User talk:109.252.84.173

How Wikipedia works You seem to be a newcomer to Wikipedia. The rules are strict, we can't use Wikipedia to promote our POV, readers must be able to verify the information, articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. Break the rules and you will find that there are people here who will enforce them. --Woogie10w (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Also I checked Russian Wikipedia, they are not promoting the 42 million. They rejected the proposal to plug that in the introduction.Возражения были против размещения в преамбуле, как альтернативная теория, думаю, может и значимо для нас --Woogie10w (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

If we use logic the figure of 26.6 million war dead makes sense.

1-In 1991 Kozhurin detailed the Soviet population figures from 1939 to Jan 1941. The 1939 figure of 170.467 million is taken from the census. The figure includes civilians, military and civilians held by NKVD per ADK study. The figures in the Kozhurin article start with the 1939 population, adds 21.784 million for annexed territory and the natural increase in population from 1/1939 to 1/1941 - our total is 198.713 million. The figure on Iglev's website 199.920 million brings this up to 7/1941. Figure includes civilians, military and prisoners. In 1945 we have to reduce this by 1.3 million for the loss of Białystok and add Tana-Tuva

2-The 7/1945 GOSPLAN figure of 151.166 million is the civilian population as reported by local authorities in the USSR; the military total was 12.840 per Krivosheev; civilians abroad per Zmeskov 3.902 million; civilians held by NKVD per Zmeskov 4.100 million. Total population in mid 1945 172 million.

3-7/1941 population 199.2 million less loss of Białystok and add Tana-Tuva 198.6 million less the 7/1945 population 172 million equals 26.6 million.

это все--Woogie10w (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The internet is a scary place, yesterday a crew in Moscow tried but failed to hack my home computer. Make sure your connections are safe, regards--Woogie10w (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 01:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Arbitrary blocking for a normal discussion in the Talk Page should be lifted right away.  Don't like my arguments, produce your own. Detailed information is given below. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The helpme template is not the way to request and unblock. A block review has been correctly requested below.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I protest an arbitrary blocking
I have been blocked for 3 times for telling truth about The Soviet military losses in WWII. I have been blocked by user Coffee on December 24, 2017 for the so called Disruptive editing – persistent addition of unreliably sourced information to the article World War II casualties of the Soviet Union. This is the most false accusation I've ever heard as a pro editor with University diploma in history. In the first case Coffee and his friend Woogie10w would cancel my edits on the pretext of unreliability of The Demoscope Weekly demographic site of Russian demographers. I have objected, because by January 1, 2017 The Demoscope Weekly was cited for 4,200 times by the English and for 4,700 times by the Russian WPs. The two users intended to prove that thousands of users were wrong, but they both were the only persons right.

After expiration of the first blocking I added a well known statement by President Dmitry Medvedev of 2010 with reference to the biggest Russian magazine Vokroug Sveta: "We know nothing at all about at least six million perished in the WWII". This statement about the Ministry of Defense Archive has been broadcast by all central Russian TV channels. I've seen and listened to it myself. This addition of the then President of Russia's statement was also labeled by Woogie10w Disruptive editing – persistent addition of unreliably sourced information!

These illiterate users do not seem to know the difference between sources and estimates, although both categories are distinguished in the article World War II casualties of the Soviet Union and should not be mistaken. And these two guys pretend to regard the best Russian expert on military losses Igor Ivlev as an unreliably source. He is not a source as all his sources are Soviet books on military history and he has been cited for three times in the same article.

The second blocking of December 24 has nothing to do with the article at all. I have been blocked for a passage from the Russian Wiki I dared to add to the Talk Page of the same article.

Are those two users crazy or are they a pair of paid promoters of the Russian Pentagon's fraudulent myths about the WWII? In both cases they should be removed from administration of the English WP.

After expiration of the second blocking I was unable to add a single word in the Talk page. So I added three lines on losses of Communists and Komsomol members (about 47 per cent of the war time draft), as these were the key data to establish the total death toll of the Red Army after destruction of all personal records of soldiers and warrant officers in 1953. The Russian Pentagon does not want to disclose this death toll. We are not supposed to learn the price of our great VG and our Defense Ministry supposedly pays klemlebots in Russian and English WPs to block the truth on this tremendous price. These two guys do not deny their kremlebot nature. Let them register as foreign agents, but do not let them block the truth. I added a line on Communists' casualties. They were edited by Woogie10w. But a line on Komsomol members who have lost 63 per cent of the whole YCL draft has been one too many. I have been blocked for a month. Въ from Russia 109.252.84.173 (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - persistent addition of unreliably sourced information?

 * Dear gentlemen K.e.coffman and Woogie10w,
 * Russian demographic site Demoscope Weekly was cited by the English WP for 4 200 times by January 1, 2017. You seem to be the first editors who tend to view it as unreliable source.
 * 4 200 editors are wrong, but you two are right. Are you fooling around or are you working out fees for serving as watch dogs of fraudulent Russian generals? In both cases I don't want to cooperate with you any longer.
 * Keep fooling your reades yourselves without me,
 * Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

== Demographers found out that mortality of males in the rear was higher than on the battlefields ==

Demographers ADKh did not object the military losses data by General Krivosheev. However, the data of their Table 35 clearly put this number into doubt. Look

December 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 20:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Military Losses of Communists and Komsomol Members by Igor Ivlev in Demoscope No. 559560 of June 17—30, 2013
After complete destruction in 1953 of registration cards on the enlisted men and warrant officers at all military commissariats throughout the Soviet Union the Soviet military losses can only be estimated. Entirely preserved, however, are the records of Communists and Komsomol members. Both groups represented 47.26 percent of the total draft —  34,476,700 —  all ages of servicemen and all regions of the country. That is why, the Communists and Komsomol members remain the most representative part of the Armed Forces to assess all military losses in WWII.

Abbriviations: ЭВОВ —  Энциклопедия "Великая Отечественная война 1941-45 гг." (The Great Patriotic War of 1941—45 Encyclopedia), М.: Советская энциклопедия, 1985 г.; ИВОВ — "История Великой Отечественной войны Советского Союза 1941—1945 гг." (History of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union of 1941—1945), М.: Воениздат, 1961—65 гг.; СОВОВ — "Стратегический очерк Великой Отечественной войны 1941—1945 гг." (Strategic Essay of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945), М.: Воениздат, 1961. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Woogie10w, Vandalism Is not Good. Behave Yourself!
Upon discovering vandalism, revert such edits, using the undo function or an anti-vandalism tool.


 * That was not vandalism on Russian Wikipedia, your edit had been reversed previously by other editors on Russian Wikipedia. I agreeded with them that your posting was not acceptable on Wikipedia. Ivlev is not a reliable source.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Kindly stop demonstrating your illiteracy. Learn to distinguish between sources and estimates. As for your abusive revert, you probably want administrator intervention against vandalism. Kremlebots of all countries dismiss! Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I just checked Russian Wikipedia, they reverted your edit and restored mine. Also they protected the article. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Kremlebots of all countries dismiss! Image:Muttley-picture.gif---Woogie10w (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * У нас так, коль вы к нам зашли, а не я к вам:


 * Правила ВП требуют указывать при удалении текста причину в описании самой правки и обсуждать спорные удаления на странице обсуждения. Вы это сделали? Нет. Значит, википедийный вандал.


 * А кремлеботов и у нас хватает. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Amortias (T)(C) 23:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.


 * I am trying to understand the situation here. I see that you added several times material about the number of victims to the World War II casualties of the Soviet Union article. I also see that your addition was reverted several times by other editors who dispute its reliability. It is well known that in Wikipedia, you are not allowed to repeatedly add the same material (or same sources) to the article unless you reach wp:consensus with other users thru wp:discussion. This is regardless of the veracity of your addition. Can you, please, point me to the page where you reached such consensus?  Vanjagenije   (talk)  22:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I cannot unblock you. Even if you think you are right, you need to discuss edits rather than repeating them when they are reverted. Please see WP:BRD. You need to discuss the reliability of your sources. Clearly you do not understand this. Also, blaming others and hurling insults about will not serve as an unblock rationale. It just makes for an unpleasant work environment and makes you look unreasonable-- and disruptive. You might want to consider rereading WP:edit war and the guide to appealing blocks, as I don't see evidence here of your understanding them. Thanks. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus in the Russian history of the WWII. Independent historians and demographers cannot agree with the fraudulent generals and their show-offy researches. The military losses in the WWII is a field of a serious political struggle of democrats and those who admire Stalin's dictatorship and want its restoration. I wanted to post the Table without Ivlev's calculations. But some American users of WP are trying to help the second group. And how might be any consensus with those users, who always revert the TP as well upon each his loss? Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about consensus of demographers and generals, I am talking about a consensus of Wikipedia editors. You did not even try to reach consensus with other editors, so your argument that the consensus is "impossible" is flawed. Wikipedia has several wp:dispute resolution mechanisms, so it is always possible to settle content disputes calmly without wp:edit warring. You just need to try and show some good faith.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Igor Ivlev is covered in the article World War II casualties of the Soviet Union only because his arguments have been a topic of discussion in the Russian media. Ivlev lacks academic credentials as an historian and his calculations are considered without foundation by Mark Harrison of the Univ. of Warwick . On Russian Wikipedia Ivlev's arguments are considered unreliable and the article is protected so that unregistered editors cannot post to it. IP 109.252.84.173 turned the article into a battleground in order make it a soapbox to promote the fringe theories of Ivlev. To ice the cake IP 109.252.84.173 make a series of personal attacks on me. I have been on Wikipedia for 11 years and intend to stay here.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Now lets get it straight. After the 2nd arbitrary blocking I have posted this table on the TP with an offer.

Now You Have Good Opportunities to Discuss Sources and Estimates of this Table. Do not Mistake One for Onother, as in the Article: See Estimates and their sources
Abbriviations: ЭВОВ —  Энциклопедия "Великая Отечественная война 1941-45 гг." (The Great Patriotic War of 1941—45 Encyclopedia), М.: Советская энциклопедия, 1985 г.; ИВОВ — "История Великой Отечественной войны Советского Союза 1941—1945 гг." (History of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union of 1941—1945), М.: Воениздат, 1961—65 гг.; СОВОВ — "Стратегический очерк Великой Отечественной войны 1941—1945 гг." (Strategic Essay of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945), М.: Воениздат, 1961. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If you don't like Igor Ivlev delete his estimates and add 1,8 million to losses of both groups. Въ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

My opponents kept reverting this table without edit summary provided, but repeating like parrots: Igor Ivlev is an unreliable fringe source. If no edit summary is provided, the reverts are vandal by WP rules. One should explain reasons for his censorship. If one can produce no reasons, read the new post and enjoy. Mistaking estimates for sources is regarded as illiteracy by historians, me as well. In this table all sources are Soviet books with all figures verified and censored. They were only put together by Igor Ivlev. In both groups he only deleted those commissioned as disabled, because they left home. And in the Komsomol section he has also deleted servicemen over 28-year age limit not eligible to remain in the organization. I have advised my opponents to revert Ivlev's estimates only, but leave the Soviet sources intact. Isn't a compromise? It is. Never mind you enlarge this way the death toll by 1,8 million. The most important thing is to get rid of unreliable Ivlev, by the way the best expert on WWII losses in Russia.

And what do you think of this table youself?

Here Woogie10w is caught having boasted to a Russian Kremlebot on his TP for his vandal revert in the Russian article about WWII losses.

Привет, Сегодня я отменил Потери в Великой Отечественной войны. У нас та же проблема в английской Википедии. Извините, мой русский не всегда правильный--Woogie10w (обс.) 17:54, 6 января 2018 (UTC)

Tell me who is your friend... Bъ 109.252.84.173 (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)