User talk:Igor Piryazev

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Igor Piryazev! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that 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. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Thank you very much ! I am very glad.

Your mission

Your mission is including all soviet wartimes propaganda numbers? Blablaaa (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

1) It is not propaganda. I write always "Accordind to Soviet information". You must not believe them.

2) Germany had also propaganda.

3) This information are very interesting.

4) I have my references and you can not delete them. Russian references are not forbidden.

1) its propaganda. made during the war to boost moral.

 2) Yes but nobody brings them to the articles
 3) No, they have a Value of 0, they are simply wrong and nonsense
 4) please read "reliable sources" Blablaaa (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have done it, but russian references are not forbidden and you can not say "This is propaganda !" and delete them. I dont have time for such games. Please let it be or find other references.

stop trying to imply that i said russian sources are inapt. i said russian fanboywebsites are. And they are, so stop include this propagandanumbers Blablaaa (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

But you can not say it. Can you Russian ? What do you know about World War 2 ? Even David Glanz dont know the whole truth about this war. I write "according to soviet information" and it is enough. I can also say "German references are propaganda !" and delete them.

wiki need good reliable sources. Websites in general arent good realibel sources. And yes i know for a Fact that this numbers are wrong. Math and logic helps to come to this conclusion. Regarding the warcrimes. i dont dispute the crimes u listed but warcrimes are a difficult topic so please use good sourcesBlablaaa (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

But it can be also true. We dont know it. How many Germans were in Belorussia ? 600.000 or 800.000 or 1.200.000 ? We dont know it today. I believe soviet informations, but it is my personal opinion. German losses were first 3.500.000 dead, then 4.000.000 and now by Rüdiger Overmans 5.300.000. But this "propaganda" MUST be in this article. Are you agree ?

overmann checked archives for his numbers, the same archives are used for casualties here.... Blablaaa (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

AND: dont agree Blablaaa (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

And what must we do now ? No, this is not Overmans. By Overmans in sommer 1944 590.000 german soldiers dyed in Eastern and he says "my informations are still not somplete". What must we do now ? I can not give up.

u can not give up ? your mission is bringing untrue informations to the reader? Blablaaa (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It CAN BE untrue. We dont know it. In Stalingrad were taken 91.000 prisoners.

http://9may.ru/04.02.1943/inform/m3913

is it also untrue ?

Ok . I try it an other way. Espcially on articles like Kursk we have the best possible sources for claims. This sources are called very reliable. What u need is reliable sources. Your sources are not. So they dont come to the infobox, i dont want to be the bad guy explaining u that its wrong what u do. Please try to understand the policy of realibla sources. GreetingsBlablaaa (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Now i saw your post on Nicks, talk page. U also should finish your comments on talkpages with 4 ~ , so u can sign them Blablaaa (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

the template

The template cant show every minor engagement on the eastern front. The template should list the most important battles. U can try to create new templates if u wish. For example a template for the early 42 counter offensive, but dont put to much battles in the eastern front template. Greetings...

On advise

After i looked many of your edits i saw that the normal range of german tanks losses is between 2000 and 3000 for every soviet operations. You may go through your sources and add all the german tank losses. And after u did this u look here German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II . The same can be done with german personnel losses. Maybe u reconsider your mission then. Blablaaa (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

But there are sov. infos ant not my ))) Germany had more tanks. also french or polish. + romanian or hungarian. I will find new reference for Kursk. ok ? Exsume me for Nick but I had no choice.

u dont need to excuse for your move. With finding reference u mean u type "german" + "casualties" + "kursk" in google? :-) . A generall good rule to get relativ correct casualties, is using german archivs/historians for german casualties and soviet archis/historians for soviet casualties. If u use soviet numbers for german casualties u never get reality same in reverse. Most of your numbers are not new for me , this numbers are simply the figures published by stavka during the war... On no bigger second world war article u will finde german claims in an infobox. Blablaaa (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

But some russian historians believe them also today. Have you seen my link about Stalingrad ? also today speak all people abot 91.000 prisoners of war. I know much more examples. There are soviet infos and it must be. 2900 tanks can be funny, but also 500 tanks and 10.000 dead are funny.

Cant follow your logic. The fact that there are good russian sources dont make the bad sources better. Blablaaa (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

For example in the battle of Kiev Germans claimed 665.000 prisoners and this is also today modern infos. Or american about Normandy. i do not believe that there were 200.000 german prisoners. it is too much. But I dont delete them.

What we believe is no important.... Blablaaa (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Give you up ?

Most of your edits will be deleted soon. U not understood realiable sources. U dont bring reliable sources. U bring websites which publishes wartime propaganda... Maybe u should add solukovs numbers too.... Blablaaa (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Here is an advice on editing the Kursk article:

1) Try to avoid using any sources originally written in Russian. These will attract innumerable amount of fans of German army, who will claim that whatever facts that do not match their idea of truth (their truth includes the statement that "Germans were NOT defeated at Kursk") are "Soviet propaganda". Exception can be made for the MoD data, as nobody can win claiming that the official data is not a WP:RS.

2) I plan to add two sources, first to the strength table: KOSAVE (data from the US DoD) and Russian MoD. These data cannot be dismissed by the fans of the German side, so it is possible to make it stick. I do not have much time currently, so you can go ahead and add these yourself (references can be found in the Russian article).

3) With this data, the article will at least stop being a naive rewrite of the books by a small group of modern revisionist historians.

4) Note that the average tank kill ratio in 1943 is about 3:1 in favor of Nazis (common sense based on tank production numbers that are hard to fudge). Anything much lower and much higher is suspicious (note that this includes some Soviet numbers as well). The typical trick used by the "new historians" in Kursk is simple: count only "total losses" in the German meaning of the term. A lot of the damaged German tanks were in fact totally lost during the Soviet advance, but this happened outside of the arbitrary "Zitadelle" timeframe chosen be these historians and thus - somehow - does not count as total loss. You might want to find German memoirs about tanks lost in the repair shop after Zitadelle - these count in hundreds, as far as I can remember - and list this as an explanation of the discrepancies.

Good luck, Dimawik (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But I can not find any infos in English or German. Their infos about 12.000 dead Germans are funny. In this operation "Zitadelle" were involved at least 30 german divisions. 12.000 / 30 = 400. Every division lost only 400 dead soldiers in 8 days of active battles ! Even the fans of german army must give up.

Germans lost 350 tanks total. 350*3 = 1050 tanks even by german infos (total and damaged). igor piryazev--Igor Piryazev (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You should really spend time with sources; there is no way around it. We here are not re-fighting the war, we are writing an encyclopedia. Once again, I would consider adding the KOSAVE and Russian MoD data to be safe, as long as the revisionist data is also kept - as it represents a legitimate WP:POV as well. Dimawik (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What is "KOSAVE and Russian MoD" ??? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

KOSAVE is a Zitadelle simulation performed by the US Department of Defense; the materials are here. This simulation is based on data from both Soviet and German archives. Among other things, it gives much more reasonable strengths than the article currently.

MoD data is Russian Ministry of Defense data here and around. Dimawik (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And where can I say everything about this vandals (Hohum and Balala) ? My source is reliable and i dont must give still 1000 sources with biographier of their authors. I can not find this page against vandals. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Relax. After all, you are not fighting the war against the Nazis; your grandfathers already have fought it and won it. Attempts to rewrite the results of WW2 in the new history books will eventually fail, no matter how hard the some "new historians" will try to achieve this goal. So if you decide to slow down and look for the new sources nobody will get killed and no other bad things will happen. Prokhorovka is a difficult subject, since many Soviet books on it contain essentially fairy tales. However, after Prokhorovka Germans had stopped, retreated and continued to retreat all the way to Berlin - even Frieser cannot dispute that. Viewed in this light, it is immaterial if the tank loss ratio was 3:1, as the commons sense suggests, or 100:1, as the most extreme historians are trying to spin it. BTW, thinking of fellow editors as vandals is not a good idea. All of the long-time editors of this article are quite reasonable folks. Frieser's book is not propaganda, although I personally think that his works are unreliable. Dimawik (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to rewrite the results of WW2 is virtually impossible (although the Germans and British have tried). However, in defense of Igor thinking that some editors as vandals is justified. How do you expect him to feel or think? Have you seen the many edit summaries left by Hohom where he labels Igor as a vandal in nearly every single revert Hohom makes? In regards to Frieser I like him and do not feel it's propaganda. I'm more worried about Glantz. Caden ^cool 21:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of German holokaust crimes against Soviet Jews

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LK (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand. What do you mean ? Which groups of people ? igor piryazev--Igor Piryazev (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Battle of Kursk, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (Hohum ^@) 16:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Battle of Stalingrad. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. (Hohum ^@) 17:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

They are reliable. Whay not ? You can see there are sources from 1980-1970. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You have done nothing to show that they are WP:RELIABLE. Please make any comments on the article talk page. (Hohum ^@) 17:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Battle of Kursk. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. (Hohum ^@) 21:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you also. Ok, I will do it (reliable). But you must also understand me. I can not do it EVERY time. I want to work here without any problems. Tomorrow I will do it. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is clear. Sources need to be WP:RELIABLE. If you can't reliably cite something, don't add it. (Hohum ^@) 22:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hohum please stop harassing the editor. Enough already. Leave Igor alone. You are wiki-hounding him! Caden ^cool 08:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Politely noting a failure to follow wiki policies on each occasion that it happens is not hounding.(Hohum ^@) 18:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Kursk. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. (Hohum ^@) 21:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But he can not revert all my infos because they are so unreliable. I am wright. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And you must say him that he cant remove my sources because they are unreliable. Hemust proove it or find other sources. I dont want to speak 7 days abot every source. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You have been told repeatedly for weeks how wikipedia works. It is up to the editor who is adding the reference to prove it is reliable, not the other way around.

From WP:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate"...

WP:RELIABLE advises how to tell if is source is reliable.

You have been told this over a dozen times.

I don't want you speak for seven days about each source either, I want you to concisely provide evidence of their reliability, which you have consistently failed to do.

(Hohum ^@) 18:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

But the other users dont do this. We are not in kindergarten. Must I speak 7 days long about all my sources ? I have done it on the talk page for Kursk and this is enough. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

igor YOU want to add soucres , the sources which are already in text are proven reliable. YOUR sources are not . prove they are reliable or let it go.... Blablaaa (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

All my sources are reliable. This is sources which you can find in russian internet. ONLY this sources. Or are all russian internet sources unreliable ? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to provide third party evidence that they are reliable. Saying "All my sources are reliable." is not evidence - it is your opinion. This has been explained to you so many times that it is hard to believe that you don't understand what you are being told. (Hohum ^@) 20:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand this and I know what is reliable. I have already prooven that Frieser is unreliable. I use the same sources fpr all battles and they are reliable. Russian historians are different that western and IT MUST BE CLEAR. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry when this sounds a bit harsh now. But if you think you understoud what WP:RELIABLE ( this means you will not check it again ) and you still add this websites to wiki then i think you should not edit... Blablaaa (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your answer indicates that you haven't understood. You "knowing" what is reliable, and you proving it are two different things. You need to do the latter on wikipedia, and have never provided verifiable and reliable bona fides for your sources. Your personal assurance is not enough. The policies that you have been shown are very clear about this. (Hohum ^@) 22:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I say it still one time. Answer please this questions.

1) Can you find for me OTHER soviet/russian sources ? No ? But you think they are unreliable ? Are ALL russian sources for wikipedia unreliable ???

2) I have PROOVED that Frieser is more then unreliable. Why didnt you delete him ?

3) You proofs aganinst my sources are nothing. Do you understand this ? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have prooved that Frieser is unreliable with GERMAN sources. Can you do it with soviet sources for my sources ? I can you also proove with soviet sources that western sources are unreliaable. There are 2 worlds for this war: russian and western. And they are very different. Is it so difficult to understand ??? Do you really think that russian and western sources must or can be the same ?????????????? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

after seeing all your "sources" i wonder that the russian www is so full of old and bad informations regarding eastern front. many of the myths are already completly debunked and on the russin www they are all alive and well. Your sources are discussed and the reliable source board. Maybe you want to take positions for them. Greetings Blablaaa (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I also wonder what you talk about different sources, you only talk about numbers, there are no different numbers, there are only correct and wrong numbers. I admit that there are different interpretation of events, yes. But numbers are numbers they cant be different in different countries. One is wrong. Blablaaa (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

One is wrong. But why do you think the soviet numbers are so wrong ? Which myths do you mean ? You kno that german losses grow and grow, or ? It is very normal, that soviet infos are 2-3 times more then german or western. There are also some russian historians who bleive more western sources then soviet. But also some russian historians believe soviet sources more and I also. I use my brain.

1) The Germans lost every day of Zitadelle by german sources 1.300 dead and only 97 dead in Prohorovka ???

2) The Germans lost by german sources in 1943 every day 1917 dead soldiers. Zitadelle was for Germans 8 days. 8 * 1917 = 15.336 dead even when Zitadelle was usually battle.

1917 * 17 (5-23 july) = 32.589 dead Germans. Soviet infos are 70.000 dead. Are soviet sources really so incredible ??? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

One is wrong. But why do you think the soviet numbers are so wrong because they are unlogic and contratict themself and because its obvious that they are lies and only fanboys believe still in them because they are not interessted in understand eastern front. Blablaaa (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Prokhorovka for example is a myth. Which was created to conceal the unbelievable tactical defeat. To conceal their desater. Red army often concealed such desaster but still 70 years later some people want to believeBlablaaa (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Can you find for me OTHER soviet/russian sources ? No ? But you think they are unreliable ? Are ALL russian sources for wikipedia unreliable ??? It is not up to me to find sources for you. It your responsibility to prove that sources that you introduce are reliable. It is not my responsibility to prove them unreliable. Read the following link, as I have asked you to do many times. WP:PROVEIT

2) I have PROOVED that Frieser is more then unreliable. Why didnt you delete him ?. You haven't proved Frieser is unreliable, you have just made accusations, which you have tried to justify with a deluge of poor sources for which you gave no evidence of reliability. Review at WP:RSN Gives them very little credibility either.

3) You proofs aganinst my sources are nothing. Do you understand this ?. Again, I don't need to prove they are unreliable, you have to prove they are reliable according to wikipedias requirements - WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE, which you are clearly either ignoring or don't understand.

(Hohum ^@) 17:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

1) But you say that my sources are unreliable. Which other sources do you know ? If my are unreliable it must be also reliable. But where are they ?

2) ??? I have prooved you that german losses were at least 360.000, but not 170.000. I can also do it for Operation Bagration.

3) Yes, but you say that Samsonov is unreliable.

Prohorovka can be myth. I dont know, but it was NOT PROOVED. I know only 3 things.

- krivosheev is reliable

- german krivosheev dont exist

- german losses grow and grow --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You will be blocked soon, for edit warring, i guess. Please stop you cant "win" this. Until now nobody reported you so stop and everything is fine... Blablaaa (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I can win this because I am wright. Where are other users ? Are you all here such stupid nazis ? Even Goebbels would laught about such propaganda. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Stay calmBlablaaa (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Igor, I can understand your frustration, especially with Hohom who really is not helping in my opinion. But please stay calm and don't lose your cool. Caden ^cool 19:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please stay cool, and do the simplest thing. Provide evidence of reliability - which is extremely simple. (Hohum ^@) 19:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't quit

Please do not quit Wikipedia because of Hohom. I understand you feel harassed by him and it's wrong how he treats you, but please do not quit. Take Blablaaa's advice and go to the reliable source board and request a third opinion. You can also ask for help at WP:RUSSIA. I know you believe Soviet sources should be included and I agree with you but we have rules on wiki concering what's reliable. On a personal note, WP is a bit twisted in my opinion. I think some of its rules in terms of what's reliable needs to be changed. Anyways, don't quit okay. Caden ^cool 23:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already neutrally asked for help at WP:RUSSIA, as you likely already know Caden. The reliable source noticeboard has already been asked about the sources in question, and the opinion so far that is unfavourable for their inclusion. I don't see any evidence to suggest Igor has quit anyway. (Hohum ^@) 16:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of German Holocaust crimes against Soviet Jews

The article German Holocaust crimes against Soviet Jews has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This "article" is simply appalling and it fails to fulfil even the lowest standards of quality. It's just some weird short list of Nazi atrocities and most of the entries lack proper sources. None of the entries give any detail whatsoever and all of them fail to provide a proper link to the relevant articles about the massacres. We have proper a article Holocaust who properly deals with the subject (and way more professionally), making this "article" superfluous. It's unlikely that this article will be improved.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Flamarande (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of German war crimes against Soviet civilians for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article German war crimes against Soviet civilians is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German war crimes against Soviet civilians until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of German war crimes during the Battle of Moscow for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article German war crimes during the Battle of Moscow is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German war crimes during the Battle of Moscow until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)