SuperDeng

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - FrancisTyers 11:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Front

Hi man, you make some good points, but seem to have trouble with English. If you need any stuff copyediting before you submit it, feel free to ask me on my talk page. - FrancisTyers 00:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You believe 2 million Soviets dead in German Army, where does that come from?

You believe 2 million Soviets dead in German Army, where does that come from? This gets better as we move along, I need a few laughs after a tough week in the office--

LET ME REPEAT--About 1,000,000 Soviet POWs were in German military service and according to Gen Krivosheev 215,000 were killed or MIA in German military service. About 800,000 were returned to the USSR after the war, many later died in the Gulags and their deaths are not included with the 10.6 million war dead. The number of 10.6 million of Erlikman should be tweeked down to 10.4 million because 215,000 were killed or MIA in German military service.A recent Russian language source published in 2004 " Human losses in the 20th Century" by Vadim Erlikman estimates 7.6 million Killed and missing in action, 2.6 million dead POWs in German custody(out of a total 5.2 million POWs), 250,000 partisan deaths and 150,000 militia dead for a grand total of 10.6 million. About 1,000,000 POWs were in German military service and according to Gen Krivosheev 215,000 were killed or MIA in German military service. About 800,000 were returned to the USSR after the war, many later died in the Gulags and their deaths are not included with the 10.6 million war dead. As for the seperation of POW and MIA deaths one can only estimate. Erlikman gives 7.6 million killed & MIA. If you subtract Kirivosheev's 6,9 million confirmed dead you arrive at 700,000 MIA. That seems reasonable to me--Woogie10w 12:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi There

Whats up Doc?--Woogie10w 02:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Am blocked cant reply ;)

Only on my own page ;)

Will get unblocked in a few days ;)

I got blocked for cussing out one of duh administrators, the guy is real lucky I did not meet him face to face--Woogie10w 18:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But I am not saying your nummbers are wrong in anyway just have you counted the guys who joined the SS from the baltic states and the Ukraine and the rest of the Ussr?

(Deng 08:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

1 million Soviets served in German Army and 215,000 were KIA/MIA, they are counted with Germany NOT the USSR.(Read the German footnote) The USSR Nr. includes ONLY Soviet military casualties. There is NO way that 2 million Soviets died in the German Army--Woogie10w 11:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the flack on Sov casualties. You forced me to give the matter additional thought. I have updated the footnote to explain why the USSR lost 10.6 million military casualties. My question to you is " What were total Soviet losses KIA/MIA plus pows in 1941? I say they 4.5 million, the official number is 3 million. What is your call on 1941 losses?--Woogie10w 17:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Deng

Show me the diff that shows someone calling you an idiot on Eastern Front and I'll see what I can do. I actually don't have that page on my watchlist anymore. I was trying my best to get out of that mess because all it has caused me is grief. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And once again, you are assuming the worst. You assume that I'm biased, instead of thinking "hey, he's not watching the page anymore. Maybe I should just nicely point out where this person called my views idiotic". I would like to know where this antangonism comes from. Considering, I don't think you even believe that I live in the US. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen any details on the 215,000 Soviets KIA in the German forces

Hello == You are most likely correct abbout The nummbers of Soviets who joined the axis. But have you counted the people who joined the SS?

And in your nummbers can you seperate the dead from the missing?

You can't really separate MIA and dead POWS. The official Soviet data claims a total of 4.559,000 MIA and POW for the entire war and 2.776,000 liberated in 1945 for a net loss of 1,783,000 MIA & POW dead combined. This is from "listed strength" which does not include men called up in 1941 and killed and captured in 1941 but never put on listed strength. 6.9 Million were confirmed dead. Total losses 8.7 million.

A Russian historian V. Erlikman estimates 7.6 million killed and missing and 2.6 million dead POWS. That gives us 700,000 MIA .if you add the POWS you come to 3.3 million which is 1.5 million more than the official number. 3.3 million MIA-& POWs dead is makes sense rather than the official Soviet number of 1.8 million is a plug that can’t be supported by the historical evidence which indicates about 3 million dead POWS & MIA.

I have never seen any details on the 215,000 Soviets KIA in the German forces. The Germans kept a separate list for these guys. The SS had ethnic Germans who were bi-lingual commanding these guys. Thirty five years ago I used to drink with a group of Germans from Poland. These ex SS men had some real grim war stories to tell. --Woogie10w 15:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:German_88mm_Gun,_The_men_at_the_gun_do_not_yet_known_that_the_Red_Army_is_going_through_a_major_reorganization_and_will_become_a_much_more_deadly_advisory.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:German_88mm_Gun,_The_men_at_the_gun_do_not_yet_known_that_the_Red_Army_is_going_through_a_major_reorganization_and_will_become_a_much_more_deadly_advisory.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 08:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

German Losses in Russia

German losses in Russia. What do you want to know?
Also, Lesen Sie Deutsch?--Woogie10w 13:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I can give you a breakdown by month for the Eastern front, later. I am @ work crunching numbers--Woogie10w 15:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

THE CHART

I WILL GET BACK TO YOU TONIGHT- BUSY @ WORK--Woogie10w 19:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Anyway the guy who prepared the chart is braindead, Bulgaria never fought on the Axis side on the eastern front!--Woogie10w 19:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

what really hapened

Military Losses On The Eastern Front During World War 2.¹

Forces Fighting FOR the Axis
	Total Dead	KIA/MIA	POW Taken By The Soviets	POW That Died In Captivity
Greater Germany	4,300,000	3,100,000	3,300,000	1,200,000
Soviet Turncoats4	215,000+	215,000	1,000,000	Unknown
Romania	281,000	81,000	500,000	200,000
Hungary	300,000	100,000	500,000	200,000
Italy	82,000	32,000	70,000	50,000
Total	5,178,000+	4,528,000	5,450,000	1,650,000

Military Losses On The Eastern Front During World War 2.¹

Forces Fighting FOR the Soviet Union
	Total Dead	KIA/MIA	POW Taken By The Axis	POW That Died In Captivity
Soviet	10,600,000	7,600,000	5,200,000	2,600,000
Poland2	24,000	???	Unknown	Unknown
Romania3	17,000	???	80,000	Unknown
Bulgaria	10,000	???	Unknown	Unknown
Total	10,651,000	???	5,280,000	2,600,000

1 Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5931651071

Official POW deaths in Soviet are about half this Nr- many POWS never made it to the camps alive--Woogie10w 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

WHEN i GET HOME i CAN GIVE YOU PLENTY OF NUMBERS WITH SOURCES CITED JUST TELL MWE WHAT YOU NEED i HAVE DATA ON TOTALS AS WELL AS INDIVIDUAL BATTLES--Woogie10w 21:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC) All my eastern front books have dust on them, now I am reading the Cambridge Ancient History--Woogie10w 21:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

THE MEMORY OF MILLIONS OF FALLEN DEFENDERS OF THE FATHERLAND MUST NOT BE CONSIGNED TO OBLIVION

FROM DUPUY INSTITUTE FORUM The subject of Soviet losses in WWII is a very sensitive one in Russia. The military establishement appears bent on sticking to the numbers given in Krivosheyev's 1993 book, "Security Classification Removed" which was updated in 2001 as "Losses in the Armed Forces". This book gives a total military personnel permanent loss figure of 8,668,400. Others researchers give higher figures, sometimes fantastically higher. The issue of losses is intimately connected with the issue of the Red Army's performance during WWII, particuarly the performance of Zhukov. Here is a short article which appeared about 18 months ago in Russia. If you are interested in receiving the chart which accompanies the article, tell me.

THE MEMORY OF MILLIONS OF FALLEN DEFENDERS OF THE FATHERLAND MUST NOT BE CONSIGNED TO OBLIVION As the deputy chief editor of this journal I am constantly aware of the polemics which carry on in these pages on the subject of permanent bezvozratnyy losses of the Soviet Armed Forces during the Great Patriotic War. Having served more than thirteen years in the Central Archives of the Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation TsAMO, three of them as chief of the Department for Registering Permanent Losses among Sergeants and Privates, I know the true situation in this area very well. For some time I have been forced to observe in silence the bitter arguments between my comrades and their opponents. I justified this to myself because on-going research in the archives was not yet finished. But these arguments have reached a culmination, and the work at TsAMO to the count the losses still has several years yet to go, so I no longer have the right to remain silent. Therefore, following my conscience, as an officer and the grandson of a man who, on 17 November 1941, as a tank mechanic-driver in the 26th Tank Brigade, died defending Moscow, I think it my civil duty to publish this article. The older generation will well remember that for several decades after the war personnel losses in the Soviet Union were officially given as 20 million persons (this number includes military and civilian losses). With the declassification of many archives in the 90’s, this number grew to 27 million. Then, for the first time, the losses of the Armed Forces of the USSR were publicized. In an interview in March 1990 with the editor of the Journal of Military History Voenno-istoricheskiy zhurnal, No. 3, 1990, page 14, the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR, General of the Army M. A. Moiseyev, stated that during the Great Patriotic War (including the campaign in the Far East against imperialist Japan in 1945) the number of military personnel killed, missing, captured but not returned, died from wounds, sickness, and accident, numbered 8,668,400, of them 8,509,300 in the Army and Fleet, 97,700 in the internal troops, and 61,400 in the border guards. These numbers mentioned by the Chief of the General Staff, were determined by a commission which worked in 1988-1989 with the reports of Fronts, Fleets, Separate Armies, rear services organizations, and checked against the count kept by the General Staff in the entire war. This same number was given in a large investigation of personnel losses in the Great Patriotic War “Security Classification Removed” Grif Sekretnosti Snyat which came out in 1993 under the general editorship of G. F. Krivosheyev, Candidate of Military Science, General-Colonel (retired). In the present article I would like to talk about another source which contains information about losses in the Armed Forces of the USSR during the war – about documents which are preserved in TsAMO. On July 9, 1941, within the Chief Directorate for Forming and Outfitting the Red Army (GUFKKA) was formed a Department for Registration of Personnel Losses and Bureau of Letters. The department’s assignment was to keep a register of personnel losses in the Armed Forces, to maintain an alphabetical card file of losses, and to conduct scientific research related to this. On February 5, 1943 the department became the Central Bureau for Registration of Personnel Losses in the Active Armies, still under the GUGKKA, and on April 19, 1943, it became the Directorate for Registration of Personnel Losses in the Active Armies. It consisted of eight departments: Registration-Statistical, Card File, Letters with Loss Information, Inquiries about Servicemen, Letters with Information for the Card File, Special Projects prikaznyy, Inspection, and Miscellaneous. Because the responsibility for registering losses among officers was transferred to the personnel agencies of the People’s Commissariat for Defense in June 12, 1943, the Directorate was renamed as the Directorate for Registration of Personnel Losses Among Junior Commanders and Privates of the Red Army, and was put under the head of the Chief Directorate for Rear Services of the Red Army. As of March 26, 1946 the Directorate was subordinated to the Chief Staff of the Land Forces, and after the elimination of this Chief Staff, was turned into the Department for Registration of Killed and Missing Privates and Sergeants as part of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR. On December 30, 1965, the Department was put under the Archives of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR (now TsAMO). The Department preserves reports from active armies dating from the first days of the war concerning servicemen who were killed, missing, died from wounds and other reasons in large and small units as well as various military institutions. At the same time, information about servicemen who died of wounds or illnesses in hospitals or for other reasons came in from districts in the rear. It must be clarified that, due to the difficult situation at the front, a full accounting of losses was not always possible, especially in the first years of the war. In such cases it was done not by name, but by overall totals. In order to identify the persons in such reports, starting in 1942 a registration was begun on the basis of reports from relatives of servicemen. There were instances when military units could not conduct burials or include in loss reports permanent losses of dead privates and sergeants. Burial was carried out by the local population after liberation from the fascists, and the territorial military commissariats drew up lists of those interred based on personal documents of the deceased and soldiers’ medallions a type of dog tag. Immediately after the war and by 1949 the military commissariats conducted the so-called “canvass of yards” where they went to people’s yards and homes with lists of questions for relatives of frontline soldiers who did not return from the war, with the aim of identifying the missing. Such servicemen make up 60% of the card file. Lists and cards captured in 1944 which identify servicemen who died in captivity and other captured documents received in 1947-48 helped determine the fate of many. All of the documents listed above make up the collection of more than 32,000 archival files at the Department for Registering Permanent Losses among Sergeants and Privates at TsAMO. On the basis of these, alphabetical cards for each serviceman – killed, died, missing, suicides, etc. - have been created with biographical information. Now in an alphabetical card file, they are the basic informational tool both for answering inquiries and for scientific research. Additions to the card file as well as systemization and clarification of the information continue to this day. The last addition to the collection was made in 1993, when around 11,000 files with lists of servicemen who died from wounds in hospitals, medical battalions, and other treatment institutions were received from the archives of the Military Medical Museum in St. Petersburg. This resulted in a massive increase to the card file. Many servicemen who were counted as missing were re-categorized as died in hospitals and medical battalions after reviewing these files. For some servicemen there are several cards. On one he is listed as missing, on another as died, etc. These cards are stapled together and counted as one person. In the beginning of the 90’s a group was formed to update the card file of permanent losses and to prepare statistical data based on it. The members of this group scrupulously counted the cards by the first letter of the last name and category of loss. The count was divided into the following categories: 1. killed – from reports of military units 2. killed – from reports of military commissariats 3. missing – from reports of military units 4. missing – from reports of military commissariats 5. died in German captivity 6. died of illness 7. died of wounds – from reports of military units 8. died of wounds – from reports of military commissariats Counts were also made of deserters, servicemen sentenced to correctional labor institutions, servicemen sentenced to death, servicemen removed from the count of permanent losses (i.e. turned out to be alive), servicemen suspected of collaborating with the Germans, and servicemen who were captured but survived. As of November 1, 2000, last names starting with 20 letters of the alphabet were finished. These charts do not include counts of deserters, those convicted or executed, etc. They only include information from the eight categories listed above. Preliminary counts have been made for the remaining six letters of the alphabet (B, L, S, T, Ch, Ya). They could change by 30-40,000 persons plus or minus after the work on the card file is completed (see chart). From the 20 letters which have been counted, 116,513 person were removed from the total of permanent losses because they turned out to be alive according to reports from military commissariats. Of the remaining uncounted letters, it is reasonable to assume that there will be 30-40,000 more such people. The end result will be a number of around 150,000 persons who, according to reports from military units and military commissariats, were mistakenly counted as permanent losses, but who later turned out to be alive. They make up approximately 1.2% of the card file. The movement and losses of officers of the Red Army was controlled by the Chief Personnel Directorate of the People’s Commissariat for Defense, which also created an alphabetical card file of permanent losses based on lists and reports. This card file is also preserved at TsAMO, and one cannot but agree that these two card files contain the most exact and complete information on personnel losses in the Great Patriotic War, because behind every report which caused a card to be written, at one time stood a live person, not an empty statistic. At the present time the losses among officers with last names beginning with the letter “A” to the letter “O” have been counted. A preliminary count has been made for the rest of the letters (see chart). A preliminary count of permanent losses of officers with last names beginning with the letters “P” through “Ya”, subtracting those sentenced to prison or execution, deserters, or who were alive, is around 350,000 persons. Therefore, officer losses in the Great Patriotic War (killed, missing, died of wounds, illness, or in captivity) is around 1,100,000 persons. Adding up all losses in the Armed Forces of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War, we have: - losses of privates and sergeants in the Red Army, approximately 12,434,398; - losses of officers in the Red Army, approximately 1,100,000; - losses of naval personnel (officers and sailors) according to the Central Naval Archives in Gatchina, Leningradskaya Oblast, 154,771 (according to the book “Security Classification Removed”, page 133); - losses in internal troops (NKVD), 97,700 (according to the book “Security Classification Removed”, page 129); - losses in border troops 61,400 (according to the book “Security Classification Removed”, page 129). We end up with a number for permanent losses of our Armed Forces in the Great Patriotic War of around 13,850,000 persons.

About the author Sergey Aleksandrovich Il’enkov – Graduated from the Kalinnin Suvorov Military Academy, the Higher Military Academy, the Moscow State Historical-Archival Institute. Assistant chief for scientific work of the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. Co author of many scientific works on the history of the Great Patriotic War. Voennno-Istoricheskiy Arkhiv No. 7(22), 2001, pp. 73-80

Update on Sergey Aleksandrovich Il’enkov

Sergey Aleksandrovich Il’enkov the author of the 2001 article I posted is today head of the Central Russian Military Archive.--Woogie10w 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Italian Losses in Russia

The official Italian Report Morti E Dispersi Per Cause Belliche Negli Anni 1940-45 lists the total Killed & Missing in the USSR 82,079 military and 87 civilians for a total of 82,166. They give a breakdown for the losses for each month of the war. I borrowed the book from the US Library of Congress through inter-library loan.--Woogie10w 23:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Military Losses

Official Soviet losses:
Killed in action & died of wounds--6,329,600
Died of disease, accidents ect.------555,500
MIA ,POW Deaths---------------------1,783,500
Total losses-----------------------8,668,600

Total POW-MIA 4.559 milion combined, less 2.776 freed in 1945 yields a net loss of 1.783 million.

Source:G. I. Kirosheev Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Greenhill 1997 ISBN 1-85367-280-7

---

The number of Soviet POWS reported by the Germans was 5,735,000 (this does not include MIA)from Micheal Clodfelter. Warfare and Armed Conflicts- A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1500-2000. 2nd Ed. 2002 ISBN 0786412046.

---

Losses per Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5931651071
Killed in action & MIA-----------7,600,000
Deaths of PoWS-------------------2,600,000
Deaths Partisans-------------------250,000
Deaths Militia---------------------150,000
Total losses--------------------10,600,000

Total POWs 5,200,000
--Woogie10w 10:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I say 1,783,500 dead POW & MIA is way too low and is an official coverup of military incompetance. The numbers of Erlikman make more sense--Woogie10w 00:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

---

A look a the Demographic impact of the war

The USSR lost the following population in the war

Children under 15----2.8 million
Men 15-49-----------16.2 million
Women 15-49----------3.8 million
Adults over 50-------3.8 million
Total losses--------26.6 million

Andreev, EM, et al, Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993. ISBN 5-02-013479-1 ISBN 0786412046.

This includes 3 million civilians in territory not occupied by the Germans and 3 million from territories annexed by the USSR in 1939-40. But does not include 1.7 deaths in the Gulag and deportees.

That official number of 8.6 million is not credible. The losses of the adult males indicates an undercount of military losses. The numbers of Erlikman make more sense--Woogie10w 00:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

German Losses

German Losses per Rűdiger Overmans Africa 16,066; Balkans 103,693; North 30,165; West 339,957; Italy 150,660; Eastfront until 12/31/44- 2,742,909; Final battles 1945- 1,230,045; other( including Germany & at sea ) 245,561; POWs 459,475- Grand Total 5.318 million. ( 3.068 declared dead during war and 2.251 missing & declared dead after war)

Rűdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1

Note: This is only a brief summary of the data.

Actually

I've been trying to get out of the Eastern Front crapola for weeks now. It's not an issue I have any stake in or frankly a whole lot of care about. I'm done. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really work that way. That's something I've been trying to emphasize from the start. The person who protects the page isn't really given any kind of additional responsibility. I've protected 100s of pages. If I was deeply involved in all of them, I'd have no life. :) We're not arbitrators or mediators. We just protect the page. So. When things are settled, all you do is put a request up at requests for page protection. Any admin can unprotect the page. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Yeah I'm just trying to get out of it, honestly. If you notice, someone posted about changes they made to Eastern Front. I didn't even look nor am I going to. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Romanian losses-

It is a great book, also I have made some edits to the numbers you gave me on my talk page and have made a new graph tell me if any of the numbers are wrong AND please also give me at least one source for each of the numbers You have given me many sources but please make a summarize also in my sources about Romanian deaths when fighting FOR the axis it says 381k but you changed it to 281k are you sure about that number?. (Deng 11:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Romanian losses 1941-44 with Axis Dead-72,291; Wounded-242,425; Missing-283,322("80,000 survived Soviet captivity"- 1944-45 Losses with allies dead-21,035; Wounded-90,344; Missing-58,443. Mark Axworthy, Third Axis Fourth Ally. Arms and Armour 1995 ISBN 1854092677 Page 216

However Vadim Erlikman lists these losses 480,000 Dead (310,000 with Axis & 170,000 with Allies) plus 70,000 dead POW ( 54,600 in USSR and 17,000 in Germany.)Total 550,000.

This is a tough one to call I don't know who is right.--Woogie10w 12:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Must get 2 work ASAP--Woogie10w 12:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Romania well the book I looked at is from 2000 Campaigns of World War II : Day by Day" which is written by Chris Bishop and Chris Mcnab, pages 244-252. Also when I look at the nummbers I see that more people died in camps then on the field is that correct? Also keep an eye on my first page there is where i make updates to the graphs

The problem of losses is complex. The Soviet & German Armies had staff officers who were bean counters wearing green eyeshades. These guys sent a report to GHQ on a periodic basis that listed strength and losses. In the case of the USSR when the war broke out 7 million reserves were called up who had to report to military base to be processed and sent to a unit. Because of the chaos in the first six months of the war many men were missed and their losses were never recorded. The sfaff officers who reported losses were killed or captured. The Germans rounded up adult males and sent them to POW camps. The official Soviet number of 8.6 million is disinformation to cover up the real losses that were much higher. They are being cute by saying well we did not count them so they are not military casualties they died as civilians. In the Soviet era nobody would dare question an "official" number. Today in Russia there are people like Erlikman who can question the official data. His numbers make sense and can be defended while the "official" data can't stand up under serious analysis.
In Germany at the end of the war there was similar stitution. Many losses were never recorded in the chaos in the final months of the war. Many men went missing. There was never an "official" number of casualties. Historians used fragmentary reports from high command files Overmans the head of the German Army historical office in Potsdam did a statistical analysis of the personnel files in the 1990's and concluded losses were 5.3 million not not the previous tally of 4.5 million. These losses were classified as civilian in the final total of losses that were 6 million in Germany, 900,000 ethnic Germnas in Europe and 400,000 Austrians. I hope this helps--Woogie10w 13:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yupp ofcurse it helps but you MUST go here and explain it to people Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)
I must finish the Jan financial statements, feel free to copy and paste my postings to the Eastern front(I have not had the chance to read anything over there). I posted many items on the WW2 discussion page as Berndd.--Woogie10w 13:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Berndd was in the doghouse @ home because he spent too much time on the web ( I was told to stop chatting with my girlfriends-ha!ha!). This weekend I have to move somebody after Tae Kwan Do class. Saturday & Sunday mornings I read the Cambridge Ancient History and study Korean grammar--Woogie10w 14:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC) I am a mean 56 yr old alley cat--Woogie10w 14:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I am a big fan of Paul Carell not a NPOV type of guy, I would not be welcome--Woogie10w 15:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yo Deng man I checked out dat article on the Eastern Front. It is in real sorry shape and needs to be cleaned up but duh administrators have blocked it. Thats like turning off the water to stop a toilet from flushing. It smells real bad and nasty like a lot of the articles on Wikipedia. Anyway I am a politicaly incorrect guy who has a 1962 NPOV world outlook and would not be a welcome guest. Let the cat man fix it, he be holding duh key--Woogie10w 17:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

David Glantz

I have to read Glantz's two new books, I will order them this weekend. I used to hear him talk and went to his seminar in Germany in 1987.--Woogie10w 20:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea that was an early book by him August storm, I read it about 20 yrs ago

I'll have a look

Thanks for the message. I'll go through the new page during the weekend. And yes, you may well know me from Combat Mission. Regards Andreas 22:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. I took the liberty to edit your proposed page, to give you the chance to look at what it would be like. I also commented in the talk page of the locked article in support of using your proposed page instead of the locked article, and with a proposal on how to move forward. I hope that is acceptable. Andreas 08:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad you like it, now let's see if we can build some consensus around this proposal. Andreas 13:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I would go and check the Harrison paper that I linked in my first response to the RfC, it should be more up to date than Overy, and I seriously doubt that anyone could legitimately quibble with it, since Harrison is an academic economist, and not a general history academic like Overy. I think it would make the argument stronger. The second verify refers to the 2/3 claim for Swedish iron ore. I have no idea if it is correct or not, but it needs to be sourced. Andreas 16:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd still go with Harrison. More up to date and specialised. Andreas 10:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

From ABEBOOKS.COM--Woogie10w 14:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

ACCOUNTING FOR WAR: SOVIET PRODUCTION, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE DEFENCE BURDERN 1940-1945 Harrison, Mark Bookseller: Commonwealth Books (Boston, MA, U.S.A.) Book Price: US$ 20.00

German data

Overmans has a schedule that breaks out total losses by month in total and for the eastern front We cannot seperate the losses by US and UK inflicted casualties.
When I get home 2-nite I will forward this data.--Woogie10w 12:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Yes I have the book Great Battles on the Eastern Front by Dupuy that has this data. Hitler sent very few reinforcements into the city in Sept-Oct 42. Only special flame thrower units.--Woogie10w 13:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Russian/Soviet data

Please do not use too much Soviet data if possible, as it may not be entirely reliable.

• Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5931651071, Mark *the next one is probably based on the previous one: Axworthy, Third Axis Fourth Ally. Arms and Armour 1995 ISBN 1854092677 Page 216
• Andreev, EM, et al, Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993. ISBN 5-02-013479-1 ISBN 0786412046.

Basically, I'd approve the current revision, as we need to get the page unlocked.--Constanz - Talk 15:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

They should read the sources before they nitpick and critize. Just because it is Russian does not make it wrong(however I would double check it)--Woogie10w 19:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Deng, can you enlist major differences between the locked version and the proposed one, so that I could revise my opinion? Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Krasny Bor

Hello, Deng, can you take a look at this newly created article? It is quite confusing, saying that the Soviets obtained control of the key Moscow-Leningrad highway as a result, and yet the battlebox claims it as a German victory. I have also doubts whether it was as important as stated in the text. Thanks for your time, Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

PSC and Poland data

I am happy that you enjoyed our PSC article. I see you on your front page have some numerical data about Polish forces in the Eastern Front setting their strenght at 24,000. Polish contribution to the IIWW using sourced info from Polish encyclopedia gives the 30,000 number. Do you think we should add your 24,000 as well? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Stuff

Military Losses On The Eastern Front During World War 2.¹

Forces Fighting FOR the Axis
	Total Dead	KIA/MIA	POW Taken By The Soviets	POW That Died In Captivity
Greater Germany	4,300,000	3,100,000	3,300,000	1,200,000
Soviet Turncoats	215,000+	215,000	1,000,000	Unknown
Romania	281,000	81,000	500,000	200,000
Hungary	300,000	100,000	500,000	200,000
Italy	82,000	32,000	70,000	50,000
Total	5,178,000+	4,528,000	5,450,000	1,650,000

Military Losses On The Eastern Front During World War 2.²

Forces Fighting FOR the Soviet Union
	Total Dead	KIA/MIA	POW Taken By The Axis	POW That Died In Captivity
Soviet	10,600,000	7,600,000	5,200,000	2,600,000
Poland	24,000	24,000	Unknown	Unknown
Romania	17,000	17,000	80,000	Unknown
Bulgaria	10,000	10,000	Unknown	Unknown
Total	10,651,000	7,651,000	5,280,000	2,600,000

1 Rudiger Overmans published Deutsche militarische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkreig

2 Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5931651071, Mark Axworthy, Third Axis Fourth Ally. Arms and Armour 1995 ISBN 1854092677 Page 216

Total Soviet losses includes Deaths Partisans-250,000 and Deaths Militia-150,000

War related deaths divided into age groups.¹

USSR
	Children under 15	Men 15-49	Women 15-49	Adults over 50	Total
Numbers	2,800,000	16,200,000	3,800,000	3,800,000	26,600,000

1 Andreev, EM, et al, Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993. ISBN 5-02-013479-1 ISBN 0786412046.

Napoleon I of France

Re: Napoleon I of France: I took out the information you posted here because it was a direct copy of the web page http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Chew/CHEW.asp. If you would like to re-insert it, please put it in your own words or make it clear that it's copied from somewhere else (e.g., put it in quotation format with a footnote). If it is not subject to copyright, the you can put that in a note after the paragraph. Thanks, discospinster 19:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC).

Take it easy!

Deng, can I make a suggestion for you? I see you a hard working, committed and a very well meaning Wikipedian. Just take it a little easier and don't rush in. Check spelling of your entries, proofread them, etc. I know you don't do it because you want to accomplish as much as possible within a limited time the real life leaves you for a project, but your impact would be much greater if others don't perceive you as a sloppy editor. I hope you won't find my suggestion offensive in any way. Cheers, --Irpen 03:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Siege of Saragossa (1809)

Some guy persistantly likens the Spanish siege to Battle of Stalingrad. I suggested the comparison with Battle of Borodino or Siege of Sevastopol (1854) might be more appropriate but he reverts. Comments required. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Front

Yep and the edit war will return. Unprotecting a page with no agreement is follhardy at best. But hey. I don't care anymore. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 18:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a week

You have been blocked for a week for continued personal attacks on others, especially Kurt Leyman. What caused this action most directly was this edit. User:Bridesmill very nicely responded to a Request for comment. He was simply giving his opinion. Just like you have in the past, you assumed bad faith and immediately attacked him with "of course you are wrong". And you also labeled his views as "irrelevant". Enough. I blocked you for a week. If this behavior continues, I am going to block you indefinitely. Since your last block a month ago, your behavior has gotten worse, not better. Stop assuming the worst with every user you run into. I blocked User:Kurt_Leyman for 3 hours for his attacks on you. His block is much less than yours because this is his first offense and he does not have a long history of these kinds of personal attacks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well you have missed the part when he has gone around in many articles and changed the numbers of the results. In one article he just added 40k deaths, And why did he do that? Because he rounds the numbers up or down as he sees fit. He has also in many articles deletes vital infromation for example in the winter war article he delete the fact that a research study showed that if the fighting would have gone on for just a few more days then the outcome would have been extremly diffrent. Also he deleted to part where the President during the 60s said, Finnish President Urho Kekkonen stated in September 1963, "When now, after more than 20 years, we put ourselves in the position of the Soviet Union, then in light of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the concern that the USSR had, and should have had, in relation to its safety at the end of the 1930's becomes understandable.". And the most important thing is that he goes around to many articles and slowly but surely deletes infromation to such an extent that he can change an article form allied vicotry to axis victory. Slowly he changes the information going from victory to draw to victory. Also almost all his edits or reverts always get reverted by others but in the small articles where there is little traffic there you can find his bigest changes. The altering of numbers, the changeing of facts and the change of outcome from allied vicotry to axis one. (Deng 10:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

And what I said on the eastern front was not meant to be a personal attack I just wanted to make an analogy, and if you think it is a personal attack then delete it. Also one week is alot perhaps 3 days would be better (Deng 11:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

Also I want to know how I have gotten worse. All I did was reply to what someone said. (Deng 11:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

Also this part "For continued personal attacks" show me all of these personal attacks, I object to the part "For continued personal attacks" because it applies I do it none stop and have done it many many many times. I say I have not done it and there isnt any "continued personal attacks" and the example you give is not a personal attack it is an analogy to a way of thinking, but lets say it is a personal attacks where are all the others your sentance of "For continued personal attacks" implies that there are many, so show me them. And I have only been blocked twice before and one was for the 3 revert rule, so saying that the next time will be permanent and that this time is a week is unjustified because the last block of personal attacks was based on something you hade said that was wrong. Do you remember the incident of you saying that I hade called someone an idiot? He based his block on that information when in fact it hade never happened. (Deng 11:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

And the biggest part I think my comment of "of cruse wrong" hit a nerve with you because when we debated on the admin board I did prove you wrong and proved myself right. And that this in turn has made you react every time i use that phrase, so maybe you should rethink the block because maybe just maybe you are still mad about me wining the debate we hade, and maybe me useing the word wining will make you even more mad (Deng 11:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

You were blocked for 3 days about a month ago. And it was for this same sort of behavior. Btw, I am not mad. Again, you are assuming the worst. It's much more than just the response on Eastern Front. For the last several days, you've been essentially stalking another user. And it's the same old Deng. You call your version the "right version" and assume that others are wrong. You attack people when all they are doing is disagreeing with you. The ends do not justify the means, Deng. As I said, I blocked the other user as well for personal attacks. Until you learn to compromise and to drop the attitude that you are always correct, you aren't going to get far here. And if it wasn't me doing this, it'd be someone else. Remember, the last block was not by me. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes the last block wasent by you but it was based on something you hade said that was wrong it was based when on you saying that I hade called someone an Idiot when in reallity I hade not and now you are baseing this block on that block which was based on your block, loop de loop. And I have ONLY changed back to what Kurt deleted or changed I have explained what he has done. All I did was change back to the versions BEFORE he changed them. I have explained what he has done and how. (Deng 12:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

"And it was for this same sort of behavior" It was based on your missinformation, "The ends do not justify the means", stop saying that not only is it a lie but it does not apply to this, "And if it wasn't me doing this, it'd be someone else" keep telling yourself that, There was no personal attack the last block and this block are all based on a lie which you started I never called anyone an idiot but that dosent matter all that matters is what you believe. By the way the link you gave on the block list dosent go anywhere http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%. (Deng 17:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

It got cut off. It happens. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Deng. I know it's frustrating to get blocked, but it would really be best for you if you simply accepted that it's happened, and make use of this time to take a break from Wikipedia, gather your thoughts, and maybe cool off a little. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the other person who blocked me based on Woohookitty original lie and now woohkitty can block me because Katefan0 blocked me based on a lie. It is all looping in on each other and the vandal Kurt goes free he has changed Operation Barbarossa in content to what the majority has said on the talk page. He has chaned the battle of stalingrad, he has trixed with many numbers in many articles. And that is all ok. And I am going to wait out this block and then I am going to fight you both on the admin aboard where you cant block me. So you will have a week to get your lies lined up because I am not going to take this, blocked because of a lie based on a lie and then reblocked based on the same lie, And I do see that you havent replied to most of what I have said here. (Deng 23:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

Hi Deng, Woohookitty has unblocked you, probably because three people, myself included, had spoken up on your behalf. Now, please behave and don't bring more blocks upon yourself. Be careful with what you say, don't stalk Kurt Leyman (in case you did) and be more diligent with your entries. Copyediting and formatting after yourself does a great deal towards others not perceiving you as a sloppy editor. You will embarrass everyone who spoke on your behalf if you again get yourself in trouble. Now, good luck and happy editing but please don't revert war. Feel free to ask for help if you need it. --Irpen 06:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That was nice of you, but what am I to do now. If I go and debate them on the admin board like I planed then that will "embarrass everyone who spoke on your behalf" BUT if I dont then anyone in the future can always say well back then and then you did that and that which got you blocked. So what am I to do. (Deng 10:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

Just don't be careless. Take it slowly. Edit carefully, not in rush and don't revert hastily. Take time to do things. Think carefully what to say at talk. There is no anti-Deng conspiracy among your opponents, trust me. --Irpen 10:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't post on my page

Please do not post on my user page. This is my second request. It is not productive for either of us. Thanks so much. DMorpheus 15:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

But I explained why I hade to, if I cant post on your page then how can I tell you something (Deng 15:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

Deng, calm down! --Irpen 15:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

??? (Deng 15:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

Test

I checked your contributions. I see you may get youself blocked. Posting a "test" message at the user's talk page is a borderline joke. While it by itslef won't normally get the user blocked, in your case it may. Your unblocking doesn't give you an impunity. Get to articles, not user's talk pages and edit them carefully and explain yourself carefully at the article's talk. Avoid reverts unless absolutely necessary. --Irpen 15:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think he qualifies under the topic "sneaky vandalism" he removes numbers and key paragraphs from diffrent articles, just today he removed 300 thousand axis casulties from the battle of kursk page. He didnt use his own account he used his IP. On the vandalism page it says I must post these test things before I can report him for "sneaky vandalism". On the battle of Berlin he has also added and removed many numbers, the same goes for the winter war articles where he removed 2 key paragraphs. In numerous articles he has altered the numbers up or down as he sees fit without any sources what so ever and removed many paragraphs. That isnt really a problem in the articles with alot of traffic because he gets reverted by someone the problem comes in the smaller ones. It is there he does the most damage. And this falls under the catagory of "sneaky vandalism" and therefore it says that I must first post those test items on his page before I report him. If I cant post the test items I cant report him for "sneaky vandalism" so what am I to do. 300 thousand is no small number (Deng 16:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

You restore it. If he deletes again, you try to discuss at talk. If he ignores the discussion, you ask others to take a look and help resolve the dispute. --Irpen 16:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes ofcurse but there has been much talk in operation barbarossa but still he changes it. And as I said the high traffic arent a problem it is the low traffic ones where there is no one to talk with. (Deng 16:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

Sneaky Vandalism

Mainly, this involves things that damage a page, but aren't readily obvious, such as changing someone's birthdate by one year (to an incorrect date). --InShaneee 21:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, under certain circumstances, that would be considered sneaky vandalism. --InShaneee 21:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would qualify as sneaky vandalism. First of all, wikipedia is trying to be comprehensive, so if something is both sourced and relevant, it should stay, whether you like it or not. Second of all, wikipedia has a policy of verifyability, so if something is sourced, but you believe it to be innacurate, you'll have to find a source disputing it if you want it changed. --InShaneee 21:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

RE:Did you get your name from the simpsons

Yes, I did get it from the Simpsons. Thanks.--Fallout boy 11:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

172

Hey, I read your comment on 172's talk page. The code american cops use for homicide is 187. :) -- infinity0 14:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, well it is close ;) (Deng 14:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

Operation Barbarossa

I see what you mean but, the German armed forces had great losses during the invasion which lasted, according to many, until the end of the Battle of Stalingrad and the beginning of the Red Army retaliation. I see what you mean and I agree we should remove that paragraph from this specific article, of Operation Barbarossa, but we should include it in another article about the invasion of the USSR in World War II, possibly under a a heading of why the invasion of Russia failed It's all up to you, JP 08:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

invalid 3rr

Please don't re-add invalid 3RR reports. William M. Connolley 09:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Was a misstake from my side, wont happen again (Deng 10:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC))

Template talk:Campaignbox Axis-Soviet War

Please check new proposals here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Staying out of this one

Deng, sorry, but I'm not going to comment officially on the Leyman thing; had a look at the ship pages, and really neither of you are citing sources; my source online for this type of material (it has proven as accurate as print records) tends to be www.german-navy.de, or the old copies of Janes which I have available at work. If you would like, I can put the Janes numbers down & cite them.Bridesmill 16:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello!!!

I'm just stopping by to say hello and good day to you! Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 23:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Königsberg

Hi Deng, you may want to check this new article for factual accuracy. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Also take a look at Battle of Prokhorovka, which was rewritten by Andreas1968. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm gonna look at it too, because I feel figures are not that right... Grafikm_fr 09:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It all looks good to me. Andreas 1968 knows alot and has read alot and bases all his facts on real books. I have no reason to believe that anything he adds is wrong or misleading, on the contrary almost everything he adds is correct and gives a very objective and balanced view. (Deng 17:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

I started a talk on the article's talk page, better to discuss it there... ^_^ Grafikm_fr 18:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Belated Happy Easter

Belated Happy Easter To You! Sorry for the late greeting! Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 00:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Battlebox format

In several articles, you've been adding ranks to the commanders in the infobox. They really don't fit well in the narrow columns. Also, the guidelines say

commander1/commander2 – optional – the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include army commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed. Ranks and titles should be omitted.''emph. added'' The dagger icon (†) may be used to indicate commanders killed during the conflict.

— wwoods 20:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Added reply to your talk page (Deng 20:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

Thanks!

I know I write awful English (especially all the missing "the":s), so I'd like to thank you for your effort to fix my grammar. Thanks! --Whiskey 23:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Pics of Malmö

I'm not sure I understand your inquiry. I took those photos to add them to the Malmö gallery. I added those photos on my userpage because they make a part of my contributions on Wiki, which is what my userpage is showing. I hope that answers your peculiar question. --Candide, or Optimism 10:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Kursk

Were German casualties really that high? Actually, Hitler called off the attack after 10 days, ending that battle, so the figures should stand. Although there are a lot of conflicted sources, post-Soviet (1991) records seem to indicate that the Germans did not suffer as much as Soviet proganda indicated, as well as confirming that the Soviets disguised massive losses.

Try to bust your way through a minefield one of these days... :) Soviet defense setup included densities of up to 2000 mines per km and 70 km of trenches per one rifle division. Plus, a preemptive strike was made, further complicating the offensive. -- Grafikm_fr 10:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision Userbox

You may find a userfied version of the deleted box in my user space at User:Tomyumgoong/ubx/nocirc, feel free to subst or transclude it if you wish. Tomyumgoong 20:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Kurt Leyman

He doesn't belong there; you need to open an WP:RFC, or if it's more serious, a WP:RFAR. Jayjg^(talk) 18:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg is an arbcom member. I'd listen to him. Has Kurt been doing things he shouldn't be? Yes. But you need to follow the proper channels to stop him. Following him around the website reverting him is NOT the way to go. It's disruptive. Go through the proper channels or go find something else to do on here. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No. We will not lead you anywhere else. File a RfC. Period. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Deng. I AGREE WITH YOU. Kurt needs to be stopped. I'm not trying to discredit you. I'm trying to HELP you. Following Kurt and reverting his edits is not going to stop him. Doing it is disruptive. You have to find a better way and that way is a RfC. If you don't follow our advice, you are going to get yourself blocked. Look. Jayjg is one of the most respected Wikipedians and he is telling you to file an RfC. Listen to him if you don't want to listen to me. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You are the one having such problems with him so you need to be the one who files the RfC. This is the place to go to file one. I'm not getting any more involved in this. Here is more info on the procedures involved. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Do I know you?

Do I know you/you know me? And thanks!

Haha ok, well thank you anyway!

I always forget... but it's already on my starter page! (Chkiss 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

You can ask all you want

I refuse to block you or Kurt. I'm not going through that again. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

spamming

Please discontinue spamming talk pages now. --Gmaxwell 03:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC) What are you talking about and who are you? (Deng 03:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

If you contact everyone involved on both sides then it's not too terrible. Generally nagging more than two or three people to participate is discouraged. --Gmaxwell 03:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont know who you are or why you are following me but stop it (Deng 03:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

What you're doing isn't acceptable. Please stop. I've asked you once already. --Gmaxwell 03:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What the are you talking about and who are you to tell me what I can and can not do who do you think you are? (Deng 03:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

Spamming talk pages = posting messges on talk pages reqeusting people to support you against an user . Not kosher. Not good.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and others... -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Specially bad form because you rallied people even before notifying the user in question that he was subjected to an RFC. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Everyone involved has been contacted just as the instructions say to inform everyone involved. I am just following the instructions (Deng 04:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

Well it doesn't say 'nag everyone who has ever been in contact with the user', I've looked at the RFC and I just don't see how some of the people you contacted are connected to the dispute. In any case, it's good advice to just notify a couple people who are the most directly involved, and then see who comes. We don't want RFC's to be a popularity contest. --Gmaxwell 04:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont know who you are and why you are following me and that you cant see it is not my problem. Everyone one of those people have mentioned the same thing on the users talk pages. The same things that I have said on the request page, or they have been involved in the exact same thing in articles with the user in question. It is you who are spamming my page with your nonsense (Deng 04:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

I have not commented on Kurt Leyman's talk page. Please do not lie in an attempt to rally support. I won't be touching the RfC. --Kizor 06:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Really let me ctrl c ctrl v for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A213.243.185.219&diff=29844001&oldid=21597603

(Deng 16:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

For future reference, pointing out that it was on his anon page will have better results when there's no word on either page that they are the same person's. Especially since an editor who's only had brief contact with him wouldn't know that, and you're contacting everyone who's ever exchanged a word with him. --Kizor 05:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No no just people who have pointed out this type of behavior, editing a number of pages, changing numbers, deleting text, adding other text/numbers, without providing any references for the information (Deng 06:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC))

Zhukov

Please explain why did you remove my changes in Zhukov article. I would be gretaful if you would explain basis of your disagreement deleting something next time.Sigitas 18:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to invite you to discuss changes of Zhukov article in Zhukov's discussion page. Sigitas 09:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the POV tag

Please do not remove the POV tag from the article Battle of the Lower Dnieper until the neutrality issue is solved but rather discuss it at talk.--AndriyK 10:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been resolved it is only you who cant except it (Deng 10:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC))

In fact, it has not. And I am not the only one who disagrees. In any case WP:NPOV policy should be respected in any case, does not matter how many people disagree with the biased formulation.--AndriyK 10:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And, I might add, I will keep on removing it too. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 10:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And what about resolving the dispute in a cooperative and civil manner?--AndriyK 10:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been resolved and explaind (Deng 10:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC))

The issue is solved if a muturally acceptable formulation is found. It did not happen.--AndriyK 10:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You were about the only one to camp on your point of view. The vast majority of wikipedians (me, Deng, KK, Irpen, just to name a few) concluded this wording was OK. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 10:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It was discussed on several pages' worth of talk. If all books in the world use this term, it's good enough for the Wikipedia. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 10:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to remind you that "Wikipedia works by building consensus" (see WP:Consensus) rather then by pushing the POV of majority. If some term is OK for a certain group of users it does not mean yet that it conforms the WP:NPOV policy.

Let's return to the talk page of the article. Please read Talk:Battle_of_the_Lower_Dnieper#Please_read_WP:NPOV and let's continue discussion and build the consensus.--AndriyK 10:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Andriy If you have a problem with content you need to go through mediation. Not engage in edit wars. If you would file one I think everybody here will participate if need to. Read the complaints people put on your arbcom. Read the responses the admin gave about revert wars. Has Saint Volodomyr Cathedral not taught you anything? Have you ever read WP:FAITH?--Kuban Cossack 11:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

august storm

The Japanese army wasn't "destroyed" per se in Manchuria by the Soviets. The casualty rates in Manchuria was never to match those inflicted in the Pacific campaigns. By mid-1945 the war was already lost, and the formulation of a conditional surrender has already started with the Japanese political/military circle. Japanese industrial and shipping capacity was already crippled by allied naval blockade and air raids, and this greatly reduced Japan's ability to re-equip and re-supply divisions that were to be reinforced from China, Manchuria, and the rest of the Pacific islands for home defense. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria "merely" convinced that the Japanese army had no real chance at countering an Allied invasion of the home islands. In essence the Atomic attacks, along with Soviet entry, provided a "timing" for Japan to surrender, when the war was largely lost in the Pacific campaign. Blue Shirts 20:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the japanese king's surrender speech (玉音放送... retarded name) says... "blahblah... Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives." -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you give me some help...

... on (Battle of Smolensk (1943)) (see talk page for todo :)

Thanks! :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Future not so bright...

Hi Deng,

I advise you to subst Template:User Bright Future this template because it was put up for deletion. Hurry before it gets deleted... :( -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 01:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Stalin Article

Why have you stopped checking on the Stalin article? Your version is being demolished by Ultramarine and the likes. (NapoleonIII 21:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

I am lazy and things will work out sooner or later ;) (Deng 19:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

I made some edits, this is the problem with wiki. Any person can change anything. by removeing a line here adding a number there changeing some info there one can change a whole article and only those who have detailed information can see what has happened. (Deng 04:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

Image:Mao proclaiming the establishment of the PRC in 1949.jpg

Could you please enlighten us who are the other people in the picture apart from Mao? Image_talk:China,_Mao_(2).jpg.--Constanz - Talk 09:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No idea since I cant see any picture at the link. (Deng 09:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

I linked talk page, the image itself is here File:China, Mao (2).jpg. --Constanz - Talk 09:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

plans

"would have been able to ..." implies that "would have been able to successfully ..." and that is speculation. The British thought that they "would have been able to" land at Gallipoli and take the peninsula. The were able to land at Gallipoli, but, despite their plans, they could not take the peninsula. The Soviets had plans to land, just as the Western Allies had plans to do so, as had the Mongols before the Mongol invasions of Japan. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the real world and what had actually happened and how things were for real in the real world does make it a very safe bet that they would also have been able to take Hokkaido.

I would like to see the results of the potential conflict war gamed a number of times, before making such an assertion. For example AFAIK much of Japan is like Italy and not a combat zone in which tanks are as useful as on the Polish plane. Further the quotes about Soviet amphibious capabilities provided by wwoods seem to suggest that their amphibious capabilities were not particularly impressive. "The Soviet Navy's amphibious shipping resources were limited but sufficient to transport the three assault divisions in several echelons." "For the invasion of Hokkaido, the Soviet First Far Eastern Front intended to assault from Sakhalin. The lead division would seize a bridgehead with only one rifle regiment. The rest of that division would follow, and then two more divisions would land. ..." The Soviets would have to hope they did not choose a beach (a town ?) with more than one Japanese rifle regiment in the region. In comparison on D-Day in Normandy the Western Allies had landed five divisions by sea and three by air (they also had a lot of very big guns on battleships and thousands of heavy bombers, not to mention the fighter bombers of the tactical air force, to protect the soldiers and interdict German reinforcements). The point is that on land the Soviets had proved themselves very good soldiers, and after Stalingrad they had had few defeats, but even so attacks like those at the beginning of the Battle of Berlin eg (the Seelow Heights) had been won with the use of a bludgeon and not a rapier. Opposed amphibious landings, with an acknowledged lack of equipment, are a very different prospect, and without comprehensive war gaming it is impossible to ascertain the probability of success, hence my preference for the word "plan". --Philip Baird Shearer 17:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon

copied

Hello I have some questions.

On the Napoleon talk page I posted a post about some/alot of info that had been removed. Then you made this post a large passage that had been removed by a vandal was placed here by (Deng 02:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)). It has now been moved back to the article and removed from here. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What I would like to know is how do you know it was removed by just one person because when I looked at the history before posting my post on the talk page it looked to me that it had been gradually been removed not by a person who wanted to destroy but by many people who worked and reworked the information and that particular information just got lost along the way by accident. So how did you see that it was all just removed by one guy?

And if you dont have time to answer or cant because it is to complex then that is ok, all I wanted to know is how you spoted it (Deng 23:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

end copied

I don't remember in detail (it's been almost 3 weeks, during which time I was away in Romania), but I believe I looked through a few weeks of the history and saw that at some point someone had done a bunch of vandalism including this removal and someone else had fixed the obvious vandalism, but hadn't simply reverted, and had presumably not noticed that the passage had been cut. Sorry I can't be more precise, but I remember spending about 15 minutes sorting it out last time, and it doesn't seem like it would be time well spent to study the situation again, unless you think the result of my edit was bad. - Jmabel | Talk 02:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You guys need Giuliani

This is interesting Crime in Sweden;You guys need Giuliani--Woogie10w 23:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You and User:Kurt Leyman have each been blocked for 72 hours

I put a notice on WP:AN about it. If some other admin disagrees with me, they can unblock both of you. Listen to me. This. Has. To. Stop. You 2 cannot continue to do this. Email each other or find a bulletin board to talk this out or something. I'm not letting this continue. 40 reverts of one user in a 3 hour period defines disruption. If you 2 continue to do this, the blocks will increase. If another admin decides I'm in the wrong, they will unblock both of you, but I'm not backing down this time. We are not going to tolerate this kind of behavior, Deng. From either of you. And you can look at Kurt's talk page. He got a stern warning from me as well. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And btw, there is no rule that says that one should respond to a RfC opened against them. It doesn't look good when they don't respond, but it's not a reason to do what you've been doing. Read dispute resolution while you are blocked. Next step would be a request for arbitration on Kurt's behavior. It would not be to revert every edit he makes. --Woohookitty^(meow) 17:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

arbitration are back logged and from them time I make a request which I will untill someone actually looks at it he will have vandalized hundreds if not thousands of articles (Deng 15:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC))

Last chance

If I see any more reverts of Kurt from you close to this one or this one, you will be blocked for a week or longer. I mean. Come now. The things you are reverting are not "vandalism" in any stretch of the imagination. In the first one, you essentially just reversed "wounded or missing". And for the other, Kurt's edit is actually more correct. Donitz was the President of Germany. He was not the Führer. So at this point, you really are just stalking Kurt. You are reverting or responding to every edit he makes. You call him a "vandal". Yes some of his edits have not been the best. But there is nothing wrong with this current batch of edits of his. And you refuse to follow dispute resolution any further. "Arbitration is back logged". That is not a reason, Deng. You are acting essentially as a vigilante and we don't tolerate that here. If you continue, you will be blocked. I am not tolerating this any further. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I will add. I do see one iffy edit from Kurt tonight. It still doesn't condone what you are doing, but as I've said before, he isn't immune from blocking. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The battle of neatherlands has been reverted by others and explained the item here is not where the missing are placed but whether or not the tank should be in the intro, the winter war edits are extremly iffy because he removes some key parts and changes one extremly important thing which is that he changes from nordic winter to scandanavian, but finland cant have a scandanavian winter since it is not part of scandinavia. (Deng 11:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Yes it is back logged and makeing these items that dont give noticable results take so extremly long the RFC took huers to make and for what? It only gave a week or so of non vandalism and he didnt even respond in a coherent fashion and not even in the proper field someone hade to move it into the proper field because he cant even do that. (Deng 11:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

And no I didnt revert every edit ONLY those that can be called vandalism the adding or changeing of pics or minor changes that he did to some articles I did not touch. (Deng 11:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Deng, what you are reverting is not vandalism. Have you looked at Kurt's edit on the Atlantic article? There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Absolutely nothing. In fact, his edit is better than yours in some ways. For example, he linked the years while you didn't. It's just obvious to me that you are reverting just to revert. If you have that little of an understanding of what vandalism truly is, I'm not sure you belong here. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Tali-Ihantala

As you have noticed, the Battle of Tali-Ihantala needs serious editing. The reason I removed stuff from background section is that they are already presented in the Continuation War and there is a main-link to the Continuation War article. The fact how/when the war started is not very relevant in the article describing the single battle near the end of the war. With your revert you removed the information about Soviet offensive plan (Fourth strategic offensive). Could we find a common ground here? --Whiskey 11:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dont remove just add. And everything will be just fine, removeing is bad adding is good and apple pie is great ;) (Deng 12:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

I just move them around a bit. ;-) I edited the background section more like I like to see it. Do you like to comment it? --Whiskey 12:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

All sourced material needs to be keept (Deng 12:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Sourced material is kept, but in this case it is kept in the Continuation War article. If it is included to the Tali-Ihantala article, then it adds too much depth to the too little issue. This is a common procedure when articles are split, and it is relevant also here, when material is relocated to the article where it is more relevant than in the original article.--Whiskey 13:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a week

You have been blocked for the continued stalking of Kurt Leyman and for a 3RR violation on Second Battle of the Atlantic. Kurt's edits on that article are not vandalism. In fact, his edit is actually a bit better than yours. I will be watching Kurt's edits during your absence. I will block him if he goes back to his old methods, trust me. I am going to post this on WP:AN again. If anyone objects to what I did, I am sure they will unblock you. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Didnt see the 3rr but such is life, your edits have given kurt a sence of security he now believes that he can edit what ever he wants how ever he wants for what ever reason he wants and that he does not need to answer the RFC or play by the rules. (Deng 14:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

For example his removal of sourced information from here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Tali-Ihantala&diff=56488608&oldid=56488115 is only his start of his mass vandalizing campaign. He does not understand that you cant just remove sourced info left and right and and he will see the blocking of me as legitimizing his acts of vandalism. (Deng 14:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

I would agree with SuperDeng. I'm not saying that all Kurt's edits are vandalism, a lot of them are quite correct (or at least, do not harm anyone directly) However, he uses the sheer amount of his OK edits to perform some POV-pushing, as demonstrated earlier on his RFC. Here lies the main problem. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

2 things. #1 SuperDeng just came off a block caused by him reverting Kurt 40 times in 3 hours. 40. And now we have this. The post Deng is reverting is not vandalism. In fact, Kurt's edit is slightly better than Deng's. So there is absolutely no excuse for the reverts. And as I said, there have been 4, which is a 3RR vio. We cannot condone a user who reverts someone else 40 times in a 3 hour period (and the majority of the edits reverted were not vandalism in any sense of the word) and then after being blocked and told why he is being blocked, resumes the same activity. I am going to be watching Kurt like a hawk, as I told him. Remember, he was blocked for 72 hours along with Deng just a few days ago. I'm not playing favorites here. If Kurt vandalizes again (real vandalism, not what I cited above), let me know. As I said, I will be watching him. He's on as short of leash as Deng is. My main point is that Deng is not a vigilante squad and he shouldn't be allowed to be one. And at this point, what he's reverting isn't even vandalism...at all. And btw Deng, this does not "legitimize his vandalism". Have you ever heard "the ends do not justify the means"? That's very appropriate here. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR vio on Second Battle of the Atlantic

Revert #1 - 07:32, 2nd June 2006 - [10] Revert #2 - 09:45, 2nd June 2006 - [11] Revert #3 - 11:44, 2nd June 2006 - [12] Revert #4 - 12:55, 2nd June 2006 - [13]

--Woohookitty^(meow) 14:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes i know it is a 3rr what I was saying is that I missed that I would be breaking it I didnt check my edits, and why havet you blocked kurt for breaking the 3rr rule on the same article. (Deng 15:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Because he's only at 3. The rule is that more than 3 is blockable. Not all of his edits were reversions. Only 3 were reverts. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There are 4 reverts 3rr says 4 reverts and you get blocked

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Battle_of_the_Atlantic&diff=56468876&oldid=56460893
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Battle_of_the_Atlantic&diff=56476810&oldid=56472458
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Battle_of_the_Atlantic&diff=56484879&oldid=56481494
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Battle_of_the_Atlantic&diff=56488902&oldid=56488324

And this is what he reverted to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Battle_of_the_Atlantic&diff=56417181&oldid=56394797

(Deng 15:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

The only reason why it's not strictly a 3RR vio is that the 2nd one you list is not strictly a revert. It has a small change: "Allied victory" to "Decisive allied victory". But actually, the same situation occurs between 2 of your revisions: [14]. Both violate the spirit of the 3RR rule. So I will block Kurt, though it might not be as long as I block you because he isn't stalking you. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, Kurt has one less 3RR vio than you do. So I'm giving him 5 days instead of the week. I know you won't be happy with that, but I'm trying to base it on previous history of blocking and you have simply been blocked more than Kurt on 3RRs. And he hasn't been stalking you and reverting most of your edits. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No no you know nothing about me I did break the 3rr and so did he therefore both should be punished for that but then according to you I did more hence the longer blocking. (Deng 04:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

But he has allready comitted sneaky vandalism look at this post he changed the 4 with a 2 now that is the definition of sneaky vandalism and changed it from battle cruiser to normal cruiser.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kriegsmarine&diff=56514152&oldid=55849278

He also did minor sneaky vandalism on gun arnements to ships but you will have a hard time seeing it unless you really look because it is hard to spot.(Deng 04:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_pocket_battleship_Deutschland&diff=56513862&oldid=55509960
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_pocket_battleship_Admiral_Scheer&diff=56513812&oldid=55623684
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_pocket_battleship_Admiral_Graf_Spee&diff=56513690&oldid=55510063

(Deng 04:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

And he removes sourced information from this article here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Tali-Ihantala&diff=56488608&oldid=56488115 and has done that many times but someone else reverted him there (Deng 04:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

So much for watching him as a hawk (Deng 04:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

Kurt removing sourced material is not an automatic reason to block him. And it's moot anyway since he's been blocked for a 3RR vio. Be civil please. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The scond you blocked me was the second he started sneaky vandalism I have explained it above this is sneaky vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kriegsmarine&diff=56514152&oldid=55849278

Also the guidelines says if you see vandalism revert it the guidelines do not say ifyou say vandalism revert it but you will also get the same or a harder punishment then the vandalis

This is sneaky vandalsim http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kriegsmarine&diff=56514152&oldid=55849278

Changeing the 4 to at 2 is sneaky vandalism, if you see vandalism revert it this is vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kriegsmarine&diff=56514152&oldid=55849278 (Deng 06:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

Yes, but what you reverted on Second Battle of the Atlantic was NOT vandalism. Even if I accept your argument that Kurt is vandal, it doesn't mean that every edit he makes is vandalizing. It doesn't work that way and you should know that by now. And again, you were blocked for longer because you have one more 3RR block than Kurt and you have been stalking him, i.e. watching and reverting even legitimate edits all over the site and we just can't condone that. I'm not explaining this again to you. As I've said many times, I'm not the only admin who has blocked you nor are other admins bound to stand by my decision, but they have. The only time blocks have been shortened for you have been by my own accord, not by other admins doing it. I've done everything I can to make you 2 stop this. But I'm either turned down or ignored. I know what sneaky vandalism is, Deng. I also know that you never take responsibility for your actions, which is why this keeps happening. If I was such an awful admin or so biased, wouldn't you think that other admins would come in and shorten my blocks of you? The only time I've ever gotten grief due to me blocking you was from other users who support your POV. But you just ignore that fact. Tell ya what. Put {{unblock}} on this page. Another admin will come by and take a look. If they decide to shorten the block, so be it. But I'm tired of repeating the same things over and over to you. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Who said you were biased if you were biased then why did you block kurt for the 3rr, a biased person would not. What you fail to understand is that Wiki is a FREE FREE FREE FREE form of information gathering place. BUT anyone can edit it. The problem comes when people who have agendas try to alter the text to fit their own world view. For example kurt changes numbers left and right because what real numbers say and what he wants them to say are 2 different things. My only intresst in wiki has always been and still is that all information should be based on cold hard facts written by old farts! But I will tell you what the sooner you understand that people have an interest to alter history the quicker wiki can become a source of correct facts and not facts that feel right but facts that are based on cold hard rock solid research. (Deng 10:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

Please don't lecture me. If you want to another admin to take a look, put {{unblock}} on the page. Otherwise, I'm not engaging you any further. Still haven't quite figured out how you think I can have 26,000 edits and not know what Wikipedia is. It's just a little ridiculous. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

For your repeated violations of Wikipedia policy, per the discussion at the admin noticeboard, you have been indefinitely blocked. NSL E _(T+C) at 10:38 UTC (2006-06-03)

And how have i broken the policy? What are the exact accusations are how can i appeal (Deng 13:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

{{unblock|unblock the indefinite because what was written at WP:AN was wrong And I can prove it}}

We didn't make up the 3RR vio or the stalking of Kurt or the 40 reverts or the latest attacks on me and others. And the 3RR in particular was not of vandalism. And neither were a good number of the 40 reverts. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Woohookitty. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The user who inf blocked me, he him self said he did it with what was written on the wp:an board and what is written there has huge information gaps and is out right wrong in many aspects and not correct. (Deng 05:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

The missing information from the wp AN and why it is wrong

This is what is on it

Well, here we are again. This is a continuation of this, which I alerted everyone to a few days ago. I had blocked SuperDeng and Kurt Leyman for 72 hours for this continuing fight of theirs. Specifically, Deng had reverted 40 of Kurt's edits in a 3 hour period (which you can see in Deng's contribs. Well the block expired and Deng went right back at Leyman, as he has been doing for 2 months now. This is the edit that is causing the problem. Deng has been accusing Kurt of vandalism all along. Well. The edit I just cited is not vandalism. In fact, Kurt's edit is better than Deng's. And it's more than just the Second Battle of the Atlantic article. We also have Battle of the Netherlands, where Deng has reverted Kurt by changing "wounded or missing" to "missing or wounded". And he's done this twice. And I and others have tried reasoning with Deng. We've pointed out policies. We encouraged a RfC and then a RfAr (to which he responded with "arbitration are back logged and from them time I make a request which I will untill someone actually looks at it he will have vandalized hundreds if not thousands of articles"). So he won't even follow basic dispute resolution. Yes, he tried a request for comment but that's been it. So, because of all of this, I've blocked Deng for 1 week. If someone disagrees, let me know.

• The 40 edits were explained and if someone would scroll up on the AN board they could see that kurt had mass vandalized many pages he had changed figures and removed text here and there and added other texts, why it became so many edits is that i reverted his sneaky vandalsim and then he reverted it back. And he has done this many many times before on an even larger scale which can be seen in his RFC
• Some of the newest edits by kurt were not sneaky vandalism in the srtict sense but they were in a grey area but others are sneaky vandalism such as this edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kriegsmarine&diff=56514152&oldid=55849278
• One only needs to look at the RFC against kurt to see that he has vandalized many many pages. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kurt Leyman
• Then the battle of Netherlands was not about where he placed the missing or wounded it was about 2 things first kurt grammar is poor second it was about it the tank should be in the box or not also I pointed this out to Woohookitty BEFORE he made the second wp:an so that is 100% wrong when he says "where Deng has reverted Kurt by changing "wounded or missing" to "missing or wounded"" because it was never about that. Also it should be pointed out that others reverted kurt on the same article for the same reasons which can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Netherlands&diff=55456963&oldid=55427284 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Netherlands&diff=55480185&oldid=55467064 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Netherlands&diff=55481606&oldid=55480480 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Netherlands&diff=56479890&oldid=56477131
• Another thing that is wrong in the WP:a is this "Yes, he tried a request for comment but that's been it" that is 100% wrong and here is the proof.
• I first made this post here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/04 Then I did as I was told and made a post on the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but was told that it did not belong there so I made a post here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse which can still be seen but was told to do a RFC so saying I have ONLY done a RFC is WRONG
• Also an extremly important item which is lacking is that some 80+% of all kurts edits are vandalism from one of his very first edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Fr%C3%BChlingserwachen&diff=18284632&oldid=18192266 To his latest http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kriegsmarine&diff=56514152&oldid=55849278 And in between anyone who looks will find houndreds of vandlized pages I only posted some 50 of them on the RFC but to who ever looks deeper will find many more. This is an exremly important item which was not mentioned on the WP:AN
• And that I have never vandalized one single page but kurt has vandalized hundreds. Which can be proven and not with small vandalism but HUGE Vandalism (Deng 15:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Deng, many of the 40 reverts were not reverts of vandalism. They were reverts of legitimate edits. "Gray area" means you shouldn't revert. And yet you did. Over and over again. You were in violation of the 3RR. You have been stalking Kurt for months. Literally months. Assuming that the information on AN is incorrect, it still doesn't justify your violation of 3RR (for the 3rd time in 2 months) nor does it justify your stalking of Kurt. Just right above you refused to do a RfAr on Kurt. And it doesn't justify the increasing incivility on this very page, including increasing sarcasm and then you telling me how the encyclopedia works. And trust me, NSLE blocked you on more than what's on AN. This isn't something that just sprung up, Deng. You didn't just suddenly start being incivil or violate the other policies you've violated. It's been going on since December. You've had 6 months to improve and yet, you've gotten worse and worse and worse. You cannot justify the 40 reverts. Nobody can. You know about the 3RR. And no, technically, the 40 wasn't in violation of that but it certainly was in violation of the spirit of the rule. And you are assuming bad faith. You assumed that I wasn't watching Kurt's edits. You are assuming that NSLE blocked you just based on what was said on AN. How do you know? NSLE is a good admin. I highly doubt that he just took my word for it. We don't treat blocks lightly, which is why I've given you as long of a leash as I have over the last 6 months.
  • The main point with Kurt is that (and this goes for both of you) I haven't seen much effort to try to work this out. Yes, you did the RfC. Yes you asked for an investigation. But I don't see any attempts to say "Hey. I think my numbers are right, but let's talk about this and work it out". It's all attack attack attack. And as I've said in the past, that's how you in particular approach just about everyone. Not just Kurt. And you've been warned for it, blocked for it and yet you keep on doing it, just like you attacked me up above. We don't need that here. We have enough problems keeping a usable encyclopedia without people who just want to attack. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I didnt attack you at all, you misunderstand everything, and you are wrong yet again there has beeen civil discussion with kurt by many people both on his ip adress and on his user page and he just ignores it. And there have been no attacks from me on you so there is nothing tos scroll up to. And let us not forget that you are wrong for the second time, we both know that I have done extremly more then just an RFC, as I have showen, let other admins look at the whole story and see what they think. (Deng 15:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

The only one violating wiki policy is Kurt he will now vandalize every single article he can get his hands on he will change numbers left and right to what feels right, I guarantee it, just as he did before I stopped him. (Deng 15:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

And again you keep on saying incorrect things the 40 reverts most of them are vandalism sneaky vandalism but If I am wrong then please post ALL 40 not just one or 2 or 10 but ALL of them and why you need to revert kurt all the time is simple if you give him an inch he will take a yard. He has done it before and now he will do it again just like before he will vandalize every article he can get his hands on. From Stalingrad to the battle of berlin just as he has done before because is a vandal. (Deng 15:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

And I am certain the admin who blocked me for ever mostly did it based on what was on the wp:an board which is extremly missleading and wrong, and it does not mention at all the sneaky vandal kurt and that about 80% of his edits are sneaky vandalism in the clear black area 19% are grey and 1% is not vandalism. (Deng 15:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

And again I have done nothing wrong all I have ever done is base everything I have said on real books there in is the problem becausepeople like kurt dont give a flying fuck about books all he is intressted is in what feels right not what is real fact. (Deng 15:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

Blocked for 1 month

I Have changed your blocking to 1 month instead. Be prepared to the Arbcom proceedings after that. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:SuperDeng_II abakharev 02:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have doubled your blocking to 2 months for using Sock Puppet for avoiding your block abakharev 12:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked talkpage

I have unblocked your talk page. While you are blocked you are welcome to point out factual errors in Wikipedia articles, discuss editing, etc. You are also welcome to argue my block. You are not welcome to use the talk page for the personal attacks on other users or other abusive actions ( in the case of abuse your talk page will be protected again). abakharev 12:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:5_Soviets_have_been_hung_near_the_city_Velizj_Outside_Smolensk.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:5_Soviets_have_been_hung_near_the_city_Velizj_Outside_Smolensk.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge ISU-122 into ISU-152

I've added a vote to the bottom of Talk:ISU-152, so we can resolve the long-standing question. Cheers.  — Michael Z. 2006-10-22 21:19 Z

Blocked

Blocked: One month for abuse of sockpuppets including User:The Green Fish and User:Lokqs as determined by checkuser. When this block is expired please return to contributing using one and only one account. Thank you. Thatcher131 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A question User constanz has added that user dabhore is a confirmed sockupuppet of me where is the proof of this I have not heard any mention of this can someone please show me that.

And user Lokqs was created after may ban was lifted and how is he in any way a sock puppet of superdeng

And who is the Green Fish

Blocked

Blocked: Indefinitely for abuse of sockpuppets including Beenhj, Cvaltnm, Klingoner, Bignra, Gipornm, Fgbvnm, Mblafg, Nickmolo, Mortcv and Toadfootre, as determined by checkuser. You've run out of chances, Deng. You're over 10 confirmed sockpuppets now on top of all of your other policy violations. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is higlhy unfair blocking me and removeing any chanse of me appealing the whole thing

This whole mess started by saying that user lokqs was a suck puppet of me which is impossible since he was created one week after my ban was lifted and superdeng has only edited on talk pages.

And no they are not sockpuppets as can be seen not one of them have edited the same article as the other and therefore are not sockpuppetsDeng 16:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

No single admin has the right to indefblock an user especially an user the admin has a personal grudge against. And all of my blocks have been because he has something against me which has forcced me to do some createive thinking. The last so called "sock puppet Lokqs could not have been a sockpuppet since no ipcheck was possible and he was created after my original block was lifted and superdeng had not done edits what so ever in any form. Deng

---

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.

09:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is being discussed on the admin noticeboard, please be patient while people consider the best course of action. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Going to try to explain something here. Wikipedia has a wonderful tool called CheckUser that can be used in cases such as yours, Deng, where sockpuppetry use is examined. It allows the 20 or so users with CheckUser powers the ability to check and see which IP addresses one is posting from. The CheckUser folks are very cautious when it comes to declaring sockpuppet use "confirmed". If I recall correctly, you have to have had to have posted from a static IP or a small group of dynamic IPs in order for them to even consider saying "confirmed". They also take other factors into account, factors that are not made public. My point here is that this is not "willy nilly". They have to have lots of hard, substantial evidence before they call something confirmed. It's completely outside of my control. In fact, I don't have anything to do with the CheckUser folks. In many ways, they are "above" admins.

• • Also Deng. I looked at that list of socks I gave you. You claim that they none of them posted to the same article. Well. It took me all of 4 usernames to prove that wrong. User:Bignra posted to Battle of Kursk on November 10th. User:Cvaltnm posted to the same article on November 22nd. And oh by the way, they both posted the exact same version of that article. And it also matches up with an edit that you made on May 20th. Here is the proof of that. And again this is just one article. I'm sure if I dug further, I'd find more examples.

• • Creating a sockpuppet while your main account was not blocked is not proof that you didn't create sockpuppets. Jason Gastrich was a user who created literally 60+ socks while his main account was very much active.

• • Also Deng, it doesn't take alot of inference to read "which has forcced me to do some createive thinking" as saying "I'll do anything to get what I want". Come now.

• • As for Lokqs, you misread the CheckUser page. Initially yes, a check could not be done. But dmcdevit was able to find an old IP that you had posted with and then he was able to confirm the sockpuppet usage. And this didn't "start" then. You were blocked for using User:RabbitHead way back in June as you can see on your CheckUser page. --Woohookitty^(meow) 17:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Deng, it's like this: the definition of a community ban is an indefinite block that no administrator is prepared to undo. That is where you are at. No one administrator can make a community ban, there are over a thousand of us of whom some hundreds are active, but the most active read the noticeboards, have read about this block and endorse it (and frankly I'm amazed you weren't blocked ages ago). At this point you have two options. The first is to appeal your ban by emailing an Arbitrator - Fred Bauder is the obvious choice, as the most active arb, but Fred's tolerance for disruptive and tendentious editors is not too high - and you may be able to get a member of the AMA to help you with that. Your other option is to quietly leave. I can't think of any other options off the top of my head. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And would you just give it up. --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all once an ip adress is gone it is gone the ip adresses are only stored for X amount of time so if no one could see it on the 2nd of nov then no one could see it on the 4th.

And nice try spreading your propaganda I bet if an ip check was made that that ip would be located very close to where you live Woohookitty. Deng 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know how Dmc discovered that it was you. But you know what? We have something called assume good faith and I'm not sure you ever have. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is also something called over worked, DMC could not see the ip adress so he made an educated guess, all the arbcomers are overworked and under payed ( they do it for free ). So they can not spend to much time on any single matter. So more often then not if something looks reasonable they will go for it even though it might not be correct. Deng 12:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As I stated, assume good faith. You cannot "know" what dmc's thought process was. You are supposed to assume that he did what he was supposed to. Anyway, we're going in circles as we often do. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the last time you assumed good faith against me was in 2005, so get of your high horse ;) Deng 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually Deng, I tried to help you quite a bit. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh really by saying things that are not true, for example that i reverted 8 times within 3 hours=completly not true, that I called users (plural, more then one) stupid= not true, that I did not make a rfc against kurt= completly not true. Yes I can see all the help you did by saying things that are not true. If ever any arbcomer looks into this i can bet that you will lose your adminship faster then you can say potato. Deng 11:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please try to take the focus off this particular administrator in crafting your appeal. Please focus on a commitment to not use socks to evade blocks and working on underlying problems which might have resulted in blocks. Fred Bauder 18:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Block reviewed

Your indefinite block was reviewed here, and there was no support to overturn it. Your only course of action now is to appeal to the arbitration committee for a review. You may e-mail Arbcom-L at wikipedia dot org with your request, and if the arbitrators want to hear the case, they will post it at WP:RFAR. Thatcher131 15:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Most if not all of what Woohookitty said is not true and I have the links to prove it for example he said that I reverted 8 times within 3 hours that is completly not true. I made 5 edits and 3 reverts. Also he said I had made no request for comment which is also not true. He mad numours personal attacks (Deng has been disruptive almost since day 1, Deng has shown 0 inkling to change, He thinks that what he does is right, He refuses to take anyone else's thoughts into consideration, He's called users stupid, He's not going to change, And honestly, given the subject matter Deng posts on along with the passion of the nationalist fervor with which he and his supporters post, And I'm sure he's given the same song and dance he has on his RfCU page). If anyone would have called on on his statments he would have been unable to back them up. For example if I say the world is flat that does not mean the world is flat just because I say it. Deng 12:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your appeal

Deng, if I where you, I would instead emphasize in your appeal that you apologize for the past sockpupetry and swear not to ever do it again. Further that you agree to sockpuppetry probation and to the mentorship. If you do that and, additionally, promise to me that you will never ever create socks, I will support your appeal. Woohookitty is a respected and reasonable admin and if all you are trying to prove is his being wrong, it will not take you anywhere. --Irpen 19:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That is good advice. Please feel free to change your appeal. Fred Bauder 20:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yupp it is but hard to put into words Deng 22:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)