User talk:Shanes/2006-Jan-1 to 2006-Mar-31: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 14:05, 13 March 2023

Click here to leave Shanes a new message.

This is an archived version of the Shanes Talk Page. Use the box above to leave a new message. Don't edit this page, please.

Please sign your post by typing: ~~~~
Sometimes I answer on your talk page, sometimes I answer here.

Messages from before June 30, 2005, are archived here.
Messages from July 1 to December 31, 2005, are here

Quick draw...

You beat me by one second. Damn! See you around :) —thames 03:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki talk:Nogomatch, which you just reverted

Does anybody know why that page gets link spammed all the freakin' time? I've been thinking for about a week about semi-protecting, because all anonymous contributions seem to be spam or 68.39.174.238 (a.k.a. the Comcast guy who refuses to get an account) reverting it. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:48, Jan. 4, 2006

No, I have no idea why that obscure page gets spammed. I just noticed it by coincidence. Shanes 07:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont leave open

Please close the article. (Louis Braille) I don't think you realise the sort of traffic we're talking about here. Just a few mins could seriously damage the Wiki's reputation. Theone3 11:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do realise it. But thanks for your opinion. Shanes 11:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a waste of your time and many other peoples time to leave the page unprotected. Furthermore, it creates an ugly impression for new visitors when they arrive in great numbers as they are via the prominent Google link today. Protect the page or sprotect it at least. Hu 12:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on this on talk. But if one more request a protect, I'll give in and sprpotect it again. Shanes 12:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you revert?

How do you revert edits? Am I capable of doing it?

You go via the History or the Diff links to the most recent good version. Then click on that version to get to an article page which will have "older revision" and "newer revision" in small print below the title. Then click Edit the Page. You will see a red flag indicating you are about to edit an old version. Type a little summary in the Edit summary box like which version you are reverting to or which vandal you are reverting or do as I do and have text cued up to substitute the user IP address for X into the following text into the Edit summary: "Revert [[Special:Contributions/X|X]] ([[User Talk:X|talk]]) vandal". Then press save page. Hu 12:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Theone3 14:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sProtection for Braille

I think it's been proven that it's needed. There's just too much traffic! I need sleep, but I'm to worried about this article being vandalised! x_x --Theone3 14:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The message you sent me to IP ending in 178.

Wow! thank you I was freaking out, I was trying to remove my edit but didn't know how, this is the first time click on something in wikipedia.

Sorry if I caused any trouble.

=) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.245.178 (talk • contribs)

Stalin article

In Aug 1968 I was a young man. At that time I was in a Czech pub in New York called the Praha. The Czech-Americans were crying when they heard that Soviet tanks were killing innocent civilians in the streets of their homeland. I will never forget that hot August night.--Berndd11222 02:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vand

Hi, thnx for the revert on my user page :) Joe I 00:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How....

Im looking for general opions on Adolf Hitler and other world leaders of the 20s, 30s etc, such as Stalin, but have no ideaa how to go about asking on talk pages, etc. What do I do? xx--X xxlife is beautifulxx x 21:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) England[reply]

I know this is directed at Shanes, but I'd like to ask the following... What kind of opinions are you looking for, specifically, and why? Just curious... -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism- A reccomendation

Shanes: In my opinion all changes to articles should be reviewed and posted by administrators like yourself. The revert that you had to do recently on Stalin is a perfect example of the problem I am seeing on Wikipedia. A bunch of ballbusters could create a tag team that could keep you busy all day doing reverts.--Berndd11222 15:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are busy all day doing reverts ;-). But that's just the price we have to pay for being an open encyclopedia. It would be more work to review every edit people do beforehand. Though some pages often are protected from edits by new users (like George W. Bush, the most vandalized article on wikipedia), in general it's better to just accept some vandalism here and there, revert them when they hapen (admins can revert with just a single click), and enjoy the advantage of having lots of new users joining the project because the threshold is low since it's easy to get starting with people seeing the edit go live when they make it. I made my first edit on wikipedia some years ago before I signed up a username, just some spelling fix, but if it had been much more complicated than it was, I'm not sure I would have ever made that first edit. So, there are both good and bad sides by being this open. And I belive the good outweighs the bad. See Wikipedia:Replies to common objections for more on this and other stuff. Shanes 16:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do?

I didn't do anything wrong to Wikipedia. I added to a few articles and put useful information. I haven't even edited anything today. 24.239.106.17 16:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the contributions page, and I only edited the Battle of Fulford. I am on a different computer and I think someone else was on my IP. I just signed in. Rshu 16:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that hapens alot with shared IP's. A few hours ago there some kids were making childish edits from that IP. Sorry if you felt my message was directed at you and that I was insulting you or anything. It wasn't, and I didn't mean to. Keep up the good work! Shanes 16:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it happened to me once before on the same IP. I thought that the anti-vandal squad was just plain crazy. :-) Rshu 18:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game theory

Thank you for catching that! :-) You're entirely correct - the block was out of line. I misinterpreted the edit history in game theory, thinking that it was actually the IP adding the edit instead of removing it. To add to this confusion, an eariler IP removed something, and afterwards another established editor interpreted that as "vandalism". Good to know there are other Wikipedians keeping an eye on these things. Very much appreciatedl - hence the WikiThanks. See you around! --HappyCamper 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In the TfD for this, you said we should keep it because we need a small template for long-term protection. But, as I said in the debate, we already have {{sprotected-small}}, which doesn't have the misleadingly titled name of the nominated template. Indeed, the notion of a semi-permanent semi-protect should not be enshrined in a template as there is no basis in policy for it. For George W. Bush we should simply use the correctly named and worded {{sprotected-small}}, don't you agree? -Splash^talk 15:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late respond, been sick. Yeah, I'm fine with {{sprotected-small}} and wouldn't have voted to keep {{sp-sprotected}} if it had existed back then. I agree with everything you say. Shanes 07:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute WW2 casualties

Hi:
Somebody posted a sign saying WW2 Casualties are disputed. He says "German Casualties are way too high" If he can't explain why he is disputing the posted number and back it up with a source the sign needs to come down ASAP--Berndd11222 20:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you in that. But see respond on your talk for more, disputes on that page are to be expected. Shanes 07:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kozhikode page

Howdy, I noticed some usual page moves by User:Praveenpoil (specifically moving Kozhikode to a page Kozhikode (Designed by praveen Kumar R.P Poilkave Beach)). Someone has subsequently recreated the Kozhikode article, and I'm not sure how to move the page back without history. The user has been adding his resume to a variety of talk pages as well, which makes me suspect he is not malicious but rather new to WP. Many thanks if your could help out with this. (I spotted you were online doing recent changes). --Hansnesse 19:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing. I have moved the article with its history back now. Shanes 19:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An apology to you.

Dear Shanes,

I was the unsmart person who did the "f u all noobs". I am terribly sorry and promise on my oath that i will be more mature. Sorry and your a good contribuiter to Wikipedia. Thank you. Sincerily, Gators222

An apology to you P.S.

Please acnowlage my sorry by leaving it on my talk or page. i really need to hear it from you as well as the others who banned me so i will fell better. --Gator 02:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Gators222

Thank you

Thank you for replying my message. I, at first, thought only i would see it as my notes and that i was just jokin around with my self. Now i understand. Thank you for your time and you have some impressive barn stars --Gator Fan 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Gators222--Gator Fan 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The labia pictures on Dixie

I would never ever have said that the human body is disgusting, but it can be shocking to appear out of context. Thank you for continuing to revert the article. Truth and justice will win out. It really is offensive and frightening... --EuropracBHIT 01:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

luke ramsden

while i understand why you did that, i purposely put the article the main wiki site as i it actually about some work i have had published and felt i should promote. Bohemian tosspot 13:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:129.97.236.157

Just a suggestion: perhaps you'd like to start with test1 or test2 before you jump to BV. Even if the person is a blatant vandal, you've got to at least warn them nicely before you threaten blocking. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 00:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was no ordinary vandal, and he surely wasn't testing. I'm usually among the most patient rc-patrollers when it comes to warning vandals, but this person was making threats that most people would say warranted an immediate block. And the bv warning isn't that unpolite. But thanks for your oppinion. Shanes 00:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy or consulate

It appears that the main Danish Embassy and 1 Ambassador are based in Damascus with offices in Beirut, Lebanon and Amman, Jordan. [1] Does this make their offices consulates? Because Lebanon and Jordan are independent countries, I think the Danish offices must be considered embassies. I could be wrong though....--68.217.92.143 21:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going by what all the news-agencies in Norway (press/TV), and a few I checked in Denmark was reporting. Reading the link you gave me makes me unsure, though. They do seem to call it an embassy there, but on the other hand the ambassadors address mentioned on that site is Damaskus, Syria. http://www.ambassade.dk/dklebanbeie.php3 which makes the Beirut office look like more of a consulate since an embassy should be where the ambassadors office is. But I may be on thin ice here, I'm no expert in these subtle differences. Shanes 21:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you based on to call the official representation of Denmark in Lebanon a consulate. Both are sovereign countries, and the building is in the capital of Lebanon. The Danish embassy's address [2] belongs to a Christian neighborhood in Beiruit, as the BBC described. DHN 08:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller countries like Denmark don't have embassies in every nation of the world, but they often have smaller consulates spread around with a General consul in office headed by a "real" ambassador in an embassy in a neighbouring country, in this case Syria. But, I'm not sure what the case is here and how wrong it is, if at all, to call the Beirut office an embassy. I hope someone can find out. Shanes 08:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hi there. I just have a quick question that needs answering. Is there any tag I can use that would make this image keepable? User:Denniss has tagged a tonne of images related to the Canadian Forces for deletion, and I was wondering if any of them were salvagable. Thanks, Ouuplas 05:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know. U.S.-military images are everywhere, and I believe they are all in public domain by some law about governmental work being there. But I can't see any tag for canadian military photos, and I'm not at at all an expert on this. There's Category:Image copyright tags, and maybe something there can be used. But in the end it all depends on the actual copyright and conditions for redistribution as given by the Canadian Forces (or whoever took the photo). Maybe ask on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags where I'd guess people more knowledgable than me on stuff like this hang out. Sorry that I can't be of more help here. Shanes 06:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the help! Ouuplas 20:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Shanes, I'd like to apologise for the following edit, and the parallel edits on the talk page. I was out of line, and feel bad about it. I'd like to apologise for not assuming good faith to you :( I wasn't very nice to you in that comment, and I'm sorry that you bore the brunt of my bad temper! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Yeah, I think I'm having a crappy day - too busy. Got pretty spikey. Haven't had a chance to look at the article - do you think it is FAC worthy? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know about that. Maybe later. I suspect broad interest sports articles being harder to get to FA status since so many people are editing and having strong opinions on what to include which makes things messy and decissions on what to include time-consuming. I'd guess it's easyer when one or two good editors are practically taking a quasi-ownership over an article and sees it through the prosess, which is easyer for more obscure and not so much current topics. Maybe when things have calmed down. But for a newly written article, it's quite good already IMO. Shanes 08:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me something?

Do I have a box that says something about Florida? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gators222 (talk • contribs)

I don't know. Try look at Wikipedia:Userboxes and the pages linked to there. Shanes 03:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H5N1 on main page, in the news

It links to H5N1. It does not link to Global spread of H5N1 whose "February" subsection contains:

February 7 2006

OIE/FAO Reference Laboratory for avian influenza and Newcastle disease in Padova, Italy, confirmed highly pathogenic avian influenza virus subtype H5N1 in Nigerian isolates from samples taken January 16.

February 8 2006

The Nigeria situation is announced to the world. Nigeria is the first African country to have an H5N1 outbreak confirmed. It affected a commercial chicken farm (owned by Nigeria's sports minister, Saidu Samaila Sambawa) in which ostriches and geese were also kept, in Jaji village in Igabi administrative division (local government area or LGA) in Kaduna State in Nigeria. The control measures said to be used include killing poultry, quarantining poultry, poultry movement control, and disinfection; however there are complaints that these measures are in fact not being carried out. 40,000 out of 46,000 caged chickens died of H5N1 despite being treated by their owner with broadspectrum antibiotics. The remaining 6,000 have been killed to try to control spread of the disease. OIE press release OIE initial report OIE followup report #1 [3]

February 9 2006

Four new farms in Nigeria are confirmed to have H5N1 outbreaks: two in Kano State, one in Plateau State and a second farm in Kaduna State.
The United States, OIE and WHO are sending experts, supplies and money to Nigeria to help with this H5N1 crisis.
H5N1 flu in Africa is expected to spread and create a very severe situation. [4]
Farmers in northern Nigeria are rushing to sell dead chickens at cut-price rates before government bans are put into place. Promiced measures to contain the disease are still not in place.
European countries are facing an increased probability that spring bird migrations from Africa will bring H5N1.
Countries in Africa near to Nigeria are responding with "dread" and import restrictions.

Just thought you should know. WAS 4.250 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, and I considered linking it to that article, but I found the H5N1 to be better on giving background information on the bird flu virus, something I imagine many people will find interesting and educational to read. The Global spread of H5N1 reads more like a diary. But that's just me and I see value in including that one, too. Maybe there's a way to include both links by refrasing the ITN sentence? Perhaps include the word "spreads" somewhere and link it to the global spread article? Any sugestion? Shanes 22:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, H5N1 is the better article. (before you linked it anyway)
I prefer the unwashed masses to scrawl their crayons on Global spread of H5N1. It reads more like a diary for a reason.
I believe I'm being more humorous than bitter, but then I lie to myself a lot, so what do I know?
Suggestion: "The first African case of the deadly bird flu is reported in Nigeria in the continuing global spread of H5N1. WAS 4.250 01:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts on Islam

Shane,

Why do you keep refreshing the Islam article? You cannot claim any religion is the largest or smallest.. It is simply un-factutal.. Heresay as they call it.. I vote to remove this line in addition to saying it is the fastest growing.. This is also not factual... I would say the fastest growing would be atheism or the like...

Please explain your actions so that i can understand your argument.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.63.203 (talk • contribs)

Answered on anons talk. Shanes 03:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

137.92.44.214

This anon has repeatedly added unsources accusations into John Howard and has clearly violated 3RR and should be blocked. Xtra 04:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've blocked the IP for 24 hrs now. Shanes 04:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

Thanks for that! Raven4x4x 06:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Losses

Soviet military losses were 8,668,000 Prof Richard Overy went into the archives after the fall of the soviet union and researched alot about ww2.

Why did you change back the nummber to 10.6 million and then point out that in the discussion it says 8.6 now that makes no sense to me.

The name of the column clearly says military deaths and the military deaths are 8,668,000 not 10.6 million.

Deng 10-02-06 08.20 CET

I reverted your change because I believe the numbers you (pr Prof Richard Overy) aren't including all the casualties accounted for and commented on in the footnote to the Soviet losses. It's a matter of what to count and what not. And explaining it.

This is a very comlicated topic. We have to keep the numbers straight and make sure we don't count any casualties twice or neglect counting some. This would make the total wrong. There are lots of things complicating matters: There are issues with what should be considered Soviet losses (the borders and consequently the population and what are/were considered Soviet people and forces has changed), and there's the issue with losses in the purges, missing/killed POW's, killed partisans (are they military death, or not), etc.

We simply have to carefully explain in footnotes what we include in the numbers we list. The numbers as they were with footnotes as made by User:Berndd11222 (who has done a tremendous job in creating this page) are consistant and extremely well documented. He really knows his stuff. Believe me. That is not to say that they might contain errors (these numbers are after all estimates), but if we make changes we also need to change the notes explaining what are included as well as carefully cite the source. As it is now, you just changed the number while keeping the note explaining what they included the same, and that has to be wrong.

If you read the note linked to above, maybe you could comment on how they differ from the one you have in what they include? Do the Overy-numbers include missing/killed POW's, for instance? What about the 500.000 partisan losses as documented in G.I. Kirosheev Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Are they explecitly included in Prof Overys numbers? And so on. Thanks! Shanes 08:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm everything is right except the nummber look military loses are 8,668,000 these are people who joined the red army red air force red navy and all the special forces like nkvd and smersh and what not if a partisan was a member of the army/navy/airforce/special forces before he became a partisan and died whilst a partisan then yes he is there but if he was a partisan without ever joining the army navy air force or special forces then no he isnt there. Also 8.7 died yes but out of those 4 million were in captivity so in the notes on the page there has been a mix up. First 8,668,00 died period. So many MILITARY DEATHS were there during the war not 10.6 anything else but that nummber is not military deaths. It is very simple I dont understand why you dont understand. If you use the word military deaths in the column the the proper nummber is 8,668,000 and nothing else. Now what part do you have a problem with?

Also this article Red Army has an eastern front part which clearly gives nummbers. And they give a nice source. Now with all of this info why do you still believe that 10.6 military deaths happened.

(Deng 12:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Why no Reply?

(Deng 12:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I changed it as agreed upon but the footnotes if you look at them they dont really say that the change is wrong or that the change is right they are kinda neutral and correct so that is another reason why i cant see why this wasent done before. But maybe you read the footnotes diffrently and if so please tell me.

(Deng 09:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

65.191.64.103

Shanes, I am not disputing your call, but I'd like to understand the process I should follow to deal with this vandal. I reported 65.191.64.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as soon as I saw his latest edit, about 12 hours after it happened. He had made the exact same edit (using 198.143.230.26 which is a sockpuppet) only 15 hours prior to the second one. He has been making the same edit (entering a fictitious/unknown name under "notable people") for weeks. Please let me know what can be done to deal with this person if a vandal block is not appropriate. Thanks, sys < in 11:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. sys < in

Thanks again! sys < in 10:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant 3RR vio

Please see the Jesus page and block User:Robsteadman for completely destroying the 3RR rule with now more than 7 or 8 reverts. Thanks.Gator (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see he is blocked now which probably means that you found WP:AN3 and which I hope means that I don't have to look into it any further myself. Shanes 03:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A WW2 page mysteriously gone?

Hi Shanes! You are a sysop right? Don't know your powers, but this WW2 page seems to have disappeared mysteriously:

List of people associated with World War II

There's no redirection and no mention of it on the talk page:

Talk:List of people associated with World War II

I have tried to find the assumed new replacement article, but can't find any. Now there are ugly red links in Template:World War II and elsewhere. :( If you solve the mystery, please tell me on my talk page. Like to know what happened.

Cheers and regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis^{talk - contribs} 16:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the info, Shanes! Can't say I have an opinion on the voting yet, since I don't remember the contents of the article. But the reasons for deletion seemed reasonable. However, I would very much appreciate if you could restore a version of it, as you proposed. Whenever you have time, you could restore it in my sandbox (User:Dna-webmaster/Sandbox), please but it at the bottom, or if you restore it elsewhere, please tell me where. Thanks a lot again! Regards, --Dna-Dennis^{talk - contribs} 11:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Unbelievable speed! --Dna-Dennis^{talk - contribs} 11:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How...

How do I make user boxes. You have some and I thought you might be able to help me please. If you could just tell me what to type, ill tell you that it will be for me to make a user box for florida gators and pantera.--Gators222 00:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Gators222

Silat USA

are you removing 'Silat USA' from this page? if so why?

This listing is completely correct. It was listed here long before WaliSongos was listed. This is silly. I tried compromising but then you delete the listing.

I like Walisongos. I have no problems with WaliSongos. so what is the problem?

how can we resolve this?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.30.97 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what delete you are refering to. Is it on the Silat page? I have not deleted any such thing from that page myself (my only delete there was some obvious test-edit[5]). But if you are in disagreement with other editors over what the page should contain, I sugest you take it up on talk:Silat and explain it there and in the Edit summary when you make additions. Shanes 05:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You...

I am gonna put on some stuff, if you could, look at my talk page in a sec.--Gators222 00:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Gators222

Greek-American page

I think he is a great DJ and a good example to Greeks everywhere. Down here in North Carolina they think Greeks should only work in kitchens. I have called him on the air to tell him about wikipeida and he says he is flattered that I think enought of him to include him. Sorry for any hard feelings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AfrikaUSA (talk • contribs)

99942 Apophis

The problem with the physical values you gave is that they are unknown to within factors of several to tens. Based on the optical data and the marginal radar astrometry, we can say that Apophis is between 150 m and 400 m in size. This means that the volume is unknown to an order of magnitude, and thus that the mass is unknown to a factor of 20 or so (we cannot constrain the density because there is no composition data). Gravity and escape velocity are uncertain by large factors as well.

The only physical data we have on the object are that the period is long (likely several days) and that it may be fairly elongated (in August the radar return was almost twice as high as we expected, suggesting a higher cross-sectional area). Average surface temperature is a function of the elongation and the unknown surface, so we can't say too much about that either.

I am a graduate student at Caltech, working with the Asteroid Radar Group at JPL. I assisted with the August 2005 radar run on Apophis, but am not the best person to ask about it. Jon Giorgini of the JPL Solar System Dynamics group and Lance Benner of the Radar Group are. Sometime in the next few months there will be a paper on the dynamics of Apophis' orbit and in May there will be one more radar astrometry run. This will probably be the last until the better oppurtunities in the 2010's.

Michaelbusch 17:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid Physical Data

The NEO page takes an average value based on all of the data for an object. In the case of Apophis, we did not resolve it with the radar, so we do not know the size. The change in radar return does not imply a significantly larger diameter, merely that the asteroid is elongated and the diameter estimates from photometry are averages over the surface.

If there is interest in the basics of estimating physical properties, I can post an article. I will query the astronomy project.

Michaelbusch 01:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ww2 aircraft losses paragraph

You have just reverted a paragraph from the ww2 casualties page, the reason you gave was unsourced claims:

First modification was about Luftwaffe losses: I said the losses given in the paragraph are not correct they simply represent the German production during the war, source "The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Third Reich" by Richard Overy

German aircraft production statistics

1939 8.295 1940 10.247 1941 11.776 1942 15.409 1943 24.807 1944 39.807 1945 7.540

total: aprox 117.000 aircraft

What that paragraph is claiming if left in the current form, is that Luftwaffe lost all its production during the war, which is a baseless claim and a distorsion of historical reality.

According to W. Murray, between May 1940 and June 1944 Luftwaffe lost 40099 aircraft on all fronts, to all causes. This number includes 11235 bombers and 13732 fighters (again lost on all fronts, to all causes).

These numbers come from a chart that gives the losses per 6 months intervals found in "The Luftwaffe, 1933-45: Strategy for Defeat" by Williamson Murray, page 304

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1574881256/qid=1140357991/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-5400071-2179313?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

It is highly unlikely that in the remaining months of war Luftwaffe lost more than 15.000 aircraft, considering that from fall of 1944 Luftwaffe hardly flew anymore, due to lack of fuel. The total losses are probably around 55.000 aircraft, the total of 116.000 aircraft given now is absurd.

Second modification was about USAAF, USN and Marines losses:

USAAF lost 65164 planes during the war (with the breakdown given), source "The Army Air Force Statistical Digest", the official USAAF statistical records made public after the war, check this link for a page from the volume, regarding exactly the losses:

http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t099.pdf

USN and Marines combined lost 8592 airplanes in combat operations. This number does NOT include the airplanes lost in continental US and during shipping to combat theatres. Source for the number is again oficial statistics: "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics World War II" published in 1946, you can read the pdf here:

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

What is the best course of action to see these modifications on the page? As is it is right now the paragraph is way far from the true losses numbers.

Thank you.

ww2 aircraft losses paragraph (cont'd)

I found Luftwaffe's losses numbers:

Between May 1940 and June 1944 Luftwaffe lost 40099 aircraft on all fronts, to all causes. This number includes 11235 bombers and 13732 fighters (again lost on all fronts, to all causes).

These numbers come from a chart that gives the losses per 6 months intervals found in "The Luftwaffe, 1933-45: Strategy for Defeat" by Williamson Murray, page 304

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1574881256/qid=1140357991/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-5400071-2179313?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

It is highly unlikely that in the remaining months of war Luftwaffe lost more than 15.000 aircraft. The total losses are probably around 55.000 aircraft, the total of 116.000 aircraft given now is absurd.

ww2 aircraft losses paragraph (cont'd)

I found Luftwaffe's losses numbers:

Between May 1940 and June 1944 Luftwaffe lost 40099 aircraft on all fronts, to all causes. This number includes 11235 bombers and 13732 fighters (again lost on all fronts, to all causes).

These numbers come from a chart that gives the losses per 6 months intervals found in "The Luftwaffe, 1933-45: Strategy for Defeat" by Williamson Murray, page 304

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1574881256/qid=1140357991/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-5400071-2179313?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

It is highly unlikely that in the remaining months of war Luftwaffe lost more than 15.000 aircraft. The total losses are probably around 55.000 aircraft, the total of 116.000 aircraft given now is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagisterLudi (talk • contribs)

Give us a breakdown of that Nr you copied

Say, what is the breakdown of the number 8.6 million that you copied? How many KIA, dead of accident & disease and MIA? Also how many POWs died in German custody? I bet you can't provide a decent answer.Berndd--64.48.59.25 10:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

time for a pot of black coffee and some fresh air

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

the following official losses ( the data quoted by Overy) Killed in Action and dead of wounds 6,330,000; non combat deaths 556,000. Those are confirmed losses reported to the high command by the fronts. Estimated MIA were 500,000 and estimated POW dead 1.3 million. The grand total was 8.6 million. What a coincidence that this is exactly the same as Axis losses of 8.6 million as reported in Kirosheev. The USSR losses were equal to the Axis on the Eastern front, right or wrong? Pow loses were 1.3 million, right or wrong? Check your numbers before you make a change. Real losses of Pows were about 2.8 million and MIA were 500,000. Add that to 6.9 million confirmed dead and you are at 10.2 million. That does not include losses of Partisans and Milita of 400,000 ( they must be included as military not civilian losses). Berndd--68.236.161.237 13:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Thanks for your rapid reverting of the main page article today. I was about to do it myself. I've always felt main page articles should be protected because it's like bugs being drawn toward lights. Rlevse 11:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We try to keep todays FA open for various reasons. Raul has listed most of them here. Shanes 11:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that. I buy it only to a point. Main page articles should be protected. Good users like you and I shouldn't have to track down these scum, wasting our time. The day has just started and I've already spent an hour tracking and reporting vandals of my article. One of them put a human penis image on the page. Is that what you want people, especially new users, to see? Rlevse 12:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. But we also don't want them to see protected pages they can't edit. So instead of protecting we try to be good at reverting bad edits whenever they occur. Shanes 13:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greece

Sorry about that...the edit conflict didn't show up for me so my reverts were a bit off. psch e mp | talk 18:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Är du norsk?

Jag är svensk :D

Visste inte du var från Norge, va trevligt ;)

Du jag kan lite info om Norge ----> Världens 3 största Olje exportör

(Deng 01:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Jack Thompson

No offense intended, but the previous statement, while it could have used some minor rewording, was largely accurate. Jack Thompson has never debated with those who disagreed with his views, but verbally attacked those who disagreed with him. And any time a gamer attempts contact, all he responds with really is a collection of bible quotes and insults. I mean, have you ever read his corrsepondence?--Vercalos 08:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I reverted reads as if Jack Thompson is the only one being rude when comunicating. I'll be honest, I'd never even heard about the guy before he started to turn up on my watch list as a frequently vandalised article a few months ago, but I've learned one thing since then, Jack Thompson is not the only one to turn to name calling in this debate. Also: simply labeling something as rude is POV in it self. Just state what someone is saying, and let it be up to the reader wether it's rude or not. That's the wikipedia way. And the statement "No attempt at discorse is ever possible." is also POV and an unsourced claim. Who says that it is impossible? I believe my revert was highly apropriate. Shanes 08:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking it should be re-worded for POV, but kept as it was. Read some of the correspondence he has had with gamers. He has yet to be polite to one, even those who are entirely civil to him.--Vercalos 16:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what reworded for POV but kept as it was means here. The edit I reverted did the opposite IMO. It reworded what was already there to be POV. Let me ask you one thing. Do you think that Thompson and his supporters will agree in that "He has yet to be polite to one, even those who are entirely civil to him"? The answer to that question goes to the heart of whether we can state it or not. If you agree in that Thompson himself don't see his statements as impolite, for us calling them impolite will then be POV, and we can't state it. We'll be taking a side in the debate if we do. And wikipedia shouldn't do that. Shanes 00:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Haydn

Hi Shanes! I had to revert Haydn to a previous version because your good edits were mixed up with those of two vandals (User:Halorocks19 as well as an IP) -- can you please make them again? Thanks much! Antandrus (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IBM tutorials

Can I please put back the IBM tutorials individualy? We are trying to determine the traffic and interest of each one, to help us determine future commitment by IBM for this type of content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.121.203 (talk • contribs)

Article Page Needs Clean-up

Hi. Please take action as an admin and go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02_Persian_people. I`d appreciate it if you can look into this.Zmmz 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't think I can be of much help in this case. I know next to nothing about the disputed issue and for me to read up on it, both here and in the literature, to be able to have an educated opinion in this case will take me more time and effort than I'm willing to spend the comming days. I hope you find a way to solve it, and want to thank you for inviting me to try and help out, but... well, I don't think I'm the right guy to help out there now. Shanes 21:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it would not take time, please you have to do this. Who else is going to rescue that article? All you have to do is go to Merriam-Webster online, Britannica.com, and Bartleby.com and search under the word Aryan and Iran. Please help us ban vandalism andas importantly help us clean that discussion page which is a mess.Zmmz 22:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admin the user Heja helweda was warned before, however, the user erased the warning, and was warned again to no avail. User:Heja helweda is a chronic 3rr violator in the Iranian people article page, as well as, the Persian people, and perhaps elsewhere. The user also frequently violate the good faith assumption policy and has, and continues to write excessive amount of text in the discussion pages of the articles mentioned, and in other articles too. This is my first time reporting, and I am not certain if I have entered all the data correctly. Kindly look into this matter. Thanks.Zmmz 04:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least visit this page and see if I have done everything right? Please go to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman#Statement_of_the_dispute.Zmmz 19:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terje Hauge

Thanks for stepping in with the Terje Hauge edit war. Trouble is, I'm not sure we're going to get anwhere. The anonymous user has so far been very vague about what his objections are. Cheers. SteveO, 16:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the page needs to be locked again. The edit war has re-started. The other user doesn't seem to have any interest in sorting things out. He just keeps hurling insults. SteveO, 10:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I thought it had been kindof settled on talk. Oh, well. To unprotect was obviously wrong, and I've reverted back to where it was then. Shanes 11:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WW2 Casualties

You really need to read my postings on Soviet WW2 Casualties. Berndd AKA--Woogie10w 23:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaasen

Hei, Gunnar Kaasen var min grandonkel, ønsket å sende deg en e-post... 80.79.63.29 12:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Berit[reply]

Oh! ;-) You can send me email by clicking the "E-mail this user" in the toolbox to the left. Shanes 12:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go here and tell me what you think

Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Proposed

Just make sure the last edit was by me

(Deng 14:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure I want to be dragged into yet another dispute. I might look at it later, but I'll be out for most of the day soon. Shanes 14:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ballbuster

MichelinMan222 is a real ballbuster watch him--Woogie10w 18:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWII

Thanks for reverting World War II to the correct version, I had been trying but either wikipedia is slow or my internet connection is bogged down, I kept getting edit conflicts and time-outs. So Thanks again! Orangutan 18:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Wikipedia is really slow today. Shanes 18:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Sov losses

I could do such an article but not right now. It will be essential that it be backed up with verifiable sources and numerical analysis. That I can also due once I find the time.--Woogie10w 13:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key to success will be that it would clear and concise. The average reader will want the facts and a brief explanation of the controversy that has emerged regarding Soviet losses. I would back up with verifiable sources each step of the in order to avoid revert wars. The issue of losses in the annexed territories and double counting in Poland and the USSR needs special treatment because it has escaped the attention of western historians. The history of the losses and how they were treated in the past is interesting, I have not even touched on this topic on the casualties page.--Woogie10w 14:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Casualties

Hi
The issue of Sov WW2 casualties is a can of worms. The official data issued by the Sov/Russian military is 8.6 million war dead including 1.8 million missing & POW. This does not agree with German data on POWS taken (5.7 million) less Sov data of POW liberated (2.7 million) and an estimated 10% missing in action. Total POW/MIA are at least 3.0 million not the official 1.8 million. The Russian military is trying to cover up its poor performance in the war. The fact of the matter is that many reserves were called up in 1941 and captured before being registered by the GHQ in Moscow. From a military operational point of view they were casualties and must be taken into account. The German data on POWs taken allows us to cross check Sov data. We are dealing here with a classic case of Soviet disinformation.
Civilian casualties are also a problem. Russian demographers have determined that 26.6 million died in the war. That's fine I have no problem with that number, the problem is what were the circumstances of the deaths. If we assume military casualties of 10-11 million we have to explain 15-16 million civilian deaths. The Russians today claim 3 million civilians died of famine in the interior regions not occupied by the Germans. Also 3 million died in the territories annexed in 1939-40, on the casualties page I did not include them with the USSR but in their respective countries. It would be an outrage to include Estonians as Soviet citizens in my opinion. So getting back to Sov civilian casualties we must explain the remaining 9-10 million deaths. Contemporary Russian sources cite Soviet era( circa 1975) sources to explain these deaths. They were all caused by Nazi reprisals, forced labour and famine according to these sources. I have my doubts and remarked in the footnotes " civilian losses are poorly documented and may include victims of German as well as Soviet repression"
On the WW2 Casualties have used a contemporary Russian source Vadim Erlikman who takes into account the victims of communist crimes, he is definitely not an apologist for the communist system. He lists 10.6 million military casualties which in my opinion makes more sense than the official figure of 8.6 million.
We should take into account the fate of the POWs released in 1945 (2.7 million) who were marched off to an unknown fate in the Gulag or exile. From a military operational point of view they should be considered war losses, this brings Sov losses close to 13.5 million. The Sov military brass never liked to discuss the issue of the 1,000,000 "Vlasovites" who lost 215,000 KIA. Their history was swept under the rug--Woogie10w 11:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that there are so many people on Wikipedia who defend the communist system using the NPOV smokescreenBerndd-AKA--Woogie10w 10:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are folks out there who insist on taking on face value any statistic that is from an official Soviet source, they will defend it to their last breath. They would be standing in line in Moscow in 1981 to buy rotten fruit reading Pravda's latest article on the great advances in Soviet Biotechnology and believe every word--Woogie10w 14:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SANDBOX

tHE SOURCES WILL BE ADDED LATER--Woogie10w 14:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC) I am busy @ home and the office it may take at least a week to finish this, I dont want to be in the doghouse @ home again--Woogie10w 17:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC) The article will have a verifiable source for every single statement. My opinion will be on duh talk page--Woogie10w 19:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC) What about the picture of the woman standing over the dead child?--Woogie10w 23:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Offensive Plans in 1941

In my humble opinion this should be put in the same section as Erik Von Donniken, Atlantis and Duh face on Mars--Woogie10w 14:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism last straw

User:206.183.140.244

Vandalized Pyromania and used profanity and homophobic comments. As you seem to have warned him several months ago that one more would be his last chance, I would recommend blocking this user. :) Judgesurreal777 16:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the IP makes some good edits now and then, making me think it's a shared IP we should be carefull with blocking so we don't hurt innocent good contributors. And the recent vandalism seems to have stopped, so I think we should leave the IP unblocked for now. If vandalism resumes and doesn't respond to new warnings, a block is in order. Report it then on WP:AIV. Shanes 16:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kulan/Khulan

I think we should stick with Kulan because i think that was the name that Variable sited in the Genghis Khan talk page. I have no idea why the other user moved the page to Khulan, and he offered no explaination. Olorin28 03:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Hi, Shanes, if you can be kind enough to give a friendly warning to User:Zora for stating the following remarks, I`d appreciate it; things are getting a little heated and I think it might be a good idea to remind people to be civil to each other,

Zmmz is one of a posse of Iranian nationalist editors who have been extremely active lately...[6]
Just stay calm and give Dariush enough rope to hang himself.[7]. Thank youZmmz 03:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be nice?

I'm a Buddhist, I try to keep the precepts, and I try to be "nice". It's always OK to remind me to keep the precepts -- however, in this case, I'm not exactly clear what I'm supposed to have done wrong. No, you don't have to explain it :) I don't think you would want to get involved ... Zora 04:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, the evidence is above. I'd stand by both those remarks. Zora 04:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?

"Now, go and get lost. Death praiser. You illiterate mental. Your Cyrus the Great was nothing but an illiterate and murderer. But still he is long gone and forgoten. What is your excuse for being one.....? Your dad is a mercenary".

This is the translation of a comment User:Aucaman left here

For your information, Cyrus was the founder of then Persia, now Iran.

Do you think he is fit to 'contribute' to Iranian articles when he has a strong anti POV against Persians/Iranians?

Me and others have asked him to comment on this however he repeatedly archieved his talk page! --Kash 10:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that was a nice thing to say. He must have been very upset over something, and I bet he regret saying it. And if I were him, I would state that regretment. But I don't want to be dragged into this. Please. Shanes 13:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sov losses

I posted some thoughts, we need some feedback before anything is finalized. this will help prevent revert wars.--Woogie10w 13:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That will be the day. When anything on wikipedia is finalized ;-). But I understand, hope someone will give the requested feedback. Shanes 13:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SOv Article

I have posted comments on various pages to get some feedback. My strategy is to resolve any disputes before it gets posted next week. I am being yelled at to get off the computer and get ready to move somebody--Woogie10w 16:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WW

Thanks; I will stop using WW as a change item. Hmains 02:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWII links

Is there a master index page of all WWII related wiki links? Drogo Underburrow 14:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I believe the best you can do is to browse categories, like Category:World War II and its sub categories. But it will probably not catch all articles remotely related to the war. But what is or isn't a WWII related article isn't always easy to determine. Many articles link to the World War II article because they have a sentence about it in relation to that article's topic, but is not really a WWII related article per se. So clicking the "What links here" in the WW2 article, will probably give more than you want. Shanes 14:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are the category pages created by users the same as any other page, or are they automated somehow? Drogo Underburrow 15:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category pages are created the same way as new pages, by someone just starting it. But they then also usually continue by populating it with articles by appending the apropriate category link in the articles they want to be listed under the category. The article will then automatically be listed on that category page (i.e. you don't need to edit an existing category page to add articles to it). Wikipedia:Category has more on how to use categories. Shanes 15:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :-) Aha....I suspected there was an automated angle to it....thanks again. Drogo Underburrow 16:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the intro

Thanks for the introduction, mate Green Emperor 16:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: 216.162.25.9

You may want to block them again. For a lot longer. They're back and doing the same kind of edits. - Vedexent 16:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr yasirsiddiqui and Islam

I gave him a 3-revert warning. I'm not sure if you wanna go ahead and block him because right now it's more like 4-5 reverts, or if you want to wait and give him one more warning (if he does it again). --Buchanan-H e rmit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fix photo deletion?

Someone deleted the photo of the French soldier from the WWII page. Can it be recovered? Drogo Underburrow 09:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be put back if someone can tell where the image came from. It was deleted by an admin because it was lacking source, it just had a tag claiming it was a property of the French government and is in the Public Domain. It was User:Adam Faanes who uploaded it and he didn't set/fix the image description and state the source within the 7 days time limit we have for images. See User talk:Adam Faanes#Image_Tagging_Image:French_soldier_weeping_1940.jpg. It can very well be that the photo is in the publick domain and that we can use it, but when anything is unclear about these things we choose to err on the safe legal side and delete. We have to be carefull not to infringe on any copyrights, since it may get us in legal trouble. Shanes 12:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

The Online Encyclopedia Britannica: The prime sources for knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth are the four canonical Gospels in the New Testament.

Wikipedia: The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, generally dated after 65 AD/CE.

Is this plagiarism? If not, why not? Drogo Underburrow 05:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the issue of how to define plagiarism in specific cases to be a difficult and involved subject that I am not qualified to state much about with any degree of authority or confidence. But since you're asking me, I would not say that one of the two statements above is plagiarism of the other. They both say the same using many of the same words, but that's because it's what we believe to be true, and the words are the most common ones used to state that knowledge. I can imagine myself having written any of those two paragraphs from scratch without any source other than what I actually know and have learned myself many years ago. And I expect there are texts pre-dating Britannica that states the same using pretty much the same words. Shanes 05:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that someone has copied EB. Furthermore, looking up WWII in the EB, I find that the introduction to the WWII article in Wikipedia is copied from the EB article. Wikipedia says exactly what the EB article states, using similar though not identical words. Drogo Underburrow 06:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the EB article on WW2 (don't believe I have access to it), but I know from following that article for over a year that the intro has gone through extremely many revisions and versions with different wordings. You've even edited some of them yourself ;-). Here's my first edit to the WW2 article, and back then the intro looked quite different. If you have the time and energy to look into this further, you could try finding the version that made it look like the EB version. If there is plagiarism involved here, I'd expect there to be a version even more like EB than the current, and we could find out who did it, and maybe if the same user also coppied other EB articles. Shanes 06:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World War II - also called - Second World War - conflict that involved virtually every part of the world during the years 1939–45. The principal belligerents were the Axis powers—Germany, Italy, and Japan—and the Allies—France, Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and, to a lesser extent, China. The war was in many respects a continuation, after an uneasy 20-year hiatus, of the disputes left unsettled by World War I. The 40,000,000–50,000,000 deaths incurred in World War II make it the bloodiest conflict, as well as the largest war, in history.

Along with World War I, World War II was one of the great watersheds of 20th-century geopolitical history. It resulted in the extension of the Soviet Union's power to nations of eastern Europe, enabled a communist movement eventually to achieve power in China, and marked the decisive shift of power in the world away from the states of western Europe and toward the United States and the Soviet Union. - cut and pasted from the online EB

Yes, I myself have edited the intro; but in doing so, I mostly eliminated bad English that had been inserted, and re-wrote the sentences back into what was logical meaning. So, the Wikipedia version is still basically a paraphrasing of the EB version, though I didn't know that when I was editing it. Compare the two; they both say the same thing, in roughly the same order. Drogo Underburrow 07:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the decisive shift of power in the world away from the states of western Europe and toward the United States and the Soviet Union." - eb

There was a fundamental shift in power from Western Europe and the British Empire to the new superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, with significant boundary changes and displacement of people as the Soviet Union's borders shifted westwards. -wikipedia

Here we see that at one time the passages were the same, but later someone added to it. Drogo Underburrow 07:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're so mean.

"flags.net/old/WWII.htm" might have commercial links, but it's a very good reference for historians or vexillologists and those who are interested in flags. Moreover you threatened to block me who is not affiliated with "flags.net" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Che829 (talk • contribs)

Sorry that this has upset you so much, but there are an enormous amount of websites related to World War II and we only want a very limited number of links to sites expanding on important parts of the article or that are used as references. That your site also is commercial isn't helping either. In short, I don't think it belongs in the article. And neither did 3 other wikipedians who also removed it after you inserted it. And when you ignore this and engage in an edit war to have it included, inserting it 6 times in less than 3 hours, a warning about you breaking the 3 revert rule was appropriate. Shanes 16:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]