| Revision as of 23:36, 16 August 2013 editEyeTruth (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,111 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:17, 20 August 2013 edit undoEyeTruth (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,111 edits ←Replaced content with '{{archives|title= My Talkpage Archives|Archive 1}} Hello, feel free to use the plenty space below :D ---- <!--=====-----====...'Next edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| <!--=====-----=====-----ADD NEW SECTIONS AT THE BOTTOM--=====-----=====-----> | <!--=====-----=====-----ADD NEW SECTIONS AT THE BOTTOM--=====-----=====-----> | ||
| == A barnstar for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | ''' The Military Editor's Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For your work on the ]. A truly impressive article. ] (]) 22:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| Thanks :D. ] (]) 23:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <!--=====-----=====----- ADD NEW SECTIONS ABOVE THIS LINE--=====-----=====-----> | |||
| == 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, ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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, ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages'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, ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 with Gunbirddriver. Don't take sides, just observe. Please. I know I may be asking for too much but please. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages over issues I considered self-evident . . . some conflicts are difficult to resolve. Cheers, ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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, <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font> <sup>(]•])</sup></font> 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. | |||
| ] (]) 06:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit war == | |||
| I've just closed the report at ] 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, ] (]) 03:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Report to Administrators for misconduct == | |||
| Here you go: ] (]) 01:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == August 2013 == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for edit warring and failure to heed warnings, as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. ] (]) 02:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | |||
| == One-sided action == | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=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 ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 15:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC) | decline={{Ewblock}} ] (]) 16:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| == FYI == | |||
| I felt it necessary to again bring your behavior to the attention of the admistrators .] (]) 22:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : ], 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. ] (]) 23:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:17, 20 August 2013
 My Talkpage Archives |
Hello, feel free to use the plenty space below :D