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful. I only have stuff on Eastern Front and all entirely from Glantz with the exception of a few :p. I guess I will put up a request for the "522 men" on the article talkpage and let it stay for the time being. EyeTruth (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I dont have Zamulins book as I stated above. I also dont have currently Friesers book and getting it will take some time for me. The number is in the book, but I dont know in which context, as I wasnt the one who added it. U should maybe ask User:W. B. Wilson - I had a discussion with him some weeks ago and he apparently had Friesers book back then, so he can maybe help. StoneProphet (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks EyeTruth (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

According to the Frieser reference, the 522 men refer to casualties of the 1st and 2nd SS Divisions (279 and 243 respectively) for the losses report of the period 11 to 12 July 1943. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks W. B. Wilson. Are those figures combined casualties (KIA+MIA+WIA)? For the same period, Glantz give 48 KIA, 321 WIA and 5 MIA (total 374 casualties) just for LSSAH (1st SS Division). Glantz does mention that the figures came from Lehmann, but he didn't object to them. So I'm just wondering if the figures you gave me are just a portion of the total casualties or the whole of it. EyeTruth (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For 11/12 July Das Reich lost 41+190+12 from Weidinger's divisional history, matching Friesner's figure. I'd be interested to know why he under reports the casualties from LAH though, perhaps just a typo.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The figures appear to be combined casualties (Gesamtverluste is the term used). Frieser sources these figures to the report of the II SS Corps Surgeon made on 22 July 1943; the archival reference is BA-MA RS 2-2/17. W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Figures reported by the unit's medical staff versus figures reported by the commander of a subunit. I'm inclined to take the figures from the medical staff (for no specific reason though). Lehmann's figures would be mentioned in the main body of the article instead. My gratitude to you two. EyeTruth (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, EyeTruth. You have new messages at W. B. Wilson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, EyeTruth. You have new messages at W. B. Wilson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome to MILHIST

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Operations Panther

Hallo, You moved Operation Panther (2013) away from the base name, and created a dab page at Operation Panther. Please now do the required followup of fixing all the incoming links so that they point to the new page name (or elsewhere as appropriate) and not to the dab page. Please note also that you'd left the dab page in a malformed state: every redlink on a dab page needs a bluelink to an article which mentions the topic. After some work I've fixed up the dab page - if I'd seen how many incoming links there were, before doing so, I'd have suggested undoing the move and letting the Mali operation be the primary topic. It certainly seems the only topic anyone has been interested enough to write an article on. Anyway, please now fix those links - there was a message displayed when you did the page move which pointed out that it's your responsibility to do so in this situation, where you're over-writing the previous title by a dab page. Thanks. PamD 22:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I will fix those links. Thanks for the reminder. I procrastinated too much and forgot. EyeTruth (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Beevor

Any chance you have Beevor's "Fall of Berlin" ? I'm looking for text and its context on page 267 that reportedly supports the following statement: "the retreating 4th Panzer Army was pushed into the operational region of the German 9th Army, forming a gigantic pocket of 250,000 men and 600 tanks. The Soviets then encircled this force in a pocket in the Spree Forest south of the Seelow Heights and west of Frankfurt." If you have the work and can check it, thanks much. W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have nothing on Beevor. EyeTruth (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Problems working on the Battle of Kursk page.

Information icon

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I wanted to notify you that your behavior on the Battle of Kursk article is not productive to producing better articles, and as such I am compelled to report your behaivor to an administrator. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't find it. Link? EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg

Where's my 7K response? In case you missed my latest post, down all the way at the bottom of the section, which Friesner book are you referring to? The only one in the bibliography is from 2007. The excerpt that you provided is so generic that it would apply to any German attack. Please provide something more substantial that supports your point. And I don't think that you ever answered my question if Clark provided a definition of blitzkrieg so we can judge in what sense he's using it. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Your 9k response is coming. Muhaha. Good that you asked for that now. I'll be returning Frieser (2005) to the owner in two days. (I haven't decided if I want it in my personal collection yet). Frieser (2005) is the one titled The Blitzkrieg Legend. It is an English translation of one of Frieser's old books from the 1990s. I'm sure I posted about Clark's definition. Did you miss it or do you want fuller context? And yes, both Clark and Frieser gave very generic descriptions of Blitzkrieg. Most German offensives from 1940 to 1943 would count as blitzkrieg based on their definition. I wouldn't have taken Clark's word if not for Frieser's. EyeTruth (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

So let me summarize your position as I understand it: You feel that Zitadelle was a blitzkrieg because Clark and Friesner(?) describe it as such. You want a positive statement that it was not a blitzkrieg from somebody worthwhile, right? And you discount the many authors and generals who don't refer to it as a blitzkrieg because they don't characterize the attack one way or another. Negative proof is not proof, is that an accurate account of your reasoning? Two authors for and zero against? Even though Healey doesn't describe it as a blitzkrieg in his 2008 book when he did in 1992? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel that Zitadelle was a blitzkrieg. I feel it was intended as such, at least in the initial version of the plan. I'm not sure Healey described it as blitzkrieg in any of his books. I actually think negative proof can be a proof or at least a basis to start with. But so far not even a negative proof has been put forward for the issue. Two and half authors for zero against.EyeTruth (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Right now, I gotta tell you that I'm rapidly loosing my enthusiasm for working on this article because you seem very set in your interpretation, so much so that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is coming into play because all of the other editors who've bothered to comment on this tempest in a teapot agree that it is not a blitzkrieg because the bulk of the authors writing on the battle do not describe it as such. Everybody else sees it as two for and 10 or more against characterizing it as a blitzkrieg.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have not even met any of the criteria of disruptive editing outlined in the guideline. One of the "10 or more against characterizing it as a blitzkrieg" has already met at least three of criteria outlined in the guideline. Thanks for the heads up. Also check this out.
WP:YESPOV:
"Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia."
"The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus." EyeTruth (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Result of the AN3 complaint about blitzkrieg at Battle of Kursk

Please see the result of the edit warring complaint. Currently you seem to have no support from other editors in your desire to use the word 'blitzkrieg' in this article. To avoid admin action, please don't restore that word until such time as you have consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Military Editor's Barnstar
For your work on the Battle of Prokhorovka. A truly impressive article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :D. EyeTruth (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


Battle_of_Prokhorovka

Given some time, I can copy edit the article or at least parts of it. I spotted some things that could be worded better -- hardly surprising in an article that large. No doubt my latest efforts are rough around the edges as well. On a different topic, what amazes me about the "professional" historians of the E Front is how unable to collaborate they seem to be, preferring instead to cry foul and scream like outraged virgins at the conclusions and assertions of their colleagues -- way too much "this force is my team" sort of approach. Thanks for taking on Prokhorovka; no easy task, in several senses. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hehehe. I know what you mean. The Eastern Front circle feels more like a venue for "historians" to publish their own personal propaganda. Consistency is seriously lacking for many topics. Even those that claim to be balanced, end up pushing for a particular pov after presenting (and vilifying) the other sides of the argument. Just to get a balanced view you will need to combine several "reliable" secondary sources. Sad but true. But there are sources that are very neutral with certain subjects. EyeTruth (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
What do you think of the infobox? There are heaps of figures (for losses and strength) in the main prose of article, but I'm having a hard time deciding on how to present these figures in the infobox without creating bias and still remain true. Do you have any suggestions?
At one point, I thought of putting permanent German losses in armour for 12–16 July as "54 or less" in the infobox (i.e. from 17 + 37) but I ended up not doing it. According to German primary sources, from 12–23 July the SS Pz Corps permanently lost 17 tanks and assault guns, and from 11–20 July the III Pz Corps permanently lost 37. Most of these losses would have occurred before 17 July since all offensive and active defensive action gave way to rear guard action on that day and afterwards. I think it would be fair to have the infobox portray the figures of both Germans corps since the figure for the whole Soviet 5th GTA, which fought against both German corps, are already there. But so far I've taken care not to change the info box figures too much from the very small cherry-picked German figures it initially had. Hence, for the German side, I only included figures for only II SS Pz Corps to keeps things low. EyeTruth (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
This gets back to the "my team" issue. If you present combined losses for both German corps, others may claim you are trying to inflate German loss figures. Given that the participation of III PzK came in later and that it being "counted" as part of the German OOB varies by historian, my suggestion would be to place the III PzK losses in the information note below the article after you note the losses in the info box are for the II SS PzK. This puts the information out there for those who are seriously reading the article but does not give the impression that you are trying to rewrite the published histories (others may claim original research etc. if you combine the figures in the info box.) Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually Zetterling & Frankson (2000) presented it like this: "This gives a total of 334 destroyed Soviet tanks and self-propelled guns, which can be compared to, at most, 54 German tanks and assault guns destroyed" (p. 108). So it's far from original research (which I bitterly hate). I'm just worried because I've seen secondary sources being fiercely contested with bare "opinions" (not even tertiary sources) on here in Wikipedia. So I'm wary of going against the numbers, and judging from the talk pages it seems there are a lot in support of the cherry-picked small German losses. EyeTruth (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
If a source like Z&F present 54 AFV's destroyed, that may be good enough. Zetterling accumulated a lot of credit with the military history internet community because of his research into German unit states during the Normandy Campaign. I didn't mean to suggest that OR had taken place, but my view is that accusations of OR can be wielded without too many repercussions as long as it isn't overdone. Please don't take my comments about Wikipedia's social interactions too seriously; in some cases, I'm just a humorless old guy who wishes people would communicate in a more straightforward manner on the internet instead of using the virtual nature of the interaction to behave with poor culture. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
No worries. I understood you very well. I just normally have so much bitterness for original research, I just had to blurt it out XD. Some may say I'm obsessed with the whole referencing thingy but I think it's just because of the field of profession I come from. BTW, you never know which historian is above contention or not. Glantz's claim that Hitler could not make up his mind in May on whether to undertake Citadel or not was fiercely contended on the Battle of Kursk article. And Glantz even explicitly stated his two German sources (Manstein's and Guderian's memoir). Yet it took a week of discussion to resolve the debate. Worst of all is that there was not a single source brought forward that challenged Glantz's claim, unless editors' opinions count as sources. There are over 40 editors watching Prokhorovka, and from the talk page its clear a good number of them support the smaller German figures. I'm wary of getting bogged down in another pointless debate. EyeTruth (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW, please I want you to just watch what is developing on the Prokhorovka article. Just watch and be a witness to this. For context, I already have a history of conflict with Gunbirddriver. Don't take sides, just observe. Please. I know I may be asking for too much but please. EyeTruth (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Without taking sides, a review of the article history indicates GunBirdDriver and you are the two primary contributors to the article over the last two months. This is unfortunate since my (admittedly blue-sky) guess is that both of you are dedicated to providing a good article, although the viewpoints may vary considerably. Given this situation, my suggestion would be for both of you to address the situation at the MILHIST talk page and ask for other editors to review the edits. I realize this is not always an ideal solution. I've had frustrating discussions in Wikipedia over issues I considered self-evident . . . some conflicts are difficult to resolve. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I will try and first discuss the issues with him on the talkpage. And also try and not be a jerk while discussing with him this time around. Although I doubt I can keep myself from being one if he starts contending secondary sources with his own opinions like he did with some of our past discussions. EyeTruth (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A minor change to DRN

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at DRN which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 13:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Result of Prokhorovka

Dear EyeTruth,

You are absolutely right about the citations. I was under time pressure when I made the edit. I felt it was an important point though. I will try to add citations over the weekend.

Karloman2 (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

I've just closed the report at WP:AN3 and declined to block you. Please stop reverting though, or you may be blocked in the future. Discussing the matter on the talk page is the best thing to do now. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Report to Administrators for misconduct

Here you go: [1] Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and failure to heed warnings, as you did at Battle of Kursk. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

One-sided action

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

First of all, I'm not asking for an unblock per se since it is just a 48 hours ban; hence, earlier I had signed out and posted this on user:Bbb23's talk page as an IP, although it was promptly removed by some other editor. I just wanted you to recognized that you took action based on hearing just one side of the dispute. Not cool :(. And you couldn't possibly had investigated all the background info in just less than 20 minutes.

Gunbirddriver filed the report at 1:27. You were still attending to several user talk pages up till 1:47. By around 2:00 your attention was finally on WP:ANI and at 2:10 you effected a 48-hour ban. Some of what Gunbirddriver said are inflated and a few are flat-out false (although I must not deny that a few of them are true). If you had read through all the discussion he cited, you would have seen that for yourself.

For a starting point, just carefully read through the DRN case and see if it adds up to what he claimed. Notice that in the DRN, Gunbirddriver refused to see this issue as a content-dispute, which is exactly what it is. He summarily categorized the dispute as a mere case of edit warring and misconduct, and showed little interest in participating in the resolution of the dispute. He is the only editor involved in the discussion that strictly approached it with such mentality and still does. And the reason for such attitude stems from some rough encounters we've had in the past that goes back several months, long before this dispute. The DRN ended with 4 editors (Binksternet, Magus732, Someone not using his real name, EyeTruth) supporting the inclusion of blitzkrieg and 3 editors against it (of which one of them, User:Hasteur, explicitly stated that he/she is specifically against the "After-the-battle characterization", which is not what the dispute is about). The DRN also ended with a presentation of 8 secondary sources explicitly supporting the inclusion of blitzkrieg against none explicitly opposing it.

Just see the DRN case for yourself. I won't say anymore. Just check out the DRN. Also check out the diffs Gunbirddriver posted in the WP:ANI report. Keep in mind that they span a period of two months, and reflect the talkpage discussions that are well over 100 KB of readable prose.

Besides, the term Blitzkrieg has always been in the article ever since at least 2009 until May 2013 when Gunbirddriver cleansed the article of the term. It's almost ironic that I'm referred to as the editor trying to "include" the term in the article, when in reality I'm trying to retain it since numerous sources support it. The whole point is that Gunbirddriver presented a very skewed account of the dispute and you acted on just that. I rest my case. EyeTruth (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

  • I'm sorry to see that you are blocked for edit warring. Many users find themselves confused as to why they were blocked in such a situation as they believed they were acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. What it is important for you to understand is that as far as the edit warring policy is concerned there is no right and wrong in an edit war. Anyone who edit wars is wrong and is blocked to prevent the disruption from continuing. There are very few exceptions, such as reverting blatant vandalism, which is not the case here. We don't allow edit warring because it never helps resolve an issue, and it always makes it worse.

 What to do instead:

  • Mark disputed statements or, if needed, the entire page with appropriate tags
  • Initiate discussion on the talk page (note that edit summaries are not a substitute for actual discussion)
  • If that does not rectify the issue seek page protection and/or dispute resolution as needed.
  • If you follow these simple steps instead of edit warring you will find it is actually relatively easy to avoid edit warring and getting blocked for it.
Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2013 (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.

FYI

I felt it necessary to again bring your behavior to the attention of the admistrators here.Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Gunbirddriver, you can heed my advice on the article's talkpage or be blocked. And this won't be a block based on biased, false information, like you did. It will be real and stick to your account for good. So heed my advice and the advice of many other editors and admin. EyeTruth (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Prokhorovka GAC

I just read the nice note you left on my talkpg re. my nominating Battle of Prokhorovka for GA-status review. I'm glad to hear that in doing so, I indirectly and unintentionally provided a catalyst for further progress in your own work! My opinions are subjective, of course, but in reading that article, I absolutely believed that there exists the foundations of a "Good Article" and that status should be obtainable without undue effort going forward. I leave it to other more technically-competent editors/reviewers to confirm that the format of all of the citations is consistent and correct, for example, but don't feel any hesitation to say that you and your fellow editors have developed a much-improved article that certainly merits recognition, further investment and the attention of other readers and contributors. Good luck! I hope someone picks-up the review promptly! Azx2 18:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind, motivating words. The article wouldn't be what it is now if not for the framework laid down by other editors long before my reworking, and the major cleanups by over a dozen editors afterwards. Unfortunately, I will soon be getting very busy outside Wikipedia but I will try and drop by every now and then, perhaps a few minutes every evening, if the GAC review starts. EyeTruth (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Just got a notice on my tp from Sturmvogel 66 that the review has begun! Azx2 17:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Eyetruth. The GA review is now underway in earnest. You might like to pop over and address Sturmvogel's concerns, if you have time. Talk:Battle of Prokhorovka/GA1 -- Diannaa (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Seperate " was Kursk a blitzkrieg" section?

Hi I am thinking this may be an option if things still remain unstable after the present vote. It would have the advantage of coralling all the arguments into a seperate space and would thus neutralise the Blitzkrieg term being used in mainspace. I think it actually justifies its own section. The argument becomes more interesting as I personally think on it. Oddly I have never thought of this aspect of Kursk in those terms before. I think we have enough material for a good section, and it would add to article quality and head off future pain. I have informed GBD, and updated him on options. I think it is only fair, and so this can be finally, comprehensively resolved by all parties. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Irondome, I think that is a great idea and I suggested this to GDB before, but the guy refused, so right now I'm not planning on dragging this out after this vote. I'm trying to bring this 3 month old drama (which didn't deserve to last more than 2 weeks) to an end and not drag it on any further. EyeTruth (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
BTW, is it okay if I collapse the other poll so that other editors coming to vote won't get confused and run from long discussion? I've had one editor tell me before that "it looks too time consuming" to comment on which version they support, it was not for this poll but for the older section. EyeTruth (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It was a big feint to get things moving. I knew you would respond with your own :) Collapse already. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
wink EyeTruth (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice of complaint

You have been mentioned over at the Administrators Noticeboard Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:DNA history of Egypt

You might want to come back to this article (which I've been avoiding, this area of WP is a mess). This and related articles mentioning Egyptian DNA have been quite lively lately! I'd particularly appreciate a look at some of the sources and claims added recently which I've moved to the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AN You May Have Interest In

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

ArbComm

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#section name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Hello, you have an opportunity to make a statement at Ancient Egyptian Long-Term Editor Misconduct as you are named as a party, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


If and when you do you might want to search Andajara's contribution for the use of an edit by you that you made at [2]. Dougweller (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EyeTruth/Archive1&oldid=1083589798"