User talk:Jaan/Archive 1

Image:Ursula Andress.jpg
Unfortunately, not all images on flickr can be used here. The flickr image, of which Image:Ursula Andress.jpg is a derivative work (cropping), is licensed as by-nc-sa/2.0. The "nc" part means non-commercial, and images with that restriction aren't used on wikipedia except as "fair use". (The image is also from a copyrighted film, so the flickr license isn't valid anyway). Gimmetrow 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Dusty Springfield's sexuality
A tag has been placed on Dusty Springfield's sexuality requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Red Zion X 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the db tag and redirected the article to Dusty Springfield as it contained exactly the same material on her sexuality as the main article.--ukexpat (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC) An admin has now deleted the article. --ukexpat (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Dusty Looking.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dusty Looking.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 15:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Dusty Singing.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dusty Singing.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 15:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Parole parole
Excellent work! -- Luigibob (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WW2 Casualties
Thanks for making that post. I look forward to reading that White Paper. 40 years ago my dentist here in NY was from Estonia, she escaped in a small boat with the Russians shooting in the distance. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Soviet population figures for 1939-45 Annexations
Hi, I see you are a student of Geography. Have you ever seen detailed Soviet data for the population of the territory they annexed? The total they give is 20.1 million for the total Population. The Soviet reference works I have seen here in the NY Library do not give a detailed breakdown. Forgive me, I am a numbers cruncher--Woogie10w (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Issues with your edits to Battle of Narva - Battle for the Narva Bridgehead (1944)
Erikupoeg, I'd like to ask you to refrain from further edits to this article without prior discussion on the article's talk page. The reasons I ask this are: 1 - The article has been disputed before and efforts were made by several editors to remove national points of view as such occurs far too easily in articles about the eastern front of the Second World War. Your comment "Tens of thousands Estonian conscripts (20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS) fought to defend their country against the Soviet re-occupation" is no doubt considered obvious from the Estonian viewpoint, but taken from a wider perspective, it is problematic. It is problematic because there were plenty of German troops in Estonia in 1944 -- and even if the Soviets had not intended to reincorporate Estonia into the U.S.S.R., they would have undertaken military operations in Estonia precisely because those German troops were there. Thus, the military and political situation in Estonia in 1944 was more complex than your comment has made it out to be, and it would be beneficial for there to be an editorial consensus before changes are made and the article falls into dispute again. 2 - Some of your changes are factually incorrect. To be specific, the operations in the Narva area indeed constitute a campaign, and not a single battle. Little changes affect meaning a lot -- like changing "Narva region" to "Estonia" -- the two German corps mentioned were in fact part of the overall defense around Narva; and there were other German corps besides the three mentioned fighting inside Estonia. 3 - I certainly welcome contributions to this article from an Estonian, but as the article has been in dispute before, it would be preferable if changes were discussed on the article's talk page before they are made. I look forward to discussing these edits with you further. W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello and thank you for your comments. Your comment about "Battle of Verdun" is well taken.  My viewpoint on these matters is that a campaign represents a series of battles that lead to the achievement of an ultimate goal.  If one looks at the Narva article, the chronology starts in early 1944 and ends with the withdrawal of German forces and their allies to the Tannenberg Line in July.  A struggle that lasted from February to July is not a single battle (and neither was Verdun; it is only through popular misconception that it is called so).  Further, I would suggest that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should try to be more accurate than average in its terminology.  By the way, the battles around Narva -were- caused by a series of operations launched by the Soviets, so I'm a bit confused why this fact should not be brought out in the article? On Soviet POV, there may be some of that, but when a particular side holds the initiative in military operations, it is hard to write an article without commenting on that side's objectives and actions to achieve those objectives.  If you review earlier versions of the Narva article, they barely mention the Soviets at all except to note that they were the opponents of the III SS Panzer Korps, in fact, the entire article revolved around the SS Panzer Korps almost as if it was the sole actor in the historical drama.  For myself, that is a pretty poor way to write the history of a military operation.  (This is still much the case in the article; the reason being that editors working so far on the article have not had access to detailed descriptions of Soviet operations -- look for yourself how much the article covers what the SS troops are doing - the other Wehrmacht troops are barely mentioned, much less the Soviets, whose actions were driving the pace of the entire sequence of battles!) Ideally, the article should bring out the situations of both sides, their actions and reactions, and how this led to the outcome of the battles. As it is, the article does not do that, it mentions isolated actions of the SS troops without an overall context, lauds individual SS members for acts of heroism (while not mentioning any Heroes of the Soviet Union, how POV is that?), and then the article sort of fades away, mentioning the retreat westward without really describing why that occurred other than that "Steiner was concerned". On "Narva Region", I wholeheartedly agree that no such geographical entity exists.  Perhaps "Estonia north of Lake Peipus" would be more accurate for this article, or maybe there is a regional name for northeastern Estonia? Among other things, I think the article ends rather abruptly.  A section for the aftermath of the battle would be good, covering the aftermath for the Germans, Estonians, and the Soviets.  The Estonian aftermath could include a brief section on the civilian experience in Narva after the city came under Soviet control again.  I apologize for the lengthy comments, but there is not much point in discussing (and doing) something unless it is done thoroughly and well.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comments bring out significant points. I think your comment on the terrain is very much true, from what I can tell from maps the terrain there is difficult for a mechanized advance (lots of forest, swamp, or lake, with a liberal dose of waterways).  Now look at the Battle of Narva - Battle for the Narva Bridgehead (1944) article -- that aspect of the battle is not brought out, although it is brought out in the Battle of Narva (1944) article.  Your comments about the motivation of the Estonian SS men is hardly reflected in the article; the article mostly mentions actions by the Dutch and Danish SS troops (in response to Soviet moves that are only very vaguely described.)  I found your brief comment on what happened to Narva quite interesting.  Okay, I'll quite complaining.  What I intend to do is this -- I will write "my" version of the article on the weekend and post it to the article's talk page.  It will rewrite a lot of what is there and incorporate points you have brought out while also trying to provide the reader some idea of what Soviet dispositions and actions were.  When that version is on the talk page, you, I, and other interested editors can refine the article and hopefully try to come up with something that is a better description of the battle.  Would you be willing to participate in this ?  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Erikupoeg, your ideas for the group of articles sound okay to me. Sorry if I was confusing, the article I initially intend to edit is the "bridgehead" article.  You may not be aware of the history of the articles themselves.  Initially, there was only the Battle of Narva (1944) article.  There was some discussion over this article in its original form because the scope was limited and it had a lot of deficiencies that I mentioned in my text to you above.  Another editor wanted more focused articles on the "bridgehead" battle and the Tannenberg Line battle and so created those articles.  In my opinion, one article could handle everything but it is not a big deal as long as the articles relate to each other in a coherent way.  I'll try to post something this weekend and we can start the review and edit cycle.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, the draft of the article is posted on the talk page. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Axis close in
Dear Erikupoeg. Just a few comment on Estonian Conscripts. I don't think this sentence deservres mentioning in this article, because even more important event are left beyond the scope. Therefore, I strongly suspect somebody to delete it soon. Although I have no intention to do that, I recommend you to think about the relevance of that phrase. My rationale is as follows. People consider Estonia (along with other Baltic countrise) to be innocent victims of Communists and I personally agree with that. However, you mentioning of Estonian participation in the resistance to the Soviets creates an impression that Estonia was the Axis country at that time. I don't think it to be benefitial for you country in the long time scale. Best regards --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your thought about person with little historical knowledge is absolutely correct. The problem is that well educated people don't take information from Wikipedia. However, a person with little historical knowledge could do it. And a major conclusion such a person would draw from your words would be: "Estonians were Nazis' allies". If I were you, I would prefer not to be mentioned at all rather than to be mentioned as a Hitler's ally. Once again, I personally have nothing against that. My point is that your text is more harmfull for your country that usefull. Best regards. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As regards to US commission you mentioned, I think there were some political reasons for such a statement (Cold War etc). For instance, I recall, Churchill, who was persuaded anti-Communist and friend of Poles, also didn't object much against occupation of Eastern Poland by the Soviets - because, by that moment, his major aim was to stop Nazis. Therefore, quotation of such documents should always be done in a concrete political context. By the way, I looked through some scholarly articles and I found direct mentioning of Baltic citizens' participation in Holocaust. If your university has an access to jstor.org you can read some of them. For instance, A. T. Richardsonin in his article. War Crimes Act 1991, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 55, No. 1, (Jan., 1992), pp. 73-87, notes: "The historical background to the Act concerns the horrendous consequences for the local Jewish population of the German invasion in June 1941 of the republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. In these areas, and also in the Soviet Ukraine and Byelorussia, as a result of the combined efforts of local anti-semites and the SS Einsatzgruppen, over 330,000 Jews were systematically murdered. In many ways, the events in the Baltic States formed a precursor to the Holocaust proper - which led to destruction of over 90 percent of European Jewry.". Please, note that, in contrast to many others, I know history and I realize that Baltic antisemitism was generally a reaction of two year NKVD activity there, so I have no intention to blame anybody. I also admit Estonian Waffen SS didn't participate in Holocaust directly. However, they fought for those who was doing that, not only for your country. It is a big tragedy of Estonians that those two things are impossible to separate, so the best way is to forget and forgive. Once again. If Estonian war contribution is considerable they must be considered an Axis ally. Otherwise this fragment should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that some steps might be taken for political reasons only. The fact that almost no country recognized annexation of Estonia (I use annexation because after occupation the Soviets annexed Estonia) add nothing to the story about Churchill amd Poland. You are a little bit inconsistent. If a small amount of forcibly mobilized Estonians fought against the Soviets, I doubt if was their resistance that stopped Soviet advance, and if they, unlike Dutch and Norwegians, deserve a separate mentioning in such a global article. If the number of Estonians was large (it seems to me it wasn't), they were volunteers and their resistance alone was sufficient to stop the Soviets for so long time I see no ground for anybody to recognize Estonians as neutrals. My opinion is (and I agree with the US Commission) that Estonians (like other nations) are not responsible for the SS past of their compatriots, but the Battle of Narva is not glorious page of Estonian history. There is absolutely no analogy with UIA, by the way. Almost all of them were ethnic Urkainians, and they fought, among others, against Poles, mostly civilians, so Poland, for sure, bear no responsibility for their actions. In contrast to that, I think, despite Poland didn't exist from 1939 to 1945, the Poles are responsibe for what Armia Krajova did during WWII. Sinserely, --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You wrote:''Now, that's inconsistent. How come the Armija Krajowa and Estonian Waffen SS get attached to a nation, and the UIA don't!? The UIA were extreme nationalists, remember? Erikupoeg (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC) '' You refer to Nuremberg trials that stated Estinoan SS didn't commit any crimes. You probably know that some decisions of this trials were disputable. Estonian SS really didn't commit serious crimes as compared to big SS. However, they were a part of Waffen SS, they fought, among others, for Germans, therefore they indirectly helped SS to kill Jews, Belarussians, Russians, Poles etc. In contrast, advancement of Red Army helped to save many, many lives, so anybody who opposed its advancement is indirectly responsible for Nazi's crimes. I beg you to understand my major point. I don't blame Estonians in anything and I comassionate them (among Jews, Russians, Belorussians etc.), until they (you) try to turn your shame into your glory. I fully agree that first Soviet occupation had much severe consequences for Estonians than the occupation by Nazis. Baltic nations are very separate case, because Himmler personally favored them (in contrast to your neighbours), and this fact alone makes you Nazi's ally (without, I fully agree, your will). Your life was better under Nazis then under Soviets, however, it is hardly an excuse for fighting for Germans. Sinserely yours --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All of those three have a direct relation to their nations: AK to Poles, UIA to Urkainians and Estonian Waffen SS - to Estonians. In the latter case the connection was not so obvious, because, as the US commission correctly pointed out, those non-Germans who served in Waffen SS opposite their will are not responsible for the crimes of the latters.

Re: ''I don't see, how you blaming or not blaming, Estonian shame or glory has anything to do with Wikipedia? It's not a PR site. Wikipedia is about facts, and the following is a major fact in the history of the World: Hundreds of thousands of Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians and Western Ukrainians fought for the independence of their countries on the German side, establishing a shadow government in Western Ukraine and a constitutional government in Estonia. Erikupoeg (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)''

I, probably, didn't explain something that was obvious for me. This article, in its present version, only briefly mentions the most pivotal points of this war. If we take Eastern Front as an example, even the Battle of Kursk was mentioned only very briefly, majority of decisive battles and important events have not been mentioned at all. Although Wikipedia is about facts, not all facts can be presented in Wikipedia. Therefore, if you consider Estonian resistance to deserve explicit mentioning in this context, then you imply Estonians were important participants of the war, more important that Western Urkainians, Lithuanians and Latvians. On other hand, you also will have to present evidences that they fought for their independence only, and not for Dritte Reich, and I don't think it would be so easy (By the way, UIA at least pretended it fought against both Nazis and the Soviets). It would be also not easy to explain as how Estonians who fough against the Soviets to protect their borders and independence appear to be neutral in the war. If those military attempts were considerable, there would be no reason to talk about neutrality. It seems to me that real war contribution of Estonians allows them not to be mentioned in this article in details (as compared to other Eastern Europeans) and this is a good chanse for you not to remind peoples about you SS past. Best regards --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Annexation vs occupation?
Could you please explain me if you see any appreciable difference between annexation of Austria by Nazis and annexation of Estonia by the Soviets (The article uses that word of Austria)? It is natural to use similar words for description of similar events. I have a feeling that your editing is very far from neutrality, so I propose to revert occupation to annexation. Best regards --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You probably are right. I checked, occupation is more common. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Finland and Karelian Istghmus?
Dear Erikupoeg. Looking through this section (Allies close in) I found the phrase: "Major assaults against Finland and Romania resulted in great successes" to be not completely correct. Whereas Soviet assault against Romania was totally successfull, fierce resistance of the Finns forced Stalin to sign armisties with almost no border change. Are you interested to add just a few words to reflect that fact? (It should not take unproportionally large space) Best regards --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Best regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your text. It is a copy of my response I put at my talk page
 * Generally, it looks good, although I have some questions and proposals. First, not only Bulgaria and Romania were occupied, they also joined the war at the allies' side, so if you add something about that it would be fine. Second, I think it it is important to note that Romania was the last Nazi's oil sourse. Third, I would remove a notion about Bessarabia and Bukovina, because the Soviets had already annexed those territory before 1941, so it sounds like the Soviet took more. Fourth, while hundreds of thousands of Estonians etc sounds not completely clear: is it a total number or each of these nations were represented in Wehrmacht in such an amount? As regards to Urkainians, I am aware of Galicia division only, so it sounds like a hyperbola. Fifth. your reference on countries occupied by the Soviets in 1939-1940 sends me at non-informative page. What did you mean? And the last question. What do you know about Lithuanian and Latvian attempts to establish a government? If there were any, they should be mentioned. If not, just write about Estonians, Poles and West Urkainians. I think the rest is fine.
 * And one more comment. The Warsaw uprising should be mentioned explicitly, but in you version it disappeared. In addition to that, the Poles and Estonians were in somewhat different situation: at least 200,000 Poles were fighting in Belarussia as a part of the Soviet Red Army with almost no Poles in Wehrmacht. In Warsaw, thery really expected Soviet troops to provide a support for the uprising. (Some, although quite unsufficient, support had actually been provided). By the way, the Poles, not Frensh were the forth lagrest Allied army in Europe, so they definitely should be mentioned in more details. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mina Si buana 1986.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mina Si buana 1986.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

On your new editing of the WWII article
Dear Eric, I don't think your editing to be neither appropriate nor match the overall style of this concrete article for following reasons
 * The article avoids to give exact numbers for even more decisive battles


 * I don't have a problem removing the numbers.


 * The numbers you provided testify that the events you are writing about are of too small scale to be mentioned (in other words, these numbers work against your major idea)

As we've discussed before, often the events and the decisions in the war are illogical. Just like the Balts and Western Ukrainians joined their prospective enemies, the Germans. After they had beaten their common enemy, they were expecting to get involved in a conflict with their retrospective ally. It meant the world of difference for the Polish Home Army to establish themselves before the Soviets did. They were expecting to treat the Red Army not as the main liberator, but merely as an aid. What other sense do you think the timing of the desperate uprising had, crushed a few days before the Soviet arrival!
 * I think you make a great error, thinking that the impact of battles can even remotely be estimated by the size of its casualties. If you take a look at how the World War changed the World, you'll see that the greatest catastrophes and changes took place in Germany, Japan and Eastern Europe. My new editing describes the year 1944 in four countries, that were independent before the war, and a disputable area, which tried to gain independence. Simultaneously in 1944, their people made desperate attempts to establish independence ahead of the Soviets. The battle of the people of the four countries with the Soviets had global political significance.


 * Without appropriate explanations, the statement: "70,000 Estonians, 150,000 Latvians, and 50,000 Lithuanians joined the German side against the Soviets.[154] Hundreds of thousands Western Ukrainian insurgents[155] joined the side of their previous enemies, the Germans" requires to consider them Nazi co-belligerents, or even allies, therefore, the template should be changed accordingly. In other words, this, at least partially, contradicts to our recent discussion.


 * If you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axis_powers&oldid=247957710, you'll see that I already tried to add Estonia among the controversial cases of Axis belligerents. The editing was reverted the same minute, as "no axis member by any standard". I don't think, it's any use arguing about it - we will probably never get the Baltic states listed as Nazi belligerents. We still need to mention the struggle of nationally disposed citizens of the Baltic States, Polish, and Western Ukrainians against one of the greatest political outcomes of the war  - the Soviet Union gaining control of Eastern Europe.


 * Regarding the Soviet stance, your are out of balance. The formula from the Eastern front article seems to be more balanced:"the Soviet Army halted at the Vistula River, unable or unwilling to come to the aid of the Polish resistance". In additions to that, your statement is a little bit illogical: if the Home Army decided "to establish independence ahead of a looming re-occupation" (in other words, their uprising was equally anti-Nazi and anti-Soviet), how could they request or expect any help from their prospective enemy?


 * As we've discussed before, often the events and the decisions in the war are illogical. Just like the Balts and Western Ukrainians joined their prospective enemies, the Germans. After they had beaten their common enemy, they were expecting to get involved in a conflict with their retrospective ally. It meant the world of difference for the Polish Home Army to establish themselves before the Soviets did. They were expecting to treat the Red Army not as the main liberator, but merely as an aid. What other sense do you think the timing of the desperate uprising had, crushed a few days before the Soviet arrival! If the Polish were expecting the Soviets to liberate them, don't you think, it would have been logical to wait until they actually arrived?


 * Take a look at Warsaw Uprising. Most of the Western autors seem to support the idea, that the Soviets did it on purpose. And I don't think, a long explanation would fit the article.

Therefore, to my opinion, it is incorrect to extend your vision that, probably, is valid for Estonia, on the whole history of Eastern Europe. Although I think your editing should be modified I would prefer to reach a consensus with you before that. P.S. If you want to discuss the issue, you can respond on that talk page. It is more convenient to have a whole discussion in the same place. Best regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You treat Western Ukraine as a separate country that had been occupied by the Soviets before WWII. It is not the case, however, taking into account that: a) before WWII it was occupied by Poland (or was a historical part of Poland, whatever); b) Western Ukraine may be (note, I don't state must be) considered a part of Ukrainian SSR, the state that was a co-founder of the Soviet Union. From the point of view of international law there is no difference between formation of the USSR and formation of Great Britain: a smaller (Scotland or Ukraine and Transcaucasian republic) state united with larger (England or Russia) state to form a new state that was ruled by leaders that came from the smaller members of the union (King James VI of Scotland, Stalin, Brezhnev).


 * I don't see where you get the idea, that my editing treats Western Ukraine as a separate country. It merely states the fact that just like the Baltic citizens, the Western Ukrainians joined the German side against the Soviets. Period.--Erikupoeg (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding to your last comment, I got this idea from the sentence:"The overall swift advance of the Soviet Armed Forces prompted the citizens of the previously Soviet-occupied Baltic States, the Polish Home Army and the Western Ukrainian insurgents try to establish independence ahead of a looming re-occupation." You combine all of them together without making any difference, although the difference was dramatic. I already explained specificity of the Ukrainian case. I could just mention on that account that Ukrainian division Galicina almost had not been involved into Eastern Front hostilities. The situations in Poland and Baltic states were also quite different. For instance, I never heard of anti-Nazi armed uprising in Baltic countries. On other hand, almost no Polish volunteers served in German Armed forces, and almost nobody had been conscripted. As regard to other your comments, I'll try to respond later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, I believe some reformatting of what you have written will rise no objections. Otherwise it is hard to distinguish between the text written by me and your responses.

What I'm trying to explain, is, that they shared the attitude towards the Soviets: as probable occupiers, which became true.--Erikupoeg (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC) I understand and partially share your point. However, this article is not about attitudes but about the real events that happened in 1939-1945. And these events were quite different in different territories affected by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. To my understanding (please, correct me if I am wrong, and excuse me for some oversimplifications),
 * 50000 Estonians served in German Army because they believed that would protect them from the Soviets. They fought mostly during the Battle of Narva and made a decisive contribution there. When they realized that Soviet occupation is inevitable majority of them deserted and didn't participate more in the war on the German side.


 * The official Estonian estimation is 70,000 Estonians being involved on the German side, and they didn't desert, but were released by Hitler, when he withdrew his troops from Estonia. Otherwise yes, that's pretty much what happened.


 * So they can be considered co-belligerents (similarly to the Finns), although due to technical reasons they had no opportunity to declare a war on the USSR. On that ground they are considered neutral during WWII.


 * There were not only technical, but mainly factual reasons. Estonian Government in Exile could not declare war, because it never acquired any factual power over any part of Estonia or the people. Nothing, the Government in Exile did, can be considered an act of the state. You need to make a difference of the contribution of the state from the contribution of the citizens of the illegally occupied state.


 * (The only question remains unclear for me. If 50000 Estonians were conscripted and German troops amounted 50000 during the battle of Narva, does it mean that all the troops were Estonian or it means that majority of the Estonians fought somewhere else?)


 * Neither of the two. The number of Estonians under arms at a time never exceeded 20,000, while 70,000 Estonian conscripts fought in some period of the seven and a half month combat in Estonia. It's the same question, as how could 350,000 out of the 30,000-strong French army perish in the Battle of Verdun. The battles of Narva lasted from February to September, while the Estonians were constantly being replaced with fresh soldiers from the rear. Around 30,000 Estonians were lost in the battles as dead and wounded.


 * The situation with Latvia and Lithuania is less clear, because the existence of Courland pocket can be explained mostly by its strategic insignificance rather than fierce resistance of defenders.


 * Legally, the Latvian and Lithuanian States were in a much clearer position, as the Latvian Legion and Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force did not receive any support from its Government in Exile. Still, the motivation of the Latvians and Lithuanians joining them were exactly the same as Estonians. Concerning the war contribution, 150,000 Latvians were active in the German war effort, 24,000 of them died. Per capita, this was more than the amount of Estonians. The battles with Latvians involved were unsuccessful for the German forces until the Courland Pocket, where they repelled half a dozen Soviet attacks, forcing the Soviets to suffer 390,000 casualties. So there's no principal difference between the Latvian and Estonian contribution.


 * In contrast, Latvian nazi collaborators are responsible for numerous crimes, for instance, mass murder of Jews . Therefore, I wouldn't combine them together with Estonians.


 * The Jews were killed by a small part of the auxiliary police, which is exactly what happened in Estonia, where more than 10,000 Jews were killed. So no principal difference either.

Therefore, despite propbale sharing similar attitude towards the Soviets, Baltic nations, the Poles and the Western Ukrainians acted in quite different manner. That is much more important. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Poland was one of major Allied countries, the Poles suffered a lot under Nazist regime and their major purpose was the sruggle against Germany. In addition, more Poles fought against Germany on the Soviet side that on any other theatres. Although the Poles were concerned about prospective post war Soviet dominance, that was not the most important problem for them during 1944. In addition, bitter resistance of Estonian troops near Narva had a strong negative effect on Poland because it retarded the advancement of the Soviet troops, liberation of Maidanek, Osvencim etc. I understand that the Estonians didn't keep in mind that side effect of their war efforts, so I do not blame them in that. Nevertheless, it is a little bit strange to combine the Estonians and the Poles together.
 * Situation with Western Uktainians is also very complex. I am aware of only a single major engagement between Ukrainian Waffen division Galicina and Red Army, although involvement of Urkainian insurgents into numerous massacres, includiong mass killings of Jews and Poles is well known.


 * I agree, Poland and Western Ukraine in 1944 look awkward together with the Baltic Sates, which were in a similar position.--Erikupoeg (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Eric, that is much better. I have only few comments. It seems to me that the sentence about Baltic conscripts is in inappropriate place. You probably noticed that I moved the paragraph about Leningrad/Narva to the previous section, because chronologically these events preceeded D-day. Maybe it would be better to move the sentece about Estonian conscriprs there? As regards to Western Ukraine, it is clear from the source you provided that, although Ukrainian nationalists fought against German occupation forces from the beginning og 1943 to the middle of 1944, the scale of their partisan activity was minimal. In addition, that source clearly tells: "the activity of Ukrainian nationalists had no strategic implication and their effect on the course of the struggle between Germany and the Soviets was negligible"(p 199). Therefore, UPA's military activity against both Germany and the USSR hardly deserves mentioning, especially taking into account that much more impressive activity of Yugoslavian partisans has been left beyond the scope. Best regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just reverted all your recent changes. Please don't take this personally - there's a long-established agreement that substancial changes to this very high profile article should always be discussed on the article's talk page before being added to the article. This is because the article's current text was drafted paragraph by paragraph by a group of interested editors over the first half of this year and has wide support - there is certainly lots of scope to improve it further, and I am not criticising your changes, but all significant changes need to be discussed first. Could you please post your proposed text there and an explanation of why the changes are needed and only re-add it if there's agreement from the interested editors that it should go in? Thanks, Nick Dowling (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Nick Dowling (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Erikupoeg, there have been some concerns that, I've no idea if you've added such claims to the articles, but since you have recently done a lot of work with the Narva battle, just a note that. Please avoid adding any kind of speculative commentaries to any articles on WP. And the best would be to look at any solid facts from a POV of an observer, by not suggesting any sympathy or antipathy to any possible viewpoints in any given subject. If those important principles get forgotten, it can create problems that nobody on WP needs really. thanks!--Termer (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 05:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

WW2 Casualties
Thanks for keeping a watch over the article yesterday--Woogie10w (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Post war losses
There were post war losses in other countries besides Estonia. China, Germany and the USSR. They should not be included with WW2 casualties. The page could spin out of control if we include casualties up until 1953. These post war losses belong in the footnotes--Woogie10w (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle casualties of World War II
Lets go fot it Battle casualties of World War II--Woogie10w (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, there will be plenty of room to insert tables with losses by theatre in the new page Battle casualties of World War II, I am sure you will be able to improve the page with your knowledge of WW2.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks, your edits were very informative, The article is just beginning. The war in the west was a side show compared to the east. By the time it is finished, it will be 10-15 times as large with most space devouted to the eastern front and Asia. I have a lot of data that will tie together the entire eastern front in a clear and concise manner. There will be plenty of space to analyize the casualties by front. Off to work now--Woogie10w (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think that is a good summary of the Soviet data on the war. I plan to have a lot more on the Eastern Front, using western sources as well. Also; why do you use the description Axis-Soviet War? In the English speaking world we refer to the Eastern Front. I think we should chage it to Eastern Front, just like the Eastern Front (World War II) on Wikipedia. The article will grow, it is only in its infant stage now.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A few words on Soviet statistics, the Soviet/Krivosheev figures on German force levels are utter propaganda, they puffed up German force levels in order to explain their near defeat in 1941. I have western estimates for the Axis that I will post later so that readers can see both POV. Never trust any Soviet statistics, always cross check them.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Krivosheev has data on Soviet forces for all the major battles, have you seen Russian language language sources that have data on Germnan forces in these battles? --Woogie10w (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think such Russian language sources exist. Still would have to go with German overviews. --Erikupoeg (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edits were great, the article is getting better by the day. Two points I would like to mention, First, I was the guy (berndd11222) who added the Baltic states to the WW2 Casualties page back in November 2005. Also, I have direct knowledge of the plight of Estonians who fled their country during the war. My moms best friend and our family dentist( 40 years ago) was a woman from Estonia. She told me how she fled to Sweden in a boat that was being fired upon. We were the only non Estonian/Finnish patients of hers, some of the men patients served in the SS, they had interesting war stories to tell in the waiting room.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, get ready. Soon I will start posting the data on the Eastern Front battles, I have Pospelov and other Soviet sources with plenty of data.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

See:Talk:Tallinn_Offensive Thanks! --Termer (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Narva
Hi we uses the German terms for Armoured units like Panzer and Panzergrenadier see WikiProject Military history/German military history task force Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Book by S N Mihalev
Hi, I recommend the following book by a Russian researcher who has presented a critical analysis of Krivosheev’s figures. The book may be available over in Estonia in a library, I borrowed it from the Library of Congress in the US. Mihalev has extensive analysis of German losses that you may find of interest. He claims Soviet losses were 10.9 million, not the 8.7 million that are given in Krivosheev.Liudskie poteri v Velikoi Otechestvennoi voine 1941- 1945 gg: Statisticheskoe issledovanie by S. N Mikhalev ISBN 5859810822  --Woogie10w (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Estonian casualties
Let us agree that the figures on table 2 for 1940-44 should be used, that is what our source says. The figure of 7,000 on page 35 is "claimed". Post war deaths are excluded here--Woogie10w (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Soviet data WW2
Hi: this webpage has statistical data on WW2 from Soviet sources --Woogie10w (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Collaborators etc
Hi

Final Notes section I removed that "illegaly" as it states in the quote volunteers. Could you clarify for me why these differ ?

Also, links 77 and 78 are broken now

cheers --Chaosdruid (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - with all the arguing discussion going on in there it's hard to keep up with what is and isnt really meant to be there lol --Chaosdruid (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You've both been warned now: next revert gets blocked. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Humboldt just got blocked. The article is on his version -- do _not_ revert it yourself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Kerli discography
Hi! I've just added source for peak positions on Kerli's article, but I can't find sources for Estonian chart --Smanu (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Jüri Uluots wasn't a resistance fighter, but a Nazi-collaborator
Jüri Uluots supported the illegal conscription of Estonian citizens to the German SS-forces. Uluots delivered a radio address on February 7, 1944 that implored all able-bodied men born from 1904 through 1923 to report for German military service in the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian).

He wasn't any resistance figter, but a Nazi-collaborator. Of course he didn't fight the Nazis, but he helped the Nazis to be constitued the SS-division.

He was an enemy of the resistance fighters who fought for free Estonia.

To represent Jüri Uluots as a resistance fighter is a scoff. --82.131.72.142 (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Forest brothers
The article as it is now, refers to the partisan movement after WWII (resistance to 2nd Soviet occupation) -- not partisan movement in 1941. Renata (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt "forest brothers" are applicable to 1941 partisans. "Forest" implies prolonged guerrilla war and people hiding in them. From "summer war" description is does not seem anything like it. Do you have refs to support the term for 1941? Renata (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Zanicchi.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Zanicchi.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Estonia Articles
Hi you are doing a good job with the three related articles Battle of Narva (1944), Battle for Narva Bridgehead Battle of Tannenberg Line. One thing I have noticed is the references a lot are like this

a b c d e f g h Paulman (1980) (in Russian). Ot Narvy do Syrve (From Narva to Sõrve). Tallinn: Eesti Raamat.

Linked to a book with no page numbers. If you want to improve these articles to A or above its something to consider. Have you seen this ? Template:Cite book --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)



Coordinator Elections
As a member of the WikiProject who is running for coordinator it is always great to see members of the WikiProject getting involved. It seems that some people really do care about the future of the WikiProject. Keep Up the Good Work! Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver  The Olive Branch 23:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sofia Rotaru
Hello, I have noticed your edits on Sofia Rotaru, which are controversial and seem to modify with no particular goal the contents. Please, obstain from editing this article or discuss in advance on the relevant talk page in order to reach consensus. --Rubikonchik (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Mina1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Mina1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:AnastasiaPrihodko.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:AnastasiaPrihodko.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice try Erikupoeg but Commons is deadly for even 99% free pictures. You could try again uploading this photo on English wikipedia using this: licence. I must say I don't like this photo by the way :) — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A Idols star the new Amy Winehouse? Usually they are quite boring... Not so sure about she being an extreme nationalism, Russian press might suffer from the old Soviet reflex that all Ukrainian nationalism is extreme nationalism... Her official website is not aviable in a Ukrainian language version if that is anything to go by, maybe see never saw the site.... She certainly had an interesting career till now! Thanks for the how to get a copyright free photo link, it might be handy for me! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Prikhodko Controversy
I'm believe "Controversy" should not be part of "Personality". After all: her racist remarks could be some dumb joke and most part of the section is about her brother who may have a different personality then her. It is nice to work with you! Funny thing: I only heard 20 seconds of her song and it didn't impress me :) — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I love "Wild Dances" and also Ruslana's last album... I think I'll soon have another listen to Mamo cause I might have missed something... Happy Victory day!, if it is celebrated in your country today... It was celebrated 4 days ago in my country of residence :) — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Tere! In 1983, I've visited Estonia during one month and since I have very good friends there (and I still remind some words of estonian, a beautiful language especially for songs. You have reverted, without discussion, the right transliteration of Prykhodko (an ukrainian name of an Ukrainian singer). You argue that Google and the personal site are enough to push versus the Russian version of her name. I do not agree. Because, a mistake is still a mistake, even if reproducted by Google and by ignorance. It's the same problem with Yohanna (a kind of international version of an icelandic first name). Here, we must take the proper translitteration of the family names (and use, i.e., Serhiy insted of Sergey), even when the wrong is in use. The Redirect helps visitors to find the right way. Tänan. (of course, if I wrote your name Erikupoek (as the final g sounds), you will not agree!).--Enzino (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just found these 2 websites that claim ms. Prikhodko was so disappointing with getting only 8 points from Ukraine she considers Russia her homeland now... (a bit strange she didn't explain why Ukraine only got 2 points from Russia). Not sure if she still feels so about this and the websites look like gossip sites. Do you know anything more about this?

By the way according Russia Today (I concedred it Kremlins propaganda machine) says Prikhodko got 12 points from the sms vote but none from the jury (weird also...).

Not sure if this all is noticeable enough or if the sources are realaible enough and of course she might want to become Ukrainian again (?). What do you think?

All very interesting, but what a fuss about a song contest... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK! Thanks for the clarifications, I read somewhere that Ukraine's perception in Russian has gone down so that (also?) might explain the 2 points.... The Eurovision votes not rigged in Russia? They are making progress :) — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Anastasiya Prikhodko Mamo.ogg
Thanks for uploading File:Anastasiya Prikhodko Mamo.ogg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sofia Rotaru
I have left a third opinion on Talk:Sofia Rotaru, a page you have been involved in editing. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Your edits are starting to become worrisome to me, due to the fact that you're adding a great deal of unsourced material. In this edit, for example, you make all sorts of claims without any sort of sourcing. "A number of her songs became classics of Ukrainian and Russian pop culture." - by whose standards? Who said that? You also need to stop adding in peacock text, such as "which was rare for pop singers." It's not right to add a bunch of unsourced text and then mark it as needing references; the onus is on you to provide sources when you add the text in the first place. It's almost to the point where you're turning this into a fan article. We need to maintain neutrality and verifiability, so please think about your edits a bit more. Thanks. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw this edit. Just because the content doesn't belong in the Politics section doesn't mean it should be removed completely. Please consider sticking misplaced content in a more appropriate section or, if you think it requires better references, move it to the talk page for improvement. If you are less trigger-happy about removing material, you're also less likely to end up in disagreements with others. - Mgm|(talk) 11:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked because looking for a specific line of text from the removed section in the current version yielded no results. Next time, please move it in the same edit, that way it's easier for people like me to see what exactly happened to the text. - Mgm|(talk) 09:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)