User talk:Blablaaa

August 2010
Blablaa, should you decide to unretire, you may post an unblock request. The reviewing administrator should contact me before taking action, if possible. For any request to be successful, I think you would need to agree not to edit anything related to World War II, and you would have to provide a list of articles you'd like to begin editing and state how you think you could improve those articles. You may remain blocked, or you can take steps to get unblocked. The choice is yours. Jehochman Talk 13:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk page access restored
Hello Blablaaa. It seems that you've had a few accounts impersonating you, which led people to revoke your talk page and e-mail access. I have now discovered that these accounts were not operated by you. As such, I have restored your access to Special:Emailuser and your talk page. --Deskana (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * k thanks Blablaaa (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * and good timing btw :-) and i guess you misunderstood the edit which you presentet at arbcom. Or better i wrote it wrong Blablaaa (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Request
I still think there is a need for a scrunity regarding biased editing of several editors at wiki, including coordinators of MILHIST and admins who support this. Iam a bit puzzeled, is it really important if iam blocked or not ? I think its a serious issue. And i never putt any retired tags to my talk, somebody else did. Many hasty decisions were done. Maybe someone would be so kind to bring my opinion to the arbitration. Blablaaa (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Advancing conspiracy theories will not get you unblocked, and might get your talk page access rescinded if it degenerates to the point of attacking other editors. The problem is your editing style. Don't try to blame others for problems that are primarily your doing. Jehochman Talk 12:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said that i put emphasis on getting unblocked. Iam note sure but i guess i said more than one time that my conduct is not ok but evolved out of numerous discussion which were done with bad faith. My last try to improve WW2 articles is pointing on the bias editing. And the problems are not primaly my doing iam pretty sure you read the first chapters of the RFC but not the discussion page etc... Blablaaa (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * at jehochmann ive done pretty much edits at battle of kursk and added reliable figures to several eastern front articles.Blablaaa (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * and iam still puzzeled where the correlation between my contributions and biased editing of other is. Blablaaa (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment
Hello Blablaaa, I do realize you would rather edit here on this wiki where your contributions reach a much larger audience than on de:w. However I would like to remind and assure you that you would always be welcome to return to de:w should your position here become untenable due to the hostility shown to you by a certain section of the community on this project. I feel I can say with confidence that this is also the position of the military history community on de:w. Regards, --Prüm (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tag, at the moment iam pretty busy but i guess i will work again at the german wiki later. Thanks for your kindly request. Grüße Blablaaa (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Some more specific comments
These were some of the arguments I found you had with other editors since you began editing here. I really didn't check closely though. If there's more you would like to draw my attention to, or indeed if you would appreciate any help with currently ongoing arbitration efforts, please let me know. --Prüm (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess here you overdid it. I hope you can agree that such one-sided argument-pushing is very disruptive. My advice would be that you try (for the moment at least) to limit your contributions to the subjects you feel most comfortable with and knowledeable in and leave other interesting stuff for later.
 * in this and this case I fully concur with you. Bad sources such as those really shouldn't be used.
 * okBlablaaa (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration regarding MILHIST bias
Is it necessary to get unblocked, before somebody deals with the issue which was raised by me? In a quick overview i showed that 4 out of 5 featured article of an MILHIST editor have incorrect outcomes in the box all this mistakes favor "his" armed forces. I thought this should be enough to draw attention. We talk about featured articles. The talk page which was linked by me, was also expected to alert some neutral editors. Currently i'm a bit puzzeled, why is my status as editor important for this case? Can somebody who is more fimiliar with the rules, answer these questions please. If i have to fill a unblock request to bring an investigation on the way then i will do so. If the community decides that there is no issue and iam wrong then i will accept this. So would finally somebody be so kind and take some minutes to check my "accusations"? I hope for some clarification Blablaaa (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to Carcharoth: I consider this no content dispute. Its not about being right or wrong regarding content, its about systematic bias. Admins and coordinators misuse sources and do selective quoting and so on. Featured article became bias article due to selective editing of some user. In a quick overview i have shown a MILHIST coordinator doing blatant selective quoting, some words were ripped out of a sentence to support his POV. He is still coordinator, no warning for him. Nobody told him that he violates wiki rules. Users make jokes about this "cabal". But its meats the creteria for bein some kind of cabal. If MILHIST editors who support the standart POV engage in WP:OR selective quoting for example, nobody cares. Iam still hoping that somebody is taking some minutes to check my arguments. Blablaaa (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition: While i admit that my conduct was not optimal, i generally assume that the real problem were my points. If you tell a biased editor that he edits bias and you give him evidence, what should he do ? He denies... He distracts.... . Thats what iam talking about, the MILHIST supports each other, nobody wants to accuse a "friend" of violating the rules. Not sure how much MILHIST admins said iam wrong regarding the misuse of sources, but after i went to neutral admins all involved neutral editors supported me. Finally i was correct but every involved MILHIST editor denied. They back each other up. MILHIST Admins denied violation of wiki rules, neutral admins showed clearly that they were wrong. Nothing happened... No apologize, no discussion about solving the underlying issue. Your suggestion to improve this via military boards was considered before by me and i tried but it failed. Even the most obvious misuse of source was tolerated until neutral admins intervened. Blablaaa (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Blablaa, I can see how there could be more than one view of the outcome of a battle, as a battle can have more than one objective. If it had say three objectives - rescue Maid Marian from the castle, kill the Sherriff and stop Guy of Gisborne getting away with the treasure, but only succeeds in one (Marian is rescued) then this would probably be portrayed as a victory in a film starring Kevin Costner. If the Sherrif and Gisborne are killed and the treasure recaptured, but Marian has been sold to white slavers and is now on her way to the Barbary Coast, then that's a failure, even though Robin Hood now has (a) no enemies and (b) the means to buy Marian back if he can find her.

Real battles are more complicated, and can have complex interlocked objectives, or even opposing objectives, so it is possible for there to be multiple views on how successful or otherwise an action was. Is holding up the enemy for only two days, but escaping with light casualties, 'better' than holding up the enemy for four days while losing 50% of one's strength. Is it enough to have contained that tank unit, without being able to destroy them? And so on.

But, if you want to make a case that a pro-Allied or pro-British or anti-German view is being presented systematically, you must provide diffs. List some examples here on your talkpage, and let others have a look at them now.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * the outcomes of the battles are written in nearly every book, there is no doubt about this. I ask why the user forgets to include this, he includes all scales of warfare which were "won" by allied but forgots to add the failures. Thats no content dispute thats selective editing. Nobody claims operation perch was not a british failure, but the user added "inconclusive" without any citiation. Epsom the same, here he forgots to include the operational scale. Brevity the same. This is no content dispute. A user puts wrong outcomes to featured articles. Blablaaa (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * it would be appreciated if user jehochmann gives an opinion regarding the 4 featured article and jutlant talk instead of claiming i presented nothing. If my points are unsubstantial then show, it must be pretty easy. So user jehochmann would it be possible for you to give a definite and especially mandatory comment? I guess not... Blablaaa (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read Unterseeboot 853 and let me know if that's a fair article or not. Jehochman Talk 14:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your question implies you missed the point. A article regarding an uboot is hard to bias because their are less aspects which are open to interpretation. Its an article which simply lists hard facts. Or maybe your question is kinda joke, then i ask myself why you not took the time to refute my claims. If my claims are hilarious you should be able to refute them pretty fast. With regards... Blablaaa (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote most of this article and am quite familiar with it, and at the same time, am quite confident that the sourcing and neutrality are pretty good. (It is a good article.)  My point in asking is to see whether you'll acknowledge that I am competent to evaluate content for compliance with Wikipedia policies.  If you agree I am competent, all you need to do is point me to the articles, sections and diffs, or discussions, where you think somebody has been damaging Wikipedia.  I will surely take great interest in any such thing, if it is happening. Jehochman Talk 14:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Be so kind and give your opinion to the outcomes of the featured articles.Operation Perch Operation Epsom Operation BrevityBlablaaa (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * and [] the whole discussion is joke. People defend their desired outcome and do selective quoting ( parsecyboy(MILHIST coordinator at 02:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC) ) and OR. Blablaaa (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't planning on becoming involved with this discussion, but because my name was brought up, I'll make a comment. The "selective quoting" Blablaaa refers to can be found here; I omitted "or partial victories" as irrelevant, since Tarrant ascribed a partial victory to neither Great Britain or Germany. Moreover, the thrust of Tarrant's statement was that the battle was inconclusive, not "it was inconclusive strategically but tactically a German victory," the meaning Blablaaa has foisted upon the quotation (specifically here, where Blablaa states "it only says both failed to cripple the the ofter but its doesnt say it was inconclusive, both had failed but still germany hat the tactical edge"). Parsecboy (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You took a statement of an historian and cut exactly 3 words out of the sentence. Exact the words which make the statement not fully supporting you. What you did is the very defintion of selective quoting. Instead of admiting this you now try to explain why you replaced three words with "..." . Generic.Blablaaa (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I cut out three words that were irrelevant to Tarrant's point, which is that the battle was tactically inconclusive. He does not explain what he means by "partial victory", and it is not within our powers to assume he what he means. The excised words do not contradict what I said he meant, and they certainly don't support what you claim. An example of selective quoting would have been if I had redacted something along the lines of "though it was a tactical German victory." I did no such thing, and I'll not stand for you to continue to paint it as though I had. Parsecboy (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

lol tarrant says the battle belongs to the series of inconclusive battles or partial victories... and you cut out "or partial victories". Seriously.... 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain to me where Tarrant says it was a German tactical victory? Until you can provide me with a quotation, your interpretation of the line I quoted is patently false. If you want to speak of misrepresenting sources, I'd suggest you look in the mirror before you start pointing fingers. Parsecboy (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont claim he meant something. I never used tarrain to cite something . YOU used him to cite inconclusive. I said he said this battle belongs to a series of battle which were inconclusive or partial victories. While you claim it was "inconclusive" you deliberatly cut "partial victory" out of his statements. Sorry but even with maximum AGF i dont see another reason for doing this than selective quoting. And iam very sure if a neutral admin investigates this he comes to the same conclusion, thats why i think further discussion between us is not helping. here a comment of an neutral user [] Blablaaa (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First, please do not edit my comments. I cut "partial victory" because he did not say who won the alleged partial victory, nor that it even was one. The point of Tarrant's statement was that the battle was tactically inconclusive. I understand English is not your primary language, but if you cannot understand the intricacies of the language, then you need to remain on de.wiki until you have a firmer grasp. Parsecboy (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If I can chime in here, why are you so intent on proving that Jutland was a tactical German victory that you insert no less than 22 (!) references in the infobox, some of which are far from the best sources on the subject, to support your claims? Issues open to interpretation such as this one should be thoroughly discussed in the appropriate chapters of the article, an infobox is definitely the wrong place. --Prüm (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted to avoid that people say this is only one source, i had a brief talk at the discussion page and saw the "attitude" so i thought 1 2 or 3 sources are not enough. My assumption was correct not even 90 sources were enough to change the outcome..... Blablaaa (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So you checked all the books you could find there was not a single contradicting view? --Prüm (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The ratio of gtv/ti is 5+/1. Fact is "tactical inconclusive" is the worst possible choise for the box. Blablaaa (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to concentrate on the most relevant sources. What do they say? As for the question tactical victory or not I offer you 2 facts: 1) The Germans were chased back into their ports, having failed in their objective to inflict a crippling blow on the British. Usually this is taken to imply that they lost the battle, operationally. (I am of the opinion that there can be no "tactical victories", what's that supposed to mean anyways?) 2) The ships sunk and manpower losses sustained cannot be the the only factor for evaluating this battle. It is natural that ship explosions lead to unusually high casualty numbers. The damages suffered by the HSF were very severe, so much so that it had strategic effects, it couldn't operate for a year or two. --Prüm (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

i dont present my opinion regarding the outcome.Blablaaa (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a very wise thing to do. But you must prove that the opinions of 90 or so authors you present reflect the overwhelming expert opinion on the subject if you want to claim it in the article. Unless you can do that you should respect the judgement of other more experienced editors. --Prüm (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The box has to reflect the common view of reliable secondary sources. If you can find such amount of sources which claim something different then it dont belongs to the box. Even if "tactical inconclusive" would be more common ( its not! ) it would be inapt for the box. "Disputed" or whatever would be better. I also stepped back from "german tactical victory" while it is the most present view. Some suggestion for simple facts in the box were made but all not accepted by this editors. I want to highlight that the "more experienced users" presented 1 source which not even claimed what they want. And while talking about this source some words were cut out of the statement.  Blablaaa (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, it's not a "tactical victory" because some ships exploded. That's basically human/procedural error. "Tactical victory" implies a victory due to superior tactics (evidently not the case), or one achieved at the tactical level. How do you explain then that it ended in German withdrawal and British pursuit? Losing ships is one thing but gaining "the edge", as you call it, is certainly the other. I'm not saying all these authors are wrong, but I guess they can not really be considered "experts" or they simply use the wrong terms. --Prüm (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Prüm, you are exactly right. The general consensus amongst historians of the battle is that in terms of tactics Hipper inflicted serious damage on Beatty and that Jellicoe badly outmaneuvered Scheer in the main fleet action. Most of the sources provided by Blablaaa are expert sources, while most experts, like Tarrant and Marder, agree that it was tactically inconclusive. Parsecboy (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

historians decide what the outcome of jutland was. And most historian say indeed is was a tactical victory because of twice the BRT loss. So its high likly that the problems is somewhere else. IF they think this makes a tactical victory then we display this. Blablaaa (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * can you give the quote where tarrants said this please. Blablaaa (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * i do it for you From the tactical point of view, since neither fleet was able to inflict a crippling blow on the other, Jutland belongs to the series of inconclusive battles or partial victories which are the rule in naval warfare., this is the quote which allows you to ignore dozen of other sources? Blablaaa (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Prüm, I think a lot of the confusion here has to do with the fact that tactical victory is particular jargon with one definition of "a victory where the losses of the defeated outweigh those of the victor". Regardless of whether the Battle of Jutland was tactically inconclusive or a tactical victory for Germany, I find it difficult to imagine that our Battle of Jutland could omit the fact that at least 90 sources, including people such as Winston Churchill and widely-read sources such as encyclopedias (e.g.,number 3 "World War I: encyclopedia. M - R, Volume 3:"Over the German claim to tactical victory there can be little disagreement") call it a tactical victory for the Germans. Blablaa seems correct in that if a bunch of sources - including many tertiary sources which in general reflect the general viewpoint - say it was a tactical victory for Germans while a few others (perhaps more specialized in the area) call it tactically inconclusive, settling on tactically inconclusive does not seem proper. If nothing else it inserts the simplified impression into the reader's mind when the reader should be informed of the general perspective. II  | (t - c) 02:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * always a pleasure to read your posts. Blablaaa (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ImperfectlyInformed, I see your point, but as I said, issues such as this one can discussed in detail, or if you prefer ad nauseam, in the appropriate chapters, while the infobox should stick to the most cautious/neutral estimation of the outcome. Btw., I believe tertiary sources are a bad choice to base one's conclusions on. And even if Churchill says so it doesn't mean he's right. --Prüm (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

break
I will not comb through a large volume of material to try to find what you might be concerned about. Please point out your best example(s) of bias and I will look at those. Which article is most inaccurate? Which section, which comments and which editors? I've skimmed Operation Perch and it's FAC. Nothing jumps out at me as being wrong. What there concerns you? Jehochman Talk 15:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Ähm i said this before. The 3 featured article had all wrong/incomplete outcomes in the infobox, the 4th misinterpreted a source in the infobox. No content dispute at all, the outcomes are clear but were "forgotten". I thought incorrect outcome in 4out of5 articles is good for at least drawing attention. But its not all. But iam short of time so i have no intention to dig around and write "essays" if nobody takes a look. So it would be awesome could give a clear statement regarding the outcomes. Blablaaa (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * [] here he adds inconclusive, without citiation. The battle is a british failure thats the common view. No content dispute here. Same applies for his other featured articles aswell. The casualties section is also highly selective and misleading and some numbers which i checked doesnt fit with the sources. I asked him for clarification and exact quotes but he didnt respond. The article claims 12 SS casualties as representive but forgets to mention that during perch the canadians also attacked the same german units which are listed in perch. The 12 SS for example was mainly engage against canadians, but no mention of this. Then british units are "forgotten" in the casualties section while german units are given which had their main engagements elsewhere. Candians who suffered "heavy" casualties during perch timeframe are no mentioned... . The problem with all these stuff is that knowledge about this topic is needed to understand the problem. Thats why i gave the outcomes as first example, there is no need to be a normandy expert to understant that 3 wrong out comes are more than "mistakes" Blablaaa (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see wrongdoing by others, but I see very difficult communications with you, and an unhelpful approach. Jehochman Talk 18:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * you dont see a problem with wrong outcomes? can you clarify ? I pointed on wrong outcomes. You think wrong outcomes are ok or do you think the outcomes arent incorrect. Blablaaa (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Blablaaa, please moderate your tone. The issue at hand as I see it, is not the factual accuracy of your contributions or the perceived bias of MILHIST, but your manner of integrating into the community and your approach when engaging in discussions. Remember that other editors are often more experienced than you both in historical matters and in editing the Wikipedia and don't always try to outwit them. It's not gonna work. --Prüm (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So you wont comment on the outcomes? Blablaaa (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I spoke about that before elsewhere, as you know, and see no need to repeat it here as that is not the issue. The problem is, quite simpy, that you can't work here, whether it concerns improving battle boxes or writing articles, as long as your activities continue to lead to blocks. Think hard on the reasons for your repeated blocks, and develop an understanding of why some editors here are none too pleased with some of your argument style, rashness and accusations of bad faith. --Prüm (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

lol i thought you were user jehochman. Missverständiss... :-)Blablaaa (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Summary of this discussion posted on the Request for Arbitration
Per an Arbitrator's request, I have posted a summary on the Request for Arbitration. Please let me know if it is incomplete or does not accurately represent the views expressed. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on behavior
Hi, I was/am writing up a bit of a defense of you at the ArbCom case, but I was wondering - do you think you could quit all these bias and lying attacks? You can say people are wrong, or that people are refusing to abide by policy, but if you do you should word it as nicely as possible. If you're not going to play nice, I don't think you've got much of a chance. This place has enough problems with name-calling and emotional reactions, and it's really counterproductive to your efforts to contribute to these problems. II | (t - c) 03:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * yesBlablaaa (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not convincing. You've been disruptive for a long time. You're not going to go back into the same areas and resume what you were doing. Mistakes have consequences.  Jehochman Talk 11:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi jehochmann can you give a comment to the outcomes of the featured articles? Blablaaa (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perusing them, nothing jumps off the pages as a shocking violation of Wikipedia norms. Jehochman Talk 13:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont know if it jumps off the pages or not for you. I gave very specific examples. The outcomes in the infoboxes. They are wrong. Or they were wrong until i changed them. I also dont know what you consider a "shocking violation of Wikipedia norms". If a user puts in 80% of his articles wrong/incorrect outcomes then i considere this bad for aims of wiki. I guess, i have to ask more specific. I showed to you that he put a wrong outcome to the Perch box and showed that he forgot to put the correct outcome to the Epsom box. I showed wrong outcome in Brevity Box. I showed that he mishandled a source in the charnwood outcome. All featured articles. You see no problem with this?Blablaaa (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * People make errors all the time. If you politely point out an error, and show a source that evidences your position, the other editor may agree with you. Jehochman Talk 14:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pointing on these "errors" brought long discussion but no improvement at all. In most cases the final reply to me was "drop the stick" in other instance neutral admins were neccessary to change the "error". If editors are not willing to admit errors then this becomes problematic for wiki, doesnt it? The editors follow this discussion here but they dont change the "errors", they wait until somebody else does. For me this indicates a limited readiness to change "errors". Furthermore, 80% is pretty high for errors in my opinion. Blablaaa (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Complicated issue.....Blablaaa (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Imperfect, still watching ? Jehochmann maybe you take a look at the charnwood page. User enigma listed some sources because he is not satisfied with the outcome the only 2 books which i have are the books of  reynolds ( he list as point 7 ) . he quotes the book. but immediatly after this sentence reynolds explains that meyer was wrong ^^ . he only quoted meyer and then said he is wrong. Enigma now quoted reynolds as "supporting" meyers statement which is simply wrong... Blablaaa (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * AND while he quotes every source which says something about hgih german losses ( which were actually far lower ) he forgots to mention reynolds who calls the allied losses "alarming/horrific". And also does reynolds say they only captured northern cean. So, he quoted reynolds but ripped the statement out of context and then does not use reynolds real opinion about the battle. I want to highlight that i only have these 2 books iam not able to check the rest. Blablaaa (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Am totally aware of all this talk and you will also note that you yourself stated you would be happy for any change to the result of the article; here we have 20 odd sources that claim the outcome was more than a limited success and you are complaining and making unfounded claims. To further note since the change was made by yourself that ignored half the third party views on the matter the discussion as been ongoing - my edit yesterday was something i have promised to do for quite some time so was not just out of the blue by me, several users are looking into the matter.


 * Just to note, nowhere on the following page and half after that quote does Reynolds state anything to the contrary of that statement. He then concludes the chapter with various other opinions from 12th SS personnel. I should also note i have asked you once before, and you refused to provide the information of were Reynolds states to the contrary how the 12th SS was fearing i.e. afterwhich you just decided not to respond to that comment; am still waiting.


 * I have also not ripped the statement out of context, as it is the first thing written by Reynolds for the subchapter "9 July - The withdrawal". The rest of the paragraph goes into further detail on the efforts of the division to pull back calling the withdrawal a “nightmare”, describing one of the battalions as acting if they were a “breakwater against a tidal wave” etc. He then moves on to note how positions were “abandoned” and resistance was “spasmodic”. He mentions high allied casualties only as “appauling” but then notes that it was “hardly surprising” due to poor tactics (already covered in the article). You attempt to further discredit myself is laughable, yes Reynolds states they "only" captured northern Caen yet states at the beginning of the chapter that the operation was to capture the city up to the Orne. He notes that they were also to secure bridgeheasd across the river and during the chapter notes how the bridges were blown, blocked and were defended making that part essentially impossible to carry out.


 * So please, try harder to discredit the information.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Your standart tactic you did something wrong and you respond with a very long text which doesnt deal with this. you qouted reynolds how he quotes meyer but with the next word he says clearly that meyer was wrong, you implyed reynolds supports meyer. Furthermore you did not use reynolds real opinion about charnwood who calls the casualties of allied horrific and how the allied only caputred the north of caen. Thats the definition of selective quoting. And now you explain this with ripping other statements out of context. I ask you one direct question what i have done so often and you always choose to not answer. Is it selectiv quoting when you quote a historian but in the next sentence he denied what was written before? And by the way i dont see that the sources claim the battle was more they claim northern cean was captured but bridgeheads were also to be caputred, i guess many of the books also say something about this, but you "forgot" to mention, the same way you forgot to mention reynolds opinion while you ripped his comment out of context. You also misuse beevor. Blablaaa (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Pathetic; once again you have refused to tackle the issue, have engaged in further personal attacks, nor provided evidence to support you or your accusations. The only benefit here is at least the people watching your talkpage have further proof of your editing style and attitute. This is the final reply needed on the issue by myself, unless one of the others here request further comment; i shall contuine with productive editing with the spare time i have than engage in further usless back and forth with yourself.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the proof i wanted to say the same to you. I provided no evidence? I showed clearly that you misused Reynolds. I have his book in front of me. You quoted him supporting meyer, but he denied meyers opinion, Furthermore he has a "pretty negativ opinion" about charnwoods outcome which you forgot to mention, i think this fulfills the creteria of selective editing aswell. Btw it is sad that i have limited access to you sources, i have only one of your historians and this was heavily misued by you, i cant check the others, thats pretty sad... Blablaaa (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Should i upload the bookpage of Reynolds to support my laughable claim ? Blablaaa (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw i also saw what you did on Operation Market Garden. Combining two figures... . Why you not choose reynolds for casaulties ?

and btw i already told you where reynolds calls perch a failure. Many times while you dodged my question why you took wrong casualties numbers for the german. You dodged about 5 questions on the talk page. Thats always the same if an answer would reveal a mistake you simply ignore the question... Blablaaa (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry if you feel like I abandoned you. I had an ArbCom comment written up but I didn't end up posting it. While I think you're a decent editor, you have some issues with presenting your information succinctly without getting off-track and most importantly in civility and not treating people disrespectfully. I don't care about military articles so I don't have to deal with you, and since you've managed to piss off everyone over at WP:MILHIST, I would feel guilty if I'd managed to get you unblocked as they would have then had to spend so much more time debating you. Also, your responses on this talk page suggest that you're not really getting more diplomatic. I drop things where I know I'm right, because if it's just myself and another person debating (ardently), it's hard to 'win'. It's just something you have to accept and move on with in Wikipedia sometimes, and maybe revive it when there's fresh eyes interested in reworking the article and you've crafted a succinct and careful argument. II  | (t - c) 02:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * its ok. I think it would have made no difference at all. iam ready to join this discussion when other raise the point again. Manipulating of sources by enigma and so on is archived i can wait. Thanks for your help anyways. But iam still puzzeld about this [] .... Blablaaa (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock
Can somebody tell me if it is necessary to get unblocked before i can make a case at the arbitration committe? Is it possible to make this via email or something else? Can a clerk or somebody who is fimiliar with the rules answer these questions? With regards Blablaaa (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think you can restrain yourself and agree only to edit on the case pages I am willing to unblock (to clarify, I am a clerk). If you edit anywhere else, or exceed the normal boundaries for editing that we expect on arbitration pages (I'm thinking mainly of civility here), you'll be reblocked. It's evening for me, by the way, so unless someone else does it I'll respond tomorrow morning my time. Dougweller (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree, pending acceptance by Blablaaa that they are only to edit pages related to the arbitration case. Jehochman Talk 20:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks.


 * Please explicitly accept these restrictions. Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Right now you can get unblocked by posting any sort of reasonable request, as specified here.  Any administrator acting on their own common sense may unblock you.  On the other hand, you can also go to arbitration.  Do you think you're going to prevail against a sitting arbitrator who is intimately familiar with arbitration procedures, and has an excellent reputation as an editor?  Most likely if you go that route you'll end up being banned for a year, and no administrator will be able to undo that. (Only ArbCom can undo their own sanctions, and they are slow and bureaucratic.)  From what's been presented thus far, I have not seen any evidence of a case against any editors besides you.  Instead of pursuing arbitration, you should work on improving your communication skills, and getting along better with other editors.  Then you'll have a much nicer experience here. Jehochman Talk 21:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * if i get unblocked, whats next? the problem is still there. Iam confident that if a committe takes time to check my accusations they will support me. What you call "errors" do i call system. I guess thats the tiny difference. Look above i showed another example of blatant selective quoting. Eventually somebody, who takes some minutes and listens to me in kinda instant conversation without two days delays between posts, will see the problem. Iam also not willing to ask for getting unblocked because this implys everything i claimed was wrong. Blablaaa (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * do you want a scan out of the book ?Blablaaa (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Non-academics often run into trouble in history because of a tendency to cherry pick facts or passages that tend to support their world view.  If multiple other, reliable editors criticize your historiography, you ought to consider that they might be correct and you might be wrong. Every history editor who gets banned claims systematic bias and makes the same style arguments you're making now.   Offering book scans is a big sign of trouble. Jehochman Talk 00:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked you if you want to see a blatant selective quoting and you deny. If you followed the trouble you would recognize that iam the editor who simple says follow the rules and cite properly and stop selective quoting. You not even checked the situation.... . Your entire post indicates that you really not read any of the discussions. Thats sad but considering the length of them its maybe reasonable. I hope others will do. I assume you tried to help so thanks anyway. And i dont make "same style arguments" like others i presented you some stuff you simply assumed this were only errors. I make accusations and prove them. You seriously claim 4 out of 5 outcomes wrong are simple errors ?... Blablaaa (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "offering books scan is a big sign of trouble" Why ? Because this are undisputable hard facts? Enigma can claim what he wants after i showed clearly that he misused reynolds. I guess copyright is no problem... Blablaaa (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

i dont want to soapbox but when i read this of you "if multiple other, reliable editors criticize your historiography". Then ARGH. If you had followed any discussion you would know that iam the only one who is not "fighting" for his "histography". I simply point on violation of wiki rules. What you do is summarizing the baseless accusations against me and not the real situation.... Blablaaa (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * people misuse sources ( per aniboard) to cite there desired outcome then they ignore decision of ani board and add their desired outcome again and admins again say thats not good then they do a wall of OR and finally arive at selective quoting and misusing of sources again. And my only point is telling them to follow wiki rules and you tell me what you have said above...... Blablaaa (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Blablaaa,
 * I consider Jehochman's suggestions quite reasonable. "It' not very healthy, to beat one's head against a brick wall. I've read some of your contributions about a WW1 sea battle, where the Germans sunk notable more British ships than own losts, but less than the rate between British and German warships, so that the ratio changed in British favour and the British predominace became then non-ambiguous. You wrote it was a strategic British victory but a tactical German victory, considering the number of sunk ships. No idea, what the exact definition for a tactical victory is and whether you are right or not, but getting unblocked, I would consider as a tactical victory and advice you to take Jehochman's sentences serious. --78.43.107.66 (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems to reflect the problem with a lot of Blablaaa's edits. One of the reasons Germany lost WWII was because the Allies could afford to lose men and materials at a far higher rate.  So even if twice as many Allied soldiers/tanks etc were lost in a battle in 1944, or if only half the objective was achieved, it was still a lose for the German side, because of the actual losses of men and machinery. If you push one pushes Blablaa's method of accounting too far, it looks like the Germans never lost a battle, whereas it's a matter of history that at the end they were down to their last in most resources and couldn't have gone on.  Blablaa should discuss the subtleties of casualty figures in the body of the text, which is where it belongs, not edit war things into infoboxen. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you push ...
 * Hmm, really fascinating, what you've read from my posting above. I'm no party in these disputes. But it seems better, especially in a dispute, not to read something into something. --78.43.107.66 (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If one pushes..... Wasn't intending to refer to you, other than that you cited something to do with losses (in respect of Blablaa's tactics), and a lot of Blablaa's disputes hinge on the interpretation of losses (in battles in WWII). I have changed the text accordingly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you follow my edits of the last months you will see that i generally didnt push anything. I said follow the guidelines and pointed on weird editing decisions. Further investigation will show you that especially on normandy iam the editor without any "aim" regarding content. Even on Jutland i finally took the position that after considering the sources the article now is not ok. I steped back from my position and was open to compromise. On normandy you will see that i never say "this must be the content". You will also notice that i never misused any source if you look eastern frontBlablaaa (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

take a look at the charnwood page you will find an editor who wants a battle to be a tactical victory while no historian claims this, to accomplish this he only quotes what he likes and forgots to mention that the allied achieved not all objectives. Follow the charnwood talk the final decision will be "tactical allied victory" iam interessed which book they will cite for this Blablaaa (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Language issue. I did not mean that you were pushing anything.  What I said (both times) was that if a theoretical observer took your stance to its logical conclusion, it would seem as if the Germans never lost a battle, because the Allies nearly always took higher casualties. Also, the Allies quite often didn't achieve all their objectives on the first go.  These things should be discussed in the body of the lemma - whether those higher casualties/greater write down of equipment, meant that the next offensive was slowed, whether the delay allowed the Germans to regroup, etc etc.  What you cannot do is put alternative outcomes in the summary/infobox, which is what I had seen you edit warring over.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that every battle with higher allied casualties can be considered a german tactical victory. I did not claim anything like this. Iam not sure what you mean with edit warring but it must be jutland were i did not edit warring but i changed the outcome. I presented sources at the jutland talk, the amount of sources which i presented indicate that the recent version of the article is not acceptable.

jehochman you also should take a look here i striked it to be kindly but its not needed [], follow the link its very interessted.
 * @ clerk or arbcom i accept the deal and will not edit talkpages or articles Blablaaa (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

prokhorovka
can someone revert dapis vandalism? he deleted a recent historin who wrote a chapter especially about this battle and replaced it with a historian whi is known for bad books about warfare related topics. Blablaaa (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I presume that you're talking about this series of edits. Without commenting on the content of the changes, Richard Overy is hardly "known for bad books about warfare related topics" - he's actually a widely published and generally well regarded military historian who is currently employed by the University of Exeter and has won at least one prestigious award for his work as a military historian. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Referring to legitimate editors' valid edits as "vandalism" isn't going to do you any favors, Blablaaa. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Overys book is no well regarded book when it comes to analysis of battles please check the facts. Overys book is prooven to puplish the prokhorovka myth. And now user dapi brought the prokhrovkamyth back to wiki for this he deleted the most recent research regarding this battle, and while he did this he called my edit vandalism. Overy is NO expert for warfare. His books about battles are bad everyone knows this... . And user dapi knows this and bringing and unreliable book back to an article and deleting reliable books is indeed vandalism. Blablaaa (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Frieser and Glantz, both served in armed forces, are experts for battles and warfare. Overy simply not especially when everybody knows that his book is full of unchecked myths. His reaserch is flawed. When we have military experts writting analysis about this than we dont cite one book which deals with the entire war. Everybody knows this but since the editor has the correct "opinion" this bad editing is tolerated. Deleting experts and replacing them with old books which deal with this battle in 2 sentences. And if the book included an already debunked myth, even better.Blablaaa (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And parsey that you call deleting the most recent source about something and replacing it with a prooven wrong book and using the edit summary to call the old edits vandalism a valid edit is pretty interesting. I skimmed through overys publications, like assumed before none of his books deals primarily with warfare this men is expert for the economics behind war and the strategic scale and diplomacy. I see no single work dealing with battles thats why he is simply no expert for this. Even if he would be, his book is prooven wrong and disputed by nearly all recent academics. His book has no place in the prokhrovka article but for the MILHIST its ok. Even more for my case Blablaaa (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And nick if you would follow your own link you would see mister Overy's preferred fields. Like i said........ . Sorry for spam Blablaaa (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Blablaaa, please read this. Dapi is not vandalizing the article. He might be substituting a source you find to be unreliable, but that's a content dispute, not vandalism. Parsecboy (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

user dapi is aware of the fact that this source is absolutly unreliable for this battle nevertheless he puts this source in the article and deletes valuable informations of well regarded recent experts. This is no content dispute this is disruptive. What he does is damaging the aim of wiki to present reliable good data. Same way he faked source previoulsy to vandalize articles [] Blablaaa (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the first sentence of the vadalism page "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" . If you understand that dapi knows exactly that overy describes the prkhorovka myth you will see that this is vandalism. It is no content disputeBlablaaa (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Case
Hi Blablaaa. I wanted to let you know that I closed the Arbitration Case against you as "superseded by events and therefore declined". I'm not sure if you saw Newyorkbrad's post though, so I'm going to link to and quote it here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=379789181#Conclusion Should Blablaaa later make a request for unblock that is successful, the request for arbitration may be renewed. Should Blablaaa later make an unambiguous request for unblock that is unsuccessful, his remedy is an appeal to the banned user appeals subcommittee]. NYB's comment on the ban user appeals subcommittee refers to WP:ARBCOM. NW ( Talk ) 20:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi iam a bit confused. What is neccessary to open a case regarding the systematic bias of some MILHIST members. Do i have to write an email to some clerk or something else. Is it neccessary that somebody else before the case looks the stuff to decide if it is worth a case? In short, where do i have to present the evidence? with regards Blablaaa (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish to open a case against the systematic bias of a number of MILHIST members, you must first be unblocked. To do so, you must either use the unblock template or appear to BASC (linked above). Also, may I ask if you intended to retire or not? NW ( Talk ) 03:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That i cant raise a case while iam blocked is a pity. I guess an unblock request would be difficult because i have to "proove" the systematic bias first to reestablish my "reputation". Regarding retiring i dont see this so strict, i dont plan do make bigger edits but nevertheless i would appreciate to be able to do vandalismpatrol on some articles. I would call it semiretireBlablaaa (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

charnwood
nice how enigma forgots to mention all the historian saying allied suffered much more casualites. Also forgets to mention the historians which claim allied casualties were appaling. Also forgeting to mention the historians which call the battle a hollow victory and that without bridgeheads the achievement was little. Thats how it is done if you dont want to present information but your POV. Then you "forget" to mention the sources which dont confirm your POv. Also highlighting the MILHIST admin eyeseren who doubt max hasting who is far more known than most of the other historians and more recent. While hes claiming hastings descibes another battle ( actually this means he thinks hastings is wrong ) he forgots that reynolds says the same and i guess much more as well. Eventually enigma will achieve his desired outcome. who will oppose? Again highlighting that he forgot to mention reynolds real opinion about charnwood while he quoted everything whats suits him. While quoting about german heavy casualties he forgets giving the quotes about allied casualties.Blablaaa (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * and the third editor calls Hastings : "Hitler Hastings". Blablaaa (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Battle of Orsha (1943-1944) for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Battle of Orsha (1943-1944), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Battle of Orsha (1943-1944) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Jujutacular  talk 04:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * currently iam blocked, so i cant take part in the deletion discussion. This battle is relevant. All informations regarding this battle are out "Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Vol 8." . Numbers are also out of this book. In my opinion there is no doubt about the relevanz of this battle. The scope alone; several hundred thousand soldiers took part. But there is an issue with lemma, this period of eastern front especially around Orsha is bad researched and so its hard to find a good lemma for it. Perhaps somebody finds a better article name. A combination with other operations in this area is possible. This battle has nothing to do with Operation Bagration.... Maybe somebody is so kind to copy my text to the discussion Blablaaa (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I posted your comments here over to the deletion discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You have not responded to my point in the deletion debate that a google search of your book returns no results for the search term "Orsha".  Sp in ni ng  Spark  12:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This book appears to confirm that there was an offensive around Orsha in the October-November 1943 time frame, though the dates aren't exactly the same. This book states that there were Russian offensives directed at Orsha in the "winter of 1943-44." This book states that there were failed Russian offensives against Gomel and Orsha in November 1943. This book states that there were four Soviet offensives between October and December 1943. Those are just the first four returns in Google Books for Orsha 1943. There certainly seems to be evidence that the battles took place. Parsecboy (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the book in question, Vol. 8, cannot be viewed at all, so it's impossible to search for a specific term in it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was misled by searches such as Kursk] do return results for that book, but apparently different volumes.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  18:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the returns for the Kursk search are volumes 5 and 6, which are partially viewable. For whatever reason, volume 8 is not. Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

hi, that you are not able to find something via google books can have multiple reasons. I guess not the entire book is readable and the chapter about this battles is pretty short. I hope my word is enough... Blablaaa (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, along with the sources I found in Google Books, I think we've pretty solidly established that the battles took place, and that they didn't go very well for the Soviets. Parsecboy (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm not sure why the header is redlinked as the article was kept at the deletion discussion and moved to a different title leaving a redirect.Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The redlink was the original location, but it was moved to replace the hyphen with a dash in the year range. For whatever reason, the resulting redirect was deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As an aside, since this did turn out to be factual, just very hard to source, do you think the community would countenance an unblock request from Blaabla if he accepted some strict unblock conditions (such as packing in the 'systemic bias' thing, discussing his edits in a less confrontational manner etc)? Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Blablaaa is free to request an unblock, but I should point out that this article was not a particularly significant part of the reasons for blocking. There is much more to it than that, read the RFC which led up to it if you have plenty of time to spare.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  16:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since iam the guy who created this "article" i can give here the refs if somebody is bothered by some statements or numbers. Blablaaa (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

senior friebe
can please somebody revert seniro freebies edits on prokhorovka? he owns none of the books, hes deleting and chanig sources which were never read by him, he also deleted sources because he thinks he can decide which source is correct and which not. Please revert vandalism.Blablaaa (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * dapis vandalism should be reverted too. He deleted the newest research about this battle and replaced it with a debunked book. terrible to watch... . Blablaaa (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (removed statement) boah senor friebe, you read none of the sources, you changed cited sources. you put wrong numbers in front of citiations. you deleted cited material, you tryed to discredit well regarded historian because you want to beleive already debunked myths. you want to decide which historian is correct and which not but blame others for this. seriously leave me aloneBlablaaa (talk) 04:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this is the talk page attached to his account, he is free to remove comments as he sees fit. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)