User talk:Mrg3105/Archive 9

Some name changed

Nusche? This is a German rendering of a town somewhere in the Brody area.

What was the Soviet time name for Horokhiv?

What is the current name for Druzhkopil (Zhuravnyky)? What was it in 1944?

Can you help?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, here are some answers.

• Druzhkopil's modern name seems to be Zhuravnyky.[1][2] In English WW2 books (as well as at times of the Ru-Empire), it was referred to as Druzhkopol' (see Glantz[3]), the name that you can find even in Brochkaus.[4]
  • Zhuravnyky is now in Horohivsky Raion (see uk:Горохівський район) but some sources mention it may have been in the now non-existing raion of Berestechko. Either it is a mistake or Berestechko used to be a raion center before. Would need to check, if this is important.
• Horokhiv, or, if transliterated from Russian Gorohov does not seem to ever have changed names. Glantz uses "Gorokhuv"[5] Obviously Horokhiv and Gorokhov are not different names but one and the same name of the same place transliterated from different languages. The choice for Wikipedia should be defined by context. B&E also have an article on it: [6]
• Still no idea about Nusche. Tried various spelling and came up with nothing. --Irpen 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A contentious issue

You reverted the addition of the German operational name in place of "effort". Do you think it contentious that the name was given to the operation?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The contentious nature of the revision is that any major change should be discussed on the talk page especially concerning a long-standing history of stability concerning the lead. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC).

In that case it seems to me a long standing public exhibition of bias!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Narva-Pskov direction

You have a point there. Yes, I can make out the different dashes now. If you intend it to become a separate article eventually, perhaps it would make sense to turn it into a red link, to avoid further confusion? Narva is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, so it's a prime candidate for wikilinking by well-meaning passers by. --Illythr (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you know, I thought about that...and decided it was a prime candidate for correction by someone who thought that I didn't link correctly. I decided to leave it unlinked hoping it will be ignored, but alas ;O) I think a footnote needs to be inserted with the explanation I left for you. Do you mind doing that?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why not redlink it to Narva-Pskov line? This would definitely eliminate confusion. --Illythr (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Renaming

I doubt you're going to get through there. The policy is to use the common names, because those are the names the average user we all so love to refer to is going to search for. This one is also against you. --Illythr (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not true. I can understand where there are two names that reflect the same idea, that choosing the more common name would be ok, but in the case w common name in no way conveys the idea of the subject of the article the "common name" does not apply for reason of logic. In any case, the "average reader" will still find the article through inclusion of the "common name" in the lead as the "commonly misnamed" name. The dictionaries also suck. A specialist dictionary will always prevail over crap like Shorter Oxford. Few people know that much of Oxford Dictionary was destroyed in the Blitz, and has been rewritten, with considerable bias, since--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with insulting anyone or "dumbing down" - a common name is just that, one of the available names that is known to the largest group of people. An good (if done to death) example is the correct, official long name for the United Kingdom, which is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland": it can be argued that "United Kingdom" is too imprecise and can be applied to a number of sovereign entities led by a monarch. Nonetheless, all but the most pedantic will look for the short name everyone knows and associates with it. As for bias, note that these operations are listed under their short name in Soviet/Russian encyclopediae as well, see, for example, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia article on the Prague offensive, Battle of Kursk, etc. --Illythr (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And? After all, you do know that the correct name for UK (the most common name used) is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", so one of your sources of reference didn't take the short-cut. As for operations, the Soviet Military Encyclopaedic Dictionary on two pages used Prague offensive and Prague offensive operation (for the map). However, the similar VOV work which devoted two columns rather then a 1/4 column says Prague offensive 1945 strategic offensive operation of troops of the etc. These are printed works that also have to have editors thinking about which words are absolutely necessary to use given the space. Worlds in Russian that are dedicated to the operations use the full names as derived from archives. In an online reference work there is less pressure in this respect. The "common" name still gets included in the lead, and the redirect in case of a move, so no problem finding it, and the reader can say, aha! everyone thinks the "Battle of..." but the real name is...next time this person, having learned something will recommend Wikipedia.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, UK (as well as USSR, US, PRoC...) is an abbreviation, and using one for an article name about a country is a no-no. As for the rest - note the trend: the GSE, a "general" encyclopedia uses the common name, whereas the SMED, a "specialist" dictionary, uses the long one. This is probably the main point of contention here - Wikipedia is "generalist", that is, it aims for the broadest range of readers possible, and thus prefers popular names to "specialist" ones, even is the latter are more precise. Your last sentence applies 100% to the situation when common names are used as article names as well, as long as the full name used by specialists is mentioned in the first sentence of the lead section. --Illythr (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

that would be a great argument

Well, that would be a great argument if Wikipedia was a "general" reference work. As it happens it covers everything, and to any degree of depth the editors can take it. Besides that, being a "specialist" has noting to do with the ability to read operation name in full. Anyone who does look up the Eastern Front is probably aware that English was not one of the languages spoken by combatants,and probably expects to find German and Russian terms, right? Its like when you go into a restaurant which serves recopies from another country; you expect to have to order while struggling to get the name right. We can always use numbers though - operation No. 38b (Belgorod-Kharkov Offensive operation).

It seems that while you, and others emphasise Wikipedia being a "general reference work", I tend to look further and consider "Critics of Wikipedia (who) target its systematic bias and inconsistencies and its policy of favouring consensus over credentials in its editorial process" and particularly Reliability of Wikipedia. I can refer you to a participating Wikipedia editor who is also a teaching academic, and who, in her field of studies, has advised students not to use Wikipedia because of unreliable content.

So I quote for you the entirety of the introduction to article naming in full with my comments in italics

• Naming conventions are a list of guidelines on how to create and name pages. These are conventions, not rules carved in stone. As Wikipedia grows and changes, some conventions that once made sense may become outdated or otherwise inappropriate. When in doubt, follow convention.

This part is using circular illogic. Although "As Wikipedia grows and changes, some conventions that once made sense may become outdated or otherwise inappropriate" -> "When in doubt, follow convention." meaning that "some conventions that once made sense may become outdated" will never happen!

If however the premise that "some conventions that once made sense may become outdated" is true, then the statement "some article names that once made sense may become outdated" also makes sense.

• Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers to most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

The ability for "the greatest number of English speakers to most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" relies on the premise that "the greatest number of English speakers would be interested in, the greatest number of English articles with same level of interest" to enable them to "most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" the widest range of titles in Wikipedia. We are statistically talking about at least 51% of the English speaking population recognising correct titles of at least 51% of Wikipedia articles. However, we know that is untrue, and impossible, because even editors generally edit in their selected fields of knowledge. It is therefore safe to assume that "the greatest number of English speakers would not most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" the greatest number of articles. In fact, the reason "the greatest number of English speakers" would use a reference work is because they are lacking in specialist knowledge of a subject, i.e. they are experiencing a degree of ambiguity rated from mild, to complete lack of knowledge.

So, is "This is justified by the following principle":

• The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

It is a mostly misunderstood principle that "articles should be optimized for readers over editors" really means the article should be written as if the reader is not an expert in the subject, and not as if the reader is an autistic savant. It means the writer, having specialist knowledge in the subject, needs to start with the most basic concepts, and explain every ambiguous or unfamiliar term used in the article on the assumption that the reader does want to know as much about the subject as the editor does. This is because, although individual articles DO need to deal only with the subject of the article, the links to other articles can, and do provide for a collection of articles that may eventually combine, if presented in printed form, into a small book depending on the availability of interest from authors and editors.

Writing "for a general audience over specialists" does not mean we are editing a work intended for teenagers with passing, homework-inspired needs, but that we are editing a work which includes a cross-section of any given English-speaking society which includes (roughly) 15% of individuals under 18 years old, and 20% of individuals over 64 years old, and is 98% literate, with an average of 20-30% having completed after-high school education, with some 60-70% having read at least one book a month. This is the mythical "general Wikipedia reader". The cross-section of individuals who read on the subject of military history is however somewhat different. Many are former or serving members of armed forces. Other have a general interest in history. Other still are people who play the various forms of wargames, whether computer, boardgames or tabletop. While some who read the articles on the Western Front of the Second World War may be researching the lives of their relatives, those reading about the Eastern Front in English do so out of pure interest for the subject. Interest tends to overcome fear of the unknown, such as unusual and difficult to pronounce words and terms.

• Following linking conventions as well as naming conventions is more likely to produce working links to the article expected. A redirect should be created for articles that may reasonably be found under two or more names (such as different spellings or former names). Conversely, a term that may be used to describe several different search terms may require a disambiguation page.

The beauty of being an online reference work is that Wikipedia can use technology to allow the reader to find the right article on the subject even if the reader is not aware of the correct subject name! It is not necessary to have the name "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" as long as all names are included to enable the search engine in Wikipedia to deliver. It is a common misunderstanding that the title of the article needs to be one "speakers would most easily recognize" since in most cases it is not the name they are looking for, what not being a specialist on the subject. This is simple logic that often eludes people in discussions such as this. If readers already know the correct name of the subject they are searching for, they probably have above-average knowledge of the subject because they are able to recognise the title!

• If an article has been named inappropriately, it can be renamed by moving the article to a more appropriate title.

Hey presto! The actual conversation we are having is about "If an article has been named inappropriately", and not about what readers would recognise, because this is not a printed reference work, but an online one. What constitutes for an "appropriate" article name? It does not only mean that inappropriate emotive words should not be used, but also this

• "Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings. If all possible words have multiple meanings, go with the rule of thumb of naming guidelines and use the more popular term."

Here we have another Wikipedia beauty for logical cross-circuitry. Do not use "ambiguously named title" that may have "other meanings", but "go with the rule of thumb of naming guidelines and use the more popular term" which may be the "ambiguously named title"!

Is "Battle of..." ambiguous? Yes. Are the Soviet assigned names for operations less ambiguous? Another Yes. Is the "general English speaking reader" interested in the Eastern Front going to have a preferences for the later? Yes. Will the complete novice still find the article if the ambiguous title is not used? Yes. Is my time being wasted? Definitely.

Can you really blame me for not wanting to bother with policy and guidelines? I have already witnessed several skillful or less so uses of similar circuitous, or maybe circus-like logic to argue all manner of silliness the "greatest number of English speakers would most easily"...find ridiculous.

All I get out of this is wasting editing time, like now, writing this to you. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I must say, the amount of time you are willing to waste on this is most impressive. I can't believe I actually read all this either.

Two points: 1) Soviet encyclopedia of a similar scope also use short, common names. Your jesting suggestion to use numbers for operation names actually highlights the problem of your own point by taking it to the extreme: sure, a number is the most precise, correct and unambiguous name possible (if provided with scope). Unfortunately, it is known to but a handful of military historians (and doesn't sound very interesting either). 2) The whole point of the debate is whether to use "X Offensive (or Battle of X) (full name: X strategic [of|de]fensive operation)" or "X strategic offensive operation (commonly known as X Offensive (or Battle of X))," with the article named accordingly. Not a bit of information is lost using either form. None of them insult the reader's intelligence or presume and "autistic savant" reader, as you suggest the former form does. It merely makes use of that "commonly". That is all.

PS:What is that academic's field of study? I myself usually say that Wikipedia is unreliable when dealing with politics, history, and basically anything dealing with contesting POVs. --Illythr (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion of numbers was a sarcastic point in view of the restaurants who add numbers on the menu for patrons who are unable or unwilling to pronounce the dish names.

I don't see a debate. The "Battle of..." names were for the most part inventions for the book titles, particularly before the names of the operations were known in the west. They are pure fiction that in most cases does nothing to inform. We don't have this problem, do we?

The academic field of study, not my own, is...English history/literature. I feel I'm not doing to badly with Russian history on reflection ;o)

However I agree that I am wasting time on this. Philip seems to do nothing, but argue. I had not previously considered to look at his contributions, and only accepted his clarity of thought as something to admire. However, I see that he only puts this to use in defending his POV, and policies/guidelines, and doesn't actually produce articles. My respect for him has somewhat waned regretfully since I had valued his advice and support before. I feel about same in regards to Buckshot06 who had been at the same time extremely helpful, and extremely frustrating in his attitude to me. Given I don't need any more frustration in my life, I will try to avoid him as long as he stops stalking me.

I will continue to persist with public forum advocacy of greater quality standards for Wikipedia while I focus on my own project. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I think this is a good point to agree to disagree and focus on more productive things. --Illythr (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility

I was dismayed to read that you intended to insult your fellow editors in the increasingly unpleasant discussion at WT:MILHIST#Operation naming (cont.). I expect editors to remain civil and to assume good faith at all times as policy requires. At the moment, this remains an informal request. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Kabbalah

You wrote:

Hi. You reverted my edits, and I would like to ask what your reason was--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had intended to add an edit summery: WP:WEASEL. It was a change that was particularly problematic in the first sentence of the introduction. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Kabbalah does not represent only mysticism, but is believed by many to be only that, and the article intro does nothing to dispel this perception, I fail to see what was so WP:WEASEL about the edit--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain a little more what you mean? If your objection it to the word 'mysticism', I would tend to agree....but it is difficult to find another word to replace it. A change someone made to the article just before your edit added a wikilink for "mysticism" which I will probably remove because the mysticism article discusses nothing that is helpful for understanding Kabbalah. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember adding mysticism. I don't know quite what mysticism means, but I know its not kabbalah. Quite simply kaballah, in the simple meaning of the word, and in ritual application, has nothing mysterious about it. However, for the wrong or right reasons it is perceived in popular culture as a solely mysticism-based concept by most people, maybe due to lack of understanding. Few people get to a level of understanding that allows them to understand the deeper concepts, and maybe that is the reason, but it seems to me that the perception of the wider public needs to be reflected in the lead since it is significant to why people may want to read the article--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I still have no idea what your point is. If you want, we can discuss it further on the article's talk page. Are you sure you editing the correct article? It is possible you are thinking of Hermetic Qabalah, which is quite a different subject, and which has its own article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Biblical inspiration

I noticed you tagged this article [7] for POV, but I cannot find your concerns listed on the Talk page. Was this tag in error? Or did you forget to outline the dispute? Faith (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, LOL at "tag for Template:Extreme bias". Secondly, I wasn't disagreeing, but rather sussing out why you placed it there because it's difficult to respond to a POV tag without talk text stating why it was placed. If you have time, you might want to outline some of these perceived problems, even if it only solicits "me too" replies at first. Faith (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can do me a favour and copy/paste what I said on your talk (inc. my sig.) to the talk page. Don't bother with the Hebrew because that would be screamed at as OR since Greeks refuse to accept that for 700 years they were borrowing words from Israel (and elsewhere) until they were eventually given an alphabet of their own. It also tends to demolish the IET so linguists tend to view such proposals as heresy and a direct personal assault on their careers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Erich Hartmann

Yes, please do get a copy of the German sources. If you like I can scan the text for you. Of course I do understand that German sources could be biased towards stating that he was falsely convicted. Nevertheless I am of the strong opinion that the sources are correct. Why else would the Russian government, as a legal successor to the Soviet Union, have exonerated Hartmann in January 1997, by admitting that his conviction for war crimes was unlawful? This is documented in many books including

• Günther Wagenlehner: Die russischen Bemühungen um die Rehabilitierung der 1941–1956 verfolgten deutschen Staatsbürger – Dokumentation und Wegweiser. Bonn 1999, ISBN 3-86077-855-2, p. 36

MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why else would the Russian government, as a legal successor to the Soviet Union, have exonerated Hartmann in January 1997, by admitting that his conviction for war crimes was unlawful? = politics He was a die heart Nazi who, though in the position to stop fighting still flew combat missions on the 8 May--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the text seems to be here [8], and although it does say that Hartmann protested his innocence, it does not say he was rehabilitated after 1991 by the Russian government. However, consider who were the other troops still fighting on 8 May 1945. All Waffen-SS in Prague or Berlin, executing any German who so much as suggested surrender, and Hartmann could have flown out and surrendered any time. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't be stupid. What do you base your absurd assertions on? You don't like Hartmann because he was successful, even less so because he successful against the Soviet Union, your birth country. Would you make the same accusations against British or Soviet pilots in the years of 1940, 1941 or 1942, when the war seemed lost? Would your refer to them as "die hard" democrats or Communists? Of course not. It is about a sense of duty to one's nation. You think that is a qualified reason for calling him a die hard Nazi? Rubbish. I thought you were a sensible level headed editor who was unlikely to buy into Soviet post-war propaganda. Misterbee 1966 is too accommodating. It should be made clear wikipedia needs to be protected from biased and absurd claims like this. Explain why on earth, specifically, the Russian government would overturn this conviction. "Politics" is no where near good enough. I am appalled that such an experienced editor could make such an accusation, though wikipedia's eastern front editors are full of pro-Soviet sympathisers. I would be most interested to see if this German source is trustworthy. I wonder, when it was claimed, who by, and if it was made, by a then, Eastern German "historian", or anyone else tainted by Communism. Please respond to my talk page. Dapi89 (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my political persuasion or outlook. I will reply later with some statistics and comments on technique so you may understand something about combat flying during Second World War, and how the Luftwaffe created its "aces". And why Hartmann was a Nazi--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In light of your comments about Hartmann,and some othe discussions we have had concerning the Luftwaffe in world war two, I doubt there is much you could teach me in this regard. I have seen most of the Soviet sources, particularly Dimitri Khazanov, and his "official" history, claiming Hartmann shot down 80 Soviet aircraft, and it is complete bullshit. Some other editors, as I would have done, have pointed out that if indeed Hartmann had not shot down the 352 aircraft why was he charged with the destruction of them at his "war crimes" trial. You really think the Soviets needed a reason for keeping a prisoner for ten years, in that system under, Joseph Stalin? If so, then you really are mad. As far as being a Nazi is concerned, and this myth that German pilots were made into aces due to other reasons, I would demand sources of none Eastern European origin. Soviet and Russian "sources" were never trustworthy, and they still are not. What has really changed in Russia, or the Ukraine for that matter, to compel them to tell the truth? Nothing. They still find propaganda value in denying the truth.

Further to the coments made about the 8 May sortie: Simple, poor communication. Noone had any idea in Hartmann's unit that surrender was imminent. Besides, his last sortie was a recon mission. It just so happened he ran into soviet fighters. You wouldn't go into hostile airspace unarmed would you?

Ask your self some basic questions. If a nation is at war for six years, it is of a total nature, and they are outnumbered all the time, is it not possible that a significant percentage would amass (provided they stayed alive) big scores? Considering the shear numbers being deployed against the Luftwaffe it makes it certain, not unlikely that there would be such aces. Dapi89 (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not butting in around here, after reviewing this conversation it's obvious that neither of you are going to quite see eye-to-eye on this :) Perhaps I can offer my services as a neutral editor in the matter? I have some tim free and in the next few weeks I could look over the article and some sources to review the matter of his kills. Would that be an offer you'd both accept? Skinny87 (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to do that. The crux of the matter here is the questioning of Hartmann's humanity and his honesty, that not surprisingly come from Soviet/Russian historians. I respect mrg3105 in general, but on this particular issue I feel he has crossed the line. Western historians have not found any reason to doubt Hartmann's claims or hs political views are suspect.

I also believe that Soviet records are not to be trusted, and any sources that are presented will be falsified to that extent. All the accusations made against him by the Soviets at his trial indicate his kill count was correct. Now it seems (because he is dead, and the Russians have no need for "evidence" for "war crimes" charges anymore) that they have suddenly decided most of his kills were false.

I don't "buy" any of it. Dapi89 (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Thankyou for the advice, but don't blame me for the quality of List of military engagements of World War II I'm only 15 years of age, besides I was only trying to expand it. I will try to work on the list more and use more of your structure. Cheers EZ1234 (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, where abouts in Australia do you live?

Ribbon of Saint George

Thankyou. What's the occasion? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Victory Day..we may have our disagreements, but you have done a lot for educating about the Eastern Front--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, was planning to say something to you today, on the 63rd anniversary of that day.. Best regards from over the ditch! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...my mum and uncle were recollecting the day for me today--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In memoriam mortii. Thus we never forget! --Whiskey (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

CGS/Minister conflict

Is there one? Sources please; be interested. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mrg, while you're on Air Armies do you feel like translating the Ru-lang piece on the 8th Air Army, linked through the cool page you've just set up? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 01:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Its gone--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ru-wiki doesn't appear to use redirects - helpful of them. It's now at ru:8-я воздушная армия (СССР) and there are also articles for the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th on that pattern and the 18th without the (CCCP). Buckshot06(prof) 03:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Elisha Ben Abuya article

Hey, could you explain why you reverted the edits about the Hellenistic orchard today, or explain on the talk page or something, since they weren't in your edit summary? ThanksLamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Courland Pocket

I have removed the incomplete reference, "p. 171, Dunnigan", apparently added to the article Courland Pocket by you on 16 April, as per the relevant discussion at Talk:Courland Pocket. Urgings to fill out the reference went unheeded, and it thus detracted from the article, rather than enhanced it. If you disagree, please put it back, but this time with a fuller citation. —Zalktis (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)